Sunday, July 30, 2006

Escalation of claims (was: Echoes from the Whinery)

Once again, the smoke and mirrors of the Doug Wilson Empire have gotten us off track. I don’t give a rat’s fanny if Doug had a condom in his mailbox. I don’t give a rat’s fanny if the other thirty people with a condom in their mailbox that week (and there were likely that many, given Moscow is a college town) did or didn’t report it. It is beside the point. Doug’s postage stamp-size smelly spot on a window (to which every kid in the area had access), and the general run-of-the-mill tire damage Doug has experienced are also beside the point.

Doug, in a police report, has groundlessly implicated folks with whom he has a political beef. THIS, my fine neighbors, is the point. No evidence, just baseless opportunistic slander. If my roof falls in, my children are unhappy, my tractor breaks down, traffic blocks my instant access to my driveway, or the last item on sale is gone when I arrive, I do NOT assume a conspiracy from my political enemies. In fact, I would love to be able to do that. Unfortunately, I can’t. It is my responsibility to maintain my roof, teach my children to find happiness in their lives, lube my tractor, understand traffic flow patterns, and manage my time and money.

And — listen up, Doug — it is also my responsibility to maintain good relationships with my community. If I, like you, had spent the past twenty-ish years telling the larger community what a bunch of evil losers they are, I might expect the community to retaliate every chance they had. Whether or not the community did retaliate, my own guilt and paranoia over my own bad behavior might prompt me towards groundless accusations.

Doug Wilson has made no FRIENDS in the larger community. He knows he has offended just about everyone not associated with his church. He knows his behavior has been reprehensible. He expects everyone to behave the way he behaves . . . petty retaliation, character assassination, vitriole couched in religious garb, evasion, nasty practical jokes, and just plain vicious slander. In Doug World, a random act of rudeness means all the enemies he self-manufactured are banding together and out to get him? Perhaps paranoia, perhaps another example of the Wilson Do unto others before they do unto you tactics. He continues to get away with bad behavior while shrieking about how he is victimized. Poor whiney Doug. . .

One more time — everyone join in the chorus — Doug, Honey, get over your old fat self!! Nobody who really dislikes you cares quite enough about you to stop what they are doing in the middle of the night and drive a condom to your mailbox. You just are not that Flippin’ Important. All the people you named in the police report are involved in real lives. Just because their real lives don’t involve you anymore is no reason to slander them. Oh, wait, that’s the Wilson Way . . . sorry, I forgot my Moscow History for just a moment.

There must be a couple of thousand people on the Palouse who despise you — shall we collect names for your next police report?


Saturday, July 29, 2006

Ted’s car (was: Escalation of claims)

Joan et. al.

Thanks for your reply.

I warmly recall your concern and offer of “The Beast” (isn’t that what you called it?) as a temporary replacement vehicle, at the time my car was vandalized.

I’d rather not be too critical against the Latah Sheriff Dept.’s conduct in the case of my vandalized car, for a number of reasons. They had answers regarding how they conducted themselves in this case. But I agree you raise valid questions regarding their conduct in this incident.

The tow fee is one of those cases where the victim of a crime gets victimized again due to how the system works. When property someone owns presents a hazard to public safety, like having a car left in the middle of the road, even though the fact of the car being in the road occurred because of the commission of a crime, not by my doing, the owner still can get stuck with a tow bill. And the tires were all flat, so the car had to be dragged or towed off the road, not just pushed. Law enforcement felt public safety dictated getting the car off the road as quickly as possible via a tow truck. Law enforcement apparently does not feel compelled to pay the bill in these cases. That lovely expense falls on the owner of the vehicle.

Anyway, I did not check into the details of the law in regards to the tow fee I was expected to pay, so I really do not know all the legal issues involved. The whole incident was so upsetting I just wanted it to go away. . .

My main point was, the level of vandalism I experienced makes a mailbox condom, a few flat tires, and a window mess, seem rather tame by comparison. Yet I felt, knowing the seriousness of implicating someone as a suspect, and the lack of evidence I had regarding who committed the crime, that I could be sending law enforcement on fishing expeditions, possibly causing harm to totally innocent people, to name anyone, though there were certain individuals I suspected and still suspect. It’s entirely possible total strangers vandalized my car.

I think it natural of Wilson to be concerned that these incidents of “vandalism” might be indicative of a pattern that could involve much more serious actions in the future, or continuing actions of the same nature, thus the need to call law enforcement to report the incidents, or to expect more monitoring of his residence.

