MoreMonmouthMusings

Being from the 19th century, I'm not sure how this blogging thing works, but I'll poke my way through and learn as I go. I'll start by republishing my dialog with Jim Purcell on Honest Abe's blog:
William H Seward said...
The Courier article about Abe was the best thing published in The Courier since Handlin challenged Uncle Joe. Last weeks Keansburg piece wasn't bad either, a good piece of journalism for a change on Jim's part.Hopefully the sting of the boss losing last spring is wearing off and Jim and Jackie will get back to publishing news instead of vendettas
Saturday, January 14, 2006 3:35:09 PM
JIM_PURCELL said...
"Mr. Seward":I hear a good deal of derision about Courier's reporting. And, I keep hearing about how someone will sue us for this or sue us for that...and yet no one sues us. I hear about how we are one-sided and wrong and how we are on a "vendetta," but no ones disputes our facts with facts to counter. No, they counter facts presented through memos, ELEC reports and first-person interviews with party line babble. Now, sue me, make sense or present me with a fact regarding a specific story and I'll be more than happy to have a dialogue. But, if your contribution is more "blah, blah, blah I hate The Courier" then isn't that a shiny piece of nothing!I stopped being a Republican because slogans became more important than actions and the perceived importance of people in office became more important than their actions and the content of their character. While character cannot be charted, the former leaves a paper trail that we present. If you don't like what we present, then call your beloved brethren and tell them to stop doing shady things with the trust the people put into them.Joe out of politics or not, what happened is and that can't be taken away with a stream of nonsense.Start using your head. Do you think you look smarter just spewing venom with no substance? Or perhaps not.
Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:52:15 PM

William H Seward said...
Jim,I don't "hate The Courier." Quite the contrary, I often find it quite amusing. If not for The Courier I wouldn't have know about this Monmouth County blogging phenomena.Spewing out venom? Read my post again....I gave you two compliments and hoped for better work in the future, instead of more or the vendettas you have been publishing.If the only news one got about Monmouth County and Monmouth County politics in the last year was from "The Courier," one would think that the biggest scandal of the year was that Amy Handlin challenged Joe Azzolina and beat him.Your coverage of Monmouth County corruption was very disappointing, especially since you know many of the players better than anyone from the APP or the US Attorney's office.You called Tony Pulugi a "Rat," which implies that you disapprove of his cooperating with the authorities more than you disapprove of his corrupt activities. Did you ever meet Tony in a Go-Go bar while he was on the clock? If not, why not, and why didn't we read about it in The Courier?You gave no in-depth coverage to Ray O'Grady. Could that be because he was the lone Town Square supporter on the Middletown Township Committee?You were an apologist for Harry Larrison. I think it very unfortunate that Harry died before he could defend himself, and I think he could have mounted a strong defense by pointing the finger at Pulugi, but I don't think Harry was lilly white.You attacked Amy because she voted to hire and rehire Pulugi and because was paid to put up her campaign signs. Come on Jim, you know how the system worked back then and you never criticized it until Uncle Joe was challenged. Where was your criticism of Harry, Powers and Ted for hiring Pulugi? Why didn't you report how much Tony was paid in previous years campaigns to put up signs while on the county clock?Sue you? I don't have any standing to sue you. Neither does anyone one you may have actually slandered, because you really haven't done any damage, except to yourself and your publication.Lately there have been signs of actual journalism being published in The Courier. You have two inexperienced but bright and ambitious reporters working for you. Hopefully there will be more and better written journalism coming from The Courier going forward. There's a better chance of that happening if you start using your head!
Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38:33 AM

