A privacy-invading anonymous website known for personal attacks on journalists and political adversaries of local labor-backed politicians has been tied to the inner circle of former vice mayor and newly-appointed South Bay Labor Council chief executive Cindy Chavez.
According to electronic evidence inspected by San Jose Inside, an administrator of the site, “San Jose Revealed,” is Manhattan-based former SBLC political director Philip Bump. The labor council made payments to Bump until earlier this year, according to two sources.
When one frequent victim of San Jose Revealed’s particularly vicious attacks asked Chavez for help in removing a map to his residence that had been posted to the site, Chavez asked a number of questions about San Jose Inside’s ownership structure. The information shared with Chavez appeared on San Jose Revealed a few days later, in the June 9, 2008 post “Who Owns San Jose Inside?”
After the map was published by Revealed, the home’s owner, falsely accused of making money through pornography, became the victim of a hate crime that involved property destruction and swastika graffiti.
It wasn’t the first time San Jose Revealed turned politics personal. The site published a map to deputy district attorney David Pandori’s home. (Pandori has a family and prosecutes gangs for a living.) It made an issue out of McEnery’s daughter’s late payment of a garbage bill. And in 2007 it breathlessly posted the Match.com dating profile of District 6 councilman Pierluigi Oliverio.
Chavez’s husband, Mike Potter, was named on Monday as part of San Jose Revealed’s supporting cast by Santa Clara political consultant and blogger James Rowen. “Mike and Cindy hate San Jose Inside,” says Rowen, who knows Potter from their days together as Campus Democrats at San Jose State University. Rowen says he talks to Potter from time to time and that “issues that get on San Jose Revealed are the ones Mike talks about.”
Another local political insider reports that during a visit to the office of Assemblyman Joe Coto, for whom Potter works, Potter brought up a number of subjects that were editorial obsessions of Revealed.
Chavez political allies say the labor council executive hasn’t been able to let go of anger stemming from from criticism she faced during her campaign for mayor and the pummeling she took at the ballot box in 2006. Her opponent, Chuck Reed, received almost 60 percent of the vote in a high-turnout election, the largest margin by a non-incumbent in decades. Team Chavez blames what she considers unfair press coverage by the Mercury News and Metro for the lopsided defeat. In addition to endorsements for her opponents, Metro published articles that detailed Chavez’s grandstanding on “sunshine reform” after secret meetings and seven-years of inaction and her support for a development project as a Valley Transportation Authority Board member around the time that large campaign contributions started showing up in her campaign reports and in the accounts of the local Democratic party. Metro was also investigated the South Bay Labor Council’s financial cost-sharing with Working Partnerships, a 501c3 that receives financial support from charitable foundations.
Metro’s executive editor, Dan Pulcrano, is a frequent target of San Jose Revealed’s personal attacks. “It’s a badge of honor for a journalist to face heat for doing the right thing,” Pulcrano says. “Our investigative journalism educated the public and helped bring more transparency to City Hall, which is good for the citizens of San Jose, and I’m proud of that.”
San Jose Revealed made its appearance on the Web four months after Reed was sworn in as mayor of San Jose.
McEnery refers to his anonymous critics as “Baathist remnants” of a deposed political machine. McEnery was also targeted in an ethics complaint to the elections board brought by attorney Jim McManis on behalf of anonymous complainant. The board cleared McEnery of any serious violations.
Bump is “an independent communications consultant” according to his Web site, and has “experience in political strategy, web technology and design” and writes “speeches, grant proposals, newsletter content and press materials.” He also blogs for the Huffington Post. Bump’s bio on huffingtonpost.com says he “spends most of his time doing political and communications consulting.” Much of San Jose Revealed’s posts are written in the same first person style Bump uses in his Huffington Post pieces.
The San Jose Revealed site is currently down, something that has happened before. Last summer, the site went dark after the Mercury News printed a rumor that Chavez and husband Potter were pulling the strings. Chavez denied involvement. The site reappeared in a different format. Before the site disappeared from the Web, a July 6 post said, “I will be back in August.”
