I didn't go, nor did I get a report on round two, the clergy chat. I did receive this new up-date from Michael Harrington. After 100 comments, this is the top discussed blog post since I started one year ago. Any chance of making it 150 comments? Let's start with one of the panelists, North of Howard blogger Gary Fuschi. Who's In, Who's Out, and Why? Why was Gary added to this forum? Was it because Gary has written a dozen or so blog posts about the poor conditions in the North of Howard area or the parks and Michael read them? Maybe it's because Gary is openly critical in his blog writings against Alderman Moore's policies? Is this why Gary's name was put on the list at the last minute? Is Michael Harrington hoping to get a few good sound-bites at his forum ripping the currect leadership? Blogger Gary Fuschi's name wasn't on the first draft under the Private Lives vs. Public Priorities Bloggers/Writers forum. So, Who's In, Who's Out, and Why?
Dear United Church Members and Friends,
This Saturday, Nov. 12 at 2pm in the church sanctuary at 1545 W. Morse Ave. is the final event in our three-part Private Lives/Public Priorities forum series on the future of Rogers Park and community issues.
The topic is Inclusion, Opportunity, and Access - Who's In, Who's Out, and Why?
The panel of presenters will feature:
· Roberta Buchanan, Executive Director, Howard Area Community Center
· Gary Fuschi, North of Howard Resident and Activist
· Don Gordon, Executive Director, Rogers Park Conservancy
· Sara Jane Knoy, Executive Director, Organization of the NorthEast
· Daniel Romero, Community Organizer, Good News Church
· Dick Tholin, Chair, United Church Social Action Committee
· Fran Tobin, Interim Executive Director, Rogers Park Community Action Network
The first two forums brought out Rogers Park media/writers and local clergy to speak on panels about community issues. The Q&A dialogues with audience members helped provide our church's Social Action Committee with many ideas to inform development of our 2006 United Church Community Action Plan. Those forums will be broadcast on CANTV later this year.
I hope you plan to join us this Saturday afternoon and participate in an interesting discussion about Rogers Park community issues and the role of our church.
Peace, Michael J. Harrington, Forum Moderator
Member, United Church Board of Trustees
87 comments:
I was invited to sit on the panel. I have a prior family obligation and can not make it.
Can't speak for the other nitwits.
Nitwit Dicktickson
I was invited, but regretfully had to decline, as I don't exist. :(
Thanks for posting Craig- I'm gonna try to be there Saturday. Will this be flyered in the neighborhood- I hope?
I'll flyer if help is needed!
Thomas - I am not an 'organization', (unless I am misunderstanding your words) nor am I in anyone's pocket. Just an independent.
I have to agree with Thomas. This looks like a focus group for MJH to collect info for his next campaign. I'm not saying Michael would not be a good candidate, just lifting what is already a pretty thin vail.
Thomas and Michael K,
Is Harrington running?
Hugh,
You have to agree that the fact that he posts on this site using his campaign photo (see Sept. 28th posting),that he uses what sounds much like a stump speech in his writing, and that he points out the many victories we won in the November election (just not his election to office) that one might make a reasonable assumption that he intends to get in the race again or at least is keeping himself in the spotlight while he makes up his mind. I get the same types of letters from John Kerry to this day(yes I voted for him and would again if noone better came along). Again, I do not blame him for it. That is how elections are won. I just like to point out the obvious sometimes.
> ... one might make a reasonable assumption ...
Oh, sorry, from the way you were posting about "Harrington's campaign" I thought you knew something about it, I thought maybe you knew somethiing we didn't, I thought maybe you had some actual news to share with the group. Thanks for your reply, I now understand you were just posting more of your suppositions. My mistake.
You're welome Hugh. Perhaps I should post one of the many vagaries and assumptive statements you have made on this blog? Seems there is someone who likes to make statements and ask questions that are plainly accusations then later claims never to have made such accusations and weasels out of the subject by using semantincs. Very sly.
In any case I sent an email to Michael and will let you know what he says if he chooses to answer and if he agrees to allow me to post his answer. The body of the email follows:
Hi Michael,
There has been some discussion as to whether or not you intend to run for Alderman in the next election. I understand that is still far away and you may not have made a decision yet and also that in politcs it is sometimes best to play your hand close to your chest. Thusly, if you do not want to disclose an answer or if you would not like me to share an answer with others, I will respect your privacy.
Sincerely,
Michael K
and they say women are catty...sheesh! ;)
Seriously though, my opinion is work with the people who are willing to work and MJH & his group are stepping up- let's work with them and see what can be accomplished. Who cares if he runs or not? It's not relevant to the mission/work/needs in our community that will go on whether he runs or not or wins or loses. I don't know Michael really well, but from I do know I believe he cares for the community and not just so he can be elected and get a big salary.
I say anyone organizing neighborhood meetings like this should be supported. And what do we stand to gain? Getting more organized and that is never a bad thing. I hope to see you blogsters there! I'll be there and I'm bringing 2-3 people.
remember "the people united will never be defeated" ;)
Since Michael H. is the moderator of these panels, I guess he will have some input into their direction...that's quite some distance from them being a "focus group" however. For one thing, among others, these panels are public.
Frankly, I fail to see the problem. Whether or not these meetings, or any others for that matter, might provide Michael H. with some information and visibility that would help him should he decide to run, why shouldn't he use, or even create, these opportunities for this purpose? That's not at all the same thing as implying that he's just being an "opportunist".
