The Loudoun County Board of Supervisor’s MUST put a halt to Supervisor Delgaudio’s youth recruiting activities and apologize to all teens for allowing the Supervisor to coerce them into joining a right-wing club with the imprimatur of county government. I sent a letter to the BoS stating such.
Here is how the letter opens:
The purpose of this letter is to recommend that you bar Supervisor Delgaudio from sponsoring the “Eugene Delgaudio Sterling Teen Job Fair.” The Sterling Supervisor uses the job fair to recruit youth into a right-wing political club that has a history of violence, defamation and hatred towards minorities and progressive causes. Furthermore, this board should send a letter of apology the participants of prior job fairs and their parents advising them that the county was not aware of the recruitment activity and that it does not endorse or sponsor the Sterling Supervisor’s recruiting activities. I’m requesting that you take this into consideration at your July 17, 2013 meeting under the agenda item “Grand Jury Report: Follow-up on Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio Investigation.”
[UPDATE] The letter explains a bit more about the club and the way Supervisor Delgaudio used his position to recruit.
The event was organized in a ring. The last two tables, next to the entry/exit area 1) solicited Sterling Supervisor Aide jobs, and 2) promoted the right-wing club Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). The winsome young YAF recruiters distributed glossy literature and had quite a crowd of eager job-seekers. It was the final table, before the exit, and of all the jobs, the Sterling Supervisor Aide job was the most desirable. I overheard one job seeker ask: “What jobs are you [YAF] offering?” The recruiter replied, “Oh, we don’t have any jobs, we’re a club.”
Evidence of the YAF table is presented in the photo below (see link at the end of this post), downloaded from Supervisor Delgaudio’s campaign web site. The yellow flyer has “SUPERVISOR DELGAUDIO’S OFFICE INTERNSHIP INFORMATION” on one side and “Supervisor Delgaudio invites YOU to attend the Young America’s Foundation 2013 National High School Leadership Conference” on the other. The “I LOVE CAPITALISM” sign in the background carries the YAF logo.
The club in question is Young American’s for Freedom. The Michigan State University branch of YAF is an SPLC certified campus hate group. The SPLC explains why.
MSU-YAF was added to the SPLC list in early 2007, after MSU-YAF attempted to organize a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” contest, held a “Koran Desecration” competition, joked about distributing smallpox-infested blankets to Native American students, and hosted a series of lectures by hate group leaders such as Nick Griffin that drew skinheads and other white supremacists to the MSU campus. Griffin is the Holocaust-denying leader of the extreme-right British National Party.
The ex-leader of the MSU YAF, Kyle Bristow, is pictured below.
Kyle Bristow, ex-leader of the Michigan State University YAF
I’m concerned that the BoS will attempt to remedy bury Supervisor Delgaudio’s hate group recruiting activities in an endlessly boring list of policies that don’t directly address the fact that the Supervisor used his office to gain access to county youth, to deceive them, and recruit them. If the BoS understands the severity of the Supervisor’s violation of the public trust, they’ll produce a formal apology and send it to the teens and their families. If not, they’ll wink in the behavior by remaining silent. We’ll have to wait and see. A copy of my letter can downloaded from the link below.
EB, re: wasting our time. To a small extent, but I wouldn’t expend any effort on trying to make sense of the impenetrable stream of consciousness stuff. Why bother? It just gets ignored. It also keeps her busy repeating herself, and produces a consistent record in which she demonstrates the truth of my claim over and over: That she is an unrepentant Delgaudio apologist.
I’m sorry, but nowhere did I say I misread it: it’s still right there, in fact:
“a history of violence, defamation and hatred towards minorities and progressive causes”
Violence, defamation AND hatred. Towards minorities AND progressive causes.
Two completely different things. Linked. By the author. And not in the way he very much subsequently explained.
Which I questioned, which was apparently a very very big no-no.
That isn’t “defending Delgaudio”, although in your world anything but total affirmation of everything you pronounce seems to be.
Bingo, you nailed it, Barbara Munsey is a troll. Not here for dialog or the honest exchange of information. Not here for any legitimate purpose.
Only here to play mind games, to deflect, distract and deny. Waste our time. Pin Barbara Munsey down and (squirt) she’s off on another tangent. Raising another straw man. Trying to redefine what she stated two posts ago as if no one here has a memory. Run on with your cr*p all you want Munsey and here is what the truth boils down to, here is what the point of the original article was, here is what will remain true no matter how big the load you sling:
YAF is not a “youth group.” It’s a radical fringe political organization that has been around in one form or another almost back to the John Birch Society. It has no place at a job fair. Issuing an invitation to a group like that is plenty of reason for ED to lose the right to sponsor/host the job fair.
Done on this.
I guess this is your way of trying to wriggle out of the mess you got yourself in, by backpedaling and admitting, sort of, that you initially “misread” (willfully misrepresented) this post. Unfortunately, the problem isn’t that you initially “misread” it (for which you even now try to blame the author). That’s not why people perceive you as a troll. The problem is that throughout the 60+ comments, you arrogantly repeated your own fictitious misrepresentation, even as Zachary patiently guided you to see the factual and logical errors you were making. It didn’t take long for him to see what you are doing here.
You are not here for dialogue, or to ask honest questions. You are here to be an apologist for Eugene Delgaudio. I have observed your behavior for over a decade, and that is the one thing that is always, always consistent.
When did I say you DID speak for YAF, EPU?
The.
fact.
that.
PD’s.
reasearch.
showed.
they.
engage.
in.
multiple.
activities.
,.
which.
he.
did.
not.
offer.
as.
explanation.
for.
HIS.
linkage.
of.
two.
disparate.
things.
in.
one.
sentence.
until.
after.
I.
had.
asked.
multiple.
times.
(and been put off with every putdown in the prog playbook)
,.
and.
still.
puts.
the.
onus.
on.
the.
author.
here.
for.
linking.
them.
sans.
explanation.
Which prompted the question.
For which I waited a long time and heard a lot of (dare I say intolerant?) imprecations.
Which is fine.
I’ve thanked you for answering the question, and I remain interested that it is now YAF’s issue.
Your opinion, you’re entitled to it. I’m content.