The site also made news in February 2008 when former Chavez staffer Eric Hernandez hacked into the City Hall email account of Councilman Sam Liccardo’s girlfriend, Jessica Garcia-Kohl, and sent documents to San Jose Revealed. Despite his humble roots, Hernandez made bail quickly and was represented by one of the city’s most expensive criminal attorneys, Steve Manchester. Hernandez pled guilty to a misdemeanor and was ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and pay $100 restitution.
Wow. This is a hell of a scoop, but it’s only the tip of a large iceberg that is situated squarely at the offices of the South Bay Labor Council.
You guys nailed it but you may be too late to follow the trail. As anyone who has worked in law enforcement knows, you’ve got to get to a crime scene early enough to find evidence.
The site is down. That’s like removing a crime scene.
That is shameful to produce a map to gang prosecutor David Pandori’s home. Very sad.
If even half of this is true, it’s despicable and perhaps even illegal. San Jose politics has always been clean and polite. That changed about a decade ago with Amy Dean taking over local Labor. She handed the baton (axe?) to Phaedra and Cindy who play politics differently. San Jose Revealed was a perfect reflection of their win-at-all cost mentality. They were willing to put people and families in harm’s way because of personal vendettas.
Could someone tell Cindy the 2006 campaign is over? And could someone tell Labor that dirty underhanded politics is not the San Jose way? And could someone tell me if this is worth a Grand Jury investigation?
Just imagine how much worse things would be at City Hall if Cindy had won. The thought would be enough to scare even the falcons away from the dome.
The only surprise here is how long it has taken for this to surface publicly. Many of us have known this for a long time.
This is an interesting article but you guys have circumstantial evidence and some speculative sources. I disagree with the person who says you nailed it.
But I think you are on to something that suggests a bigger and better story. If San Jose Revealed was indeed funded and managed by the Central Labor Council, there are likely RICO violations that should be looked into. That’s serious stuff and involves the feds.
At the local level, the Elections Commission should consider an inquiry. Hell if they can go after Liccardo for tickets and McEnery for lobbying, they can do this. It’s much bigger than some of the little crap they deal with.
Where is Phil Bump?? Does he fear surfacing figuring that the others will just throw him over as we have seen in other conspiracies??
Who is the next to fall, and who is the one that is going make sure Bump’s website is dealt with??
Deep Throat told us to follow the money.
I recommend you do that. Plus follow the e-mails. We didn’t have e-mail trails back then.
Kids will be kids…
There are websites/databases that archive the internet. Meaning that even if you erase/delete your website from it’s host server, it may have been archived and stored on an archiving database. I’ve found websites that I have worked on and deleted from 2001 in working order online.. scary but it’s out there… I don’t recall the archiving sites name at this moment, but investigate.
Well Metro it seems you’ve got it wrong. San Jose Revealed has posted a column stating just how wrong you are.
James Rowen is your source?
San Jose Revealed Strikes Back!
Whatever one may think of SJR, SJI, or the Lantern, one has to admit this story is a heck of a lot more interesting (and fun) than discussig the future of Don Gage in Gilroy!
Your article is the biggest load of crock I’ve seen in a long time. 270 is in Kentucky, not Florida. Does your “Silicon Valley Newsroom” actually do any investigating before posting made-up stories?
If this published information is incorrect it seems there could be a good case of libel against James Rowen et al. James Rowen seems like a loose cannon who is not altogether there.
If there are those that think exposing who writes San Jose Revealed will somehow embarass them into stopping, all you have really done is give San Jose Revealed a lot of publicity.
I don’t know anything about Dan Pulcrano, but it sounds like he is not a fan of free speech for everyone equally.
The tactics used against Pulcrano should have revealed who was behind it. They come right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals – the Bible of the South Bay Labor Council, ACORN and our new President.
Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Go after people and not institutions.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
Thanks for bringing this to light. It’s no surprise that the site is closed down. Cockroaches always scurry away when light is shined on them.
With San Jose Revealed’s denial, San Jose Inside needs to make public the “electronic evidence” so we can decide who is right.
Gee, this is all pretty weak; more of a Chavez hit piece than an factual article. Perhaps a name change to Silicon Valley Gossip Corner is in order.
So what is all this “Labor” stuff that keeps getting mentioned? I thought I was relatively aware of issues, but somehow I never come into contact with “Labor”.
well if I am the source, then cindy and mike would not be in the story, because i said that i did not think they either wrote the blog.
