But February made me shiver With every paper I'd deliver Bad news on the doorstep I couldn't take one more step
Every word is true.
UPDATE (February 18, 2013): Every word is still true. UPPERDATE (February 22, 2013): Propositions Board (far right column) continues to be revised -- place your bets! [nudge] [wink] [another wink] UPPERERDATE (February 28, 2013): We tried to tell you. Also, new Infytunes (middle column). UPPERERERDATE (March 1, 2013): Anything posted in the foreseeable future will be a Snapchat-like post, with a limited shelf life. Get 'em while they're hot.
Against a persistent background of partisan strife and paralysis, we have witnessed three acts of conciliation in a 24-hour period, perhaps providing a welcome opportunity for Americans to learn, improve, and benefit.
First, President Obama presented a call for cooperation during his State of the Union address; a number of legislators in the audience again broke party seating lines. Both parties' focus on electionyearing is likely to interfere with many opportunities for collaborative progress, but President Obama pulled some partisan punches and there seems reasonable hope that some Republicans could respond productively were the President to offer some consensus-friendly initiatives. The situation in America's government has deteriorated to a point at which even needed legislation on which nearly all can agree is difficult to enact. We experienced a flicker of optimism as some Republicans and some Democrats commented after the President had described the state of our union as "getting stronger."
Next, again on the House of Representatives' legislative floor at the Capitol, a politically ecumenical program this morning celebrated Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' recovery from a horrific, targeted attack by an armed madman -- to a point at which she could deliver her resignation in person -- suggested that members of Congress might be people, too. For a period, it appeared that legislators saw each other not as Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives but instead as fellow Americans.
Those events were scheduled, perhaps even predictable. But then ...
From Harrisburg, this afternoon, arrived the unexpected news that one member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court -- the chief justice, Ronald Castille -- had broken partisan lines to reject this decade's grotesquely contorted legislative reapportionment map.
Let us hope we are detecting the new pattern. Please listen, and enjoy: Infytune:People Get Ready, Curtis Mayfield and bandmates Infytune:Peace Train, Cat Stevens (Yusef Islam) Infytune: Higher Ground, Stevie Wonder (a blind man, alone)
March 28 – Philadelphia – Wells Fargo Center (on sale Jan 28) March 29 – Philadelphia – Wells Fargo Center (on sale Jan 28) April 1 – Washington DC – Verizon Center (on sale Jan 28) April 3 – East Rutherford – Izod Center (on sale Jan 27) April 4 – East Rutherford – Izod Center (on sale Jan 27) April 6 – New York – Madison Square Garden (on sale Jan 27) April 9 – New York – Madison Square Garden (on sale Jan 27) April 12 – Detroit – The Palace of Auburn Hills (on sale Jan 28) April 13 – Buffalo – First Niagara Center (on sale Jan 28) April 17 – Cleveland – Quicken Loans Arena (on sale Jan 28) May 2 – Newark – Prudential Center (on sale Jan 27)
Null Space, switching from the reassessment beat to a bad situation, has unveiled (and aptly named) the huge POS that the City of Pittsburgh, apparently addled by delusions of solvency, is presenting to financial markets.
Mainly, it is InsolvenCity's mayor (or at least the leeches who wind his spring) and the city council president (who doesn't even a have a spring to wind) who are responsible for this return to an unsustainable financial trajectory. For the mayor, this offering is designed to promote re-election by funding a bunch of paving projects and (if history guides) self-promoting trashcans. For the city council president, this spending spree was the cost of doing the business of obtaining the mayor-controlled votes among city councilors for her re-election. For everyone else in Pittsburgh -- well, you voted for these knuckleheads, so reach for the Vaseline and hope for the best.
InsolvenCitiers should hope this POS is the final payment by Darlene Harris on her account with the mayor's office.
Despite her association with the Pittsburgh Urban Magnet Project, we perceive Erin Molchany's expression of interest in the campaign for state representative from the 27th District as a positive development. The seat is currently occupied by Dan Deasy, known principally for using his water authority position to steer profits to List-Makers at ratepayer expense. (With Deasy's help, reptilian scavenger RDM seems to be preparing to rise again from PWSA's brackish pool shortly.)
Infinonymous declares with confidence, with nearly all precincts reported, that the decisive winner in the 2012 South Carolina Republican presidential primary is President Barack Obama.