And still enjoying that first (and still extant) linkage.
I just really don’t know how to make this any clearer for you, Barbara.
We. Do. Not. Speak. For. YAF.
Describing. A. Behavior. Is. Not. Equal. To. Engaging. In. The. Behavior.
If you don’t want people to think you’re slow, then stop pretending you don’t understand simple, obvious facts. If you don’t want people to see you as a troll, then stop the lying and rhetorical nonsense.
One more time, this time, v e r y s l o o o o o o o o l l l l y y y y
t h e
a u t h o r
d i d
n o t
l i n k
a n y t h i n g ,
Y A F
d i d
talk to YAF or the certain supervisor that you defend
I don’t have to imagine (but thank you for making more helpful suggestions on how to think 😀 ).
My question was not for YAF in MI, but the author of the post, who linked the two in a miasma of “hate” imprecations, as a justification for demanding the end to sponsorship of a job fair because one table was given to a youth group.
As was even suggested by one of the champions here, the post wasn’t well written (he might want to edit? to actually convey a point?) because it buried the subject.
And that’s the kernel point–there IS no point but the talking points linked to vent.
You don’t have to listen slllllooooowwwwly. You don’t have to listen at all.
I don’t think you do, most of the time. That seems to be how “dialogue” works.
p.s., from someone so obviously mentally defective as to be incapable of complex thought unless repetitively reimaged slowly (i.e. agreeing with everything you or PD say, because Hate), saw a quote yesterday that made me think of some of the writings here: ““The never-ending search for complexity where it neither exists nor belongs is the unlovely signet of the pseudo-intellectual.” But must be projection on my part, Because Regressive. Not PROgressive–lol!
Imagine that I’m speaking to you v e r y s l o w l y.
Please direct your question to YAF, the organization that appears to equate minorities and “progressive causes.” You also might want to edit your inquiry for excessive and irrelevant words if you want them to understand what you are asking.
one more time, but without the ad hominem: 50+ comments ago I asked why YOU posted two totally unrelated things together, and asked if one was to equate them in the “hate” zone. Now you’ve answered it (after the many “shut up”s, “you’re stupid”s, etc).
Thank you.
Now, that still doesn’t make the poor composition have the full (new) context so long after the fact. Nor does it do anything to disabuse me of my inkling that yes, on this particular asteroid, those who like to play endlessly with language (but no longer are subject to the “ableist” banhammer 😀 ) hope to add progressive causes to protected classes, at least in the subconscious zone.
Churn away!
One more time, slooooowwwwlllyy.
This post describes, in part, the activities of YAF. Any questions concerning YAF’s motivation for targeting both progressive causes and minorities should be directed to the YAF office, to Supervisor Delgaudio, or perhaps to the newly appointed chair of the USCIRF.
elderberry, is that a promise? One last time: waiting for the question to be answered, which it now has been–thank you, PD.
It appears you do equate the two. The ultimate explanation might have been better rather than the careless pairing–seriously, walk and chew gum? As much time as you seem to spend on the churning wholeness of your posts, you were that lax in slapping the two together in the same sentence without fleshing it out as you now have? That actually adds, for me, some evidence that you do equate the two, and understandably so: having people develop the same kind of shame for disagreeing with a political idea or cause as is felt by many when confronted with bigotry or crime against individuals on the basis of their skin color, place of birth, religion, etc is no doubt a good useful thing, to some.
Glad to know that the “anti-Vietnam war” movement was simply a progressive cause, and disagreeing with any or all of it (what about Winter Soldier? any thoughts there?) is simply the gum chew to walking a hate walk.
Again, thank you for your explanation in answer to my long-ago question.
One last time then I am done with her, there was no call, no call, no call, no call to stop THE EVENT. It is not the event that anyone has trouble with. It is Eugene and his relentless recruiting for his hate group and its allies.
You just can’t help it can you. You can’t get beyond the spin techniques to have a real conversation about anything that has the slightest political component attached to it.
I’m goin to bed.
Actually, I think it’s reasonable to suspect that YAF equates “progressive causes” and “minorities.” I see nothing in the targets they select for defamation and violence – a list which is empirically observable – to suggest that they make a meaningful distinction. The “causes” they target for destruction tend to be those involving social justice and equality for “minority” and non-dominant groups. If that is the assertion in the form of a “question,” please direct it to YAF. I can’t answer for them.
In preparing the material for this post, I read excerpts from two books about YAF. YAF formed in response to progressive campus movements. In the 60’s and 70’s, YAF fought against the anti-Vietnam war movement, a progressive cause. In the 80’s, YAF fought against the Anti South African Apartheid movement, a progressive cause. In addition to fighting progressive causes, YAF targets minorities. See the quote about MSU YAF and their “catch an ‘Illegal Immigrant'” and “Koran desecration” days.
Nothing in the post conflates the targeting of progressive groups with the targeting of minorities and nothing in the post claims that YAF conflates the two. The post simply reports that YAF engages in both behaviors. I could report that Jane Q. Doe walks and chews gum. Speculation that I intended to equate walking with gum-chewing indicates a mental or moral defect, or an compulsion to pick fights.
Reread my first comment; yep, a question, and still unanswered.
Perhaps because the logical fallacy was committed by PD in implying that minorities and progressive causes are equated in being potential “victims” of hate, and no one was supposed to notice that the two are not commensurate even though they were listed together (try substituting “locally grown organic vegetables” and “handi-wipes” for “minorities” and “progressive causes” to see how that works out).
Yes, yes, I know: in progressive world, all else is evil, wrong, stupid, etc. Nice “dailogue” 😀
BM got caught using an elementary logical fallacy, so now she claims she was just asking a “question.” Now this is some pitiful trolling.
EPU, how funny you are! Listing two things does not EQUATE them in any way! hence my question, never answered: ARE they to be equated in some way, since they are two very different things LISTED TOGETHER?
This may be the best gymnastics here yet!
No crap, elderberry. I have no problem with teen groups being granted tables at teen events. Were there other groups, or just the one to whose affiliate in MI PD objects? If only one group of several, all of which together were vastly outnumbered by the BUSINESSES at the JOB fair, was objectionable, then why the dramatic and aggrieved call to stop an event that enticed and recruited to hate groups?