JIM_PURCELL said...
Dear "Mr. Seward":I give you credit for writing an intelligent post.I will say this of the following:You said..."Spewing out venom? Read my post again....I gave you two compliments and hoped for better work in the future, instead of more or the vendettas you have been publishing."I never believed in the nonsense that was going on but could not prove it until recently. When I could prove it, I became indignant, changed my affiliation (as I do not want to be affiliated with such corruption) and I printed it (about several members or the GOP and also some Democrats). You said:"If the only news one got about Monmouth County and Monmouth County politics in the last year was from "The Courier," one would think that the biggest scandal of the year was that Amy Handlin challenged Joe Azzolina and beat him."Challenging and winning is one thing. Challengingf, lying and being a hypocrite is another. It lacks dignity and is misleading to the public.You said:"Your coverage of Monmouth County corruption was very disappointing, especially since you know many of the players better than anyone from the APP or the US Attorney's office."I know some of these people socially and maybe worked on campaigns with a few, but had no idea of any nonsense. I had always been a volunteer in the GOP and didn't scalp the party or the public for money, pensions or benefits, nor tolerated anyone I was aware was doing such.You said:"You called Tony Pulugi a "Rat," which implies that you disapprove of his cooperating with the authorities more than you disapprove of his corrupt activities. Did you ever meet Tony in a Go-Go bar while he was on the clock? If not, why not, and why didn't we read about it in The Courier?"It is my strong belief that Mr. Palughi was critical to drawing very unsuspecting people, who were normal and otherwise lawful, into his weird little world of "The Sopranos." People are sometimes weak, not that I am prejudging anyone. Anyway, he then turned around and involved Harry, who was supposed to be "like his father." I knew Harry, I respected Harry and no one is ever going to tell me that Harry was a crook. I don't believe it, I won't believe it and it can't be proved because he was arrested weeks before he DIED! And, I believe Tony had something to do with it. "Lily white" no. Did I ever see anything wrong? No.You said:"You gave no in-depth coverage to Ray O'Grady. Could that be because he was the lone Town Square supporter on the Middletown Township Committee?"I have shown great discretion because of the gravity of this case with ALL of the defendants involved. I reported on the arrests and arraignments of good friends, in some cases, without bias. I simply chose not to judge them outside of a court.You said:"You attacked Amy because she voted to hire and rehire Pulugi and because was paid to put up her campaign signs. Come on Jim, you know how the system worked back then and you never criticized it until Uncle Joe was challenged. Where was your criticism of Harry, Powers and Ted for hiring Pulugi? Why didn't you report how much Tony was paid in previous years campaigns to put up signs while on the county clock?"I do not know who knew what. I think if there was a problem then Amy should have: 1. Noticed it before 15 years; 2. Tried to make corrections where needed and expose the poor decision-making of everyone if she must (INCLUSIVE of herself); and 3. NOT behaved as if she showed up to the Freeholders 10 minutes ago when she'd been there for almost 15 years. So, if everyone else was responsible...where was she?You said:"Sue you? I don't have any standing to sue you. Neither does anyone one you may have actually slandered, because you really haven't done any damage, except to yourself and your publication."This newspaper has won awards from the NAACP and Congress among others. Then-Gov. McGreevy used our work to make decisions about K'burg. Our stories have led to prosecutor's office investigations and have made the difference to voting publics around the Bayshore. But, then again, you know that and are simply trying to be unnecessarily derisive. So what? I get it all day...and we still do our job.Good day.
Monday, January 16, 2006 11:35:21 AM

William H Seward said...
jim purcell said:Dear "Mr. Seward":I give you credit for writing an intelligent post.Thanks Jim. Except for the non sequiturs, your wasn't bad either.
Monday, January 16, 2006 1:00:30 PM


William H Seward said...
Jim Purcell said:"But, then again, you know that and are simply trying to be unnecessarily derisive."Not at all Jim. How many awards have you won in the last six months? While I may be jeering you, I wouldn't call it unnecessary. You play an important role in our community, and you've been off your game for quite a while now.Jim said:"I stopped being a Republican because slogans became more important than actions and the perceived importance of people in office became more important than their actions and the content of their character."And you think the Democrats are any different? Where will you go when you get fed up with them? The Green party perhaps?I am at least as frustrated with the state of affairs in our "Republican" county as you are, but I don't think for a minute that that is why you left.I think you left the Republican party because you lost you voice and influence. Your own blog indicates to me that you are trying to gain and voice and influence with the Democrats. Good luck.
Monday, January 16, 2006 7:27:59 PM

