Greater Greater Washington

Links


Breakfast links: Emergency responses


Photo by The Great Photographicon on Flickr.
Major changes for firefighters: In addition to staff cuts, the fire chief wants firefighters to switch from 24-hour shifts to 12-hour shifts. The 40% of firefighters who live more than 30 miles from the city are unhappy with the proposal. (Examiner)

Metro braves the snow: For a few years, WMATA has closed aboveground Metro stations after 8 inches of snowfall. Now the agency will increase that threshold to 10 inches and will keep the Yellow Line bridge open no matter what. (Examiner)

Traffic cameras to find terrorists: Traffic cameras aren't just for red-light runners. DHS has given area police $1 million to install cameras that record the license plates passing along local highways. The surveillance is resulting in one arrest per day. (Examiner)

Is Georgetown really in trouble?: One Georgetown resident and real estate developer thinks Georgetown, despite its high rents, is down and out. Conveniently, he thinks the city should spend $11 million to subsidize development in Georgetown. (City Paper)

Downtown residents face unique problems: Downtown DC's residential population has doubled over the past decade. The increasingly assertive population has pushed back against plans to add glitz to downtown areas such as Chinatown. (City Paper)

Line forms for apartments: Forget Black Friday. Hundreds of people waited in line Monday night for a chance to rent affordable apartments in Columbia Heights. (Post)

Wells of 2 minds on bundling: Councilmember Tommy Wells, who opposes the bundling of campaign contributions, has received a few himself. He's not sure if he'll take them during the next campaign. (City Paper)

Put all the states on your wall: Looking for an interesting DC map for a gift? H Street spider map designer Peter Dunn has created an attractive poster of DC's state-named avenues. (Stonebrown Design) ... Read how these avenues came to be.

And...: More people leave California than move in. (LA Times) ... Pension costs for Montgomery County teachers have jumped sharply. (Examiner) ... The US Attorney for DC won't reveal his budget. (Post)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.
Eric Fidler has lived in DC and suburban Maryland his entire life. He likes long walks along the Potomac and considers the L'Enfant Plan an elegant work of art. He also blogs at Left for LeDroit, LeDroit Park's (only) blog of record. 

Comments

Add a comment »

We should find a way to use the tracking cameras to focus on bikes too. I mean, if they are arresting one car driver per day on average with this anti-terrorism method, perhaps we could take more terrorists off the streets if they tracked them on bikes as well.

by Petunia on Dec 1, 2011 8:44 am • linkreport

Boy, some people are willing to jump through a thousand hoops to make a completely non-contextual anti-cycling screed.

You forgot pedestrians, Petunia.

by smh on Dec 1, 2011 8:49 am • linkreport

RE: Firefighters
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Paul Quander added that 40 percent of the city's firefighters live more than 30 miles outside of the District -- some as far as Pennsylvania and New Jersey...

What the hell? I really fail to understand how people can accept commuting 70, 80, 100 miles to their jobs. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere then find a job you can do in the middle of nowhere. Or commute to Hagerstown or Frederick. But there's no way emergency personnel should be living hours away from where they work. I grew up in the middle of nowhere (town of 1500) and there were very few people who commuted over 50 miles to a job.

by MLD on Dec 1, 2011 8:58 am • linkreport

Sorry @smh, I was just following the context laid out in the link paragraph about red light camera arrests and anti-terrorism surveillance. Maybe I misconstrued the author's implication of a link between the two.

by Petunia on Dec 1, 2011 9:01 am • linkreport

@MLD
That is the point, with the current 24 hour shifts, most of these people who live so far away don't have to make the commute 5 days a week, only twice.

This is probably one of the reasons they are proposing shifting to a 12 hour shift, to drive some of those people out.

by nathaniel on Dec 1, 2011 9:07 am • linkreport

"This allows us flexibility to be flexible."

Another great quote from Metro.

by Ron on Dec 1, 2011 9:10 am • linkreport

Petunia,

There is no right to privacy in public spaces. Likewise to vehicle plate monitoring, to ride a commuter train federal regulations require riders either provide identification or pay with a traceable credit card. But, that is not the same thing as the government being required to identify all users of transportation when identification is impractical. It is not cost effective or practical to identify pedestrians, mass transit users or even cyclists, so the government does not attempt to do so. It is cost effective and practical to identify motor vehicle licencing, commuter train and Amtrak riders, so they do.

by smh on Dec 1, 2011 9:26 am • linkreport

I met a Firefighter on a Southwest flight from Memphis to San Jose CA. He worked and had seniority in the SJ fire union and he said it was cheap enough for him to live in Memphis and commute to SJ to work his shift. He simply pushed all his hours together and bunked at the firehouse -basically lived rent free on an inflated salary while his wife and kids enjoyed a mansion. I think he worked like 1 solid week or 10 days a month.