There’s the crap: the free pass to be as outlandish as one pleases, and free rein to redefine and change the rules of language as needed to “prove” the flight of fancy is the one truth, period.
Ignore the trolls. Not a bad idea at all.
“whether or not failing to support the latest prog cause-du-jour is hateful. I’m guessing so”
Based on what, precisely? Because I’ve never seriously heard anyone make that claim here or elsewhere. You’re trying to read it into PD’s letter, where he highlights the group’s hatred of – and use of force against – progressive causes and minority groups not as a reason they’re a hate group, but as a reason they’re not the sort of group that should be recruiting members at a publicly sponsored event. Only if you drastically re-arrange the words across multiple paragraphs could you draw the conclusion that PD was calling them a hate group because they were anti-progressive. And even then, it’s a hell of a stretch.
“ZP, is it possible that you think I take myself as seriously as everyone here seems to not only take themself, but demands that others do as well?”
OK, so you’re just trolling and wasting everyone’s time? Then I won’t bother trying to engage you in conversation. Have a nice life.
OK, have reached fed up status.
Cut all the cr*p Barbara Munsey just answer the original question, easy yes or no:
Do you think it proper and appropriate for Delgaudio to be inviting and hosting political groups such as YAF at what is advertised as a job fair for Sterling residents?
Do you think the board should allow him to continue doing that and his other political activities on board time and money without some sanction against him?
Yes, or no?
Of course the “first thing” cited here is Barbara’s own invention. There is no “equation” of the two categories except by her. Listing two categories of things as targets of hate does not mean the same thing as equating the two categories of things with each other. What kind of logic is this? So, another made up straw man to argue with.
ZP, is it possible that you think I take myself as seriously as everyone here seems to not only take themself, but demands that others do as well?
Let’s be like Hannibal Lecter and consider first things: equating minorities–groups of individuals who share innate characteristics–with progressive CAUSES, and casting both as victims and targets for HATE, whether by groups, in speech or act.
That to me is a pretty significant inflation of victimhood, and worthy of the question–which has never been answered–on whether or not failing to support the latest prog cause-du-jour is hateful.
I’m guessing so, and and happy to note the serious scab-picking angst endemic here, as ever. Nice new thread, with callouts by name, also as usual.
Anyone who tosses around “postmodern” as often as it gets used here is quite funny defining their own preferred world as the one and only real “reality”, but again, as all definitions redirect here for confirmation, I guess it fits (for you).
People are “piling on” because you keep responding without introducing actual supporting evidence or contradicting yourself. Try making an actual argument which speaks to the actual merits of what people are writing instead of stringing together inconsistent attacks on straw-men. If you want people to engage you seriously, bring serious, consistent, and relevant arguments to the table.
Why we talk about “reality-based world”
Pingback: Why we talk about “reality-based world” – Loudoun Progress
As I said, the linguistic gymnastics are supposed to be affirmed by all, and if one exercises one’s own free speech, then one must be stupid or should shut up. Not news. And your free speech on your blog. But not universal, no matter how much you demand fealty.
ZP, again, the insults by themselves are “to the (wo)man”. Sorry, but true.
By all means, pile on! A beautiful exercise in the usual projection; instructive as always, and one of the main reasons I do post here: a differing viewpoint is always met with such extreme examples of the qualities you profess to be selflessly fighting against on behalf of all humankind, I enjoy being abused by such very good superior people! 😀
Not to pile on, however I’m working on a post about Maggie Gallagher, and I learned that a group of “ex-gays” are traveling to Washington for an “ex-gay” pride event, in spite of threats from the “homo-fascists,” and guess what? The sponsoring group claims that “preaching the Bible is now a hate crime!” The basis for this claim is a Canadian law against disparaging speech that targets specific groups. Ironically, while the anti-gay industry has consistently lobbied against “hate crimes” legislation, the “ex-gay” group is rallying in Washington D.C. because the D.C. hate crimes statute protects “ex-gays.”
Hate group, hate speech, hate crime, it’s all so fluid. Pick the word that suits your argument. Logic, facts and evidence are for sissies. Make the argument that suits your cause damages your target of the day, week, month, year or lifetime. That’s how the game is played by the craven and the depraved.
Barbara – I think the definition you quoted is precisely correct, and it directly proves my point. The definition of “ad hominem” you quoted doesn’t fit the post in question, because in the post in dispute (43687), PD doesn’t attack your character rather than answer your contentions, he answers your contentions (pointing out that they have nothing to do with a post that doesn’t talk about hate crimes) and also attacks your character. Similarly, he appeals to intellect (demonstrating that your comments were irrelevant) in addition to insult. He doesn’t attack you instead of your argument – he attacks both, and his logical point stands on its own and hasn’t yet been refuted. Hence why it is abusive instead of ad hominem.
If his argument was “we shouldn’t listen to what Barbara said because she’s an idiot” (or even “because she’s a Republican”), it would be ad hominem. But that was not his argument. Instead his argument is “Barbara’s contentions aren’t relevant to this post and she’s an idiot for thinking they are” – literally the converse of ad hominem.
We’ve been over this any number of times in this chain, which is why I got frustrated enough to tell you to shut up. That was mean of me and I’m sorry I phrased it that way, but it remains good advice. You’re clearly not reading the rather plain meanings of what people are writing, either due to being blinded by your beliefs or literally not comprehending what people are saying[1]. It’s not really advisable to write stuff on a permanent medium in either case, and you might want to take a step back and actually read and comprehend what people are writing before you dive into saying more silly things.
I’m getting kind of sick of this – we’re like 40 posts into this thread, and you haven’t made a single valid point about the original post that doesn’t arise of your own misreading. Instead we go back and forth with you misreading ludicrous things into people’s comments and us pointing out that that’s not what the person said.
[1] – Or you’re a troll and deliberately misreading, in which case I withdraw my apology.
The problem is not with the definitions, the problem is with your inability to see why they do (or do not) apply. If our assertions were actually as immaterial as you wish to claim, you would not be commenting here (and the same goes for your self-evidently false suggestion that your first amendment rights are somehow being abridged). You do consistently manage to deny the observations made about your behavior, while simultaneously providing rich evidence for them. Impressive!
