It’s another banner day for Neanderthal (i.e., Orange) County.
LOCAL REPUB LEADERS DON'T KNOW WHAT "INTENTIONALLY" MEANS. Apegate (aka Chimpgate) opened a new and perhaps final chapter today. According to the OC Reg,
The Orange County GOP official who sent an email portraying President Barack Obama as a chimpanzee was censured this morning by the county party’s executive committee in a 12-2 vote.The censure of Marilyn Davenport, an elected member of the county GOP’s governing Central Committee resulted from the finding that she violated bylaw provisions prohibiting action that “intentionally cause(s) the embarrassment” of the party. It is the strongest step the county party could take under its bylaws. According to state law, it was not an offense that qualified for her removal from the committee.
Baugh |
Does anyone believe that? Don’t think so.
So either these local Repubs don’t know what “intentionally” means, or they’re just making shit up—that Davenport had an intention that, obviously, she did not have—for whatever reason. Um, what could that be?
Luckily, Party Chair Scott Baugh explained the committee’s action:
“She was censured because she knew the email she was sending out was controversial,” Baugh said after this morning’s vote. “After it went out, she downplayed it as a joke. Instead of owning up to her error, she immediately sought to blame others. ¶ “That resulted in a three-day barrage of negative media attention.”
OK, there is evidence that Davenport passed around an email that she knew was controversial. Among her many goofy remarks in the days after the email surfaced, that admission was included, although, as I recall, she also said she refrained from sending the email to those among her friends she thought would be upset by it. But knowing that it is controversial and knowing that it will cause controversy and embarrassment are two very different things. Perhaps she knew that it was controversial. We have no reason to think she knew that it would cause a major controversy and that the controversy would embarrass the party.
The Reg reminds us that, at first, Davenport was defiant, and generally pointed a finger of blame at others. A couple of days later, she issued an evidently sincere apology.
According to Baugh (says the Reg), thing then took a turn for the worse:
“Her subsequent press conference and media tour only served to reignite the controversy,” he said.
Davenport |
Well, I guess that’s true. But reigniting controversy is not the same thing as intentionally causing embarrassment. Davenport reignited controversy because she is clueless--she clearly has trouble understanding what was offensive about her email--and she is not ready for prime time, what with her daffy loose-cannon allusions to her birther beliefs.
According to the Reg, Davenport’s handler, Tim Whitacre, declared that Baugh and Co. had misinterpreted the GOP bylaws. How so, we’re not told.
Whitacre takes a swipe at Baugh:
“Once again, Baugh and company totally misuse the bylaws to extract their ounce of blood from their target,” said Whitacre, who unsuccessfully challenged Baugh for the chairmanship in January. “I think he perceives this as sending a message to people to not step out of line and that it deflects criticism of his leadership. But this censure means nothing coming from him.”
The Reg notes that GOP anti-Muslim poster girl Deborah Pauly and Zonya Townsend voted against censure. Natch.
MORE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" ACTION. The OC Reg also reports that a “local activist” in Los Alamitos—J.M. Ivler—objected Monday night to the City Council’s practice of beginning meetings with “prayers that address ‘heavenly father.’”According to Ivler, the prayer is pushing Christianity in a setting that is supposed to be “secular,” what with our nation’s embrace of the principle of separation of church and state:
"We are not a Christian nation any more than we are an Islamic one, we are a secular nation," Ivler said. ¶ "I understand that you may be people of faith, and that you may rely on that faith to lead you in your decisions on the dais," he told the council during Monday's oral communications. "But public displays of piety specifically those that follow Christian dogma do not belong in this secular hall. In doing so you are teaching our children a lesson that something that is very wrong is okay and the law is to be flaunted [sic]. And our children are learning that wrong lesson."OC Reg readers lived up to their reputation with such comments as
• If you don't like what is going on in the room just leave the room, but don't make everyone stop what they are doing because you don't like it...
• J.M.Mer [?] should remove himself from the chamber if prayer offends him. I do believe the majority still rules.
As far as I know America is still a Christian Country, but does not condemn other religions nor deprive them from practicing what they believe. So why does he want to deprive the Christens??
• I hope this idiot gives up all their money since it says "In God We Trust". [?]