As has been made clear, it is the naming of individuals as suspects with no good evidence they were involved that is questionable, individuals some of whom I highly doubt would commit such juvenile prankish vandalism, at least now that they are mature adults, though I know nothing about several of the individuals named in Wilson’s statement.


Ted’s car (was: Escalation of claims)

Hi Ted,

I do remember when this happened to your car. It was dreadful! The damage was very clearly deliberate, targeted, and it took someone or some persons, multiple, quite some time to complete the job. That you did not supply the Sheriff’s Department with a speculative “enemies list” is a credit to your integrity. What a great opportunity to take a whack at old adversaries or present irritants! I still cannot fathom that you were obliged to pay $100 to retrieve your battered car from the towing yard, or that the deputies on call did not bother to contact you (even though you were at home) before towing your vehicle.

This is vandalism. This is harassment. This is worthy of police time and inquiry. Doug has experience nothing like what Ted suffered. What Doug has done is taken diddly-squat and turned it into a means to discredit a few of his critics. That their names are now in the public record as possible condom-stalkers and dung-flingers is a disgrace. That Doug has turned a couple of flat tires and a dirty window into a means of damaging the reputations of five people he happens to dislike ought to be treated as slander. Again, let’s have an investigation. Doug says in his statement that he doesn’t want one. I’ll bet not. But the people he names deserve and investigation. Perhaps it will serve to polish their now tarnished reputations.

Auntie Establishment

A little Doug music

I fear that this is like shouting down a rain barrel. At this point, if Doug Wilson stood in the middle of Friendship Square farted into a megaphone, Donovan and company would claim that they’d just heard the London Philharmonic playing Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony. There is no silly, rude, cruel or offensive thing Doug Wilson can do without a collection of fact-free defenders leaping to his aid. Have any of them read the actual complaint? If so, then they fail to demonstrate any familiarity with its contents. Do any of them know the named “suspects” on Doug’s enemies list? Then they clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about them.

Poor Doug Wilson. What a victim! He breaks the law; the law bends. He violates City Zoning Ordinance; the ordinance is changed. I’ve seen no evidence that his assorted businesses have suffered or that he’s been asked to do anything other than obey the laws that are supposed to apply equally to us all. That he hasn’t, and that he’s gotten away with it, does seem to put paid to the whole “poor me” show. I hope Gary or Tony or Dick or Donovan play the violin. Can’t have a good pity party without one.

Auntie Establishment

Escalation of claims NOT normal procedure

Joan et. al.

Joan may remember the extreme vandalism committed against a vehicle I owned in the spring of 2005. I communicated with Joan at that time about this incident. The level of violence and destruction against said vehicle makes Wilson’s “harassment” look like a playful punch in the shoulder from a buddy compared to a having someone drop kick your face into the pavement losing your front teeth in a bloody fractured enameled mess.

My car windows were smashed out, doors frames bent, it looked like from being impacted by a cinder block, tires flattened. . . The car had been pushed or towed into the road from the parking area by the vandals, blocking traffic. Consider this was on a rural gravel road, the crime was committed in the early morning hours on a Saturday, and my car was parked a distance away from the residence.

When Latah Sheriff deputies showed up, having been notified by someone driving that the road was blocked, they had my vandalized car towed, sticking me with the 100 dollar tow bill. I was sound asleep the whole time.

After my car was towed away, the two Latah Sheriff deputies pounded on my door, waking me up. They informed me what had happened, and told me the identity of the tow truck business where my car was being held.

And the main relevance of this story to the naming of “suspects” by Wilson regarding the alleged “harassment?”

During my brief discussion of the vandalizing of my car with the Latah Sheriff deputies, one of them asked if I had any enemies, or could give them names of suspects. I offered none. Sure, I could have reeled off a list of people who might or do have something against me for one reason or another. But I felt I had nothing solid to go on to name anybody.

I am not as naive as some on this list who seem to think that offering the police names of individuals who might be suspects in a crime, when you have no solid evidence to implicate them, is a trifling issue. I think it is highly ethically questionable to implicate others in crimes without solid grounds.

I could expand in great detail on this theme regarding the negative consequences of my name being unfairly given to law enforcement to implicate me in a crime, based on flimsy, unfounded ”evidence.” This can damage reputation, limit employment options, subject someone to embarrassing police scrutiny, if not harassment, etc.

