- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
AdvertisementAround Room EightGot Something To Say? Blog It on Room Eight Subscribe
Want a Daily Digest of Room Eight by Email? Sign-up Here! AdvertisersRecent Posts
Advertising SpaceRoom Eight is a member of the NYC BlogAds network. BloggersBlog RollNew York Politics National Blogs Misc New Yorkers |
A Completely Forseeable Problem (Now Altered So Radically, It's Practically a New Piece)
“Well, nobody could have foreseen this, surely.
[S]tate elections officials in Albany say that Mr. Espada did not register his campaign for Senate this year; and he could face more than $6,000 in fines. It is not the first time he has run afoul of the State Board of Elections: His 2000 Senate campaign was fined for failing to submit finance reports. In 2005, three employees of a Bronx nonprofit health care company run by Mr. Espada, the Soundview HealthCare Network, pleaded guilty to diverting $30,000 from programs for family care and AIDS treatment to one of his campaigns. Mr. Espada was never charged.” “A Completely Unexpected_Problem” by Michael Bouldin- on Daily Gotham 12/6/08Sometime shilling for money tends to cloud one’s memory: “SD 33: Spare yourself the worry about who’s under indictment; if Pedro Espada is currently free from such worries, it is only a matter of time before he faces them again. It can be argued, in fact, that the legal process is the only option which may improve the quality of this district’s representation.” Gatemouth 9/8/08 UPDATE (A Note To Michael Bouldin): Your latest piece is a vast improvement, in that it shows a keen grasp of the painfully obvious---a quality missing from the article refered to here, in which you express shock about facts which were in the headlines before the November election. UPDATE & EMBARRASSED CORRECTION (OOPS): Oh, I see now, your last piece was a JOKE. I do owe you an apology. I feel a little silly here, but only a little. One reason for that is that others made the same mistake, as is verified by the comment posted by your TDG colleague, Mr. Millstone. The other reason is that I thought you were joking when you wrote this to an enemy earlier this week: "One thing you're about to learn is that some trash talking is fine, but creating powerful enemies needlessly is kinda stupid. And you, fat boy, had no need whatsoever to make an enemy out of me; I used to support your work on Daily Kos. Now, I'm going to do something else." As it turned out, you were as serious as a heart attack, or perhaps in that case, an attack of delerium tremons. Therefore, I've stopeed assuming that anything you say is a joke even in those frequent instances when everything you say is a joke. However, in the spirit of collegiality, let me recomend a better way for letting people know you were joking: NEXT TIME, BE FUNNY! To be fair, I think the enemy Michael attacked deserved much, but not all, of the abuse. From all evidence, Michael was being harassed by what appears to be a fat, ugly stalker with delusions that he is a political sage. Been there, done that. When the same thing happened to me, I thought of getting a gun. It ain't fun. Bouldin responded with bravado, posting the guys's name and (not too pretty) picture (complete with derogatory remarks about his appearance). Saner elemenrts at TDG eventually intervened, and Bouldin's foe issued a half-hearted excuse for an apology. Bouldin was livid: Submitted by Bouldin on 1 December 2008 - 11:25pm.I don't recall giving you permission to call me a racist, either, Weintraub. And if you keep on bringing your meta bullshit here - do mommy and daddy know how you're spending your billable hours, fat boy? - you'll face the consequences. I'm not scared of you; you're not the first third-rate lawyer to mutter about lawsuits to. Problem is, I win, always. So yeah, either offer up a groveling apology and retraction, publicly, or face the consequences. Your call." Very appropriate. When you falsely call someone a bigot, you better grovel. This bastard did not, so he deserved what he got. Funny thing is that a similar incident occurred recently on TDG, where Bouldin took a diametrically opposite stance. He posted the following: "If that seems reasonable and doable - we're talking about a cut of $5 billion out of, as noted, $200 billion - you don't know New York. The unions are already screaming at the top of their lungs that whatever cuts need to be made need to come out of a slice of the pie that is not theirs. The Senate republicans dragged the legislature to Albany, threw a hissy fit, and sent everyone home. Our friends at WFP have an answer as well, and it's the familiar one: raise taxes on millionaires. Meanwhile, Bigoted Shitbag - that's Martin Dilan to those unfamiliar with the loving nom de guerre - is holding the entire state hostage to his fear that the Democrats may give the queers basic civil rights." The problem is that Martin Dialn, whatever one thinks of his other qualities (and I think his shrewdness and savvy are way underrated) is not a bigoted shitbag--he even supports same sex marriage. Bouldin meant to say Ruben Diaz. Some would say that Ruben Diaz is not a bigoted shit bag, but merely a crazed