Very nice, guys–obscene, stupid, and “shut up”.
EPU, here is the definition of “obscene”:
1
: disgusting to the senses : repulsive
2
a: abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically: designed to incite to lust or depravity
b: containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage
c: repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles
I understand that disagreeing with or even questioning this site is an assault on morality, virtue, and a depraved and evil incitement to lust etc. Um, sorry, but that is the constant argument for me–you do not arbit all of everything decisively for all of everyone, except on your own little asteroid. IOW, male bovine excrement.
ZP, here is “ad hominem”:
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
So, nice projection along with the “because, so shut up” standard progressive shutdown. Yes, it is ad hominem, and no, there’s still a first amendment even for people other than those with whom you agree.
If you feel the definitions are wrong, these are the ones Merriam-Webster provides for the real reality-based world. Should you all prefer to have your own versions accepted as universal, take it up with the appropriate agencies, okay?
BM, nobody in this thread advocates Sterling not having a job fair. The demand to stop Delgaudio from sponsoring the job fair is merely a demand to put someone else in charge of it. Heck, it’s even in the title of the post – “The BoS MUST halt Supervisor Delgaudio’s recruiting activities”, not “STOP THE STERLING JOB FAIR”.
If this were a one-off issue with a Supervisor, it would be entirely reasonable for them to discontinue letting the group recruit at their job fairs, apologize, and move on. But it’s not a one-off thing with Delgaudio – it’s a persistent pattern of behavior which simply illustrates that he can not be trusted not to co-mingle his personal reactionary crusades and his office as a Supervisor. There’s no reason the Board should hand out 5th or 10th chances.
And as others have mentioned (and was fairly explicit in my comment), the advantage of an ethics policy is not that it changes the punishments available to the BoS, but that it removes ambiguity and adds due process. If we had had an ethics policy, Scott York wouldn’t have been confused about how to handle the situation and caused a half-year delay, Delgaudio would have understood (or at least been informed of) the basic concepts of what he did wrong in the first place, and there would have been no lawsuit or complaints about a lack of due process or 2 hour arguments with the board figuring out how to proceed. It also could provide a clear and transparent way for Donna Mateer’s complaint to be handled in the first place, such that she might not have been fired for whistle-blowing. Now it’s true that an ethics policy could be written that wouldn’t take all of this into account, but I’m willing to take a leap of faith and trust that Reed and York will be able to draft something that handles most of the concerns we just saw with the Delgaudio mess.
Also, please either look up the definition of ad hominem or actually produce an argument that PD’s post was ad hominem. Or just shut up about it, because it wasn’t ad hominem. The arguments that you made in your post were stupid and irrelevant and independently critiqued as such by PD before he called you mentally challenged for making them.
Yes, Eugene is fond of his lists. His former aide/quasi-county-employee Donny Ferguson, the one recently paid $2,000 each from the Sterling district budget for producing some of Eugene’s “newsletters,” actually compiled lists to which he affixed the labels “Friends” and “Enemies.” You can guess which list gets the “constituent services.” It’s a shame in a way that the board isn’t going to hold an investigation and hearing at which witnesses can testify publicly, because the public has a right to know. But Williams is right that they have better things to do, even if their motives aren’t completely selfless.
When I read the first comment to this post, my thought was that her re-imaging of it was an obscene stretch, even for Barbara Munsey. This is a Rush Limbaugh-caliber perversion of logic and fact. It was so obscene, in fact, that I thought pariahdog’s offer of an alternative explanation (poor reading comprehension rather than malice) was merciful. I did skim over some of the other nonsense, and found the usual recycled false quotes, made-up conclusions, name-calling, etc.
Once again, as usual, someone published a post exposing the activities of Eugene Delgaudio, and the first person on the scene to attack the poster, undermine the content, and minimize the negative implications for Eugene Delgaudio is Barbara Munsey.
ZP, what is the proportion of businesses to “hate group recruiting” at the fair? If you are kneejerk defending, so be it. The opening, and the bulk, as you have noted more than once, bury the meat: the objection is to the presence of the club booth, and not to the entire job fair? if so, then the blanket demand to stop sponsoring the job fair because it entices youth and recruits them to hateful etc. is perhaps disingenuous (understatement alert, but whatever).
You called PD’s ableist snark abuse. Yes, it is, and yes, it is habitual, and yes, it is ad hominem no matter where he does it.
ZP, see grand jury “technicalities” (laws), and the need for state action before CRIMINAL CHARGES in this or any similar situation. Now note that a local ethics POLICY has no legal teeth. All it has is what the board just did, even in the absence of such an adopted (legally meaningless) policy.
EPU, of COURSE you should have FORESEEN my totally nefarious and insidious reference to the actual context of Dillon/policy in THIS THREAD. Wow, good catch!
Again, nice try.
Yes, AEG, astute observation. You bet that list of youth is being shared.
I took a look at the pictures of the job fair on EG’s website. One thing that jumped out at me, which wasn’t mentioned in the post, was the “registration” area, prior to entering the job fair.
http://www.joineugene.com/photogallery/photo.php?id=11854
It could be innocuous. But, this is Eugene we’re talking about here. It’s very likely that the YAF now has that list. Future Igor list candidates? 😉
And for those who didn’t watch the proceedings last night: The defense to which Delgaudio is now resorting is that he “didn’t know” he wasn’t supposed to be using his county aides for other purposes because county policy didn’t explicitly say so, and that it’s NOT FAIR to be holding him accountable for doing things he hadn’t been told not to do. Having a written ethics policy would tend to eliminate that as a viable excuse just in case there are other board members seeking excuses to exonerate such behavior without admitting it. It wasn’t needed for last night’s result only because there was not a majority of such board members this time.
Yes, a point that other supervisors, although they didn’t talk about it publicly last night, had no trouble at all recognizing. No one is suggesting that Sterling or any other district shouldn’t have a job fair, but it is clear that Eugene Delgaudio cannot be trusted to administer or sponsor one without violating the public trust. None of the other supervisors want to babysit him, hence the Sterling district budget is now under board control.