Did San Jose Revealed really issue a denial today?
The writer could not for some reason actually write “I’m not Phil Bump.”
Mostly it was an attack against Pulcrano and Rowen.
It’s clear from the response (or non-response) you hit something. Congratulations.
The fact that a right-wing conspiracy theorist like “Follow the network” is the only one who believes the story really shows how much it’s lacking in journalistic integrity.
Hmm, is 331 a florida area code???
Hmm, Steve makes a comment that might be libel, too??
Oh, Justin, the Florida authorities are contacting the communications company with the 331 area code.
Need a lawyer?
The writing on San Jose Revealed is pretty good and demonstrates some political skill. If Phil Bump’s highest level of professional achievement is the South Bay Labor Council, can he really be the guy? He’s resume seems rather mediocre. Anyway, unveiling this Bump guy maybe a tempest in a teapot.
The Hernandez scandal seems far more interesting and has received little attention. If Hernandez or his attorney was being paid by the Labor Council then they assisted in a crime, albeit a minor one. But then so was Watergate initially, right?
Myth Man,
Hot shot… not – I agree. But the pic looks more like Chavez with a face reduction.
#25-What post are you talking about exactly?
My one and ONLY post on here only says SJR has denied the claims made here by Pulcrano. Also, I see the link to SJR was removed from my post since yesterday. Why is that Editor? I’m sure you want both sides of the story heard correct?
#25- I assume you are speaking about my comment on SJR. If you are then I will simply say that the Metro is running this blog now and is subject to the same public commentary about it’s self, that it enjoys against others. I don’t have to be a “Labor Shill, or an anti-sex” anything to find this whole crusade by Pulcrano against Labor and SJR to be hypocritical. It reminds me of a high school bully trying to run the new kid in town out of the schoolyard because everyone likes him better, or because he has something to hide.
Don’t try to minimize the adverse affects of Dan’s actions in the Metro. He sells ad space to the sex industry. PERIOD. STOP attacking ME for calling HIM out for HIS business practices and HIS actions.
The old saying that an injured dog once kicked yelps seems to apply here.
I don’t think this post proves much. All I leave with after reading it is that Metro/Inside (Boulevards) has low journalistic standards. This is sloppily written and the reporting is much worse.
Thank you Pulcrano for saving our city with your investigative journalism.
I wonder if he assigned this article and then told the writer to interview him. Or maybe he wrote it and interviewed himself.
Oh and I didn’t know we had a special “gang prosecutor.”
Bahahaha…i find this entire thing sooooo funny i am actually choosing to post for the second time on this silly site. I haven’t read this site since 06 and i forgot how humorous it was….RICO…bahahahaha.
ok. laughing too hard to type now. bye bye san jose inside. thanks for the chuckles.
oh yeah. ps. i have never had any invovlement in ANY blog. losers.
Who cares who Revealed is? Competing blogs are important so we can get both sides and differing viewpoints on a certain topic.
#25-Let’s be consistent- “two relatively mild pages of paid advertising..” You are kidding right? Do you work for the Metro?
Kathleen’s ridiculous post makes me think that either she’s a labor shill or an anti-sex crusader. Let’s face it, if she’s upset about a few gentlemen’s club and massage ads in a weekly, if we are to be consistent, let’s talk about all the porn on Google and Bing, the escort ads in the yellow pages,in the adult section of Yahoo, etc. Why is Metro singled out for two relatively mild pages of paid advertising? If we are going to get all moralist, that’s okay, but let’s at least be consistent.
Sorry, we don’t link out to sites that publish irresponsible information, such as the maps to the home of journalists or law enforcement officials. Hate crimes are occurring in our community and people’s personal safety has been compromised by these demonization campaigns.
Metro has supported numerous labor candidates over the years but a newspaper’s job is to investigate and bring to public attention conflicts of interest, hypocrisy or illegal actions of public officials, regardless of political affiliation. The campaign has not been ours against labor. It’s the other way around: labor leadership has attacked Metro and me personally for the newspaper’s coverage of some of their candidates. Let’s be honest. The faux moralists on the East Coast and their funders here could care less about the advertising sold in a Silicon Valley newspaper; they are just using it as a ruse to draw attention from their own activities.
