Saturday, March 27, 2010

Editorial - These People Walk Among You

Editorial - These People Walk Among You
By Bill Coburn

This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t feel that a person is responsible for things that other people say. However, in this election, Candidate John Crawford has asked voters to “Send this blog to the City Council” in his request for donations to fund his campaign. As such, I think it’s fair to consider the content of the entire blog, and not just Mr. Crawford’s personal observations on the blog, when considering whether or not to vote for Mr. Crawford, thereby sending “this blog to the City Council.”

At the Kiwanis candidate forum, Mr. Crawford stated that he removes posts from the blog if they contain profanity, or personal attacks. I think perhaps it’s time for him to start paying a little closer attention to the things his readers are posting. Some of the things they write can only be described as personal attacks, yet they remain on the site. Coincidentally (?), these attacks are made against people whom Mr. Crawford has written pieces in opposition to. Perhaps Mr. Crawford should have described the blog’s policy as removing posts that are personal attacks against him or his supporters, because those whom he opposes seem to be fair game. This is just a very small, but representative, sampling of some of the thoughts posted on the blog Mr. Crawford is asking voters to consider sending to the City Council:

I don't know who is worse, (name withheld) or (name withheld). Both are diseases in this town, actually, any town. Bad people. – Anonymous, 1/25/10, 9:24am

(Name withheld) isn’t a disease to this town, she’s a plague. – Jerome Horwitz, 1:25/10, 1:43pm

Susan Henderson is a con artist. She falsifed (sic) expense reports with a previous employer and claims law degrees that she does not posess (sic). She is a brat. If anybody is a "liar" it's (Name withheld). (Name withheld) is a con artist. He claims actions that are not his and then attacks those who has (sic) the audacity to question his own statements. He has been a fraud since he moved into town. (Different name withheld) is a joke. He's a (first name withheld) clone. Anonymous, 2/24/10, 10:48am. It's interesting to note that the claim against Susan Henderson is one that has been made repeatedly by Crawford even though his own articles reference a San Francisco Chronicle news story in which the leader of the party that Henderson is alleged to have falsified reports to states that their audit cleared Henderson of having done so.

(Name withheld) is a grifter, a dishonest con artist who preys on the elderly in this town. She is pure trash. – Anonymous, 3/10/10, 10:51am

To paraphrase a favorite play, there is an unmistakable odor of mendacity in the room: coming from lies and liars, namely council candidates Joe Mosca, Nancy Walsh, Josh Moran and all of their downtown dirt supporters. We lived through and fell for the blatant obfuscation of political leanings during Mosca's original candidacy; I personally am not willing to do it again. Let's call a spade a spade; Walsh, Moran and Mosca are all toadies for the development industry and they should be exposed for what they are often and mercilessly right up to voting date. What a bunch of pricks. – Anonymous, 3/15/10, 12:31pm

Joe Mosca- lobbyist/liar/sociopath. John (sic) Moron (sic) - moral and intellectual deviant. Nancy Walsh-tap dancer puppet of Bart Doyle. – Anonymous, 3/24/10, 8:39am Ironically, this post was just 16 minutes after a post from someone calling themselves Panelist (presumably a blog moderator?) that said: Posts are removed for vulgar language and offensive content, of which there have been many lately. Slanderous attacks and accusations of a felonious nature are also removed. Slurs against family members and children are not tolerated. (emphasis mine).

And while all of the above posts are directed at specific individuals, some of the bloggers are happy to be more general when disparaging their neighbors, intimating that all those who oppose them have a drinking problem: I guess it's true that alcoholics are delusional. And considering their posts recently, also wake up in a bad mood every morning. Maybe they should have a little "hair of the dog" before they get on the internet. – Keep the Punch Lines Coming, 3/24/10, 4:03pm. But the willingness to make unfounded accusation of alcoholism isn’t limited to generalizations. Here’s one that’s specific from regular poster Old Kentucky: News flash.....11:23 dirt.....we don't need YOUR vote. We will win anyway. Go have some coffee, you're probably hungover....hope you feel better, have a great day.

And let’s not forget, that there is a derisive term used at the blog to describe anyone with opposing viewpoints, all of whom are called dirts. There is also a second term used, describing people with opposing viewpoints as members of the Downtown Investors Club (which creates what some would consider an offensive acronym).

I defend the right of everyone quoted above to say the things they said. But I personally don’t think it’s right to treat your neighbors in such a negative manner, nor do I think this is the kind of attitude we want our City Council to reflect. While a couple candidates have said they want to see a return of civility to the council, I have a somewhat less grandiose wish. I’d just be happy to see that the Council’s treatment of each other and others doesn’t spiral downward to the level displayed by Mr. Crawford’s supporters. To do that, I suggest that we encourage our friends and neighbors NOT to “send this blog to City Council.”