7 comments:
It seems this blog has now outlived its usefulness and become irrelevant, consisting almost entirely these days of rehash / revisions of ancient history, regurgitation of already published material, obsession with former board members and district administrators, and repetitive and unoriginal opining on partisan politics. Now that Mathur has gone, the former watchdogs have become the lapdogs of the current administration, looking the other way while all manner of outrage, exceeding even Mathur's worst excesses, goes on under their noses. They pilloried Mathur for buying an office chair, but not one word about Roquemore's buying a whole office full of new furniture while crying poor mouth on a near daily basis. Nor any mention of the current accreditation "warning" status. And what about the theft of over 400 student credit card numbers by an employee in the IVC bursar's office? Not a single word about it.
Yes, it appears that "Dissent" has descended into "Consent." Maybe it's time to make way for some new blood at IVC with the energy and courage to once again unabashedly speak the truth to power.
Woof woof.
Give me a break.
It takes a lot of work to pillory - they do the best they can while teaching full time. There used to be local newspapers to do what they do.
And clearly you're not reading enough. You're up too late too...
Yeah, when I think of Roy Bauer, I think "He's a lap dog to Glen and Craig."
Which blog was it that you were reading and confusing with DTB, 3:01?
Gosh, 3:01:
(1) We have indeed covered the warning letters from the Accreds, though we have not said much about it recently. You don't seem to be a regular reader. I can cite the posts, if you like. (2) The notion that we are only churning old stories is easily refuted by glancing at the sidebar at right. Recently, I wrote about the last stage of the very recently settled "Westphal v. Wagner"--from an insider's perspective (I was a plaintiff). A great deal of the media coverage of that case (including recent Lariat articles) is inaccurate. We have made a point of presenting and quoting from the actual settlement agreement. Our regular reports of Board meetings have been consistently popular--no rehash there--since we generally manage to describe what actually happens in the room and to remind readers of the sometimes complex relationships between trustees, and their opposing philosophies, etc. One story--re my FPPC complaint (an ongoing investigation) against Fuentes--has been quite popular for months, and it is easy to see why. (You should see the stats.) Our coverage of John Williams' colorful flameout has benefited from much insider information, and indeed DtB had a significant role in bringing the man down (at the County). Other stories, such as RG's recent "hell" story, have been very popular with readers (we have the stats and can make them available). (3) As for Roquemore's buying habits--we can't be everywhere at once. I am simply unaware of this alleged phenomenon and would be glad to get reliable information about it. (4) Ditto re the bursar snafu, something I remember hearing about. Yes, we did let that one go, but only because other things seemed more interesting to us. If you can explain how we erred by not following this story, we'd appreciate it. In general, nothing prevents readers from dropping us a line or even simply writing a comment (anonymously) that draws our attention to something that we have missed. What You seem to think that the existence of DtB precludes the existence of other "watchdog" entities (newsletters, blogs, etc.). But that's nonsense. We'd be very happy to see others do the kind of thing we're trying to do (and have been doing now since 1997). Generally, we've been doing serious watchdog work--I remind you again of our work concerning Williams and the FPPC complaint re Fuentes and the prayer lawsuit. These are recent examples. I could list several others. I'm comfortable with my (our) watchdoggery. Where's yours?
Re: "intentionally", I think it's a difficult project to try and establish what someone's intention is/was. I think BvT makes a good case for a lack of intentionality on Davenport's part, and intention is very important to consider when a gaffe or hurt feelings occurs, but it seems strange defending Davenport's intentions when the outcome was so interpretable as racist, thoughtless, or as DtB might say, neanderthalic. No one knows w/ any kind of certainty what reaction an action will cause (thus leading to a kind of sympathy for Davenport), but I think it's reasonable to hold her responsible for having an inkling that the photo/email, if controversial, could, by definition, *cause* controversy. There's also the inherent ambiguity of the image itself -- if it's referencing the (ridiculous) birther debate, it's slightly less offensive than if it's referencing Obama's ethnicity or ethnic roots.
As I understand it, the local party's bylaws permit censure only under limited circumstances, including "intentionally" causing the party embarrassment. I can see why they would have such a rule. A rule against causing controversy would, I think, be absurd. And so the issue is not whether she could foresee controversy (though she has said that she deliberately refrained from sending her email to those who she thought would be offended by it). The issue is specifically whether she intentionally caused embarrassment for the party. Again, there is no reason to suppose that she intended that. Hence, the party's action against Davenport is hinky. And if the party seeks to reject Davenport's cluelessness, focusing on her is mighty ugly. The membership should simply acknowledge that her attitudes are common among them; that is what should be addressed. She is a means, not an end, to these people. Someone should tell Immanuel Kant.
Post a Comment