I’ve overseen Metro’s editorial content since its inception, but I haven’t hired or supervised the advertising staff or made advertising policy until February 2009. Newspapers have traditionally separated management of editorial and advertising, and Metro is no exception. With the imperative for leaner companies these days, though, many managers are taking on more responsibilities.
One of the first things that I did this year was move to restrict the categories of advertising we accept. If a business operates legally in our community, we will take the ad, but we raised the standards to eliminate ads that were accepted before. Metro is the only one of more than a dozen papers I’ve published (including our current two other weeklies or ones we owned in the past, such as the Los Gatos Weekly-Times and the Willow Glen Resident) that accept any adult-related advertising, and that’s now tightly restricted and limited to three pages.
Anyone who has a problem with that should disconnect their cable tv or satellite dish service, cancel their telephone land line, stop using Internet search engines and avoid any major hotel chain, for all of those companies directly profit from pornography distribution, something Metro does not.
Let’s be consistent here, stick to issues and stop the personal attacks. Enough is enough.
Do you mean that SJ Revealed told people to send faxes to a fax line that was not working for three to four months?
I’m glad to see a media exec who listens to the community, communicates positions and signs his name. That’s not all that common in media, politics or government.
Where’s Dolores Carr in all this? Why didn’t she subpoena the server records to see who was working with Eric Hernandez? And how can she let Revealed get away with publishing a map to one of her prosecutor’s home?
As she getting to close to SBLC and Coyote money to want to step on their toes?
I have noticed that you’ve been cleaning up Metro lately. We miss the hoes!
Why hasn’t Bob Brownstein come clean on this? Obviously not many people keep ‘80s hair videos of Pad Dando in their private VCR collection, or old McEnery campaign flyers.
Not a big leap to see why a Joe Coto staffer would be out to slime Metro’s editor. Looks like they exposed Coto’s shaking down of school contractors for campaign kickbacks in 2003.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.14.03/public-eye-0333.html
Dan,
Thank you for finally addressing your business practices. You say you don’t allow links to other sites that you personally deem inappropriate. By making this NEW rule none of us knew about, you are in fact censoring us from seeing the responses made to YOUR article on them, and you are indeed being hypocritical. Secondly, YOU/Metro posted this article on SJI. Did you expect people to just blindly believe you, or have zero objections to what you said? Come on now.
Many people deem your site and Metro stories/ads as irresponsible and harmful, but I would fight to the death for YOUR right to print them. You know I strongly disapprove of those ads, and I do wish you’d stop running them, BUT it is your right as an AMERCIAN press to have them. Just because I comment on my disgust Dan, doesn’t make me “anti sex”, nor should I be censored on this site for doing so.
“Let’s be consistent here, stick to issues and stop the personal attacks. Enough is enough.” See post number 25. Did you post this to me because it looks very much like what you just wrote in #33?
If you are going to demand equal treatment then you need to give it, and stop posting comments that name call. (Even your columnists are getting tired of being bashed.) If you are going to stand by your right to free speech then practice what you preach. Yes, I agree enough is enough! Move on to news worthy items and leave us out of your personal grudge matches with SJR.
Well it all seems pretty clear. Weekly newspaper reports on Cindy Chavez’s 50 grand kickback for increasing density on VTA housing land selloff http://tinyurl.com/moesdw and other corrupt activities, like Coto’s shakedown of school contractors to financ his assembly run. http://tinyurl.com/nvbnxd Their candidate loses the election after spending $2 million and 10 years to gain political power/ Labor Temple retaliates by sponsoring smear blog to attack Pandori, McEnery, Mercury, Metro, and whoever else cost them the election. Paid consultant and web guy Bump launders the money and does blog anonymously and independently to give Chavez & Co. plausible deniability. No one is fooled.
We’ll know if Cindy is involved (or people around her are involved) if she remains silent. No responsible public figure would let a charge like this stand without denial or comment.
Perhaps the Merc needs to do a story and get Cindy on the record on this issue.
