In defense of Michael C.

    ________________________________________________________________________


    In defense of Michael Cavanagh, there is no defense.

    He, more than anyone, is well aware of how he blew it and when. Why does the county
    commission chairman seem to delight in trying to rub Cavanagh's nose right into his past any
    chance he seems to get?

    Specifically, why besides perhaps that he's sore about the voter fraud allegations that
    Cavanagh levied against a state representative, who also countered voter fraud allegations
    back at Cavanagh?

    But besides all that, though, what else does the commissioner have against the private citizen
    besides that the man, like many, would prefer a smaller, less expensive, safe, more spacious
    jail addition out back of the current jail?




    Why can't Commission Chairman Al Ambrosini control a personal vendetta of his that puts the
    county in such jeopardy of lawsuits, so much of the time when he speaks or writes? Why isn't
    the solicitor's blood pressure through the roof because this happens so often with Ambrosini's
    chatter?

    Why on earth would Ambrosini even want to pen a letter to the editor, with a false allegation
    of Cavanagh and the minority county commissioner, especially if the courthouse mole weren't
    fully positive -- i.e., you know, full reliability of surveillance equipment, refined x-ray vision
    skills to see through the thick old courthouse walls, etc. --  that letter writing to the editor is
    exactly what the two were doing in her office?

    One would think that Ambrosini would have backed off Cavanagh a while ago, when the county
    gave the private citizen his first good reason to sue. Who in his right mind would want to
    further bully or publicly ridicule someone already in a precarious position to sue (from the
    FCBHA/county breach of his privacy) by saying things in the paper about that person already
    wronged once that were untrue? It's one thing to be misquoted or to have a writer deliver an
    otherwise flawless story that, sadly, gets chopped in editing and changed around through no
    fault of the story writer.

    Letters to the editor, though... there's no disputing what was said. There's no taking it back.






    In defense of Cavanagh's treatment from Ambrosini, however, there is a defense.

    Cavanagh is now a twice-publicly-insulted private citizen, just this past year alone, by county
    representatives. There is, of course, this infamous, untrue recent letter to the media from
    Ambrosini that shocks even some of Ambrosini's most faithful supporters.

    Then, don't forget, there's the county's RTK answer, in which the county failed to protect
    Cavanagh's privacy by releasing partially redacted information of written comments from the
    FCBHA director insulting Cavanagh.

    Although the director's printed comments were partially blackened out, the memo mentioning
    him in a most unflattery way as a potential county advisory board member, was still visible and
    could be read, both at this size print and with the page magnified.



    So why would the county commission chairman be so helplessly unable to control his personal
    vendetta against Cavanagh -- if that's what it is -- even  after a county department director
    and county RTK release breached Cavanagh's privacy? We probably would be expecting more
    than a tad too much if he sucked up to Cavanagh to try to smooth that one over.

    But, really, folks, shouldn't Ambrosini have simply and completely ignored Cavanagh's
    existence if he couldn't say anything more positive than a letter full of lies to the media about
    him?




    Why then is the county commission chairman unable to control his personal vendetta against
    the minority commissioner? And why can't the commission chair control his personal vendetta,
    as well, against Cavanagh? They're taking shots at Ambrosini's logic and work. He, on the other
    hand, hasn't discussed or challenged any of their ideas, but takes cheap personal swipes, since
    they oppose his plan to spend a ton of money on a new prison.

    Why won't he seriously critique their ideas about how to resolve the prison over-crowding
    problem?



    Why would Ambrosini simply lie and take personal swipes at their character and be proud
    enough of himself that he had it printed in the paper? Why would he?

    Sorry, but I really don't have all night to go there.



    jt
    9-24-13
    Copyright Protected












    Homepage