Yesterday I promoted a post by our resident crank “Ernie Boch III”, ostensibly dealing with campaign contributions to Speaker Pro Tem Petrolati. I thought the story which was its subject was intriguing; and thought it merited further questioning. Regular readers may know that campaign finance is one of my hobby-horses; I feel that elected officials should be aware that the source of their campaign money does indeed affect how their actions are interpreted in the public. And I also like getting our regular posters onto the front page — for the community-building aspect, and partly because frankly, it saves me work.
However, the post riffed on some pretty grievous ethnic stereotyping, and trafficked in some highly questionable claims and connections. As such, it violated our Rules of the Road. In my eagerness to highlight the issues that interested me, I clearly got sloppy, and glossed over the gratuitously hurtful parts of the post. In case there's been any doubt, I reject those stereotypes utterly, just as I would reject racial, gender- or sexuality-based stereotypes.
In addition, the question asked in the title (“Is Sal Corrupt?”) is overreaching by quite a bit — probably on purpose. There is no evidence that Speaker DiMasi knew about these contributions beforehand. Of course, he knows now, and ought to be concerned for the image of the House's leadership.
I'm not going to delete the post, since what's done is done, the egg is on my face. But I've demoted it from the front page, since it's not a prime example of the mostly excellent work that BMG posters do.
Just to recap, here's the relevant part of our Rules of the Road:
The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation. Robust debate is an important means to that end. We welcome bold, constructive observations. To us, this means commentary typical of thoughtful discussion between acquaintances who may hold differing views on important issues, but who debate those issues in a respectful manner. Insults, personal attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.
Thanks for your patience and indulgence.
stomv says
And it’s hard when somebody mixes them — because they’ll have some things worth highlighting, and sometimes some things not worth the electrons with which they’re displayed.
<
p>You can’t have one without the other in a forum like this.
<
p>P.S. Your apology doesn’t count since you didn’t use the words deeply regret.
charley-on-the-mta says
if anyone was offended by my failure to use the words “deeply regret.”
stomv says
contrary to downthread, my comment was a throwaway joke about the recent trend to pressure politicians to “deeply regret” anything the media jumps on during a slow news day.
<
p>Carry on.
they says
But it’s good to acknowledge the bad judgement anyway. And it’s not too late to say you’re sorry.
<
p>Another thing that I thought was strange about your comments on that diary was that you thought we should “ask” DiMasi something, as if he would have a different answer than Petrolati had, like “oh, those contributions?” Since asking clearly would reveal nothing, then it isn’t really adding some sort of “adult” “rational” angle to EB3’s insinuations. Or, David Wedge’s insinuations, if we want to get to the source of it.
<
p>I do wonder why David Wedge didn’t ask that guy who his friend was that said Petrolati was a “good guy” and he should give him money. Or, maybe he did but the guy wouldn’t say.
<
p>I also wonder why people who have been convicted of a crime aren’t allowed to contribute to a candidate. I wouldn’t give back their money if I was a pol.
charley-on-the-mta says
and that’s what it is.
they says
If that’s what it is, then why did I go looking for the words “I apologize” in it? The title says it is an apology, but where is it? It’s like a little boy who broke his neighbors window being pushed in front of his neighbor by his mother, and saying “gee, my arm is stronger than I thought” and thinking that will satisfy everybody.
will says
I was thinking the same thing.
they says
It’s strange that Charley didn’t simply reply with an “I’m sorry” when I pointed out the oversight. It makes it seem intentional, or like it is simply impossible for him (though he was able to type the words in the context of a joke). I think it must be a liberal tendency, along the lines of wanting everything that one might do to be legal and “OK”, rather than having to ever put one’s tail between one’s legs and accept being tainted by imperfection and unrighteousness. It’s one thing to admit to having made an error, it’s another to admit to not being good, as in unimpeachable, impeccable, all-the-time at-heart Good. Sometimes even the best of us reveal that we aren’t and that’s when we need to be forgiven, but there can’t be forgiveness with no repentance, without asking for it. You can’t just say something is an apology or a repentance without actually putting the apology in the bag. You can’t say “here’s my apology” and leave a stinking bag of shit on your neighbor’s porch, obviously, and you can’t say “here’s my apology” and not apologize.
<
p>But whatever, liberalism is a mental illness. They cling to it because they spent so much on college.
david says
is definitely in the running for the silliest and most pointless ever posted on BMG.
<
p>Just sayin’.
tblade says
Call the awards “The Groupies”.