religioius fanatic, but at least the point is arguable--with Dilan it is not. And some would say that a bigoted shitbag is somene who thinks all Latino State Senators look alike. However, I don't think Michael is a bigot, he just forgot that he hated Dilan for entirely different reasons. Dilan is close with Vito Lopez, and since Michael believes that evil is a seemless garment, there was really no malice aforethought. This may account for Michael's response. He did not, as he suggested under remarkably similar circumstances, "offer up a grovelling apology and retraction, publicly" he merely deleted Dilan's name and substituted that of Diaz, without any effort to repair the damage he had done to the reputation of a man without a bigoted bone in his body. Of course, Michael never apologizes in his columns, except for really important mistakes, like mixing up when La Guardia died. He certainly never "offer[s] up a grovelling apology and retraction, publicly" when he prints slandarous lies about people he doesn't like--at best, he just removes them without acknowledgement and moves on. Called on a lie this summer that Marty Connor had endorsed George Pataki against Carl McCall, Michael did the exact same thing. The difference in Michael's situational standards is accounted for by the fact that Michael believes that only the Progressive Elect like himself are worthy of a "grovelling apology and retraction, publicly", while evil Democratic regulars deserve what they get. But, I was wrong here and I admit it. I therefore offer up to Michael" a grovelling apology and retraction, publicly" for falsely (even though without intent) implying that he was naive about Pedro Espada. That's the difference between me and Michael. Only those of us who are very old or very obessed with the
past will remember that Senator Efraim Gonzalez, now under indictment, who formerly held that seat (now to be warmed by Espada), replaced Israel Ruiz who was forced following his conviction for filing a false loan application
reply | email this comment
Gatey! Really, readjust your snarkmeter. I honestly think everyone else realized that Bouldin's title was sarcastic. Then again, I admit that I, at least on DK, have had my snarkiness taken seriously. But I notice New Yorkers are generally much better at identifying snark. As to Bert Stand and his fellow Bouldin stalkers, Jeez guys! Get a life! While you all are ranting and raving about Bouldin, DG is presenting book reviews, discussions of the Bloomberg Putsch, Pearl Harbor Day, Bill Ayers, restaurant reviews, labor issues, race issues, etc. Don't YOU have better things to do? For the record, Michael made not one reference to Dave in Queens until the latter came to DG accusing Michael of being a racist. I'd say getting a rise out of Michael by stalking him to DG and falsely accuse him of racism was as unforseeable as Espada's latest problems. I may not have agreed with the details of Michael's reaction to DFQ, but DFQ was the one who came off unhinged what with his enemies list and vendetta website and false accusations. Having followed the fight on KOS, there is no doubt Bouldin was provoked. However, Bouldin brought the fight to Daily Gotham by posting Dave's picture on November 26th. Dave first post on Gotham calling Bouldin a racist, which you had the good sense to delete, came on November 29. Well eventually. I had thought what you did at first, but there was an earlier anonymous comment (Nov. 24th) that was relavent, shall we say. I even responded to it but forgot about it and thouhgt the fight was initiated on DG by Bouldin. But Bouldin posting the picture, right or wrong, was in response to a DFQ comment on Nov. 24th. And that comment accused Bouldin of racist remarks on DK and threatened to tell advertisers about it.
 Mole: Bouldin was within his rights to responded angrily, and though he went too far, it is hard to blame him. I'd rather discuss other matters. As to snark, so much on TDG is so preposterous that it’s hard to tell when anyone is joking. For example, the 1000 different pieces saying Steve Harrison was the strongest possible candidate for Congress and that his Brooklyn residence didn’t matter to the voters, or that he would have won in 2006 if only Vito Lopez had gotten off his ass and gotten him 80% of the Brooklyn vote. Just this week, some jerk on TDG advocated that Obama make Ralph Nader one of his economic advisors. Who would believe a word of a blog which published such crap? (Now, that my friend is snark). Anyway, Mr. Bouldin is not immune to failing to get the joke. For instance, in 2007, I offered the following in joking explanation for Harrison’s mad flailing from right to left: “The other possibilities include mental illness. I am reminded of my graduate school days, when a friend called me depressed about the state of her life, and said she was contemplating suicide. A couple of days later, she called to let me know she’d met someone and was better now. “Karen”, I warned her, “wild and extreme mood swings are not necessarily a sign of good mental health.” But apparently, they are all the rage among the right sort of “progressive”. Do me a favor though guys, before you vote for Harrison, make