My only doubts about Phil Bump surround his picture. He looks too much like Nellie Olson to be a hot shot. I bet he stamps his feet a lot.
Notice how Bump is not saying anything, nor has SJR carried the comment, I AM NOT PHIL BUMP.
Lawyer up, Phil.
remember this?
http://mayorwatch.blogspot.com/
any similarities? same people as SJR?
Bump issues no comment:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12904711
Bump is not the only one who took the Fifth.
Notice in the Merc story that Steve Preminger
would not respond.
Anyone journalist or bloggers called Cindy for comment or to give her blog space to respond?
These are pretty serious allegations as far as dirty tricks go for local politics.
Would be good to know who funded Bump.
Silicon Valley Newsroom #45,
Does a “no comment” prove anything? So far readers have no evidence to independently verify anything claimed in your article. Do you plan on releasing the “electronic evidence” showing Mr. Bump is behind San Jose Revealed?
Aside from other legal violations, Bump and his cohorts at San Jose Revealed violated labor law. Dues paying members contributed to the efforts to endorse Santa Clara candidates who were members of the Democratic Central Committee and well supported by labor. Bump, because he is smarmy cutey pie took money from Labor and attacked their candidates.
No comment proves nothing, SteveO, it worked for my former boss for a while as well.
I imagine this story is directing a lot of traffic to Revealed, even though Pulcrano doesn’t “link out to sites that publish irresponsible information.”
And Revealed did deny being Bump:
“A commenter asked if I was the person named by San Jose Inside. I didn’t approve the comment because, last time this came up, that individual asked that I take his name down.
To answer the question, no. I am not him.”
This sums it all up.
http://missioncitylantern.blogspot.com/2009/07/broken-kaleidoscope.html
NEWFLASH – free speech protected in the United States.
You can disagree with what Revealed says, but to suggest that it somehow breaks the law is silly.
#47 SteveO. Why wouldn’t Bump comment?
Perhaps he wants to see the “electronic evidence” before he decides if he needs to come clean.
Preminger and Cindy also have not responded and they have been implicated on the Mission City Lantern for a couple weeks. This looks like the beginning of a good investigative story by Metro and/or the Merc. Maybe even the Mission City Lantern.
#52 J. Roberts. The issue isn’t free speech. No comment on this blog has disputed Revealed’s right to exist.
But it’s clear from the the Inside investigation that Revealed was out to harm people, particularly so called political enemies of Cindy Chavez, like McEnery (even his daughter), Pandori (and his family), and Pulcrano.
That violates something. Maybe it’s illegal and certainly worth pondering. But it’s at the very least dirty politics.
What if this was a campaign to go after Chavez’s enemies and destroy them using any means available? Would you still defend the site?
SJ Eastsider
Is that anything like
“I never had sex with that woman.”
“When the president does it, it is not illegsl.”
SJ Revealed is using the dog defense
Man is bitten by a dog, and the owner defends himself such as this
MY DOG IS HARMLESS, Cindy and Labor had nothing to do with it.
MY DOG WAS PROVOKED, Pulcrano is an evil person
MY DOG’S TEETH ARE WEAK, No one pays for SJ REVEALED
I DO NOT EVEN OWN A DOG, SJ Revealed’s nondenial, denial.
The gloves they have don’t fit me. Mark Furman is helping Pulcrano.
I don’t really care about Phil Bump and his alleged authorship of San Jose Revealed.
I find it far more interesting that 5 of the 6 likely suspects all have direct ties to Cindy Chavez.
I’d like to know her response. She is afterall a community leader who’s reputation is at stake here.
If Cindy is not involved, let’s all move on But only she can put this to rest.
This is a moderated forum. We won’t be publishing personal and ad hominem attacks. The current comment policy is posted here and we plan to update it this week to clarify further.
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/Comment_Policy/
On SJR and the ad hominem attack:
San Jose Inside has always discouraged ad hominen arguments. Here’s a good definition from Wikipedia:
“An ad hominem argument (Latin: ‘argument against the man’) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”
I’ll give an example of ad hominem that is relevant to this thread. A few years ago, Metro newspaper and San Jose Inside both endorsed one political candidate over another. That candidate won and became mayor of San Jose. Shortly thereafter, a political blog appeared online with the obvious intent of smearing the victor and his supporters.