Now, just in case Barbara didn’t understand my previous comment, I will clarify. Yes, in this post it is a proposed ethics policy that was introduced for discussion in the context of the Dillon rule. The reference I made was to a past discussion of the board’s amendment to the county’s human resources policy, a discussion in which Barbara has participated extensively, both on this site and elsewhere. I apologize for not clearly explaining upfront that I was not saying that she had said something about human resources policy on this post. Clearly I should have foreseen that interpretation of my comment 😉
“The purpose of this letter is to recommend that you bar Supervisor Delgaudio from sponsoring the “Eugene Delgaudio Sterling Teen Job Fair.” Let’s read this sentence. It says “Delgaudio shouldn’t be allowed to sponsor job fairs”, not “Sterling shouldn’t have job fairs” and not “Every employer at Delgaudio’s job fair recruits for a hate group”.
I don’t understand what point on Dillon you think I’m missing. We just last night watched the Board bite Delgaudio fairly hard[1] for what he did. If a bloc of 6 Supervisors[2] say “Here are some guidelines: follow them or I’ll vote to investigate and discipline you like we disciplined Delgaudio and Whitener”, then they’re covered under exactly the same powers that allowed them to punish Delgaudio & Whitener. They can’t impeach Supervisors or send them to jail, but they can punish them.
The benefit of an ethics code is straightforward – it effectively removes any sort of “I didn’t know it was wrong” or “this process is arbitrary” arguments, which were the two most prominent counter-arguments over the last week or so. It removes a lot of ambiguity from the process and allows Supervisors to definitively say what they consider to be unacceptable if legal behavior.
And no, simply saying “his arguments are ad hominem” doesn’t make them ad hominem. At least try to counter-argue rather than simply assert.
“since the job fair has little to do with the activities of specific individuals in MI, I’m wondering how anyone can be criticized for asking a question that doesn’t fit the prescribed mold”
The activities of the MI branch of YAF are relevant, however, to the overall message and goals of YAF, and it’s Delgaudio’s assistance to YAF with their recruiting that PD is objecting to. The very presence of a non-hiring political group at a job fair is inappropriate[3] – their history of past violent acts and a branch’s status as a hate group is relevant in that they make the situation worse. Discussion of hate crimes isn’t particularly relevant because no one – PD, YAF, Delgaudio, or anyone – is accused/convicted of a hate crime.
If you’re trying to cast yourself as a reasonable conservative with solid arguments who’s being viciously attacked over political disagreements, it might help to make reasonable, relevant, and solid arguments. Failing that, you could at least not deliberately misread the article.
[1] – I’m sure others would prefer harsher, but this was somewhat more than a nibble.
[2] – This is necessary in case one of them breaks the policy
[3] – Imagine if a Democratic Supervisor had let ACORN into a job fair when they weren’t even hiring
I do wish you had an edit feature–tried to call it back, but failed. I apologize for violating policy by responding with your name instead of your handle.
Actually EPU, that isn’t what I said. The policy under discussion was an ethics policy, not a human resources one.
The board may or may not adopt an ethics policy as it chooses.
A violation of ethics policy won’t result in criminal charges under state code any more than the grand jury brought back charges sans a change in state law.
Nice try, though.
Actually David, that isn’t what I said. The policy under discussion was an ethics policy, not a human resources one.
The board may or may not adopt an ethics policy as it chooses.
A violation of ethics policy won’t result in criminal charges under state code any more than the grand jury brought back charges sans a change in state law.
Nice try, though.
ZP, that’s the point (and the joke). Cuccinelli chose not to respond to Bob Marshall’s request for an opinion on whether the 2007 board had the authority to amend its own human resources policy, a policy that VA code explicitly authorizes our form of local government to create. Barbara tried to derail the condemnation of Delgaudio’s atrocious behavior about that with a similar Dillon Rule argument, that the board has the authority to create a human resources policy, but not to determine what it says without permission from the General Assembly. The fact that Cuccinelli demurred speaks volumes, given that he has not exactly been shy about substituting his personal views for actual law.
Pretty sure the AG can go pound sand on this one – I don’t know exactly what happens if an AG is so derelict in his duty that he issues an opinion contradicting like every court precedent, but I can’t imagine it’d look good for Cuccinelli to find out.
ZP, it looks like you may have missed how the letter opens (noted in the post as “Here is how the letter opens”): “The purpose of this letter is to recommend that you bar Supervisor Delgaudio from sponsoring the “Eugene Delgaudio Sterling Teen Job Fair.”
Is the entire job fair (made up of the many legitimate employers who participate, and have done so for years) devoted to enticement, recruitment into hate groups, etc? Umm, no.
So it is entirely possible to construe an attack on the fair (must be barred!) and thus an attack on the businesses who participate (shame and shun is always useful), by the total focus on the one group table as if it constitutes the whole.
Yes, it buries the meat.
yes, “mental defective” and “slow” are ableist (used to be, on this blog, along with “lame”) and ad hominem, and yes, that’s nothing new, because the excused malice is nothing new. Nice use of orthogonal, but since the job fair has little to do with the activities of specific individuals in MI, I’m wondering how anyone can be criticized for asking a question that doesn’t fit the prescribed mold? (I do know the answer to that–this blog is for the choir, and that’s about who participates).
As to Dillon, you miss the point: those who feign to place all their hopes in an ethics policy at the local level for political reasons know quite well that they will have the same problem with an ethics policy that they did with the grand jury’s failure to charge: if there is no state law applying policy to part time legislators, no state charges. If the ethics policy is primarily a local political feelgood with no teeth in law, then it is immaterial (for legal purposes) whether they have one or not. It does provide a code to point to (and people DO, often, whether one is in effect at the time or no), but it appears none was necessary to achieve last night’s results.
Finally, EPU, why on earth would I ask someone who is not my delegate to request a state legal opinion on my….opinion about a blog post? I understand that it gives you the opportunity to point to to other pols you don’t like, but if I don’t ask your permission to have an opinion in the first place, why would I seek validation in the way you suggest?
Please don’t tell me that you recognize either Marshall or Cuccinelli as a higher authority than your self?