This is obviously horsepoop. No one can "work" a 6 day continuous shift when their working effectively. I don't doubt that some of these guys have built up a stamina to survive the schedule, but they're not going to be fresh and alert in a true emergency and someone's going to die.

by eb on Dec 1, 2011 9:28 am • linkreport

@smh, they should probably also look at tracking WMATA train riders, being in public spaces and easily trackable and what-not. I'm sure we are all for public safety and fighting terrorism. Good to hear.

by Petunia on Dec 1, 2011 9:33 am • linkreport

@Petunia,

Unlike bicycling or walking, driving is a privilege, not a right. Don't want to be surveilled? Buy a bike.

by oboe on Dec 1, 2011 9:35 am • linkreport

RE: the Peter Dunn map - no love for Columbia Road?

by Shipsa01 on Dec 1, 2011 9:38 am • linkreport

@Firefighters

I would bet 40% of teachers in Montgomery County also live more than 30 miles away, why because housing costs in moco are too high, and firefighters make even less money. It is much more difficult to live in moco, even factoring in extra commuting costs etc. Before the housing collapse it was next to imposable.

Before we judge these people we need to consider the entire situation. I think they have the right to be upset.

by Matt Reese on Dec 1, 2011 10:47 am • linkreport

We should find a way to use the tracking cameras to focus on bikes too.

Actually, this is a good idea for the future. It's just not practical or cost effective right now. We often use facial recognition tech to catch terrorists entering stadiums or at other large events. Eventually, it will be practical to use that tech to catch terrorists and criminals anywhere in public.

Consider the following spectrum -- police officer on the sidewalk looking for faces that resemble terrorists; officer using binoculars to remotely monitor the same area; officer using a camera to remotely monitor the same area; officer using a camera + software to assist him in face matching; software/camera making preliminary matches and then officer reviewing the results.

Are any of the items on that spectrum really different?

Unlike bicycling or walking, driving is a privilege, not a right. Don't want to be surveilled? Buy a bike.

The right in question here is that of privacy, not the right of locomotion. However, there is no right of privacy in public spaces regardless of your choice of locomotion.

by Falls Church on Dec 1, 2011 11:00 am • linkreport

@Falls Church,

Damn you for your reasonable (and correct) response to my snark.

by oboe on Dec 1, 2011 11:22 am • linkreport

@Shipsa01 - Just like there's no love for the District of Columbia in Congress. But as I understand it, Columbia Road was named after Columbia College, not D.C.

by peter dunn on Dec 1, 2011 11:27 am • linkreport

No one can "work" a 6 day continuous shift when their working effectively.

Apparently, some research has been done on a similar question and you're correct. Firefighters working 48 hour shifts are less effective than those working 24 hour shifts. Emergency response time was 6.3% slower and vehicle accidents occurred 38% more often.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo33641.pdf

by Falls Church on Dec 1, 2011 11:33 am • linkreport

Thanks for the reply, Peter. Love the map, btw.

But as for Columbia Road, I thought we went back and forth about this at that last post and it was somewhat agreed upon (is that ever the case?) that because Columbia Road was named after Columbia College and Columbia College was named after DC, then A squared + B squared, etc, we get Columbia Road for DC. No good?

by Shipsa01 on Dec 1, 2011 11:33 am • linkreport

re: "The US Attorney for DC won't reveal his budget."

This is a pretty interesting piece. One of the more frustrating things about the USA's office and its role as public prosecutor for DC is just how unresponsive it is to local concerns. In a world where "overzealous prosecutor" is practically redundant, DC is unique in having a team of public prosecutors who seem pretty content to never bring a case against anyone if they can ever help it. I guess they reduce their workload and save money that way.

The office’s secrecy about its budget is likely to irk D.C. officials and those who have advocated for home rule, particularly since other federal prosecutors have released their budget numbers in recent weeks.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the contempt the USA's office has for the people they're supposed to be serving.
In its press release, the U.S. Attorney’s Office noted that it had collected more than $1.5 billion in “criminal and civil actions and asset forfeitures during the past two years.”