<
p>”And here to present the Groupie for the best Seamus-related joke, quip or one-liner is Michael Vick.”
<
p>Vick [In stiff, pro-athlete reading prepped lines voice]: “Thanks, David. Just like the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this year’s race for the Seamus-related joke, quip or one-liner Groupie has been a dogfight. [queue canned laughter] And the nominees are…”
tblade says
I am truly sorry if any canine-Americans or Mitt Romney fans were offended by my satire.
they says
says he is “truly sorry” and “I apologize”, he doesn’t just go infront of the cameras and “clarify”* where he went wrong.
<
p>*(not “explain”, sorry, “clarify” is what you said – when is BMG going to upgrade to the Soapblox version that PamsHouseBlend is using, where you can see the whole thread you are commenting on? That’s really helpful. Plus, it doesn’t assume you’ve read the whole thread after you comment on the first “new” comment you come across, the other new comments stay “new”. Please look into that upgrade, if it’s possible!)
peter-porcupine says
And satire is supposed to have elements that offend – just ask poor Jonathan Swift!
<
p>Please don’t drive EB3 away – who will write our polls? And poor Dan Kennedy is ONLY one person! (EB has been hanging out there a bit…)
laurel says
from rehab? đŸ˜€
survivor says
I was turned off by the conversation but nice recovery.
demolisher says
yours, that is – haven’t really read Eb3s, but I’d add:
<
p>- is John McCain not a Christian post in the same league?
– is calling EB3 a resident crank productive? (if he raises things you’d frontpage?)
<
p>I dunno, overall I liked your forthrightness here though.
<
p>R.C. Demolisher
<
p>
bob-neer says
Is an interesting, and in the context of the national political contest quite amusing, discussion of a very marginal issue. It is not larded with the kind of offensive language that Charley specifically notes in the DiMasi post. Therefore, no, I don’t think it is in the same league.
centralmassdad says
McCain is Republican, whereas DiMasi is not.
dcsohl says
But there’s been plenty of discussion about his faith (“Is he Christian or is he *gasp* Muslim?”)… Or will you state here and now, for the record, that you abhor that “debate” also?
peter-porcupine says
centralmassdad says
plenty of discussion herein relating to Obama as a Muslim. I do find people who are appalled that a picture of him dressed like one made the rounds. There may be plenty of such discussion on other sites, but we were not discussing other sites. In any event, I don’t read those other sites in large measure because they engage in such stupid discussion.
<
p>Here, stupid discussions are generally frowned upon. That is, unless the stupid discussion is about a Republican, in which case it is not stupid but hilarious, and therefore instantly promoted.
<
p>Hence: any discussion aboout whether Obama is a Muslim would have been promptly deleted, whereas the discussion of whether McCain is a Christian– an equally stupid inquiry– is defended as hilarious.
<
p>I regard this as conclsuive evidence of the rampant yay-teamism that turns smart people into dunces once they begin to actively campaign for a particular guy. That is to say, many/most posters herein–at least when it comes to the Presidential election– have, at best, a tenuous grasp on their claim to reside in the reality-based community. Rather they reside in the reality of one who begins to believe their own spin.
capital-d says
deeply thankful!
regularjoe says
Your pompous act is not becoming. You ooze insincerity. I have never encountered so many self-rightous people in such a small sampling. You are so wedded to your rigid code that you don’t even get the joke.
peter-porcupine says
centralmassdad says
There is this guy, named George W. Bush, who presently has a pretty important job, but is likely to have a lot more spare time beginning nbext winter.
<
p>Perhaps you can convince him to provide you lessons in “understanding nuance and subtlety” so that you may improve yourself in this important area.
yellow-dog says
and didn’t read that post. Few people, however, bat .1000 when it comes to public speaking or writing. It’s polite to apologize, but unnecessary.
<
p>At least Ernie is funny. The “Is John McCain a Christian?” post was a lesson in vacuousness.
<
p>Mark
sethjp says
LOTS of people bat .1000; very few bat 1.000 … which is undoubtedly what you meant to type. I just thought I’d be an annoying twit and point it out to you. đŸ™‚
stomv says
Some NL pitchers maybe, but the odds of batting at exactly a 1-10 clip are low, since you have to have a number of at bats thats divisible by 10 (roughtly 1-10 odds), and if you’re a position pitcher batting that low you won’t last long in the league.