That blog employed (almost exclusively) the ad hominem argument, in a particularly vicious form. Tom McEnery, then-owner of SJI, was targeted for a string of personal attacks. Metro and its owner, Dan Pulcrano were also smeared.
Rather than focus on the issues that had defined the race, the anonymous blog, San Jose Revealed, began to attack Metro’s owner as a “pornographer,” ostensibly because Metro accepts so-called “adult” ads. (Does anyone here honestly believe that SJR’s attack was rooted in its concern about phone-sex ads or massages with “happy endings”?) Similarly, McEnery was repeatedly attacked for his business practices, his family’s history—all clearly designed to “change the subject” rather than talk about substantive political issues.
San Jose Revealed is entirely devoted to the politics of personal attack—all done under the cloak of anonymity.
Of course, there’s nothing original or even unusual about SJR. While reprehensible, this kind of nastiness is rampant in what passes for political discourse nowadays—especially online. By indulging in it, SJR is helping to drag all of us down into a cynical place where civility is considered quaint, or naïve.
That’s why some people who are passionate about local politics have been eager to identify the face behind SJR’s ugly mask. And that’s why, if SJR returns to further sully the local political landscape, we will continue to ignore it.
NOTE: I will update SJI’s Comments Policy to clarify our position on the ad hominem.
Be assured there will be no ad hominem attacks in this post.
I don’t always agree with San Jose Revealed or their tactics but I will attempt to defend them. While McEnery and Metro sees SJR as a Labor blog that deals in character assassination, I believe they have played an important role in the blogsphere for the last couple of years.
Even if they are a creation of the SBLC, so what? Someone has to speak for Labor. The only local blog before they came along was San Jose Inside and they had no columnists with the Labor point of view.
Forget the Mayor’s race for a second, let’s look at what was going on when SJR first came on the scene. There was a special election for Chuck Reeds vacated Council seat contested by a qualified Democrat named Kansen Chu, Berryessa School board Member, long time community member, and a candidate who happened to be supported by Labor.
The forces of Chuck Reed, Vic Ajlouny, and the Chamber ran an extremely unqualified candidate named Hon Lien who was supported by Tom McEnery (an endorsement he may now regret). I don’t know who Metro endorsed, if they endorsed anyone, but I remember you guys wrote articles very favorable of Hon Lien. Ms. Lien knew nothing about San Jose and District 4 issues not surpringly because she only moved into the city six months before the election (from Milpitas). Nonetheless her allies were very intent on getting her elected just so Reed would have someone to do his bidding on the council.
During the campaign her people launched vicious hit piece against Chu unrelated to current events having to do with his old restaurant. Talk about what Revealed has done all you want, but this Lien/Ajilouny hit piece was a real display of character assassination. Thankfully the good people of District 4 saw through it and Chu won overwhelmingly.
Back to my original point, San Jose Revealed played an important role during that special election in exposing the misinformation of Reed and Ajlouny. SJR may be a Labor shill but they saved San Jose from potentially having one of the least qualified Councilmembers in recent history.
Eric # 60 informed us:“NOTE: I will update SJI’s Comments Policy to clarify our position on the ad hominem.”
Wow, Eric, that sounds like more editing to me, and it will obviously be from your point of view.
While many of us here rail against ad hominem attacks, it’s clear that most of us recognize them for what they are.
You are setting your feet on a very slippery slope when you start editing. I think it was Justice Douglas who quipped along the lines that that it is precisely the evil, hateful, vituperative speech that needs protecting from censorship.
The Jewish lawyers of the ACLU who sued to let Nazis march and protest in Skokie understood Justice Douglas’s point of view.
More editorial control of the content of SJI would not be a good thing. We’d just get your homogenized version of the posts, slanted to your point of view. That is antithetical to blogging.
I thought Chavez was history vis a vis holding public office again. Is she still relevant?
Eric Johnson writes “…if SJR returns to further sully the local political landscape, we will continue to ignore it.”
Running the above “expose,” with photo, and engaging the resulting comments is a very interesting way to “ignore” someone!
As someone said recently: “Let’s be consistent here!”