sure he’s had his meds. It seems clear in Harrison’s case that sincere conversion to anything resembling a “progressive” philosophy is highly unlikely, as that usually requires one to stay put, rather than emulating a pin ball bouncing all over the place on its way to tilting.” To which Bouldin responded: “There is more to be said about Gatemouth's piece…particularly about the unsubtle allegations that Harrison is mentally ill, a homophobe, and a rightwinger….please don't complain about rough handling when you accuse people of being mentally ill…you have a track record…that places all of this into a context, and that context is that Gatemouth will say whatever comes into his head as long as he thinks it's of some use, and the more over the top, the better. Why stop at mental illness when you can go for child molestation and drug addiction? Seriously, why?” Clearly, Bouldin either didn’t get, or he pretended not to get it so he could falsely characterize what I had written. Since Bouldin is rarely stupid, but is often a disingenuous prevaricator, I think we know the answer; but the fact remains that snark (something with which Bouldin is familiar) is like telling the truth (something with which he displays no familiarity whatsoever)---it is dangerous business. But more pertinent is the matter which you chose to ignore--Bouldin’s libel against Marty Dilan. When in 2006, I made a false statement of a similar nature about Chris Owens, I apologized profusely on several different websites, again and again, mostly because Bouldin kept bring it up, again and again. Bouldin even criticized me for explaining why I made the grievous error, as if my explanation was some sort of excuse. I explained because an explanation was owed. Likewise Bouldin owes an explanation to Dilan, his readers and the world as to what lead him to slur an innocent (at least of the charges he made) man. But he won’t even he acknowledged he did it. He just played Winston Smith in the Ministry of Truth and wiped out the past as if it never occurred. He refuses to apologize; he ever refuses to acknowledge. And you, by refusing to deal with the issue are now complicit by defending him. Don’t you think Dilan deserves a grovelling apology from Bouldin? WHEN WILL MICHAEL BOULDIN APOLOGIZE TO MARTY DILAN? I find it so interesting that you are still fighting the 2006 and 2008 primaries while DG has moved on to 2009 already. As to the Dilan brouhaha, I missed it. Sorry, so I can't comment. For my part I generally apologize if I make a blunder. Beyond that I can't really comment. I get it, the election is over, and it therefore res judicata, and acts committed therein can never be brought up again. So Mole, how many times in the last year did posts by TDG writers violate that rule? Although I've no desire to do the research and th math, I know it surely runs into the hundreds. L know that I've been attacked on TDG in the last year for doing things which, if that standard were applied, would not be permitted to be topics of conversation. And, I see, as to Dilan, your answer is a non-response response. Bouldin did it--should he apologize or not? And just so you have no plausible denyability, I'm posting the photo I took of the chached page (hope it come through) : Published on The Daily Gotham (http://dailygotham.com) Can we get serious here for a moment?By Bouldin Created 21.11.2008 - 09:43 I've resisted writing about the budget crisis for a while, in large part because it's just so god-damned embarrassing. New York is the third-largest state in the union, with a population of nineteen million people, one of the largest economies in the world, a uniquely deep talent pool, and a budget, if you add it all up, of $200 billion. Pretty impressive, all told. The problem is simply that forecasts suggest that the state will be spending more next year than is expected in revenue - a lot more. We can't borrow that money - there's no money to be borrowed anywhere, nor should the public borrow to meet current expenses. We've done that before, it didn't work out so well. So we need to either raise revenue, cut expenditure, or find some happy balance between the two. If that seems reasonable and doable - we're talking about a cut of $5 billion out of, as noted, $200 billion - you don't know New York. The unions are already screaming at the top of their lungs that whatever cuts need to be made need to come out of a slice of the pie that is not theirs. The Senate republicans dragged the legislature to Albany, threw a hissy fit, and sent everyone home. Our friends at WFP have an answer as well, and it's the familiar one: raise taxes on millionaires. Meanwhile, Bigoted Shitbag - that's Martin Dilan to those unfamiliar with the loving nom de guerre - is holding the entire state hostage to his fear that the Democrats may give the queers basic civil rights. Okay, fine. So cut three billion in spending and raise another three with higher taxes on the moneyed elite. Simple, easy, and everybody feels some pain. Is that going to happen? Probably. But first, we're going to have weeks of dysfunction until the new Senate is seated, and in those weeks, everything is going to get worse. Exciting, huh?