Machen said such seizures were important because “the seizures are important because we are taking the illicit proceeds of criminal activity...It goes into the Treasury. And it’s used for the greater good of the government.”

Given the fact that these guys don't seem to ever do anything without the kick in the pants of a massive public outcry, I can only imagine the torrent of money they must be pouring into the Federal Treasury. And, of course, if DC were a state, all that money would be going into state and local coffers.

Pet peeve; sorry.

by oboe on Dec 1, 2011 11:34 am • linkreport

Shipsa01 -

Yeah, I suppose we could apply the transitive property to namesakes. But for simplicity's sake, I kept it to the 50 states. Puerto Rico Ave NE didn't make the cut either. But in another way, D.C. does get the whole map!

Glad you like it though.

by peter dunn on Dec 1, 2011 11:47 am • linkreport

"Are any of the items on that spectrum really different?"

"quantity has a quality all its own"

you are correct there is not black and white cut off point. I think its clear that as you move along the spectrum, you make society different. Whether changing society in that way is worth it, is a reasonable thing to debate.

Much of our privacy we get not from constitutional protections, but from the actual cost of monitoring. As that cost declines, possible limits on privacy become possible that were not envisioned by our 18th century framers, nor even by our 19th and 20th century courts (as for our 21st c SCOTUS, perhaps better not go there). It seems abundantly reasonable to me for citizens to express concern - and perhaps for constitutional lawyers to examine if the scope of privacy protections need to be expanded to cope with new technologies.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 1, 2011 11:50 am • linkreport

Re: Firefighters.

I assume that people working 24-hour shifts at the fire house don't actually stay awake for that entire time, right?

If so, I don't find it unreasonable to switch to 12-hour shifts during which time the workers would be expected to be awake and ready to respond to emergencies like, you know, fires.

Seems pretty reasonable to imagine that sleeping firefighters are going to be that much less able to get to a fire quickly than those who are awake and doing whatever firefighters do when they're sitting around the station.

by Hey Anonny Anonny on Dec 1, 2011 11:51 am • linkreport

Ironic story about Wells.

Complain about a practice you're open to continuing..as long as other people are doing it too.

Oh my word, where's the ouuuuuutrage!!!!

HA!

by HogWash on Dec 1, 2011 11:53 am • linkreport

@peter dunn. Great map. There's a half-block of Delaware Ave NE remaining, parallel to the railroad tracks, just south of M St NE.

by Paulus on Dec 1, 2011 12:19 pm • linkreport

@HogWash:

This is something I've never been able to understand. How can one be open to charges of hypocrisy for playing by the rules? This is right up there with folks who think Gates or Buffet are "hypocrites" because they argue that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate all while paying the current tax rate!! Same with people who claim to spot hypocrisy in an environmentalist who "flew on a plane that time". Or the guy who advocates for the poor, but...wait for it...IS PERSONALLY WEALTHY!!

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "hypocrisy" means.

It's just silly. If anything, it's the opposite of hypocrisy. Just because you've got a respect for good government doesn't mean you have to unilaterally disarm and concede the field to the dirtballs.

by oboe on Dec 1, 2011 12:48 pm • linkreport

@AWalkerintheCity:

It seems abundantly reasonable to me for citizens to express concern - and perhaps for constitutional lawyers to examine if the scope of privacy protections need to be expanded to cope with new technologies.

You make it sound harder than it is. If citizens express concern, they can ask their legislators to pass laws extending privacy protections -- no lawsuits or involvement of constitutional lawyers required. Just because we might not have a constitutional right not to be tracked through the streets by our license plates/faces/DNA doesn't mean that we can't demand that the government not do it.

(It might be equally effective to demand that any tracking technique used to track law-abiding citizens be used to track members of Congress or government officials, with the results published on a web page, but most would probably prefer "privacy for all" to "taste of their own medicine."

by Arl Anon on Dec 1, 2011 1:03 pm • linkreport

@Oboe,

I consider it a benefit to DC that the US Attorney serves as the local prosecutor. Imagine the added cost to the DC budget if DC had to support that function alone. Not to mention that it would have to seek its funding from a mayor and council members, half of whom are currently under investigation.

There's another point to consider about the US Attorney's office serving as local prosecutor. Because of the experience offered (and perceived prestige), USA offices are more successful in recruiting top talent than many local district attorney offices (the Manhattan DA office probably being an exception).

by Sarah on Dec 1, 2011 1:06 pm • linkreport

@Sarah:

I consider it a benefit to DC that the US Attorney serves as the local prosecutor. Imagine the added cost to the DC budget if DC had to support that function alone. Not to mention that it would have to seek its funding from a mayor and council members, half of whom are currently under investigation.