You guys talk about Michael's community involvement as if it's tainted if he decides to run...just hollow self-serving posturing to gain the huge prize of being an Alderman. That's just laughable. As for the Alderman's salary, I'm pretty sure someone with MJH's skill set could get something near it in the private sector with a lot less trouble than standing for an election.
Anyway, I wasn't living up here during the last election. I don't know for sure who I'll support in the next one. But I'll be happy if at least one viable candidate emerges to run against Joe. If Michael uses local media and events intelligently to help me get an idea what he might be like as a candidate, he's doing me a service.
Nico's Mom,
I am not saying there is something wrong with it so long as their is transparency. Imagine if you will, a scenario where there was someone not so interested in the communities well being (and I do not believe that is the case here) but rather in gaining information to further a cause contrary to that of the public they are charged with serving.
For example, the Bush administration (and I'm sure his opponents used similar tactics) called thousands of people asking how people felt about different programs over and over again only using slightly diferent terminology each time until they found the best way to phrase an agenda point that would get the most public buy in. The calls would be placed by "independent" groups using names like "Friends of Liberty" who would then pass on the information to the president.
Do I think that is the case here? Probably not, but I expect all people with a political agenda to play by the same rules. Both the good guys and the bad guys.
Did anyone see David Fagus's recent post about retail in RP and east/west streets being unworkable?
He asked what we think but he removed the comments function off his blog. No public forum there.
I will probably send him an email- I disagree with his argument- sounds like "witchcraft" and not real science/logic to me.
North & South vs. East and West
How much time have you spent thinking about the problems of retail in Rogers Park? I have spent a lot of time. It is a constant source of concern which makes it constantly on my mind. I too would like to see a greater variety of retail, restaurants and other things I enjoy doing. People often talk about Andersonville as a model. People often talk about revitalizing Morse and Howard. Occasional they speak of Jarvis.
I have a thought: East/West streets don’t work for retail. Sound crazy? Name a street that runs East and West between Howard and Addison that is commercially successful and east of Western.
Let me help you. Argyle. Some of you may say Bryn Mawr, but that is not accurate in my opinion. There has been a great deal of investment and it looks nicer than it did, but it still has a great number of vacancies. Nearly entire buildings on the corner of Winthrop and Bryn Mawr sit begging for tenants. The difference between Bryn Mawr and Morse is that its retail is geared towards the middle class shopper. Lawrence might get a mention. It isn’t there yet, but it’s better than it has been.
Where doesn’t it work well? Howard, Jarvis Morse, Devon, Granville, Thorndale, Bryn Mawr, Berwyn, Lawrence, Wilson, Irving Park, Addison. Every section of these streets that is viable also borders Clark, Broadway or Sheridan.
Where doesn’t retail exist at all? Touhy, Pratt, Foster, Montrose, Damen, Ashland
Where East/West does work better is Belmont to downtown. They have tremendous density, but even more so they have great amounts of disposable income. To amass those resources they have the kind of housing stock that the proposed new zoning would allow for Clark and Western. They used to have the kind of housing stock we have worked to protect: single families, two flats and three flats.
Now think of North/South streets. Clark is viable all the way down. Broadway is viable. Western is somewhat viable. Most of Sheridan Rd., our most potentially viable commercial strip in Rogers Park, is largely not in play by community choice, but where it is commercial it works. Farther south Halsted is viable.
I am sure there is a reason. My guess is that most people don’t have a reason to come east. The streets that run east lead into the lake, but even when it leads to Lake Shore Drive it doesn’t help much.
So what do you think?
Sorry Michael K., I still don't get it. I am as familiar with Bush and Co. election tactics as any interested layperson without several hours a day to devote to research on the subject can be. But what isn't transparent about this? Michael Harrington's name is all over this thing. He signs his real name to his blog posts - he even give out his email address on the blogs.
As for the "crafting the message" part, well, yes, all politicians do this. Rhetoric has long been, well I guess has always been, a part of the Western political tradition. Rhetoric can produce the Emancipation Proclamation and it can also produce Jew Suss. There is nothing inherently evil about using language to persuade someone to come around to your point of view - it's the ultimate devil in the details situation.
Let's not get carried away. If and when he announces that he's running, then we should pay very close attention to everything about how he (and any other candidates) run their campaigns. If he wants to do a little constituancy building in the mean time - why shouldn't he?
RPneighbor -
Is the part below the title North & South vs. East and West the thing that Fagus wrote?
If he did write it, well, yes, the argumentation is sloppy, although there is a certain logic to it. I think it amounts to saying that in Chicago you only get lots of east-west retail when there is a high level of disposible income near the east-west roads and/or lots of through car traffic. Having said that, he's not said much. Among other things, it still doesn't explain why Morse and Howard are still such shit holes compared to all the other E/W streets he mentioned.
>Did anyone see David Fagus's recent post about retail in RP and east/west streets being unworkable? He asked what we think but he removed the comments function off his blog. No public forum there.
I found the north/south east/west thing incomprehensible.
Fagus wrote...
> ... the kind of housing stock we have worked to protect: single families, two flats and three flats.
Who is this we, and what have you done to protect single families, two flats and three flats?
Alderman Moore is setting in legislation what he calls his zoning "plan" for Rogers Park, and it offers scant protection to single family homes, two flats and three flats. Moore is carefully preserving the vast areas of RT4 zoning, the favorite zoning of developers, because the density of RT4 allows developers to build their favorite form of architecture, the cookie-cutter cinder block luxury condo project. Moore is scheduling most of Rogers Park for brutal "in-fill development."