But i'm emailing it to you. So now you are duty bound. Comment on what Bouldin should do--or shut up. Oh, and for you folks at home,here's the link to the cahced page: No...I was merely commenting on your obsession with Harrison and Owens. I said nothing about rules. I do find it interestingly how long you keep discussing old primaries. Most people say something like "I won, you lost!" and leave it at that. Again, speaking only for myself, my stand regarding Owens was always that he was the best of a good field and so I supported him. For Harrison it was 1.) Harrison was good, 2.) Recchia is a sleaze tied to an embarassingly corrupt machine, and 3.) McMahon seemed to be playing both sides on the issue of Iraq. All of this fell to my supporting Harrison, but keep in mind I donated to the NY-13 Democratic fund in addition to Harrison himself. My main goal was defeating the Repubs. Looking at what you posted, I'd probably have said something like "Oops! Brain fart! I meant..." or some such. What should Bouldin do? I am not Bouldin's keeper. I got involved in the DFQ issue because it was an ongoing disruption on DG. If Dilan wants to contact me or Liza about Bouldin he is welcome to. If not, you seem to be obsessing on something no one else cares about. In a world of many fights, why should I pick one that only you care about? How about because-- he is your managing editor, and as I've pointed, this is not the first time, or even the tenth, that he's enaged in ring and run libel followed by Orwellian deletion. it's his modis operandi and reflects upon your entire site. And frankly, after having seen countless column where he's dishonsetly called me out for something he defines as perfidy, it's good that he get a taste of his own medicine and is exposed for what he is. I only bring up Owens and Harrison for illustration (I'll add that all year, your blog harped on the non-existent "betrayal" of Harrison in 2006 as if it were Krisstalnacht). But I'm not harping on old elections, I'm harping on a pernicous pattern that continues to this day--Marty Dilan was libelled last week. And your remark about Dilan contacting you is disengenuous horseshit. What would you have said if I gave the same response to you and Bouldin about me and Owens in 2006? Your effort here to excuse Bouldin is pathetic and unworthy of someone of your fine character. I don't think Gatey missed Bouldin's point at all.
I think Gatey pretended to miss Bouldin's point, purposely baiting Bouldin into insulting him, so Gatey could have an excuse to come back blast Bouldin.
I've known Gatey for years and he's an awful sneaky vindictive bastard.
First off, you INSISTED repeatedly that Owens did something. You didn't just say the wrong name. It is extremely dishonest for you to suggest your actions and Michael's are the same. Perhaps had you simply changed the name from Owens to the other person immediately without insisting that you were right it would have blown over faster. That is NOT what you did. That said, to give you credit you DID seem quite shamed when you realized you'd been insisting over and over that Owens said it. But to suggest that Bouldin did the same thing is just plain wrong. Now if Michael had insisted for awhile that it really was Dilan who was bigoted, then you'd have a comparison. As for your feud with Michael, I am not interested. As for the Dilan situation, no, seriously. DG editors tend not to interfere with eachother, except in rare circumstances. YOU having a problem with something Michael did is NOT sufficient for me to interfere. Nor have I excused Michael anything. I have refused to intervene in his blogging based on a complaint you have, something that would probably have little or no impact anyway. So...any comments on 2009? Or maybe the Illinois Governor getting his comeuppance? Or the loss of a Dem seat in Louisiana due to corruption? Or maybe SOMETHING of some wider significance?
I could not remove what I said about Owens (and it was not about him saying something, it was about attributing responsiblity to him for something done by Gary Tilzer--who i thought was working for him and was not--even though he'd worked for the Owens family many times previously) because I never posted it on my blog--I said it in a thread elsewhere. If I could have removed it, I would have AND I WOULD HAVE APOLOGIZED AS WELL. Instead, the comment survives. When I saw the Dialn comment on Boudlin's column, I couldn't comment on it (as you and Bouldin immediately did with my column) because I've been banned at your site. Instead, I emailed Bouldin, who responded with language I won't repeat and blocking me from his email. Sorry Mole, the only proper response when you libel someone is to print a correction and an apology. Boudlin purposely did not do that in the Connor situation because he did not want something on the web exonerating Connor from a well-circulated falsehood. I assume his reasons for not correcting the Dilan mistake was similar, since Bouldin had slurred Dilan the previous week (it was not libel then, because the slur was a matter of opinion) Michael Bouldin never acknowledges his mistakes and never apologizes to his enemies. That's the difference Mole. For you to minimize this when your site has inserted boldfaced expressions of opinion by editors into pieces they disagree with puts the lie to the assertion that TDG is a free-wheeling model of Lezay Fair (yes, I know it's spelled wrong, but TDG is not worth the time to get it right--if their writers won't spend the time getting it right, why the fuck should I?) And, I know who you are Vindictive? Guilty as charged. For instance, it took my seven yours to get back at Susan alter, and when I finally did, I couldn't eve remember why, but I'm sure she deserved it. Sneaky? Jeff Feldman once told me, "You are utterly without guile; and that's not a compliment." Gatey didn't say the things about Owens repeatedly; he said it once, and apologized within about two hours. What was done repeatedly was Bouldin amd Mole repeating it and expressing their outrage.
In going back over this sorry thread for the purpose of possibly writing a related column, I found I let go unanswered Mole's false assertion that: "First off, you INSISTED repeatedly that Owens did something. You didn't just say the wrong name. It is extremely dishonest for you to suggest your actions and Michael's are the same. " I am sure Mole did not intend to lie, but his memory failed him. I said what I said once, on someone else's thread and corrected it almost immediately. I suspect the reason he remembers otherwise is that he and Bouldin INSISTED repeatedly on repringting it again and again, all summer long, anytime I said something critical about Chris Owens.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov WirePolitical Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