From the linked article:

In its press release, the U.S. Attorney’s Office noted that it had collected more than $1.5 billion in “criminal and civil actions and asset forfeitures during the past two years.”

You can rent a lot of office space and legal pads for $1.5 billion in forfeitures.

As far as the question of investigating local politicians, I'd argue two things: a) Gray shutting down the DA would be political suicide; and b) A locally accountable DA would be more likely to investigate, not less. Especially if it were an elected position and a stepping stone to the Mayor's office.

As it is, the USA has no incentive to vigorously serve the residents of DC...and their track record shows this.

by oboe on Dec 1, 2011 1:12 pm • linkreport

For that matter, Oboe and Sarah, where has the US Attorney been on investigating local politicians? The Harry Thomas Jr. case is still lurching about somewhere, no? We think?

They haven't exactly been going nuts on investigating local politicians already. I don't know if making that a local DC would change anything (and admittedly could be worse), but the USAO isn't really a model in DC.

Maybe they think political corruption can just be ignored like, as it if was just a local burglary case.

by Tim Krepp on Dec 1, 2011 1:26 pm • linkreport

It might be equally effective to demand that any tracking technique used to track law-abiding citizens be used to track members of Congress or government officials, with the results published on a web page

This is would be counter to modern notions of the right to privacy as described in #2 below (from wikipedia). You could only disseminate the video of government officials if the video was a matter for public concern (i.e., the official was doing something concerning).

In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:[6]

1. Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters.
2. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
3. False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.
4. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits.

Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.

[6] *William Prosser, Privacy, 48 Calif.L.Rev. 383 (1960).

by Falls Church on Dec 1, 2011 1:31 pm • linkreport

Surprised no one commented on Georgetown feeling like they're losing their social status because they're trading one luxury chain store for another.

by Cavan on Dec 1, 2011 1:49 pm • linkreport

@Oboe, are you making a funny?

Soooo, I'm sure you don't consider nepotism "playing by the rules right." You know, the idea that a mayor can hire his godfather as the city's AG? Or, that an administration official can find a job for a family member/friend in another agency? Oh wait, those things are unethical right?

The people who rail against federal gov't earmarks but secretely advocate to have money directed to their districts aren't really hypocrites since they are only "playing by the rules" right?

I mean come on, enough w/the quadruple standards. If Wells is against bundling, stop bundling. If he's against porn shops moving to Ward 6, then don't do business with those trying to do just that. It's not that complicated.

A wealthy person advocating for the poor is so not the same as a CM railing against bundling, while bundling himself. The former instance is not a case where the wealthy woman is paying substandard wages and providing no insurance to her employees. And I'm sure you know that. You're only intending to defend Wells in this rather indefensible case.

Earmarks aren't illegal. But people rail against them all the time. Most people would consider that angling at the height of hypocrisy.

by HogWash on Dec 1, 2011 2:34 pm • linkreport

"You make it sound harder than it is. If citizens express concern, they can ask their legislators to pass laws extending privacy protections -- no lawsuits or involvement of constitutional lawyers required. Just because we might not have a constitutional right not to be tracked through the streets by our license plates/faces/DNA doesn't mean that we can't demand that the government not do it."

Im not sure one approach excludes the other. Of course we can lobby our representatives to ban things that are constitutional.

but by the same token, just because it has always been constitutional for a policeman to look at you through binoculars, does not mean that SCOTUS needs to reject the notion that even in a public space some degree of govt scrutiny, enabled by modern technology, could make "ordered liberty" impossible. Lets remind ourselves (what the prolifers wont be quiet about) there is NO right to privacy explicit in the constitution - SCOTUS in griswold made it clear that such a right was implicit, as without it other rights would not be meaningful. Now we live in a different world, technologywise, than the era of Griswold. IANAL but I could see a SCOTUS that saw some of what is happening today as a threat to ordered liberty, at least as much as Connecticut's attempts to ban birth control. I couldnt see the CURRENT SCOTUS doing that, but well...

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 1, 2011 2:49 pm • linkreport

@HogWash,

I'm always making a funny.

But I'm not sure I follow your line of argument. There's nothing illegal about Fenty appointing Nickles as AG. As far as I know the mayor can appoint whomever they like. If not, shame on Fenty. If so, what's the problem? Hell, JFK appointed his brother AG.