And every tear-down has associated campaign contributions. Moore's record on preserving single families, two flats and three flats is lacking. From his plan, his goal is to keep the tear-down-campaign contribution engine stoked.
It seems pretty clear to me that the "plan" emerging from out present leadership goes something like this (except Howard st. I haven't got a clue what they think they are doing up there): replace retail on e/w streets with new higher priced residential housing that will increase the median income in the ward. All these new residents will then spend their money on Clark, Broadway, somewhat on Western and Sheridan road if we decide to let them. Voila, problems solved!
Perhaps I'm just simple minded, but isn't that the ground this opinion piece is softening up?
If it is, what do we think about it?
More talk about development. Good to hear it. I want to mention something I've noticed a lot and anyone else near Fargo and Greenview may have noticed as well. They have been doing a lot of work on the sewer system in my neighborhood. A benefit of this is that we get new streets and sidewalks when they are done. This has been a foreshadowing of increased development in neighborhoods I have lived in in the past. Anyone who went past the Addison brown line stop over the last few years might have noticed a huge water works project that had the streets torn up for years. Soon after they completed it they started construction on a huge new complex. It seems to be very high quality though so I would not have opposed it and it replaced an old factory space. If this is the case here (and I am not sure it is) I doubt the city would start spending money on ifrastrucure projects unless city planners already have ideas about how the area will be developed. I have sent an email to the water department asking for information in regards to all this work. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.
In regards to the East/West v North/South thing, here's my 2 cents. Montrose is really coming up recently but then so is that entire area. There are lots of great shops on Montrose between Clark and Western. I used to live there and I could do most of my Christmas shopping on foot.
Devon is a thriving street. Do you mean it simply doesn't work for white people? I love Devon and if I didn't sometimes get myself into trouble from eating too much green sauce I would eat just about every meal over there.
Some of the streets you named are not pedestrian friendly and that is due to the original city plan. Chicago was laid out on a grid with a few roads like Clark, Clybourn, Milwaukee, etc.. designed to carry products out to other areas for easy transport. It was a beautiful (if short sighted) plan. As Chicago grew and incorporated new towns into its own boundaries, the arteries for those towns that had a standard grid did not work with the original plan. So you have vast tracts of factory space built right next to beautiful homes and many of the properties altered to accomodate the radiating pattern of Chicago's design.
Nico's ma,
I agree with your assessment that Moore has a plan underlying the zoning maps, and I despise him for not sharing it. Instead, he presented a heavily expurgated, highly rehearsed "plan" at the recent series of four meetings. One of the most interesting interchanges in the meetings was at the library when a neighbor asked, "What's the plan?" and Moore pointed to the zoning map and said "This is a plan" and Ms. Campbell, the urban planner from the Metropolitan Planning Council, jumped in and explained what a real plan would entail.
Consensus-building is the heavy lifting of politics. Moore fears his community, he does not trust them to arrive at the conclusions he desires, so he takes the easy way out - sneaking around, planning in the back room.
Another theme in common between the zoning meetings and the marina meeting is civil servants using consultants to deliver bad news to their constituents. It's cowardly and lazy and it's shirking.
Thomas -
> Maybe I'm wrong - nothing in the post says that MJH will be the moderator, or that MJH's name will continue to appear in the publicity. I'm just assuming, but we'll see...
His name is on the flyer that was posted on the blog.
> As far as I know, the last time MJH ran an organization, it was a nonprofit that, under his tender ministrations, lost all its money and declared bankruptcy shortly after he resigned as director.
We get it. You hate the guy.
Now if you really want to do us a favor, you will point us the the direction of some information on this organization you say that MJH sunk.
I'm sure that those of us who actually take the time to research who they vote for would like to know more.
Michael K. Your post about the sewer work reminds me of that Chris Rock routine where he talks about long time residents reaction to infrastructure improvements in Harlem. "What?! OH NO!!! They're fixing the STREETS?! Oh damn - the white people are coming!!"
Thomas - I apologize. MJH's name isn't on the flyer - it's on the press release which was not posted on the blog. Brain freeze.
He is mentioned on the blog posting though:
>“Much of what happens in the life of any community – even in our private lives – is determined by public policy. Our forums will tackle a range of concerns, from housing and retail development to crime, schools, and parks – all are issues which have an impact on whether our families merely survive or thrive in Rogers Park,” said Michael J. Harrington, forum moderator and a member of the United Church Board of Trustees and Social Action Committee.
of course Chris Rock didn't say damn
Nico's Mom asked, "What isn't transparent here?"
To answer that, I'll point out a little pattern I have picked up on around here that would indicate that perhaps much of the content of this blog is used as a campaign forum for MJH.
Step 1:
Craig takes 2 unrelated facts and puts them together such as this:
Alderman Moore is seen eating a Snickers.
There are hungry babies in the world.
Craig posts, "SCANDAL! Alderman Moore eats candy while babies go hungry!"
Step 2:
Hugh comes in and posts inflammatory statements and accusatory questions such as:
Is Moore spending your tax dollars on candy?
Why isn't this Snickers listed as an assett on his tax forms?
Are the babies going hungry because Joe stole their candy?
Step 3:
We all argue about who got what from whom for 2 days.
Step 4:
MJH writes a 500 word essay about how, if we work together, one day all of us will have beautiful, sated babies and all the Snickers we want. An opinion noone would argue with and MJH comes off looking like the great uniter.