12 comments:

  1. And the slanderous garbage that the Sierra Madre Weekly and the Mountain Views News publishes is any better? At least on the Tattler its random comments from readers. In those sad excuses for newspapers they're actually written by reporters Get off it, Bill. Your partisanship is showing. Take off your one way glasses. It's happening on both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's a question. Where was Bill Coburn when the Cumquat was around? Didn't see him sweating that one too much when the Mayor of Sierra Madre was endorsing it on the front page of the Pasadena Star News. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Question: Are the Mountain Views News and the Sierra Madre Weekly running for City Council?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is unfortunate Bill that people just cant resist from slamming people from behind their computer screens.. it will indeed be an interesting election this year.. hopefully those who want to be true leaders for Sierra Madre will shine and keep your town a true gem of the San Gabriel Valley..

    ReplyDelete
  5. The question, Bill, is where were you when the Cumquat was employing pornographic smears against some of Sierra Madre's leading citizens. Your hypocrisy speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So then what you're saying is that you have no actual response to what I'm saying about the topic of this thread, which is whether or not it's appropriate to elect a candidate in the April 2010 election who is saying that by electing him, you are electing his blog, which I have shown to be frequently full of personal attacks, despite the candidate's claims that he doesn't allow personal attacks on the blog. Therefore, you'll attempt to change the subject to something completely unrelated, in this case, a website that hasn't existed in several years. Back to the subject at hand...the 2010 election and whether or not the people of Sierra Madre should vote for John Crawford, who says he doesn't allow personal attacks on his site, but who does allow them as long as the attacks are on people that he opposes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Same old dog, same old tricks. But this time it isn't Measure V supporters like in 2007, or Nancy Shollenberger, or MaryAnn MacGillivray in like in 2008. Your act is old and tired, Bill.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am glad someone finally pointed this out! Thank you Bill! It’s amazing all the attacks on others, and articles and comments from information taken out of context, or half truths over the past few years, first on the CF Blog, then comments on 91024, and then the creation of his own Tattler! He has a lot of nerve to think he can run for City Council and not hang his head in shame! Sir Eric Maudry! He was kicked off the CF Blog for abusing his access; this is a quote from Centinel:

    “Sir Eric can't see IPs any more. After the previous incident, we publish his material for him, and he doesn't get those email and can't log in to the dash “

    Is this the kind of person we want sitting at the dais? This unethical person who runs his campaign on the “lets make everyone look bad and point out everyone else’s mistakes” platform; he makes me nauseous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I saw plenty of his personal nastiness during the outdoor smoking war. He devoted an entire, lengthy, completely unnecessary blog post to personally attacking me, here, because he didn't like the comments I'd posted on his blog. Unlike most of his supposed followers, I don't post anonymously, so I was an easy target. You can read his hysterical rambling about me here:

    http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2009/03/sunday-is-affirmation-day-tattler-and.html?showComment=1238429760000

    I found it kind of funny. This man's only response to anything is to launch an ad hominem attack against whoever he disagrees with. He has no respect for anyone else's views (let alone rights) and lacks even the slightest modicum of politesse. And there's plenty of evidence in his blog that he's got serious psychological problems. His post attacking me, in any case, is not the writing of a mentally stable individual. It seems like a stupid thing to leave online if you're running for political office.

    ReplyDelete
  10. PS when I say "here", I don't mean here on this blog, to avoid confusion, I mean on his blog, at the link "here".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Josh, you were doing fine till the last couple sentences. I am not a psychologist, and am not prepared to state that Mr. Crawford has psychological problems, nor that he is mentally unstable. Not sure what makes you qualified to say that either. Too bad you had to say something like that. I was kind of hoping we could get through this without descending to the type of personal attacks we find elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's fair enough. I'm not qualified to comment on his mental state and I shouldn't have given in to my anger in writing that. This guy viciously attacked me with every kind of childish insult imaginable in a leading post on his website and I tried to keep my cool. I'm not a journalist or a politician and it's not actually my line of work or really morally required of me that I not blow up and hit back when I'm attacked; I'm not really sure whether my reactions make my grievance with the man any less legitimate, since I'm not the one touting my hate-filled blog as some kind of oasis of sanity, nor myself as a paragon of virtue; I'm not the one running for office while bad-mouthing everyone who disagrees with anything I say.

    But you're right, I shouldn't leap to any conclusions I can't verify. All I can prove is the man slandered me six ways to Sunday because I had the audacity to stand up for my views on his blog without using an anonymous handle; and from that infer that he will use any means in his discourse, however low, to get what he wants.

    ReplyDelete