As sentient citizens begin to sense that Dan Onorato (right, comparing political dreams with Hillary Clinton) sabotaged the most recent reassessment project (at a cost of millions of taxpayers dollars) for selfish political gain, and Judge Wettick regrettably rewards the immoral recalcitrance of fat-cat-feeding conservatives masquerading as Democrats, this seems an appropriate point at which to review (bold type signals the better bits):
A trip to the Null Space archives is always worthwhile for those who like information and insight. Or for city editors wondering how a newspaper would cover this situation.
UPDATE: After reports such as this one, if anything happens to Chris Briem, Rich Fitzgerald and the rest of the gang that couldn't assess fairly will need a strong alibi.
Which law firm recently hired two former clerks to Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick?
Which law firm was hired by Rich Fitzgerald to defend the indefensible in the assessment litigation assigned to Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick?
It might be worthwhile to determine when that firm became aware it would be engaged to represent the new Allegheny County administration in Judge Wettick's courtroom, and how many former clerks of Judge Wettick that firm had employed before the assessment litigation commenced.
BONUS QUESTION: Has anyone informed the public about how much taxpayers will pay a law firm to help Rich Fitzgerald try to dodge a unanimous Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling?
The Allegheny County Democratic Committee today announced the appointment -- not the election, the appointment; anyone have a set of bylaws handy? -- of several new officers.
(One curious change involves the treasurer's position; unless a resignation by Edward Abes was not publicized, why was a new treasurer appointed?)
The lineup announced today -- unproven show horses -- sends an unmistakable message to the Obama campaign preparing for the November election: You are entirely on your own, Mr. President, in Allegheny County.
Organizing for America and MoveOn were already doing most of the substantive lifting for Democrats in Allegheny County, but the press release from the Allegheny County Democratic Committee suggests "most" has become "all."
UPDATE: A couple of sources claim that the reorganization did not comply with the committee's written rules ("for a reason," one wrote -- without identifying that reason). Another correspondent states that the average age of the four announced officers is 70, suggesting "somebody out there does not want this Committee to be very active." Our preliminary hunch: the county Democratic Committee just became a redhead's stepchild.
Andrew Taglianetti, with a brief and unscripted display of instinctive character, yesterday provided a moral example for the adults who have so calculatedly diminished college football and educational institutions in recent months.
Taglianetti (left), a fourth-year junior at Pitt, spent the first week of this semester's academic calendar not in class but instead in Alabama, learning that football trumps academics at Pitt. He was in Birmingham to participate in low-grade television programming masquerading as a bowl game, a farce whose result was not only deemed unworthy of mention on the Post-Gazette's main online sports page this morning but indeed was listed fourteenth -- of fourteen stories -- on the P-G page devoted to Pitt athletics.
Long after it had been determined that Pitt would lose to an unranked team from a lackluster conference, Andrew Taglianetti was still playing hard in the fourth quarter against Southern Methodist University. He tackled SMU runner Jared Williams with a clean, low, shoulder-first hit that, by gruesome happenstance, snapped Williams' femur. Taglianetti knew immediately that Williams had been severely injured; the break could be heard along the sideline. Taglianetti was responsible, but not culpable, for Williams' injury, but that distinction did not diminish Taglianetti's vividly displayed anguish. Taglianetti did not calculate; he immediately put his hands to his head, fell to his knees, touched his forehead to the ground, and rose to curse fate. Despite the apparent emotional devastation, Taglianetti approached Williams in an obvious expression of regret as trainers assisted Williams for several minutes. When Williams, prone on a gurney, was ready to leave the field for a hospital, Taglianetti stood with Williams (right), empathetically tapping the injured man's chest. Taglianetti seemed shaken for several minutes after play resumed.
Taglianetti's exhibition of sportsmanship, accountability, perspective, and decency would deserve credit in any circumstance. Its purity and context, however, created a striking, instructive comparison with the self-serving, substandard conduct of the grown-ups overseeing the seedy business of football at Pitt and Penn State. Penn State administrators, who focused on public relations and money after it was revealed that their institution's deplorable conduct had concealed and facilitated the rape of children, and Pitt officials, who have poorly served the student athletes they are ostensibly educating, could learn much from Andrew Taglianetti.