Maybe she can get Bob Marshall to request an opinion on it from the Attorney General 🙂
Barbara, it’s really not possible (and has never been possible) to construe the original post as attacking the private employers at the job fair without deliberately and maliciously mis-construing it. The full sentence “The LCBOS must put a halt to Supervisor Delgaudio’s youth recruiting activities and apologize to all teens for allowing the Supervisor to coerce them into joining a right-wing club with the imprimatur of county government.” does not ONCE mention the private employers at the fair. It specifically says that the BOS (not Target/Starbucks/whoever) should apologize and that Supervisor Delgaudio’s recruiting activities (not Wendy’s) should be halted. The only issue with the original post was that it buries the meat of the accusation against Delgaudio in the attachment – not that it was ambiguous as to who it’s criticizing. Again, the only way you could read it as you have is through malicious mis-construal or mistranslation. If you’re not a proficient English speaker, I withdraw my accusation of malice (but you’re still, ya know, wrong).
I wouldn’t really structure the post this way if I were writing it (but then again, I don’t blog and I’m a software developer, so I can’t really criticize), but there’s a huge difference between a complaint about tone/structure and one that addresses the (actual) merits of the argument. Yeah, PD doesn’t like Delgaudio or YAF, but even if this post was re-written by a disinterested party, it’s still inappropriate for Delgaudio to open a job fair to a political group that’s not hiring.
And PD did effectively address your point before his ad hominem. Specifically, he pointed out that any question about “hate crimes” is orthogonal to YAF being a hate group, and is therefore irrelevant to the conversation. It seems to be a common pattern with you (in this thread and in a few other recent ones that I’ve read) to maliciously misread and try to argue irrelevancies. That said, two wrongs (your trolling and PD’s abuse) don’t exactly make a right. There’s a fine line between “chasing off trolls” and “being a circle-jerking bully” and I haven’t really read either of you enough to know which side of the line this falls on.
“Ad hominem” does literally mean “to the man” – specifically “attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering an argument” (Webster’s). A good test for ad hominem would be whether PD’s counter-argument would make sense if someone else had posted your argument. If Einstein had made your “hate crime” posts/argument, it would still be irrelevant to YAF’s activities, and it would still be abusive of PD to call him slow, therefore the argument is probably not “ad hominem”.
I also think there’s been fairly solid coverage of the Dillon Rule issues over the last week. Both Delgaudio’s court case (and the extensive precedents the judge used to toss it) and the actual actions of the Board make it pretty clear that the BoS has the authority to police its membership and punish their transgressions. If we consider an ethics policy/pledge to essentially be an announcement of how the Board intends to use its discipline capabilities, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the Board has the right to do what it did yesterday, but not enact an ethics policy/pledge. If you (or anyone else) know of one, please enlighten me.
Not asking for sympathy, and not playing the preferred words games either, EPU.
Just expressing my opinion, one of which is that PD jumps the shark quite often in his own malice.
And still loving the now-allowed (to certain groups only? affirmative speech-action? 😀 ) “ableist” conversation-ender.
I’m having a hard time feeling sympathy for Barbara Munsey regarding the suggestion that her reading of this post and subsequent comments can only be attributed to dishonesty or an inability to comprehend (and what’s worse, malice or incompetence? Your call.) The number of times we’ve had the conversation about the definition of a ‘hate group’ vs. a ‘hate crime’ vs. ‘hate speech’ is probably in double digits now. There’s really no good excuse for pretending to not know what these terms mean, unless you think desperation is a good excuse.
ZP, thanks for repeating your excellent point about the absurdity of ‘elections’ as a valid referendum on Delgaudio’s fitness for office, given that his apparent violations go directly to abuses of of the electoral process. It must have been a grim evening for the ones still making that argument.
It was clear that at least some board members have finally had enough. There was real anger and disgust. Finally.
ZP, nice attempt to validate PD’s abuse (and thank you, yes, it is his habit), but as he did not prove my argument invalid, it leaves nothing but the ad hominem (which, as it translates as “to the man”, applies regardless. Insult is not debate, except when someone has nothing else to hurl).
“manswered” is one of many typos perpetrated by me in that post–I don’t do well with a laptop keyboard sometimes! Take the M off of the front and you’ll see the word I meant, i.e. you answered my question, which PD did not.
Interesting in light of his own post equating “minority groups” and “progressive causes”: two very different types of nouns, one referring to humans with sets of innate characteristics, and the other to ideas, which is why it caught my eye in the first place, and makes his ridiculous (ableist!) ad hominem about hate crimes vs. hate groups even sillier.
Your own response leading to his negligible update goes to the core of the problem of malice: if “youth recruiting activities and apologize to all teens for allowing the Supervisor to coerce them into joining a right-wing club with the imprimatur of county government” is still in the main post before any other description or information–and it is–it yes does tar everything at the job fair with PD’s preferred brush. Which also riffs nicely on the idea that there’s a “youth predator” at work that the community needs to be warned about, and so on. I did not read it with malice–it was written that way, as is much written by this particular author.
As to ethics and policy pledges, they have been little but a political football in this our Dillon Rule state. Boards adopt them or don’t here, and then whoever is on the outs of the pendulum swing uses it as a flag (if useful). They are only enforceable by the board itself, which makes last might’s action all the more interesting politically: this board did not adopt one, yet took action to police themselves.
A former supervisor (guilty of ethics violations himself, in entering into negotiations for a school site WITHOUT the legal right to do so, with a Democratic delegate’s child who stood to gain from the potential transaction–who violated their realtor’s code of ethics in the process by cobbling deals with him on a property for which they represented NEITHER the buyer nor the potential seller) made a passionate statement from the dais without ever noting that under their board, which DID have a code, ignored for years of their term a colleague who cycled through aides like Kleenex, and committed ethics violations herself.
Which makes the fact that this board took action rather than forming another committee even more sensible: some are much more interested in the political football than anything else.
Yowza. Again, WTHeck is Delgaudio thinking?
According to the latest article in the Post, it wasn’t a lawsuit, it was a subpoena.