We see cases in the media where just naming someone as a suspect in a crime does tremendous damage to the person named, even when later they are totally exonerated. And police reports are public documents, are they not?

It would appear so, given that the police reports in question are now on Tom Hansen’s web site. I don’t think law enforcement would release them to the public if they were meant to be kept “secret,” unless forced legally by some means

Hansen, Metzler, et. al. are all justified in being very concerned about this issue, in my opinion.


Echoes From the Whinery

I think vandalism has been pretty roundly condemned, Donovan, when and where it exists. Sorry if that’s not been clear to you. What’s also been condemned is a pastor’s naming as suspects a handful of people who have had the temerity to leave his church and criticize him publicly — with no evidence that they have ever committed any crime whatsoever. Perhaps it’s not clear to some that leaving Christ Church and criticizing Doug Wilson is not a crime. In fact, it may be a virtue.


Escalation of claims NOT normal procedure

Another anonymous chickenshit writes:
Wonder, when Mary’s car was smeared with dog dung, if the police asked her about any enemies or suspicions she might have had? If she did, I’m sure (to be as helpful as possible) she readily complied. It wouldn’t surprise me if she mentioned a select few Kirkers as suspects.

When Joan’s car was smeared with dung, she didn’t bother to call the cops. She just washed the car. And then she washed it again. It takes a lot of washing to get that smell out of the air intakes. Does Joan suspect her car was smeared by Kirkers? I don’t know — does she have reason to? At the time, she suspected it was just some jackass with a turd in his pocket.

That’s her story, and she’s sticking to it. She’s had a few screws in her tires as well, but there’s a lot construction going on around town, and Les Schwab repairs those punctures for free. A minor irritation, but no harm done.

Should she find herself growing paranoid about turds or screws or zoning complaints, she’ll probably seek out a licensed therapist rather than calling the Po-Po.

Auntie Establishment

Escalation of claims, or normal procedure?

Again, there is no reason to think that any of the people that Wilson listed “wished him harm.” Why is it so hard for Wilson to just accept that many people disagree with him and are vocal about their disagreement?

And if “Mary” or anyone else list Wilson as a “suspect” in some act of vandalism just because he has publicly criticized them, that would be equally irresponsible. Two wrongs do not make a right. You can’t justify your actions just because you think that your enemies would do the same thing.

Lastly, as I noted, Wilson is playing the same game on his blog — publicly accusing Metzler of something without providing any evidence to support his charge. The fact that Metzler was a former student of his makes his actions even more reprehensible.


Echoes From the Whinery

It is a shame, Tony, that you and Wilson are unable to distinguish between verbal criticism and physical harassment, or the difference between a hunch and a belief supported by evidence.


Friday, July 28, 2006

Escalation of claims (was: Echoes from the Whinery)

Joe is quite right. The escalation of claims — from a nail in a tire to tires slashed, to calling this a campaign of terror — is outrageous. When did “There’s a condom in my mailbox” become “Play Misty for Me?” A smelly smudge on a picture window is not the work of the Nightstalker. No one I know approves of actual vandalism, but let’s not pretend that that’s what this is. Doug Wilson has suspicions. He’s had a couple of flat tires. He’s had a condom in his mailbox. He’s been obliged to break out the Windex with Ammonia D. And, lest we forget, Doug includes as “harassment” legitimate legal zoning complaints. He writes this specifically in his statement.

There is no relationship between dirty condoms and zoning complaints. None. Moscow Zoning Code forbade educational institutions in the Central Business District. That was a fact. The previous City Council had to rewrite zoning code to permit New St. Andrews to operate in the CBD. City Council first legitimized the complaint and then rendered it moot. Is this in any way related to a screw in a tire? Prove it.

Prove all of it. Show me the money. Photograph the screws. Photograph the stinky window. Document these complaints and then ask Moscow Police to investigate. In fact, I think the five (not four) people Doug Wilson names should insist that this be investigated. They’ve been named and shamed without evidence, without proof, without recourse. How fair is that? I’d rank it right up there with asking “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Auntie Establishment

Echoes From the Whinery


It is hard for me to determine what has actually happened to Wilson. I am interested in knowing the basis of your claims below, for instance? Did you see nails in Wilson’s drive way? Did you help him change some of his tires?

I don’t know of anyone who would cheer violent acts toward another individual, whether or not they agreed with the individuals religious and political views. Vandalism is always wrong, as far as I can see.