The people who rail against federal gov't earmarks but secretly advocate to have money directed to their districts aren't really hypocrites since they are only "playing by the rules" right?

I'm not sure of any incidents of politicians "secretly" advocating for earmarks. The whole point of earmarks is that you get to crow about them to the voters back home. And now that you mention it, the 'earmarks' phenomenon is a perfect example of this.

Congress writes legislation, and Congress directs appropriations. An earmark is simply a stipulation that $x be spent in y manner. Currently the system of earmarks is universal, and incredibly popular: both with politicians, and with their constituents. Much like "term limits", what everyone wants is to ban earmarks for everyone else but themselves.

So, yes, a significant (but still tiny) part of government spending is done through earmarks. So a politician is perfectly justified in working to get the system of earmarks eliminated (or made more transparent) while still working to represent the interests of their constituents.

Anyway, I seriously doubt I'll convince you, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

One last thing though: if a politician argues that money is a corrosive force in politics, does that politician have a moral obligation to refuse all campaign contributions, and fund their campaign from whatever meager savings they've managed to scrape together? If not, why not?

by oboe on Dec 1, 2011 3:01 pm • linkreport

@Oboe, There's nothing illegal about Fenty appointing Nickles as AG. As far as I know the mayor can appoint whomever they like. If not, shame on Fenty.

But isn't there something unethical about it? Didn't we just have months of debates about how this administration provided jobs to family members and friends? And the consensus was that it reflected poorly on this administration? Ok. Got it. We won't agree on that point. Kewl beans.

Yes, earmarks are a good example and politicians always want to ban them for someone other than themselves. My point wasn't really to talk about the percentage breakdown because frankly, I'm not superopposed to earmarks in the first place.

I would consider a politician who works to eliminate a system but (until it's made illegal) still chooses participate in the system himself, as a hypocrite. If said politician believes that earmarks are in the interest of his constituents, then that same politician shouldn't campaign to eliminate them.

If a politician argues that wall street money is a corrosive force, then that politician should refuse to accept Wall Street Money. Note, I didn't say "all" money...I said Wall Street Money. It's not possible to run a campaign without money. It is possible to do so w/o Wall Street Money. May not win the election but you still stand on principle.

In Wells' case, it still remains possible for him to serve his constituency without bundling. He chooses to. That's really my point on that. I don't care if he's a bundler either way. Doesn't mean that he shouldn't be called out on his hypocrisy and most certainly doesn't mean he's some sort of shiesty politician tainted by the blood evilness and corruption.

I get it. We all like Saint Tom so there's very little wrong with much of anything he does or will ever do. He's just working with the hand he's been dealt. And until things change, he'll continue to be against bundling..as he continues to bundle.

by HogWash on Dec 1, 2011 4:14 pm • linkreport

No one goes to Georgetown anymore. Its too crowded.

by spookiness on Dec 1, 2011 4:16 pm • linkreport

If Wells is against bundling, stop bundling.

This is the liberal equivalent to the of-repeated Republican talking point, repeated by John Thune just yesterday, that rich people should voluntarily pay more taxes if want to, but a tax increase? Heaven forfend!

by dcd on Dec 1, 2011 4:31 pm • linkreport

..Didn't we just have months of debates about how this administration provided jobs to family members and friends?
I tho't the controversy was that the family members & friends were not qualified/were less qualified than past position holders but recieved salaries higher than the former more qualified past position holders.

by Tina on Dec 1, 2011 4:45 pm • linkreport

@Tina, well sure, that was "part" of the controversy but I believe only a small part. The "real" controversy (as every story and response to this has indicated) was that this administration gave jobs to friends and family. As I recall, there was only one "unqualified" person hired for a position - Sillyman Brown.

Re: salaries, while that too might have been part of it, I don't recall many people arguing that point. Nepotism was the main issue..not qualifications or salaries

by HogWash on Dec 1, 2011 5:21 pm • linkreport

More people leave CA to other states than come in from other states. Those numbers don't account for international immigration or emigration -- which I'm guessing Cali has a lot of.

by Gavin on Dec 1, 2011 5:53 pm • linkreport

@HogWash,

The two charges against Gray were 1) grossly unqualified persons being given positions as a quid pro quo for services rendered, and 2) nepotism, which means giving a marginally qualified family member a job.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that "nepotism" does not mean "hiring someone you know". If that were illegal, every politician with a chief of staff would be barred from office.