There is scant evidence that Penn State or Pitt has learned the appropriate lessons yet, but so long as our Andrew Taglianettis -- who deserve better from their elders -- are better than their elders, we are hopeful.
We hope Judge Tony Wettick (right) recognizes that he -- like the victims of unconstitutionally unfair taxation looking to him for vindication -- has been rope-a-doped by disingenuous and morally bankrupt elected officials for some time.
Dan Onorato and Rich Fitzgerald have relied on delay and chaos for years and, with Judge Wettick's acquiescence, have succeeded. Some observers have suggested that Judge Wettick must choose today between 1) jailing Fitzgerald for the most recent cynical maneuver or 2) rewarding the rope-a-dopers by delaying the delivery of justice for another year (while providing another year for more maneuvering).
We humbly wonder whether Judge Wettick might chart a different course. Why not forbid Allegheny County to collect another dime of taxes based on the unfairly inaccurate assessments? We suspect such a ruling would induce the appropriate public officials to find a prompt and just solution.
The expressions of InsolvenCity's council members revealed more than did the votes and appointments that set the stage for another year of dysfunction among the City of Pittsburgh's elected leaders.
In quintessential fifth floor fashion, the mayor, his minions, and nine city councilors alienated allies, roiled relationships, and forged faithless allegiances to accomplish not even a feint at progress but instead the maintenance of a mediocre status quo. Another improbable broken-field run places Darlene Harris in the council president's chair, this time leaving an even more broken field. A recipe for a combination of free-for-all and free-fall.
Accepting her colleagues' affirmation, Harris (left, reaching for swearing-in Bible) looked every bit the Bride of Lukenstein she had become, jolted into a tortured approximation of political life by strange applications of power and chemistry. She has her presidency, but is not quite sure how or why it came to creation, and even her flickering faculties sense there is something unnatural and doomed about it.
Patrick Dowd, who bartered his vote for . . . who knows what? Not even a hackneyed horror script could devise a plot lurch in which Dowd received anything worthwhile. On this day, his was the pivotal vote (except in the fantasy world of the Post-Gazette's local political coverage). But his expression indicated that he knew not one of his eight colleagues would ever consider him reliable again. If there was a strategy or benefit associated with this vote, it is known, or perhaps exists, only in the mind of Patrick Dowd.
Ricky Burgess looked like a student whose forged hall pass just fooled one teacher but is not expected to carry him all the way to the parking lot. He has the finance chair, but can not count on anything after today.
Theresa Kail Smith, maid of honor for a day, had the look of an outsider who had maneuvered her way into the "in" crowd, but who realized she would probably be back to her customary level of popularity tomorrow.
Corey O'Connor displayed the genuine smile of someone who was overwhelmed, mostly by good things like inauguration and a marriage proposal, but also by the recognition he was now responsible for voting on public policy despite barely understanding what he had gotten himself into. He looked much like fellow Central Catholic graduate Tino Sunseri in a collapsing pocket, two long seconds after the ball should have been thrown.
Bruce Kraus, Bill Peduto, and Natalia Rudiak tried but could not hide shell shock. Three faces, one expression, evoking Jon Lovitz in a Saturday Night Live presidential debate as Michael Dukakis, who, when asked to comment on the inane mumbling of Dana Carvey's George Bush (the older, competent one), offered concise rebuttal: "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" Watch:
Daniel Lavelle just looked happy that his first day of this year's council term could not be as face-plant disastrous as his first day one year ago.
We will leave it to others to perform the detailed autopsy on this year's council, a body decomposing less than one hour into its new life. Divided government has its virtues in some circumstances, but this council is too divided to stand or crawl. Two men put Harris back into the president's position; one hates her, the other dislikes her. As of today, those sentiments are shared by the council colleagues who stood by Harris as the mayor attempted to whack her. There is no discernible majority for anything; not for good government, not for mayoral sycophancy, not for ham-handed corruption, not for any identifiable strategy, not for any sensible tactic.
Can InsolvenCity, still failing after a sustained period of decline, afford the year of paralysis precipitated by today's exhibition of fifth floor dysfunction? What spooked the largely intact majority into splintering? Does anyone other than the List-Makers (and, perhaps, Jeff Thomas) stand to benefit from today's events?