If this sounds familiar, let me know. If they aren't doing it intentionally then they should because it is already working great.
Michael K,
Have you noticed Thomas going a little negative lately?
Don't you want to jump in and denounce him, demand to know his agenda, ask him what he is FOR, etc.?
Thomas wrote...
> ... high editorial standards are not the hallmark of blogs ...
You posted three letters to the editor to the Windy City Times?
I think you have the jumping all over Thomas job down.
Thomas wrote...
>I love the irony of the guy complaining ...
Where's the irony? I don't see the irony. Do you understand irony?
>See?
No. Sorry.
Where is the "tension between expected and real?"
Did you read through years of the letters to editor in back issues of Windy City Times, expecting to find support, and found complaining?
Thomas,
Do you have three years of the Windy City Times in your apartment? If so, please be careful.
Man trapped under mountain of papers
Sounds like my inbox at work.
Tom said......> I had that old Windy City Times stuffed in a file drawer.
I thought you were straight?
Craig,
Making comments about people's sexuality is not going to win constituents... er... uh... friends.
Michael K. posts.....> Craig posts, "SCANDAL! Alderman Moore eats candy while babies go hungry!"
Stop putting words in my mouth. No one is going hungry around here .
Just a fun little joke, Craig. I doubt anyone took it seriously. In fact, I think the only reason that Hugh didn't jump all ove me is that he thought it was funny. You have to admit that this pattern happens a lot though.
I think I answered my own question. I assume that since Citizens for Harrington filed a campaign contibution disclosure form in August that he is indeed still in the running.
http://www.elections.state.il.us/CampaignDisclosure/CommitteeDetail.aspx?id=16910
Wow, It looks as if he owes some money.
Yes it does. According to schedule C, he owes the money (at leat as of 8/02)to Craig Gernhardt. Gee, I wonder who that is?
I am really looking forward to seeing the instant replay of Katy's profanity laced tirade on CAN - TV.
Would you care to have me on your Saturday morning radio program? I could help you boost the ratings.
Why does it not surprise me that this little forum turned into a shouting match? Could it be because it was designed to be a setup for anyone with a viewpoint that differs from MJH, Craig, or Hugh? What a joke. There is not a single unbiased person on your panel. I am sure the next panel with members of MJH's church will be non-partisan as well. Hah!
Michal K. said.....> "Why does it not surprise me that this little forum turned into a shouting match?"
Who shouted? Were you one of the thirty people there Michael K?
Excuse me if I interpret "profanity laced tirade" as shouting. And, no, I was not in attendance. The idea of attending a forum to discuss community issues which is a thinly veiled campaign rally for MJH (at a church to boot) does not sound like a good way to spend my Saturday. Instead, I did something productuve. I walked around and picked up garbage on my street.
(Sigh) This whole thing reeked of being a political stunt for MJH. He couldn't help but interject his own viewpoints into a panel discussion he was supposed to be "moderating."
The end of the discussion was embarrassing. Craig and Katy got into it, but I don't blame her for attempting to defend the name of her and her business from what she felt were unfair attacks. She wanted to respond, and lost it.
Really, it wasn't that different from reading the blogs. There was lots of discussion that resulted in off-base conversation backed-up by only few facts and much speculation. It eventually devolved into a cussing match in a church. I was embarrassed to be there, and I was ashamed at the behavior of my neighbors.
With the exception of Toni, the other panelists stated in a matter-of-fact way that they didn't feel they were journalists, and alas, were not responsible for the truth or fiction of anything they post. That, to me, speaks volumes. Hugh basically said flat-out that he's not responsible for the truth of anything he posts. If he makes a mistake, someone else will point it out.
I can only imagine telling my girlfriend if I promised her a candle-lit dinner and then backed out that "I said that? I'm not responsible for anything I say."
Thankfully, Toni says that before she posts a “story” on her blog she fact-checks her articles and makes an honest attempt to ensure the information she puts on her site is correct. I don’t know much about her blog and I have only recently begun reading it. I found her attitude refreshing.
Few segments of Rogers Park were represented on the panel; the "journalist" on the panel didn't show up (Rightfully so...I refuse to believe an editor of a newspaper would allow his journalist to participate on a panel such as this. She shouldn't have even agreed to it. Someone with a graduate degree in journalism should have smelled this a mile away); and all the political players and 800 lbs. gorillas of Rogers Park politics were cut out of the panel discussions entirely. Hmm…I wonder why?
I'm not going to any of these other panel discussions. They were moderated horribly with political ambitions barely masked, the panelists offered few insights, and it ended with our neighbors cursing at each other in a church no less.
I’m not a religious person. I wasn’t raised a religious person by my parents. However, I’ve always felt a responsibility to respect the religions of others. Swearing in a temple/building/chamber that others deem holy is extremely disrespectful. You might as well spit in the holy water. It made me feel dirty and disrespectful. There was a priest in the back of the church and it looked like he was ready to put an end to that fight since MJH didn’t bother to cut off either Craig or Katy – who were both out of line. Someone owes that man an apology.
That to me spoke volumes about these “panel discussions.” I urge others not to waste their Saturday afternoons. Go watch the leaves fall before they are all gone. Watch some football on tv and eat salty snacks. Go for a walk by the beach. I’m sure some bad Steven Segal movie is playing on UPN next Saturday afternoon. Watching Steven Segal and the Arnold send bad guys “back to hell, where [they] belong” is a better use of your time than these panel discussions. So much anger for such a beautiful Saturday afternoon.