JIM_PURCELL said...
Dear "Mr. Seward":I was a Republican because I understand what "Republican" means. It is not an Athenian term, it is Spartan, with very finite parameters. It was modified during our Revolution and the "Age of Enlightenment" (ala Jean Jaques Rosseaau) by very capable people. Perhaps you have no idea of what I'm speaking of.If you do not then that is fine. Ignorance is a bliss. Otherwise, you should be disturbed. A "republic" has a definite meaning. Religious fanaticism and political patronage runs against such ideology. Both are, in fact, disgusting.If you are so fluent with GOP politics...then how can you possibly be derisive? I have carried my load...and others...for quite some time. If I choose not to sell out my friends, be they living or dead, if they are not guilty to my knowledge, then how is that so bad? Oh, I forgot, this is the party of political expedience these days. My friend, Harry Larrison, who never gave me a dime, died and, apparently, for the sake of a few petty politicos, I am supposed to tell him and some of my friends to "go screw," despite my belief in the justice system. Yes, how awful! The GOP I knew was more enlightened. We KNEW things before we said them, and policed our own where we saw wrongdoing. Wow! There's a concept! Can you believe people once policed themselves without public intervention!? Impossible!Republicanism has nothing to do with profit. I left because it became that way, and you and your friends are protecting people who have blatantly corrupted the whole idea of "Republicanism." And, you defend it. Should I encounter this in the Democratic Party I will do the same. However, those who know me also know I have never deviated from a dogma that is far older than either you or I. With things being what they are today, I suppose that doesn't mean very much...does it?Say whatever you want. I have done what I believe is right throughout this nonsense...without selling out my friends or doing what I believed was wrong. I suppose you can say as much? If you can, you didn't know Mr. Niemann too well, I suppose.Unfortunately, I did. I wish you much luck in your idealism.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:56:27 AM


William H Seward said...
Jim,Your hero Rosseaau was a very interesting but troubled fellow, much like yourself.You are right, I am no expert on Rosseaau, but here is what a little googling taught me about him:As a brilliant, undisciplined, and unconventional thinker, Jean-Jacques Rousseau spent most of his life being driven by controversy back and forth between Paris and his native Geneva. Orphaned at an early age, he left home at sixteen, working as a tutor and musician before undertaking a literary career while in his forties. Rousseau sired but refused to support several illegitimate children and frequently initiated bitter quarrels with even the most supportive of his colleagues. (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/rous.htm)Rousseau was one of the first modern writers to seriously attack the institution of private property, and therefore is considered a forebear of modern socialism and Communism. Rousseau also questioned the assumption that the will of the majority is always correct. He argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all within the state, regardless of the will of the majority.(http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96jun/rousseau.html)I share your distain for religious fanaticism and poltical patronage, but they are not "in fact" "disgusting." Facts are objective. "Disgusting" is a subjective description of those phenomina. To insist that ones point of view is "factual" is, well, fanatical.You asked: If you are so fluent with GOP politics...then how can you possibly be derisive?My jeering is aimed more at your journalism than your politics. I think your politics,and as you admit, your friendships, have clouded your view of the facts and your reporting has become pontificating.You continued:" If I choose not to sell out my friends, be they living or dead, if they are not guilty to my knowledge, then how is that so bad? "Can I assume your coverage of the Matawan/Aberdeen train station would have been different if Joe Kryillos and Rob Clifton were your friends? Maybe they got the coverage they got because you think they screwed friends of yours. Go back and read what your hero Rosseaau said about competition and cooperation. Neither Joe or Rob have been accused of crimes,unlike some of your friends, yet you gave their actions much more negative ink than those who have been accused of crimes.You make the excuse that you're not aware of any wrong doing on the part of your friends. Well how about some investigative reporting?! And by investigative, I don't mean reading election reports on the internet. You've got three "monkeys" to do some digging, put them to work! And don't stop digging when you've got a whole big enough to fit your head in.You keep bringing up Harry, may he rest in peace. And you pontificate about political expedience and profits. Well here's a question to investigate: Where was Harry's company getting its trucks serviced? I wonder if there are any dots to connect.You said:"I knew Harry, I respected Harry and no one is ever going to tell me that Harry was a crook. I don't believe it, I won't believe it and it can't be proved because he was arrested weeks before he DIED!"You also said:"Ignorance is a bliss."Let's find out if you're a good friend or a good journalist. Maybe you could be both without corrupting your mission, but that will probably depend on where the facts lead you.You talk about "self policing." Some might call that "cover up." I guess it depends on your point of view.Oh, and by the way, Mr. Neiman is not a friend of mine.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:06:36 AM