J: good argument for media competition but a not one for having the most powerful political organizations (labor council, democratic party) masquerade as an individual writing a blog.
And it’s highly doubtful that the miniscule audience of SJR saved Berryessans from Hon Lien.
I don’t like ad hominems either.
But I do like to add homonyms.
JMO, and Reader,
Very well said gentlemen.
#62 says, “The Jewish lawyers of the ACLU who sued to let Nazis march and protest in Skokie understood Justice Douglas’s point of view.”
This is an important chapter in American life and featured ACLU attorneys acting to defend the indefensible, namely what appeared to be an attempt to terrorize Jewish residents of Skokie, Illinois, by marching through the town with insulting and frightening placards and chants.
The element that was left out of the picture painted by the poster was that the leader of the rag-tag marching six-man band was also Jewish. He’s still alive following a time in prison for child molestation (as I recall) and now finds historical artifacts and sells them in the Minnesota-Wisconsin area.
The Skokie story is a remarkable one for what has been told about it, and for what has been suppressed about it.
Eric
1. We think that the following ethical standards should exist for blogging about Silicon Valley Politics
a. Bloggers and Publishers who write pieces that consist of harsh opinion should carry a byline of a real person. People who post comments may continue to be anonymous.
b. Blogs that carry largely news or summaries of news and opinion can be published by non named sources.
c. Commentary should be restricted to an elected officials voting record or published views, family issues are out of bounds, and any ethical complaints must be named sources.
We will abide by the se standards if SJI and Watch Dog as well.
#65 Rybeau
You’re right. I meant to say they helped save San Jose from having an unqualified councilmember but were certainly not the main factor. I’m sure Kansen Chu would have won without SJR but I just wanted people to know how helpful they were in setting the record straight on Vic’s deceptive campaign tactics.
Eric,
I made no personal attack, or offensive remarks in my reply to Dan. You deleted the post because you didn’t want it to be read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/comment/policy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Post 74,
Please add:
d. Bloggers will always take thier meds on time.
From Apocalypse Now—
Kurtz: “Are you an assassin?” Willard: “I’m a soldier.” Kurtz: “You’re neither. You’re an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.”
#75 Christian,
I think you know as well as anyone that I generally employ a very light touch when moderating the comments on SJI. It’s always been a freewheeling discussion and I want it to stay that way. In fact, I believe I’ve been too lax in recent months.
You may recall that a few weeks ago, a comment showed up that was an ad hominem against Kathleen, and you brought that to my attention. (I regret not replying to you directly, but I took your note to heart.) Then, two weeks ago, Joe DeSalvo was the brunt of some nastiness that I regretted having let slip through. That’s when I started this recent crusade against the ad hominem.
A couple of things: I want to point out that when SJI’s editors decide not to approve a comment, that is not censorship. It’s moderating. I also need to say that your spiked post was an ad hominem. Toward the end, you wrote: “We are talking about you.” That is the definition of an ad hominem—talking about the man, not the issue.
Of course I realize that by spiking an attack against my employer, I open myself to criticism that I am selectively enforcing the comments policy. In my defense, I will point out that this blog is riddled with slams against Metro, Dan, Tom, and myself—comments that I approved.
I am hoping that the conversation on SJI will become more civil. You’ve been an important part of that conversation, and with one exception, everything you’ve posted is here for anyone to read. Please keep ‘em coming.
If you could only take yours, we could have more fun after Conab. Oh, well, maybe if Hawk could stop downloading that stuff before bedtime.
Eric,
Thanks for replying. It won’t be surprising to you but I disagree with your interpretation of what ad hominem means and when a statement is considered to be one.
Of course I said I’m talking about YOU in the post you are refusing to allow. I was replying to a post Dan made himself! That in and of its self does not make my ENTIRE post ad hominem. I made a sincere effort to keep my comments based on the facts, and replied to the comments made in HIS post. I didn’t call him names, or wish him ill will, nor did I act like #76- and #77 are.
You can say you aren’t censoring but rather moderating, but I disagree with you on that too. Taking out a line, and noting it publicly, or contacting the poster privately and asking that they change their post to a more appropriate response like Jack did is one thing, but to refuse to post the entire comment is another.