Thanks for attending and verifying what I and others suspected.
>Hugh basically said flat-out that he's not responsible for the truth of anything he posts. If he makes a mistake, someone else will point it out.
Why don't you post what I said instead of what you think I basically said?
Dan, you expressed your concern that online writers do not share the standards of main-stream journalists, and I agreed with you.
Yet I stand by my posts. Personally, not as a journalist or anything else. Whenever you are tempted to compare me to a journalist, please try to remember I am just a neighbor, just a dumb guy with a computer.
What I said was, I have the same standards online as off-line. I would no more post something I knew to be untrue than I would speak untruth to you or anyone else. Please don't try and hang anything on me beyond that. And I admitted I make mistakes. When I do, I hope you and everyone else will not hesitate to straighten me out, and together we will understand our neighborhood better. This process is characteristic of online forums, I did not invent it. To the best of my abilities, I post what I know to be true. My abilities are limited.
Let's say you and your next door neighbor go out to fetch your morning paper at the same time, and you notice that tractors are pulling down the single-family frame home across the street. Over the din you call to your neighbor, "Any idea what the plan is there?" and your neighbor replies "I called the ward office and 9 condos are going in."
Would you be outraged? Are you worried you are being lied to? What gives him the right? He is not a journalist! Your neighbor must realize there is a chance he might be wrong, should he have said nothing? Under what conditions is it OK for you and me to have a conversation about our neighborhood? Is no one allowed to think or write or talk about their neighborhood?
What kind of accountability are you looking for exactly?
I believe the minimum accountability we are looking for here is in your example:
"Any idea what the plan is there?" and your neighbor replies "I called the ward office and 9 condos are going in."
I do not think that it is out of line to expect you to call the ward office.
I try to cite my sources so others may learn. Sometimes I get lazy, when I do and you are curious, feel free to ask, how did you figure that out?
Wow. Hugh claims his comments were taken out of context. It must be Halloween. It's a little late for spin, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I drifted out somewhere around the time you started talking about Zena The Warrior Princess...
Take another look at the "Silence = Death" thread. That's a good illustration of my point about unsubstantiated accusations. Additionally, previous postings you claim show that DevCorp is violating the law with evidence that is completely circumstantial -- at best -- is also a good example.
I think this excerpt from interview (conducted by a blogger, go figure, and published on Feb. 10, 2005) with New York Times Co. Legal Counsel David E. McCraw really gets to the heart of my argument. Hugh, please look carefully at the second paragraph. Whether you realize it or not, you are more accountable for your statements and stories than "a dumb guy" with a computer:
"Unfortunately, many bloggers think that their blogs fall under the protection of the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling. This isn't so. If a blogger posts libelous content that is original, it is still libel.
Do bloggers deserve the same protection as journalists? On one side, it obvious that bloggers are journalists, and on the other side, people are just having private conversations. Bloggers are trying to site [sic] on both sides of the fence - citizen journalists and personal journals. They want the protection of shield law as a journalist, but at the same time not worry about fact checking since it is just a blog.
Originally, people thought that since blogs had low readership there was no real reason to worry about libel. But, now the way that search engines work, blogs are being easily found - with comments and posts of an unflattering nature.
What happens on blogs now is that posts are being picked up by major media outlets. The lonely, personal essayist is no longer true for blogs. There are now blogs that are influential and being picked up, and if it construed as factual information, there needs to be a level of fact checking. If it is false, the original source - the blogger - may be subject to liability just as much as a newspaper."
I'm not saying that any of your statements meet the legal definition of libelous (although someone may be able to make that argument). What I am saying is that you have a responsibility to back up accusations you make about people -- public figures or not -- with more than circumstantial evidence.
The fact that you and others at Saturday's "discussion" openly dismiss this responsibility is unfortunate to say the least.
Michael K said.....> "Thanks for attending and verifying what I and others suspected."
What others?
Suspected what?
Thanks for worrying about me being sued. Interesting issue you raise regarding protections. This did not come up Saturday, you did not raise it and neither did anyone else. I did not hear anyone claim any special protection.
My own personal plan for avoiding law suits is simple: only post true stuff. It's worked so far.
Dan, I would encourage you to start your own blog, kick it off with a statement of your commitment to fact checking. I look forward to your posts.
>Take another look at the "Silence = Death" thread.
> ... accusations you make about people ...
I took another look.
Could you please be more specific about accusations I made?
By the way, the Warrior Princess is Xena.
The Xena newsgroups are the most caustic online forums I have come across in all my web surfing. Xena would not be proud. The hyper-empowered regulars there make Craig's blog seem like a tea party. The sniping swamps the content. Every post no matter how trivial is greeted with a barrage of personal attacks. It's an extreme example of how an online community may be easily derail by making it simply unpleasant.
-What others?
Thomas Westgard for one. See above. Also, a few of my neighbors.
-Suspected what?
Suspected the panel to be biased and that MJH would not be taking a passive "moderator" role but rather using the forum as a way to further his campaign.
Again, he is entitled to have forums for his campaign, I just wish he'd put it on his flyer.
Michael K said.....>"Thomas Westgard for one. See above. Also, a few of my neighbors.""
Tom wasn't even there, how could he know. Michael K.'s neighbors on Farwell? Would this neighbor be Joe Moore?
I was pointing out what others had suspected. Dan is the one who confirmed it.