Some (such as Trib headline writers in distant counties) may infer that the animation of the Bride of Lukenstein indicates that Mayor Ravenstahl has regained control of the levers of power. But most people forget that the beneficiary of the bride's creation was not Frankenstein but instead Frankenstein's monster. Frankenstein was the guy who threw the switches and pulled the levers -- and that still is not Luke Ravenstahl, not by a long shot. Far more likely, Pittsburgh will spend this year traveling downhill with no one at the wheel. That's right, another horror movie.
A series of recent developments -- including a telling vote, a few hushed assignations, and at least one inchoate backstabbing along a fifth-floor hallway at the City-County Building -- incline adjustment of the no-longer-early betting lines for InsolvenCity's council presidency and finance chair, and we have reached the point at which favorites are published in bold type (with former odds in parentheses):
Council president (1) Darlene Harris: 2-3 (4-1) (2) Theresa Kail Smith: 40-1 (3) Bruce Kraus: 8-1 (3-1) (4) Natalia Rudiak: 15-1 (7-2) (5) Corey O'Connor: 5-1 (12-1) (6) Daniel Lavelle: 40-1 (7) Patrick Dowd: 99-1 (40-1) (8) Bill Peduto: 15-1 (25-1) (9) Ricky Burgess: 40-1 Lukefecta (2, 6, 9 vote together): 1-8 (1-3)
Council finance chair (1) Darlene Harris 40-1 (3-1) (2) Theresa Kail Smith: 40-1 (3) Bruce Kraus: 15-1 (4-1) (4) Natalia Rudiak: 15-1 (5-2) (5) Corey O'Connor: 25-1 (6) Daniel Lavelle: 40-1 (7) Patrick Dowd: 2-1 (40-1) (8) Bill Peduto: 10-1 (8-1) (9) Ricky Burgess: 40-1 Daily Double (1, 3 in either order): 25-1 (7-2)
Local newspapers are putting big headlines on stories spurred by an "expert report" filed by InsolvenCity's lawyers in their continuing attempt to defend the seemingly indefensible police officers who beat an honors student senseless over an illusory plastic soda bottle. Why?
The report exonerates the people who engaged a hired-gun, police-favoring "expert" to write it. This is news?
The report concludes that Jordan Miles (left) "must" have known that the three nonuniformed men who chased and beat him for no apparent reason (in this case, no reason apparent before or after the brutal beating) were police officers. Why? Because the officers were trained to identify themselves, and performing as trained is a reflex, making the training adequate evidence of conduct consistent with that training.
The power of training led the expert to describe (and rely on) a remarkably specific narrative: "It is my opinion that in order for Jordan Miles not to have known that the males who attempted to stop him and whom he eventually struggled with were police officers . . . He would have to have not heard any of the constant repetition of 'Police. Stop. Police.'" Training is, in this expert's opinion, so strong it supports reliance on inferred and detailed dialogue in contested circumstances.
If this training-based inference helps InsolvenCity concerning the issue of shouted warnings, it surely creates a problem for the officers concerning their failure to produce as evidence the plastic soda bottle that ostensibly triggered the savage attack, right? Police officers are trained to preserve important evidence, so the absence of the bottle, in circumstances in which that evidence would be not only important but indeed crucial in a case involving a severe beating, suggests the bottle never existed, right? Especially in a circumstance in which the officer allege that they found the bottle but nevertheless "discarded" it (which would likely eviscerate at least a chapter in the training manual), right?
After considering these points, the expert concluded that the officers' inability to produce the bottle as evidence in these circumstances means . . . nothing.
The expert deems this disregard of training a "mistake" attributable to "human nature," but claims the officers are nonetheless to be excused, and the existence of the bottle to be presumed despite the "training equals conduct" theory, because the officers were acting in the wake of "what they believed to be a life or death struggle."
In other words, the city's expert proposes, the point that excuses the officers' disregard of training is the very point that made the evidence so crucial and therefore, by training, required to have been preserved.
We won't know whether the expert for Jordan Miles is any better for a couple of days. But neither side's lawyers seem particularly sharp in this case. One of Miles' lawyers called the report "kind of racist-based," which doesn't even sound like something a law-talking guy (right) would say (hit soundboard #39):
Lionel Hutz, Esq.: I move for a bad court thingy. Judge Snyder:You mean a mistrial? Hutz: Right!! That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy. Judge: You mean the lawyer? Hutz: Right.