If indeed you were moderating you’d do it on an equal basis as a moderator enforces the rules without preference to the poster. I don’t see you doing that either. I see you giving posters who are offensive to certain posters more latitude than you should. Every time one of us disagrees with a story on “undocumented workers” or falsely claimed Police profiling we are called a racist, and you allow that.
How is open honest dialog going to happen if you are allowing a double standard to exist? And if you never have balanced articles, or rebuttals to say Raj’s opinion of the Police on SJI, how can you claim you want respectful dialog and a blog that encourages intelligent discussion? You can’t.
Until recently, I left SJI because it has become a men’s locker room filled with personal attacks, false accusations, and bias reporting. You have allowed some posts against Kathleen that are outright lies. She does not blog on the taxpayer’s dime, as she is a private contractor, she is not a government employee. Also you went so far as allowing a poster to say her half black sisters hate her. There is no way you can justify doing that Eric. The poster said HER sisters HATE her. Now that Eric is an ad hominem!
Given the posts you’ve allowed above in #76-#77, and the response you’ve given to comments about this story, I don’t hold any real faith in your changes Eric. I’d love to see you prove me wrong by cleaning up this blog because in case you haven’t noticed Eric you are losing readers.
I know I did not make any personal attacks on YOU, or do anything other than reply to your post Eric, so I expect to see my post in full so that others can comment. It is after all a blog that in a sense belongs to all of us, and ALL of us should be allowed to comment on how to improve it. Right?
#62 JMO: There will be no editing of comments except to spike personal attacks. And when that happens, as always, we’ll post a “comment deleted” note.
#64 Reader: I get your point, but this is the first time SJR has ever been the subject of a post here—and quite possibly will be the last.
#61 >> “Even if they are a creation of the SBLC, so what? Someone has to speak for Labor.”
That’s an excellent question and statement, and the subject of this entire debate. Does SJR speak for labor? Will labor own up to it? Will they stand behind it, or will it be ‘no comment’?
Obama’s opponents faced this issue. Madison Nguyen’s opponents faced this issue. When a fringe group both shares your beliefs and conducts unethical character attacks, do you embrace them or do you shun them?
The world is waiting, Ms. Chavez.
Define “personal attacks” for me Eric.
Gee, Christian, SJR never has mentioned family members in their attacks??
Eric #78 wrote:“I want to point out that when SJI’s editors decide not to approve a comment, that is not censorship. It’s moderating.” Boy, if that’s not right out of Orwell, I don’t know what is. I just can’t decide whether it’s more 1984-ish or more Animal Farm-ish.
All bloggers are equal, but some bloggers are more equal than others is not that far away @ SJI.
#81-This isn’t about SJR and what they do, it is about SJI and Eric’s post to me.
I have waited a couple of weeks to type this, especially since the editor may consider this to be an ad hominem attack and not allow it on this blog. I am not using this to attack Mr. Bump’s ideas, though, if he indeed is the author of SJR. I am just very troubled by what I see in that photo that accompanies the initial post by SVN.
Every time I come back to view the photo of Bump-man I see a photo of a VERY troubled individual with multiple unresolved issues weighing on his psyche. Sometimes, you CAN tell a book by its cover. If this picture captures the true Phillip Bump, he was probably picked on mercilessly in school and harbors deep-seated resentments for which vengeance is appropriate in his mind. He has chosen a side, and his enemies must be dealt with.
Don’t let him get an AK and get near a bell tower.
Johnmichael O’connor,
It is an old press trick. I worked on a lot of campaigns and they do it. Pick a photo that makes the person look bad, innocent, or whatever you want them to convey and people buy it. You just proved how well it works.
#85—yes, I realize that the photo that is picked is the one that depicts whatever you want to convey. I may be opinionated, but I’m not Sooopid. That’s why I waited so long to comment.
However, the photo is the photo, and it depicts what it depicts. Mr. Bump IN THAT PHOTO looks like one of the Columbine Boys, as played on screen by McCauley Culkin.
chavez has a history for reveal, and your article is so long that i must read for a long time, very tired. Dan pulcran, jim mcmanis, chuck reed, justin schall, so many people, i can not remember, no clear information in my mind.
——————<a >cell phone jammers</a>