I've never met Joe and don't know what his opinion of your panels are. It's intersting that you try to tie me to him in order to discredit my comments though. Am I at fault because he lives down the street from me? Perhaps you share the same viewpoints as the drug dealers that are your neighbors?
Please.
Rebecca and all,
I apologize for painting the entire panel with such a broad brush. I will not even attempt to qualify this statement. Making broad generalizations was just lazy on my part.
That is a very fair question, Nicki. The reason is because I usually post under a nickname. Some of the people who post on this blog have met me in person, so they know who I am. Others can guess from the nickname itself if they walk in my part of the hood. I am happy to match the real name to the nickname to anyone I meet in person, and I would have told anyone who showed up at the panel. No one asked, but then, there is no particular reason why they should.
I only speak for myself on the blogs, and I use the same nickname everytime, so I think it's okay to maintain that little bit of privacy. Perhaps that is a bit chicken shit, but I really don't want my neighbors to suffer if someone decides to tear up our garden due to some perceived lack of sympathy for ducks, etc. I signed my name to the last post because I was talking about the panel.
I accidentally outed myself. Please don't tear up my garden. I really love ducks.
Apologies accepted Michael K.
And I apologize for saying that the panel was lame. It was sort of lame but I really mostly meant that I was lame. Hugh was a little bit lame but a lot less lame than I was. Toni wasn't really lame at all - mea culpa, Toni. And Craig was a lot more lame than I was, but he he likes to be criticized, so I'm really giving him a little present by saying that. Most of the questions from the audience were pretty lame - well, predictable at any rate. Michael H. didn't really moderate much, and some thought that was lame, except when he tried to moderate too much, and others thought that was lame.
Don't be too upset about it though. Although it is too bad this one wasn't earth shatteringly learned and interesting to all involved, most panels, speeches and public debates are pretty lame; they are just one piece of the puzzle. I am not trying to be an apologist for mediocracy, but even the silliest types of public discourse can spin off into something interesting - there is just no telling. The people who came who had never looked at the blogs - maybe never come into contact with blogs at all - now the bug is planted in their ear. The journalism students who were in the audience - I'm sure even the silliest discussion of blogs helps their understanding of the phenomenon. And, after all, the blogs are still here to give us a place to talk about it right away, and isn't that better than the time when there wasn't anything else like it?
Sick Nicki,
I have lived in and around Rogers Park for 15 years. I know much more than we are posting and I think we should be doing better. Don't you?
My point isn't that blog writers can be sued for libel. I should have trimmed down that quote. My point is that some of the panelists stated they don't consider themselves journalists, which they feel absolves them from fact checking and refraining from making baseless accusations.
Here is the second paragraph I wanted to point out. This is not evidence. This is not proof of anything. It is opinion. However, I think it hammers home the point that Craig and Hugh were making -- which I disagree with.
Here it is again:
"On one side, it obvious that bloggers are journalists, and on the other side, people are just having private conversations. Bloggers are trying to site [sic] on both sides of the fence - citizen journalists and personal journals. They want the protection of shield law as a journalist, but at the same time not worry about fact checking since it is just a blog."
It doesn't matter anyway, really. MJH, Hugh and Rebecca can say all they want about whether the panel, audience, etc. were lame, non-partisan or whatever. MJH couldn't help but interject his political opinions into the dialogue and attempt to cut off James' question. Craig is Craig, and couldn't help accusing Katy of being party to misappropriating funds, Hugh couldn't help make accusations about the Alderman that he couldn't back up during a rambling speech that I zoned out on somewhere around the time he was talking about Xena.
What accusations did you make Hugh? The first one I caught is that the Alderman's website contains one truth and "goes downhill from there." I'd love to see proof of that.
But who needs proof? We're not responsible for the accusations we make. Thomas may disagree with this, but what does he know? He's probably gay according to the "argument" in a previous thread.
Additionally, let's not worry about the fact that anyone with an opposing view is not sitting on the panel.
The fact remains that this "non-partisan" event devolved into a cussing match in a church. No one seems bothered by this? Oh, it was just Craig and Katy being Craig and Katy, right?
Oh, it's not up to the moderator to cut off two people verbally attacking each other when the conversation is so off-base and contrary to what the panel is allegedly about.
I've been to panel discussions before, and I've never seen people act like this. It was embarrassing.
I think "lame" really misses the point. If I knew nothing about blogs until coming to this panel "discussion," I don't think I would be in any hurry to start my own blog.
And that's the solution, right Hugh? If I don't like America, why don't I leave or start my own country? If I have a problem with the Alderman, why don't I run for his office? Just the same, if I don't like one blog, I shouldn't post on it or argue about the validity of the "information" contained on it, I should simply start my own.
I stand by my previous posting. If you want to see your neighbors cussing at each other between political speeches at a supposedly "non-partisan" event hosted by a church and containing a panel that represents only one tiny segment of our community, by all means clear your Saturday afternoons for November.
I get it, it was Halloween and you were trying to scare people about getting sued for libel. Boo back at ya.
>The journalism students who were in the audience - I'm sure even the silliest discussion of blogs helps their understanding of the phenomenon.
> ... if I don't like one blog, I shouldn't post on it or argue about the validity of the "information" contained on it, I should simply start my own.
I wouldn't worry too much about journalism students needing to better understand blogging. I'm more worried about my neighbors. The first thing anyone learns about the blogging phenomenon is that it is a personal expression. Getting your undies in a bundle about the lack of balance or standards on a particular blog site is missing the point big time.