“But the Sterling supervisor hinted that he would be throwing punches of his own: After the court issued the ruling Wednesday, King filed a subpoena against Board Chairman Scott K. York ( R-AtLarge) , seeking campaign finance records from January 2010 through the present — including bank statements, deposit slips, donor records and and expenditure receipts.
“There’s something specific I’m looking for,” King told The Washington Post at the meeting, referring to the subpoena. He declined to be more specific.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/loudoun-board-disciplines-delgaudio/2013/07/17/d7fa2d20-ef2a-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html
Anyone have the dish on the lawsuit that Delgaudio served on York before the BoS meeting that York referenced?
I really don’t get Delgaudio’s gameplan on the whole “drag this thing out” approach and the whole “spend my unlimited time on the record in a BoS meeting complaining about not having time on the record to rebut these allegations” charade. Does he think that there’s some sort of super-secret killer defense that he’s got hidden under wraps? What does dragging the story out and putting even more of his shenanigans on the record do for him?
Also, it’s sounding a lot like Delgaudio’s planning to go nuclear against his fellow Board members in “retaliation”. I don’t know what dirt he has (or thinks he has), but that was sort of the impression I got. I don’t really have the inside scoop on the LCRC of course, but I can’t imagine Delgaudio being on the same ticket as York/Williams/LeTourneau in 2015.
I don’t know if you guys were still watching in the closing statements, but after the vote, both Reed and York made comments to the effect that the Board may need to consider an ethics policy/pledge in September. Kinda late to the party on that one, but glad to see they’re coming around.
Finally, I just want to highlight (as I did in my public comment) what I feel is the absurdity of people pointing to elections as a legitimizer in a circumstance where Supervisor Delgaudio stands accused by a grand jury of election improprieties. I seems bizarre to me that one can simultaneously believe the grand jury report of donation issues and staff resources being misappropriated for election work and also believe that that election was a fair referendum on Delgaudio. Whether you think the improprieties where of a sufficient scale to swing the election (and I’m skeptical of that, no offense to Al), it’s strange to me to concede that an election was obviously tainted but still use it to try to claim the moral high ground.
—————
Barbara, that’s not, strictly speaking an ad hominem argument that PD made in comment #8. An ad hominem argument (or ad hominem fallacy) takes the form “My opponent is/has X, therefore their argument is invalid” (where X is stupidity or a conflict-of-interest or really any characteristic). PD’s claim is the converse – namely that your arguments are invalid, therefore you are/have X. I don’t think PD’s claim is true (and it’s definitely abusive), but it’s not ad hominem and he did offer a solid rebuttal of your claims (namely that your entire argument is irrelevant since the original article doesn’t accuse YAF of hate crimes but of being a hate group).
Also, I find it hard to offer you the benefit of the doubt that you’re arguing in good faith when you ask specifically “I really would like to know: is disagreeing with anything labelled progressive now a hate crime?” and then claim that my honest answer to that question which cites US law and the dictionary is man-splaining or in any way inappropriate. And honestly while the original post could have presented it’s case better (and the edits fixed that), only a truly malicious reading could conclude that PD was claiming Starbucks and Target were recruiting for hate groups.
I saw part of the discussion for that, and I agree with those who saw no reason to defer to the fall.
Yes, pretty much. She and Higgins voted in favor of the 30-day ad-hoc committee as well as against the defunding motion.
I wasn’t able to watch the whole meeting–in and out through the evening. Was Clarke of the same opinion as the one Higgins just stated?
It was pretty clear after the first 15 minutes that the vote on the funding was 6-3. And now here goes Higgins to explain why he’s not an apologist. *rolls eyes*
I love how he waved his hands in the air as he said “above reproach,” like it’s some sort of unrealistic, ridiculous concept.
8-1, 8-1, 6-3. I am wondering what Higgins’ position on the funding issues was? it appears he though the divided motion would have had comment as votes were taken on the portions?
Did Delgaudio just say he apologizes to the people of Sterling because they have to deal with ‘a process’ in which the board ‘wants behavior that is above reproach’?
I sure hope people are able to watch the BoS meeting. This is pretty epic.
elderberry, it seems you share PD’s diversionary chosen reading difficulties: I equated the word “progressive” with “smart” growth” in that both are positive-sounding words that are used by (some of) their practitioners to attempt to sahme others into not wanting to seem “REgressive” or “dumb”.
No one said PEC but you.
No one called PEC a hate group but you (although the articles bubbling up about their board member allegedly colluding with a Fauquier supervisor to audit a targeted farmer may have you every bit as on edge as it seems to have them, which may explain the fact that you seem to have read or heard “PEC” when no one said it).
I won’t stoop to PD’s level and smugly say that it’s kinder to call you menatlly defective, but your word “hopeless” does have a ring to it. Anger management, elderberry, give it a try?
She’s hopeless. If you back her into a corner, she peels of onto one or another side issues. She seems unable to admit ever that one of her “clients” is in the wrong.
It seems likely to me that Wendy’s and the other legitimate job fair businesses have no idea ahead of time that Delgaudio would invite and shelter a hate group at a job fair. By the time they are there at the fair, they are unlikely to recognize the hate group as such, and thus unlikely to pull out and go home.
Barbara Munsey trying to equate PEC, an environmental/conservation smart growth organization, with a HATE GROUP, it’s just almost impossible to believe. Except that it is Barbara Munsey, who seems to have no limits to her ability to twist the truth into pretzels. So that she can equate being a progressive with being a hate group. Only on her world, which she keeps trying to shove out onto the rest of us.
Your update does nothing to separate the tarring of jobs fair businesses with “hate group recruiting”..Still sloppy, still fail, but ENERGETIC 😀 , in that nowhere do you explain how enticed youth are deceived if actual businesses are present at a job fair, offering the opportunity to apply for jobs.
I really think ZP had it right–the (ostensible) objection would be to having the group present at a job fair, when they are a club with whom you disagree, but as is often the case, your desire to create a larger issue makes it much more fun to go down the child enticement/deception route.
Very nice ad hominem, with the whole “speak sloooooowwwwllly, mental defect, much more Christian to call her mentally defective than a liar”. Laughable, in fact, with the former behavior here in calling many people “documented liars” at the drop of a differing opinion (out of vogue now that two here were documented as liars in the whole atheist Christmas annual imbroglio?). Truly laughable, given that “ableist” language and attitude used to bring down the banhammer here.