<
p>As far as I can tell, in 2007 only 3 MLB players batted .1000: Mark Sweeney, Marlon Anderson, and Toby Hall all went 1-10. Overall, over 1100 players got time in 2007, so I’d argue that 3-1100 certainly isn’t lots.
<
p>I just thought I’d be an annoying twit and point it out to you đŸ™‚
sethjp says
Though, in my defense, I was thinking of all the people NOT in the majors precisely because they couldn’t bat any better than .100.
<
p>You’re absolutely right, though, in the majors or not, there’s probably very few people batting exactly .100.
yellow-dog says
I’m an English teacher and also teach some classes a UMass-Amherst. Last night, one of my education students was teaching and thought I was putting him one when I asked what (f) meant in a slope equation.
<
p>Batting .10 when it comes to numbers is a reasonable average for me.
<
p>Mark
noternie says
Who called and has the feeling in your stomach gone away yet?
<
p>It’s not an enviable position, being on the other end of that call where someone powerful calls and you have to eat $#!+. I’ve taken those calls. I’ve done things for people that initiated them getting those kinds of calls.
<
p>I wonder how quickly and thoroughly you caved. I wonder if you dug in at all. Your language–wreaking of being “suggested”–seems to indicate you may deserve a ceremony granting you status as a Five Star Surrender Monkey.
<
p>My kudos to Guarino, who I suspect called and suggested the language.
<
p>P.S.–Does calling EBIII the resident crank violate the part of the Rules referring to “Insults, personal attacks, rudeness” and require a second apology?
charley-on-the-mta says
thank you very much.
<
p>How about the merits? Do you think I should have left the post stand as is? And if so, why?
noternie says
The bar for libel or slander of public officials is set high for a reason. I believe it is placed properly.
<
p>Ethnic slurs? I think EBIII is right to say that taking contributions from these folks did more than anything else to further harmful perceptions of Italian American politicians.
<
p>A reach to connect one person’s contributions to another’s integrity? Maybe. There is a close connection between the two and in the seedy world of campaign contributions the contribution is often more a gesture. So the candidate it goes to can be irrelevant compared to who it’s being sent to please. Mabye EB didn’t have enough to raise the question, but that certainly could’ve been argued in comments.
<
p>Since we’re not Judge or Jury with the power to convict and take the liberty of the two people involved, I think a bit more latitude is expected and required.
<
p>Bloggers sometimes aim to replace–or certainly supplement–the traditional media. If the muckraking function is to be eliminated from the enterprise, I fear the watchdog is soon to be neutered.
<
p>There is a journalism professor that instilled in me a real love for free speech. The answer to bad speech is more speech is what she taught and I what I came to believe. I’ve never given a zero or a three to a comment on this site. Even the worst comment in the world reveals something about the poster and therefore holds worth.
<
p>All this being said, it’s not my site. You three make the rules and apply them in whatever manner you see fit. If I didn’t accept that, I’d check out myself.
<
p>Didn’t care to answer the first two questions from my earlier post? That’s ok. It’s not fun having to backtrack. I can see how you’d be insulted by the questions, too, though I won’t apologize for asking them. My curiosity is due to my own past experience being in or witnessing such situations. Always interseting to see those things develop.
<
p>Now, who approached you. Was it Tattaglia or Barzini?
charley-on-the-mta says
that I’m glad to be learning so much about courage from … an anonymous poster on a blog.
noternie says
Funny, just like you don’t say “I was wrong and I apologize” you don’t say “no comment.” You just ignore the questions. And make a snide comment. How flattering for you and your site.
<
p>I’ll tell you this: taking that call blasting you for promoting the post and then reversing your action is not an act of cowardice per se. And I’m not lecturing you on courage, though you seem to be insinuating I have a lack.
<
p>I’m just asking you to tell the story. How did you go from thinking it was worth front-paging to then posting an apology? Certainly someone in the MSM would have to answer for something like that in a more detailed fashion than you did.
<
p>The feeling in your stomach would not necesarily fear. It can be fear for the repercussions of what you’ve done. It can be guilt for having done something with consequences you didn’t intent or anticipate. It can be embarassment for doing something that you late realize misrepresents you. I’ve been through them all.
<
p>Your position seemed to change so thoroughly I wondered if you had an immediate change of heart at one rereading, or if someone called you on it and you labored over it, ultimately deciding it was bad and wasn’t worth defending even halfway. Or a mix of all. The change and the apology could have been signs of courage. Having to reverse and apologize is difficult and takes courage, too.