But what proof do we have that violence or vandalism has actually been done to Wilson? Furthermore, what proof do we have that Wilson’s political critics have had anything to do with it, even if it did happen?

I know of at least two persons, both critics of Wilson, who have had dog feces speared on the inside (in one case) and outside (in another case) of their cars. If I think that Wilson had something to do with this — perhaps only indirectly, since he suggests that violent behavior toward gays and lesbians is justified — does that give me the right to say in public that he is responsible for it? I don’t think so.

We need to get a better grip about what’s going on here. You can start by telling me exactly how Wilson has been harmed and what EVIDENCE there is to believe that such harm has occurred.



Echoes From the Whinery


I’ll one up you. Wilson not only offered no evidence that anyone committed any acts against him, he offered no evidence that the alleged acts of vandalism even took place. Further, he offered no evidence that anyone has acted with “malice” towards him either. However, Wilson’s Information Report with the Moscow Police Dept. is a perfect example of his unaccountability. He walked in off the street and named five possible suspects to a series of crimes that for all we know never took place. Wilson directly connected five names with sordid accusations in the public record, attended by absolutely no evidence, and he did it with complete impunity.

Finally, I personally take offense at his misrepresentation regarding the various complaints against his manifold illegal operations. The Moscow City Council as well as the Board of Adjustment upheld the zoning complaint, and the Latah County Commissioners, acting as the Board of Equalization, upheld the original challenge to their property-tax exemption.

Therefore, if these lawful challenges constitute “harassment,” then Wilson should complain that the City Council and the Latah County Commissioners harassed him. Do you think Jack Nelson left the Trojan in Wilson’s mailbox? Not likely. And it really doesn’t matter because I am confident that the event never took place and that Wilson fabricated the whole thing, as he does most of his vain imaginations, which is why he needs to be held accountable. Liars make good criminals, but they make horrible ministers.


The nature of the complaint

On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Joe wrote:

The point is not that Wilson shouldn’t have filed a police report.

The point is that he has used his misfortunes as an opportunity to punish and silence his critics. Wilson named the names of four persons in the police report yet provided no evidence that any of them had anything to do with any of violence committed against him. That is irresponsible.

Or are you suggesting that just because you’ve been critical of some of my comments I now have the right to, say, list you as a possible suspect should something happen to my private property or to me? That would be ridiculous and wrong of me to do and you know it. The same goes for Wilson.

He did it again on Blog and Mablog, accusing Metzler of being an anonymous critic with no evidence to support his claim whatsoever.

Best, Joe

Let’s just for a moment consider the nature of the complaint Doug filed. If a condom, a screw, and a smelly window constitute malicious harassment, then the English language has lost all meaning. He found a rubber johnny in his mailbox; I found a spider in my shoe. Doug is wasting police time. He is making frivolous and baseless complaints. He says in the complaint that he does not want these matters investigated — but he then goes on to name names, all of them former members of his church. This becomes part of the public record, and these people all find that their names have been carefully besmirched. So much for any legitimate criticisms of Doug Wilson and Christ Church that they might level. They send ribbed Trojans by Priority Mail! They put road hazards in the way of my truck! They flung dung at my picture window! (Okay, maybe it wasn’t dung, but it was 4 inches by 8 inches, and it smelled really bad.)

You want malicious harassment? Try filing a frivolous police report that casts nasty aspersions on decent citizens. Fire people who disagree with you. Harass the ex-members of your church. Take private information about their health, their marriages, and their personal finances, and make that information public. Embark on a systematic program of church-wide character assassination. If you’re going to be malicious, be malicious. Do it up right. And then, for good measure, set yourself up as the victim. That’s truly clever. Except that it’s transparent.

Some years ago, we were told that Logos School had been egged. I believe an official police report was filed. And then it was withdrawn. Would anyone care to step up and give us the details of that incident and its aftermath? Perhaps one of the Rench boys? They seem to know all, see all.

Auntie Establishment

Echoes From the Whinery


The point is not that Wilson shouldn’t have filed a police report.

The point is that he has used his misfortunes as an opportunity to punish and silence his critics. Wilson named the names of four persons in the police report yet provided no evidence that any of them had anything to do with any of violence committed against him. That is irresponsible.

Or are you suggesting that just because you’ve been critical of some of my comments I now have the right to, say, list you as a possible suspect should something happen to my private property or to me? That would be ridiculous and wrong of me to do and you know it. The same goes for Wilson.