That’s fine–if mentally defective makes you feel better, your blog, your right.
However, hate groups DO commit hate crimes, do they not? And speaking of reading comprehension, in light of the fact that most of my discussion here involves the alternative reality commonly constructed out of the words and actions of those whom you persist in defining, in contravention of their own stated words etc (talking about my own experience here), my first comment here asked if disagreeing with progressives was now a hate crime–which was manswered by ZP, and has nothing to do with the difference between two nouns.
As for the lofty definition of the quality of “progressiveness”, we’re back to laughable–the progressive political movement owns a linguistic feelgood that used to be enjoyed by so-called “smart” growth: if one disagreed with aspects of “smart” growth, then one was for being “dumb”. If one disagrees with “Progressive” policies, then one is de facto REgressive (knuckledragging thug, etc, or mental defective if you prefer), backward.
I’m sorry you are so consumed with anger; don’t become a “hate group” yourself in the process of seeking them out on every corner.
I updated the post to provide a bit more detail about this particular abuse of office and the Sterling Supervisor’s recruiting activity.
Regarding “a history of violence, defamation and hatred towards minorities and progressive causes,” there is nothing wrong with the phrasing. What would you call the anti-apartheid movement in the U.S.? Was that not a progressive cause? It wasn’t that progressive in the sense that Congress overrode President Reagan’s veto of South African funding restrictions, but you get the point. The movement to treat a minority group as fully human *is* a progressive cause, and YAF, being a hate group, hates on people. That’s what they do and that’s why Supervisor Delgaudio’s behavior must be stopped.
One other comment. I’m going to talk very sloooowly here because I have the feeling that I’m dealing with a mental defect.
Pink pony
Pink Cadillac
They are both pink, and a pony and a Cadillac are both nouns; however a pony is not a Cadillac. Does that make sense?
Now try this:
Hate group
Hate crime
A group is not a crime. They are both nouns, but they are different things. Does that make sense? Search through the post and see if you can find the phrase “hate crime.” No? It’s not there? Gee whiz. I’d hate to think (hate to think is not a hate crime, btw) that Ms. Munsey was attempting to tell people what to think about the post by lying about its content. It’s better to think she suffers from a mental defect. That’s a more forgiving Christian approach to her particular issue.
Give it time 😀
So far as I’m aware, there’s no widespread movement to add political affiliation to the protected classes list. Not only is it not a covered class in terms of hate crimes, but it’s also not a protected class in terms of discrimination (except in NY, DC, and PR).
I am not asking if YAF “disagreed”, but discussing the phrasing used by PD that I quoted in my first post.
Your response is informative, and leads me to the question, are “progressives” seeking protected class status under hate crimes laws?
I understand that some groups interpret laws to mean that if their group is not specifically delineated in law, then it is “legal” to commit crimes (that are already crimes) against them.
I agree with your assertion that PD’s post could be better phrased, in that the objection may be primarily against offering space to clubs at the job fair, and not (surely unintentionally) lumping in actual businesses with hate groups.
That IS sloppy.
To be fair to Barbara Munsey, your blog post omits a lot of the details from the letter that directly address your accusation against Mr. Delgaudio for those unfamiliar with his job fairs. You probably could phrased the post better by including something like “Specifically, Delgaudio gave space at his job fair to YAF”. That’s sort of the central thrust of the allegation, and it’s not present in the post. Of course, that doesn’t make Barbara’s post reasonable by any stretch.
Barbara – a hate crime is “a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group.” (dictionary.com). Federal law only covers a subset of that, specifically race/ethnicity, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. This is an instance where a specific contextual definition of a word differs from the more general definition[1]. So yes, violence or other crimes targeted against a group of people because of their current or past membership in a political party/organization, union, or other social group would be a “hate crime” by the dictionary definition and popular understanding, but not pursued as one by the FBI[2].
Also the accusation is not the YAF “disagreed” but that they used violence or fraud to suppress or discredit the groups they disagreed with. Are you sure you read the same post and letter that I did?
[1] – for an example, “theory” means different things in science and in popular usage
[2] – unless their affiliation could be construed as or stretched to be related to a protected class, such as if members of a LGBT group or parishioners of a specific church were the victims.
Your perspective is always a pleasure. I recall the day you and others from the Lovettsville area were working the polling place in my neighborhood, hawking the PEC’s fake petition frtom Campaign for Loudoun’s Future (which WASN’T PEC! Just a citizen’s group! And Andrea was just a CONCERNED CITIZEN! Not PAID! lolol)
I invited you for a tour of the area, which you accepted, and we had a nice civil little drive, the highlight (to me) of which was your gasp, upon seeing the tent and doublewide that then served as the voted-and-bonded public safety station for the region: “Oh my God you weren’t kidding”.
No, I wasn’t, and I was glad you got to see it in all its glory.
I was even more glad when that was reimaged as a waspish letter to the BoS complaining that I had been engaged in voter intimidation, and you had to lure me away from the polls so citizens could vote.
You’re entitled to your reality, I was just clarifying (not defending, except in upsaide down land), and I really would like to know: is disagreeing with anything labelled progressive now a hate crime?
I’m glad you liked it and I’m sorry your reading comprehension is so lacking. I guess we can add a corollary to YAF’s “there isn’t a problem that doesn’t have a violent solution.”
Barbara’s corollary is “There is no dispicable, reprehensible, hateful action that is unworthy of Barbara’s defense.”
Thanks for stopping by. It’s always a pleasure.
um, are you saying that the representatives from Wendy’s, Telos, and other busniesses who set up booths at the fair have the kids fill out applications to join a “hate group” in Michigan along with the applications for everything from drive-thru cashier to corporate intern?
I doubt it, but one never knows with you and your use-case scenaria.
I like this part: “a history of violence, defamation and hatred towards minorities and progressive causes”. Not the violence, defamation, etc, but the inclusion of “progressive causes”.
Is disagreeing with anything labelled “progressive” a hate crime now?
Wow.
Okay.