For Jordan Miles' (and justice's) sake, we hope the judge and jury devote more attention to the facts and witnesses than to the experts and law-talking guys.
Even before the wonderful store of Christmas cookies has been exhausted, 'tis the season for half-baked arguments in InsolvenCity.
KDKA Radio's Marty Griffin (left) is self-righteously railing about Allegheny County assessments this morning, spreading stories of scary tax increases that, he says, are soon to confront residents of downtown Pittsburgh and the Strip District. Griffin's claims -- that owners of Strip District homes will soon experience ten-fold increases in property taxes, for example -- turn out to be more slapstick that scary, however, if examined even briefly.
The reason tax bills in the Strip District are certain to increase in general is that luxury condominiums have supplanted abandoned warehouses. The (rare) owner of an unimproved Strip District home may encounter a slight tax increase because of the Strip's general rising tide (which makes that home more valuable), but Griffin is conflating granite-and-mahogany penthouses with siding-and-spackle tenements. A (subsidized) $1.2 million loft will -- and should -- generate a far greater tax obligation than did the broken-window rathole it replaced. The outrage is that the loft-dweller has been permitted to shirk civic obligations for years by Dan Onorato's Reverse Robin Hood Theory Of Low-Rent Politics Taxation.
Griffin's half-cocked rant also overlooks the crucial role of tax rates in calculation of tax obligations. Most assessments will increase, because values have increased, but an increased assessment does not necessarily signal an increased tax obligation. To the contrary, an increased assessment could generate a reduction in tax obligation, because Pennsylvania law will obligate taxing agencies to reduce tax rates in proportion to the increased assessments.
Reassessment does not involve the aggregate burden of real estate taxation nearly so much as the identification of which property owners are forced to shoulder that burden. Dan Onorato, Rich Fitzgerald, and Marty Griffin prefer that average (and below-average) property owners subsidize discounts for the affluent.
Griffin's statements could support an inference that he doesn't even know what he doesn't know, but we believe it more likely that Griffin is aware of the factors that render his simplistic analysis so misleading. Which, for him, is worse; profound ignorance would reflect far better on Griffin that any of the other conceivable explanations.
A bizarre report concerning the Pitt football coaching search from today's Post-Gazette:
A third candidate, Ohio State defensive coordinator Luke Fickell, who was made interim coach after the forced resignation of former coach Jim Tressel, interviewed for the job but Chryst made a good impression with a strong interview.
Who was impressed? The three administrators who signed Dave Wannstedt to an extension, then fired him less than a year later? The proven losers who arranged the Michael Haywood era? The Three Stooges who were impressed by Todd Graham's interview? The guys who chose Keith "This Infytune's For You" Patterson as interim coach?
If Steve Pederson does not depart before another football coach is introduced (or before Khem Birch returns to campus, whichever occurs first), Pitt's trustees should stop indulging Mark Nordenberg's desire to limp to the capstone of the current capital campaign.
Instead, however, those trustees will enable Steve Pederson, Jerry Cochran, and Mark Nordenberg to treat Pitt fans to a double feature: "Back To The Future" -- Parts I and II. (Perhaps the Pitt band could develop a special musical presentation for intermission.)