Blogs are like the op ed sections of news papers full of some fact, opinion, supposition, innuendo. We don’t hold Maureen Dowd to the same standards as the so-called “news” sections or demand that she be fired and the NY Times shut down because we don’t like what she writes so why would we hold bloggers like Craig to standards different from the op ed pages? Further, most blogs are about dialogue between blogger and participants. They are virtual town squares. We would like people to be truthful and accurate in all their statements but the overarching point is really discussion so limiting speech by certain journalistic rules is contradictory to the raison d'etre (there's a white, middle class word for you) of blogs or town squares (and journalistic speech and standards have tricks too – more on that in a moment). As for the passionate language that overcomes us all at some point – I think it’s healthy and gives us all an opportunity to vent in a safe way (besides, y’all haven’t seen real bitchy comments until you’ve been around the internet with a bunch of dog people; canine lovers are damn catty!).
There is a difference between writing something that is incorrect such as getting dates, numbers, and other facts wrong (particularly if one has the opportunity to make the correction such as newspapers and the like), and writing something that is injurious to someone's persona, and is done out of malice. One can pretty much say whatever one wants about a politician, true or false, for better or worse. The courts, since the time of Alexander Hamilton, have been very reluctant to squelch political discourse even when a case could be made that it is libelous (our blogs have nothing on the pamphlet publishing that went on in the 1700 and 1800s). We suffer this for having the freedom to discuss our politicians and politics freely. Just ask Oriana Fallaci, the great female war correspondent, about freedom of speech in the U.S. vs. her home country of Italy to which she can now never return.
If I post "I saw Craig on Lunt in a shocking pink Prada ensemble. He looked good in those 3 inch heels and that short skirt!" Craig must prove that there is malice in my words, and then he has to prove that he suffered (financial) injury from my comments. Perhaps I really thought that it was Craig, and that the outfit was too cute, but it turns out it was Craig's twin sister. My bad.
However, if Craig wins a bike race and I write that I saw him cheat and his trophy is taken from him then he can sue me. But in the course of suing me Craig has to prove that he didn't cheat (and I need to support my claim that he did).
Libel is not cut and dried, and the burden is almost always on the one who is doing the suing. The courts have shown that they are loathe to find in favor of libel unless it is very clear that the writer *knowingly* made a false statement out of malice and such statement caused financial harm to the victim (see Lance Armstrong and claims of doping for the subtleties here). Otherwise, the courts would be shutting down discourse nearly every day of the week, if not every hour. To ensure our first amendment rights the burden must be high. The good news about blogs is that inaccurate or false statements are quickly caught and corrected by the chorus; agendas outed for all to review. That goes for the mainstream media as well as we've seen in the last few years. Cheat and lie and you will get busted in our now transparent world. It’s self-correcting and mostly doesn’t need legal intervention.
I also work in publishing and I know what fact-checking looks like. I know how it is used by professional journalists to support their claims. I know how to position a story in a certain way, and then allow for an opposing view or denial buried in the 5th paragraph in a certain way. It is done every day in papers, on the news, in books. I am not dissing professional journalists, just saying that there is a way to support almost any claim one might want to make under the guise of fact-checking, truth, and so-called objectivity (I, too, agree that the line between opinion and fact is very blurry). Anyone who knowingly makes a false statement ought to be ashamed. But a capable journalist, schooled in the ways of the trade, can write a story full of innuendo, supposition, and weak facts woven together sufficiently to have a patina of solid reporting. Some of the best reporters do this expertly.
Give me free-wheeling discussion, even if some of it is wrong or wrong-headed any day of the week over a society where speech is dampened by fear of legal action or government intervention. Btw, everyone – and I mean everyone – has an agenda be it MJH or Craig or Hugh or Dan or Michael K or nico’s mom or Joe M or me. That doesn’t make any of us bad, per se, nor our ambitions wrong or evil. There is nothing inherently wrong with MJH wanting to run for alderman or Don G wanting to save the lake or MK arguing for bike paths or developers working for zoning exemptions. In fact, one could make the case that competing agendas ensure that it’s virtually impossible for any one person or persons to lay claim to absolute power over such a society and that the push and pull provide for a richer world for us all.
Very thoughtful comments Pamela. I do still think that people should be careful of what they say regardless of the legal ramifications. It is simply the responsible thing to do.
>To see this train wreck in person was oh so entertaining.
Please, don't encourage this.
if you want more entertainment in Rogers Park get behind restoring the Adelphi.
I'm a little late to comment on the Forum, but for what it's worth- my 2 cents.
In my opinion alot of this is being blown way out of proportion. Why can't we ever seem to take something at face value? This was an attempt to have some community forums/ I honestly did not feel it was "rah rah" anyone (meaning MJH). No, it wasn't perfect but it was a first attempt. It was something.
I also think it's very unrealistic to expect blogs to meet journalistic standards. CONSIDER THE SOURCE ALWAYS- whether it's the NYtimes, Weekly Standard, or Morse Hellhole- always consider the source. Because even though journalists claim no bias- I truly believe this is impossible. We always have some degree of slant- best to be honest and up front.
You have to admit that with Craig, Hugh, and Toni all their agendas are transparent. They tell us what they are about don't they? They tell us what they want right?
Sometimes I feel I don't know what our Alderman wants for the ward and I'd like to hear him talk about it- what his vision is for our ward.
I see these blogs as sharing information. Speaking of which, did anyone catch the news report this morning on channel 5? I guess there have been a series of armed robberies on the north side including RP.