He did it again on Blog and Mablog, accusing Metzler of being an anonymous critic with no evidence to support his claim whatsoever.



Echoes From the Whinery

Donovan wrote:

Are you suggesting that if someone complains about 4 of their tires being slashed . . .

Huh??? Who had their tires slashed? Donovan, I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Based on the documents I read, there was NO allegation of tires being slashed but rather that ordinary road hazards (a screw and nail were specified) seemed to be happening at an unusual rate. That is a far, far different thing than having tires slashed: when tires are slashed, there’s no question of intent, but picking up common road hazards is a fairly common occurrence (talk to the tire folks about that).

I will easily admit that if Wilson’s self-reported estimates of the frequency is accurate — and it should have been easy enough for him to prove with records of the repairs — it does sound suspicious to me unless the rigs have been driving through construction areas a lot.

Quite a few years ago, my landlord was having work done on the his duplexes. The workers were less than careful with the materials, and six or seven of us and had flat tires — I personally had THREE in the space of a couple of weeks because my duplex was at the dead-end by the dumpster. The culprits? Screws and nails! That’s when I found out that screws and nails are considered road hazards not covered by tire warranties.

However, you’re not doing anything helpful, Donovan, by inflating flat tires to slashed tires.



Tuesday, July 25, 2006


Blind we are, but how we love it. Fog and Mayfog.

Too lazy to examine on our own, just follow the piper. Fog and Mayfog.

Allegorize Scriptures to fit our theology, Why we are brighter and more noble-minded than Saint Paul and the Bereans. Fog and Mayfog.

Such dummies you all are not to see our uprightness and “truth”/twist on Scripture. Don’t you know that God requires you to read hundreds of pages of “our” material and under our tutelage before you can fully understand the truth. Fog and Mayfog.

Poke your critics in the eye and run to authorities when they turn the other cheek and don’t retaliate. Why we can’t have that, the attention is off of me. Fog and Mayfog.

Additional suspects might be 30 million blacks who weren’t too pleased with slavery. John Newton of “Amazing Grace” (not “Amazing Chains”) fame and that other grand man, William Wilberforce, saw the light. Evidently, the Wilsonites are of dimmer bulb and wit. But . . . More Fog and Mayfog.


There was a man who spread negative gossip about his rabbi. Later the man felt sorry and went to his rabbi to apologize. The rabbi told him that he accepted his apology, but there was one thing he must do; he must bring him a feather pillow. The man was bewildered, but obeyed his rabbi. The rabbi then told him to go to a place to cut open the pillow and let the feathers scatter in the wind. Ever the more perplexed, the man does it. The rabbi then tells him to recover all the feathers. The man pleads that it’s impossible! So it is with gossip and the restoration of men’s reputations. Every feather is someone who has heard the accusations and formed an opinion. How can all that damage be undone?

Property tax cut?


Saundra nailed it a couple of days ago when she asked, in response to Doug’s naming four possible suspects in the alleged vandalism of his property, where his execution of the Biblical standard was. Granted, the “two or three witnesses” is, strictly speaking, to be employed when an accusation is leveled against an elder, but it’s a wise principle when engaging with everyone else, too. For one, it’s simply reasonable; two, it prevents the bearing of false witness, which a lot of churches take seriously.

However, no matter how Doug tries to wrestle with Matthew 18, he sinned against Ford, Metzler, Morin and Nolan by naming them as suspects, and he owes God repentance and them apologies.

And a note to the good pastor — no fair “rejoicing because (you) were counted worthy of suffering for the Name of Jesus . . .” None of us is rejoicing because you have caused the Name to suffer, and you aren’t being targeted, if you are at all, because of any courageous righteousness on your church’s part. I deplore acts of vandalism and harassment, but I assume no pastors are committing them. I also deplore acts of vindictiveness and haughtiness, and it saddens me to see that you’ve committed those here.


Monday, July 17, 2006

Timely Filing?

On 15 July 2006:
06-M06520 Harassment
Incident Address : 1151 North Polk St Ext
Responding Officers: Art Lindquist
Disposition : CLO
Time Reported: 10:15
Cad Comments:
RP is at the PD to report a pattern of harassment that has been occurring in his home. Officer contact rp, report taken.