FOR PRIMER ON ODDS, SEE PROPOSITIONS POINTERS AT END OF BOARD LISTINGS
****FEATURED LINES***** ***********************
RAVENSTAHL PROSECUTION
Original presentment
Luke unindicted co-consprtr 4-1
Luke immunity for testimony 3-1
Luke indicted 3-5
State's evidence against Luke (must testify or affidavit)
(no action w/o charges)
F.Crawford 1-3
A.Bedway 1-2
P.Ford 1-1
N.Harper 3-2
D.Sciulli 3-2
M.Gauntner 3-2
Y.Zober 3-2 R,Gigliotti 2-1
A.Lazowski 2-1
J.Verbanac 2-1 Lamar Media 2-1
C.Zappala 3-1 R.Burgess 3-1
R.Stephany 3-1
D.Lavelle 6-1
Luke's wife (or ex) 9-1
Luke's girlfriend 5-1
Huss (Mr. or Mrs.) 4-3
INSOLVENCITY MAYOR
General Election
B.Peduto 1-12
D.Harris 99-1
J.Wander 99-1
Field 15-1
GOP (10-1) 50-1
GOP (other than Onorato) 51-1
independent (6-1) 12-1
endorsed Democrat (5-2) LOST
RAVENSTAHL INDICTMENT by 6/30/2013 (3-1) 2-1
by 12/31/2013 (3-2) 6-5
by 12/31/2014 1-1
L. RAVENSTAHL
serves full term 1-1
appoints 'interim mayor' 10-1
*****CLOSED LINES****
***********************
PITTSBURGH MAYOR 2013
Democratic Primary
B.Peduto (6-5) PAID
M.Lamb (3-1) LOST
J.Wagner (7-5) LOST
L.Ravenstahl (30-1) LOST
J.Ferlo (9-2) LOST
D.Onorato (25-1) LOST
D.Harris (9-1) LOST
R.Burgess (9-1) LOST
J.Wheatley (20-1) LOST
ORIE-ZAPPALA WAR
Jo.Orie convicted 1-1 PAID
Ja.Orie convicted PAID Jo.Orie off bench PAID
L.RAVENSTAHL INDICTMNT
by 12/31/2012 8-1LOST
***CURRENT LINES*****
***********************
US PRESIDENT 2015 H.Clinton 4-1 C.Christie 8-1
D.Patrick 15-1
C.Booker 15-1
any Bush 20-1
J.Biden 20-1
P.Ryan 20-1
M.Rubio 20-1
R.Perry 20-1
T.Cruz 20-1
S.Palin 99-1
R.Santorum 99-1
Republican 4-3
Democrat 3-5
Third party 15-1
PA GOVERNOR 2014
Republican 1-1
T.Corbett (1-1) 5-4
Democrat 3-2
FIRST TO OCCUR
Big Ben paternity suit 6-1
Mrs. Big Ben splits 3-1
Ravenstahl arrested 3-1
UPMC is non-nonprofit 6-1
Palin kid a college grad 12-1
Obama on Supreme Ct 30-1
Rooneys pay for something 40-1
FIRST FIRED
M.Huss (3-1) 2-1
T.Corbett (4-1) 2-1
F.Coonelly 4-1
R.Coury 6-1
J.Romoff 10-1
M. Tomlin 12-1
HEINZ LEAVES BURGH
by 12/31/2013 7-1
by 12/31/2014 4-1
by 12/31/2015 2-1
by 12/31/2016 1-1
by 6/31/2017 2-3
by 12/31/2017 1-3
2013 PIRATES
winning season (5-2) 3-2
payroll dump 2-5
trade Cutch 3-1
trade Alvarez 3-2
>1 All-Star 1-1
INSOLVENCITY PARKING
PRIVATEERING by 12/31/13 (8-1) 10-1 by 12/31/14 (7-1) 10-1 NEXT STEELERS ARREST
B.Roethlisberger 5-1
P.Burress 5-1 J.Harrison (6-1) LOST S.McBeam 10-1 any Rooney 25-1 M.Tomlin 99-1 Field 1-1
PROPOSITIONS TERMS **************** Wagers accepted while proposition posted (until removed); dds may be revised at any time without advance notice; no winner paid without ticket; all bets are action upon acceptance by management. 10% commission deducted from successful wagers PROPOSITIONS POINTERS The number expressed after a proposition identifies the line, or ratio by which wagers for that proposition would be paid upon occurrence of the proposed event. A line of 2-1 indicates that a dollar successfully wagered would generate a $2 winning (with return of the $1 wagered, for an aggregate payment of $3). A line of 1-1 indicates that a dollar successfully wagered would generate a $1 winning (with return of the $1 wagered, for an aggregate payment of $2). A line of 3-5 indicates that a successful $5 wager would generate a $3 winning (and aggregate payment of $8). The greater the ratio the first number bears to the second, the less likely the proposed event is expected to occur.) Examples: 99-1 extreme odds; remote probability 15-2 high odds; low probability 1-1 even odds; 50-50 probability 2-15 low odds; high probability 1-99 extreme odds; overwhelming probability
Maintaining tradition, the county committee's statement did not address the 
Can InsolvenCity, still failing after a sustained period of decline, afford the year of paralysis precipitated by today's exhibition of fifth floor dysfunction? What spooked the largely intact majority into splintering? Does anyone other than the List-Makers (and, perhaps, Jeff Thomas) stand to benefit from today's events?