Finally, as far as bundling goes, it just seems obvious to me that a politician can work to end the arms race of campaign donations without unilaterally disarming. You call that making excuses for Wells, but I'd flip that and say you seem to be willing to grasp at any straw to lower one of the few decent DC politicians to the sad level of the worst of them.

by oboe on Dec 2, 2011 12:36 am • linkreport

@Oboe, yes you are making another funny. I know what the formal charges against Gray were. But I contend that the publics outrage borne out of the notion that nepotism was in play and the qualifications of the people were second to that. I don't even recall reading any stories here that surmized "well, we're upset that they weren't qualified, not that his staff were hiring old friends and family members." That certainly was never the angle in any of the major news sources. It is why I consistently (see previous GGW comments to fact check) suggested that hiring people you know was a common practice. I even recall many of you then suggesting that I was only comfortable with the "old" way of doing things in DC.

But I am happy to know that at least someone here has acknowledged that this form of 'ism happens all the time. It just became bad under this administration.

BTW, since when has nepotism been defined as showing favoritism to marginally qualified relative/friends? Is that the Herman "I just supported her financially" Cain definition? :)

by HogWash on Dec 2, 2011 10:10 am • linkreport

Nepotism doesn't mean "hiring someone you know," it means "hiring your relative regardless of merit." I guess we could extend that to relatives/friends regardless of merit.

People were upset because they were hiring friends/relatives who were not qualified and not the best people for the jobs and they were hiring them at increased salaries.

HogWash, you're using your interpretation/remembrance/takeaways from news articles and turning them around and saying "this is what the articles said" instead of actually going back and seeing what people WERE saying.

by MLD on Dec 2, 2011 10:33 am • linkreport

In response to your analogy that I seem to be willing to grasp at any straw to lower one of the few decent DC politicians to the sad level of the worst of them, I say HOGWASH!

Of course you didn't notice above but I clearly stated that I don't really care about Wells' bundling and that it most certainly didn't make him tainted by the blood of evilness. And I still feel the same way.

My position is in stark contrast to those make allowances for their favorite pols and figuratively castrates those they don't like. I don't run around deciding if I'm going to be for/against something based solely on whether I like the person - something that does happen here...all too often.

I don't think this does anything more than acknowledge Wells' hypocrisy. IMO, this flip-flop shouldn't send ANYONE to the lower rung of the decency pole, especially Wells....even though he's far from my favorite pol.

See how easy that was? I acknowledged the obvious hypocrisy and still refused to hold the guy to some inconsistent standard.

:)

by HogWash on Dec 2, 2011 10:40 am • linkreport

@MLD, thanks for that. In fact, my response to Oboe was based on what "the people" were saying about this while he noted the "formal complaints."

And yes, the "people" were crying foul over charges that his staff were hiring friends/relatives not qualifications. As I recall, wasn't there only one person deemed unqualified..Silly Brown?

But thanks again and I'm glad you brought this up because I knew at some point we would go back and reevaluate (and in some cases rewrite) the whole Graisco.

by HogWash on Dec 2, 2011 10:47 am • linkreport

And yes, the "people" were crying foul over charges that his staff were hiring friends/relatives not qualifications. As I recall, wasn't there only one person deemed unqualified..Silly Brown?

To remind you, qualifications were a secondary issue with Brown. The most significant issue (by far) was that Gray (or members of his staff) are alleged to have prompted and/or financed Brown's candidacy as a surrogate whose sole purpose was to relentlessly attack Fenty, and that Brown was paid off with a job after the election. In other words, Gray is accused of intentionally subverting the electoral process. That the means of that subversion was woefully for the position he received as a reward for his part in the sad story is a sidelight at best.

Just something to consider as you proclaim, "My position is in stark contrast to those make allowances for their favorite pols[.]"

by dcd on Dec 2, 2011 11:53 am • linkreport

@dcd, Just something to consider as you proclaim, "[Your] position is in stark contrast to those make allowances for their favorite pols[.]"

Did I make any allowances for Gray regarding this? No I haven't. But something you should consider is that the conversation so far has been about substianted facts. What you just talked about was a series of allegations. It's hard to make allowances for an "allegation."

Yes I agree, many Gray detractors did want to make silly Brown's "accusation" the main issue. But I think we now see that their criticism on that issue was over the top and beyond reason. Again, allegations and factual.

Silly Brown vs. Gray = allegation
HThomas vs. HThomas = factual
Barry swindles EOTR money = allegation
Barry smoked crack = factual

by HogWash on Dec 2, 2011 12:44 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us