I also think of blogs as a support network sometimes for like-minded folks- unfortunately too many times here people are trashing one another and getting into pissing contests- not constructive at all.
peace out
Amen Pamela!
World famous? No way! You are too kind!
Not so Krystal Clear bemoaned.......>"our choice of candidates were an angry gay man accused of pilfering a dead mans fund and a confused ex-priest who left the priesthood to marry his longtime lover.
Let me explain this much. Alderman Moore has a bunch of these people who attack on a personal level outting personal issues. Very classy.
I witnessed Alderman Moore chuckle and laugh outside a CTA station campaign handshaking on a cold morning in January 2003. He actually laughed and joked with a Hate mongerer like Krystal. This lady was denouncing "Faggots like Harrington". This lady went on and on about how bad fags were. I was right there in shock as Alderman Moore justed laughed. He didn't even attempt to defend a gay population. A spineless weasle he was, just laughing.
So when the Krystal says she/he voted for Joe, I say Joe, you can have her vote, she isn't my type of person I want on my side.
CG said: Let's start with one of the panelists, North of Howard blogger Gary Fuschi. Who's In, Who's Out, and Why? Why was Gary added to this forum? Was it because Gary has written a few blogs about the poor conditions in the North of Howard area and Michael read them? Maybe it's because Gary is openly critical in his blog writings against Alderman Moore's policies? Is this why Gary's name was put on the list at the last minute? Is Michael Harrington hoping to get a few good sound-bites at his forum ripping the currect leadership? Blogger Gary Fuschi's name wasn't on the first draft under the Private Lives vs. Public Priorities Bloggers/Writers forum. So, Who's In, Who's Out, and Why?
Feeling left out Craig-O ? Worried someone elses blog might take some of the wind out of your sails?
Slinging Mud at MJH as foreshadowing of things to come?
It is posts like this that defend my belief that this is all about Craig and that you could give 2 s*^@% about the community or anybody else.
Talk about classy! Take a step back and a big deep breath my man.
Please do tell. What's your angle here?
Craig - Gary's name was on all the versions of the publicity for this event that I saw.
It is absurd to suggest that Gary is on this panel because Michael is after sound bites (and I find all the posts that suggest that the panelists are schilling for Michael faintly ridiculous). You act like this panel is going to be broadcast on Fox news or something. Get a grip!
These threads are more than mildly amusing. I read what I had written on the panel so there were thoughts for everyone to mull over. There were truths stated for everyone with a level head to begin wondering ‘why did that happen NOH and why is it continuing’? Rather than touching any of the truths presented, I was more or less left out of the questioning process! Imagine that? One person kept asking rambling 5 minute questions (with permission) and by the time the thought process concluded, none of us was really sure what the real question was. Sadly, the gentleman with the microphone had been standing behind people who had raised their hand while the rambling continued. It was an audience member who finally intervened in the match between Craig and Katie for two reasons, to shut them up and to finally get his turn with the mike.
Then there was the complaint of not having ‘happy stories’ to balance the blogs. At that point, I had to challenge the audience to read about Maurice on 24/7…the complaint stopped.
As was expected, there was one person glaring and complaining about the blogs’ treatment of slain gangbangers, the treatment of Section 8 housing, etc. It was probably a plant from the insidious little agitators who don’t have ‘the stones’ to either appear in person or to ask the question. Unfortunately, had this ‘plant’ read my blog stories, comprehended what was written, the ‘plant’ would have discovered that I frequently refer to my ‘friends’ in Section 8, she may have realized she’d been set up to attack without backup. I brought HUD, IDHA, Northpoint management, and Chicago Department of Human Services to ONE table where the tenants demanded and received public permission to organize a tenant association to improve living conditions and protect tenant rights. That must have been a thorn in a few nonprofit organizer’s ribs to have a citizen do their work for them. To do it in one month must have stung even more. Fact is, years and years of ‘feel good’ meetings happened and nothing much was accomplished, and I’d like to hear what the ‘excuse’ is. I have my opinion on the matter.
Apparently, Rogers Park is in a time wharp. If anything positive happens too quickly, if a nonprofit isn’t involved from the inception, then it’s time to send in the troops. Who is a white female, taxpayer, 9-5’er to call the top rungs on the ladder to a meeting? If they’re spread too thin to do it; they’re still clinging to the tired steps to get from point A to point D and no ‘outsider’ is allowed to detour from their map. I enjoy detours…one never knows what treasures are to be found. Sadly, with the forlorn and forgotten streets such as Howard, there are too few treasures remaining.
Unlike Joe Moore, I have a horse in this race and I don’t want it shot by random gunfire, stomped on by rude hate mongerers, stolen by crack heads, kept awake by drug runners catcalls, whistles, and loud mufflers. I don’t appreciate a forum of nonprofits deciding how my horse and I will run the race by placing timewharp obstacles on the course. If there is a plan by this group to make NOH a safe place to live, then start sharing it and stop pitting one race against another. The 60’s are over.
That would make a few agitators verry happy! Thanks for your concern, your concern is shared by others who know me. But at least AWARENESS has been brought to the public and city government's attention about what you call a 'pig pen full of gangbangers'...there are many forms of gangs to deal with, and not all of them utilize loaded weapons to do their destruction! Agitators will go to any length to prove their point and get their way..regardless of how many people they use in the process. How pathetic, how hypocritical, how unspiritual!
Thanks to the United Church for a very thought-provoking series!
Post a Comment