<
p>You’re right. You don’t know anything about my character or courage. And maybe you shouldn’t take lessons from an unknown entity. I didn’t offer one.
<
p>I was trying to find out how thoughtfully an “owner” of this blog considers what they do here and how strongly they are willing to defend it.
<
p>Your no comment and attempt at deflection don’t give me warm fuzzies, I’ll tell you that.
charley-on-the-mta says
… about any of this, and that doesn’t bother me at all.
<
p>Now, let’s see … you’ve called me a “Five Star Surrender Monkey”, but no, you just wanted to know what I was thinking, right? Just curiosity, right? No impugning of my character in the least, right?
<
p>Keep spinning, oh Anonymous one.
noternie says
I said you may qualify for that status, yes. Read that posts a second time and maybe you’ll reconsider…again.
<
p>Do I get any psychic capital out of you being a coward? Does it make me feel better to find out that one of the proprietors on a site I spend a fair time reading and posting to is a coward? Quite the contrary. Have I ever posted anythig on this site to make anyone believe I’m interested in undermining it?
<
p>Your character is what it is. If, like taking campaign money from connected guys, your actions open you up to criticism, how does that get put on me? But we don’t know if you deserve that criticism because you don’t tell us what happened between promoting the post and demoting it.
<
p>I’m asking. You’re spinning.
<
p>I just wanted you to tell us what happened.
<
p>
tblade says
In this one thread you accuse Charley of dishonesty and weakness by calling him a “surrender monkey” and accusing him of being the mouth piece for someone else. Then you put him in the same league as elected officials violating their oath of office by taking bribes from the mafia.
<
p>A stupid EBIII thread isn’t that serious; a person’s integrity and reputation is that serious. If I were Charley, I’d not be deeply offended by being challenged, but I’d be deeply offended at your careless and unnecessarily exaggerated assault on his character.
<
p>Your position would be enhanced if you stuck to the known facts and the content of the relevant posts and comments instead of propagating baseless innuendo and obfuscating Charley’s well-documented record of intellectual honesty and forth-rightness.
noternie says
I thought I gave a pretty serious and straightforward answer to Charley’s “how about the merits” question.
<
p>He never gave me an answer to my “what was the process from promote to apologize” question.
<
p>I asked what happened. I also said it can be a courageous thing to reverse. I left open every possibility.
<
p>He said he wrote it himself. Fine. I believe that. I wonder whether his feeling that it needed to be written was internal or external. He spun the annonymous poster line.
<
p>Should I be “deeply” offended that he questions my courage because I post annonymously?
tblade says
…to reply with the courage remark, but I can understand why he would lash out. I’d be angry and might reply in the same fashion. I also don’t blame him for not giving a serious reply when you start the line of questioning with tearing apart his character.
<
p>Even if Charley did receive external pressure, it is his prerogative to keep off the record and private conversations private, and the incident still would not merit the assault on his integrity that has ensued.
noternie says
I envision you having Charley and I meeting at dawn to select weapons for a duel. I assure you I don’t take this that seriously.
<
p>None of my comments would’ve had any impact at all if Charley had simply told us what happened. (not that they have any lasting impact now)The initial disappointment was that Charley didn’t answer the question when I asked it in either an antagonistic manner or when I posed it seriously.
<
p>The second disappointment was that rather than ignore the serious questions I posed and the snark, he chose to respond to the snark in kind. So the battle for bigger person is defaulted by us both, I’d say.
<
p>For the record (again) I don’t think it’s wrong for him to change his mind about the post. Or for that change to have been initiated by a call from someone. If he didn’t change his mind, but posted the message to appease, yes, I’d consider him a surrender monkey. Wouldn’t you?
<
p>But he wrote the post and changed his mind. I still remain curious how the process went. I’ve commented several times that I am sympathetic to getting heat on something like this. If he just reread and reconsidered by himself, that’s not as interesting, but clearly this isn’t about entertaining me. I would’ve accepted that answer.
<
p>The question continuing to remain unanswered, I will accept that and make my own assumptions, as Charley suggested.
<
p>Good day, sir.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Isn’t there a rule that if a post gets 70+ comments it automatically gets promoted to front page?
<
p>We’re half-way there.
<
p>bye
noternie says
if you won’t go away?
regularjoe says
you are a member of the board. If you are so opposed to anonymous posting then change your rules. No more anonymous postings, ever!! I can’t wait to hear the crickets chirping when I visit your site. Of course, you will not change the rules because your blog would wither without the anonymous poster. You know it as does everybody else.
will says