Interesting, isn’t it, considering the following which was written on 27 June 2006:
Somebody’s Idea of An Argument
Topic: Moscow Diversity Cleansing

Just finished talking with the cops about an incident last evening. When I came home last night (June 26, 2006), I checked our mailbox by the road before heading up the driveway. The mailbox contained a used condom, or a condom doctored to look as though it had been used. Now there are two basic possibilities here. One of them is that this is some drunk frat boy’s idea of random acts of kindness. The cop told me that while such incidents are not commmon, they do sometimes happen. But, honestly, given the climate that the Intoleristas have tried to create here in Moscow, what are the odds of that? The much more likely possibility is that an unstable someone took his inspiration from the rancor that Intoleristas have been assiduously cultivating. This, um, open-minded activist was therefore making his anonymous statement. He is no doubt concerned that if I am allowed to continue to preach the gospel the way I do, and write the way I do, the distinct danger exists that there might be a degradation of our public discourse. And of course, the kind of person who would do this kind of thing is very concerned about degraded public discourse. The hypocrisy of the Tolerant has long since blocked their drains, has backed up, and is all over their floor. I even found some in my mailbox last night.

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 6/27/2006 1:20:20 PM

Dougie, Dougie, Dougie. . . . it took you two weeks to do the reporting that you stated you had already done? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Oh, what webs we weave. . . .


Sunday, July 02, 2006

A few Sunday thoughts on looks, theology, rancor and city staff

On Jul 2, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:

Deacon James stated earlier, “Gabe, I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: You are a good-looking fella.”

And now “No Clue” Lemon-O farris proudly claims, “He [Deacon James] is a young good looking man . . .”

As if looks were the point. It doesn’t matter if Deacon James is a dead ringer for Antonio Banderas (in Shrek II) or that Gabe Rench is mistaken for Orlando Bloom by the teenyboppers who work the Wendy’s late-night drive-thru. When you act like Beavis and Butthead, no one notices your lovely blue eyes and your tight little . . . wallet. The externals fade into the background, drowned out by the chorus of boos, hisses, and “oh my god, how flippin’ juvenile.” Forty may be the new thirty — I’ll find out in five months time — but behaving like a fourteen year-old when you are not, in fact, a fourteen year-old is never attractive. It’s grim. And it’s discouraging. I remember in the seventies seeing bumper stickers that said, “The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.” I didn’t think it was funny then, and I don’t find it funny now. I like grown men, smart men, responsible men — I like men who are secure enough to be themselves and to let me be me. I’m fortunate to know many such men, and I enjoy their company very much. Men are not from Mars, and women are not from Venus; we’re all from Earth. Of course, not all of us are from the surface . . .

Speaking of which, I want to address something J. Ford just posted from Doug Wilson’s blog. Doug claims that someone placed a condom in his mailbox because of “rancor” created against him by people like myself. Poppycock. Accept a little responsibility, Doug. You are perfectly capable of brewing up a cloud of rancor whenever and wherever you write, speak, or sing hillbilly anthems in Friendship Square. You have volition. You stir rancor on your blog, you create dissension in your church and in the larger Reformed Christian world, and you delight in stirring the manure with a big old stick. You are a controversial public figure; so am I. I’d welcome you to the club, but you ought to be welcoming me. I’m much, much younger than you are.

In short, if you don’t like the heat, don’t harrow hell. I would argue that Doug’s theology is only a small part of the rancor he generates in the larger community. Who, apart from Kirkers and ex-Kirkers, really cares what Doug Wilson believes? God knows I don’t. While it might be fun (of a strange and esoteric sort) to debate paedo-communion, I don’t give a toss about the principles involved. What gets my dander up is the fact that in Moscow, there’s one rule for the well-connected, and another for the rest of us. Doug Wilson is well connected. When he violates zoning code over and over and over again, the city bends over backwards to accommodate him. Joel Plaskon granted New St. Andrews College an occupancy permit, despite the fact that educational institutions were clearly and explicitly prohibited in the Central Business District. When that decision was found to be in error, the previous City Council rewrote the code to create a special spot zone for Doug Wilson. Compare this to Plaskon’s treatment of Rob Davis and Brenda von Wandruska at last Monday night’s Planning and Zoning hearing. Good grief.

To paraphrase Bob Dylan, how many cock-ups must one man make, before the city buys him a farewell cake from Rosauer’s?

Auntie Establishment

PS: Perhaps the city needs a chart: ass, elbow, ass, elbow . . .