Jackie Corley said...
Re: Operation Bid RigI think, in some respect, all the area's newspapers failed in not uncovering the level of corruption that was/is rampant in the area before the arrests came down. Newspapers and journalists have an obligation to be servants to their public. We all should have known what was happening in our towns before the FBI had to come in.That said, those arrested will have their day in court. To continue to go after them in print is a tad after-the-fact and merely ripping off the FBI's thunder, not to mention an excuse for not uncovering what allegedly happened BEFORE it happened.If The Courier had discovered any wrongdoing on the part of those arrested BEFORE they were arrested, we would have gone after that full throttle, whether Purcell or anyone else at the paper was friends with them or not. I have no doubt in my mind about that.The circumstances surrounding the Aberdeen-Matawan Train Station have not been investigated by authorities, and it has been Purcell's contention, as well as APP columnist Art Kamin's, that it should be.And, whether the train station issue is investigated by authorities or not, it is any journalist's obligation to bring the documentation and the facts surrounding the issue to the public's attention.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:45:02 AM

William H Seward said...
jackie said:"I think, in some respect, all the area's newspapers failed in not uncovering the level of corruption that was/is rampant in the area before the arrests came down. Newspapers and journalists have an obligation to be servants to their public. We all should have known what was happening in our towns before the FBI had to come in."Well said Jackiejackie said:"That said, those arrested will have their day in court. To continue to go after them in print is a tad after-the-fact and merely ripping off the FBI's thunder, not to mention an excuse for not uncovering what allegedly happened BEFORE it happened."I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "not to mention an excuse for not uncovering what allegedly happened BEFORE it happened."jackie said:"If The Courier had discovered any wrongdoing on the part of those arrested BEFORE they were arrested, we would have gone after that full throttle, whether Purcell or anyone else at the paper was friends with them or not. I have no doubt in my mind about that."You might want to rethink that Jackie in light of Jim's comments about "self policing"jackie said:"The circumstances surrounding the Aberdeen-Matawan Train Station have not been investigated by authorities"How do you know?jackie said:"And, whether the train station issue is investigated by authorities or not, it is any journalist's obligation to bring the documentation and the facts surrounding the issue to the public's attention. "That and many other issues. Keep raising the bar Jackie!I wonder if anyone other than The Courier staff, Abe and I are reading any of this.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:04:56 AM

JIM_PURCELL said...
Mr. Seward:By "self policing," I meant that if a member of the GOP were to find wrongdoing at its beginning, then they should report it and not cover it up. In this way, the party would be credible and clean.In contrast, what is not "self policing" is allowing criminality to take root and do nothing."Self policing" is also creating an environment where corruption is not tolerated and where "deals" are not cultivated through the party via its ELEC accounts.As for Mr. Rosseau, he tried to get rid of a monarchy form of government on Corsica (France). Probably, a good idea if you were a Corsican taxpayer to a basically corrupt government. As with anyone's ideas, you take what is good and leave what you don't like at the door.Take Mr. Franklin, I like the idea of electricity, but air baths are probably not something I'm going to do anytime soon.As for the train station, I'll call Mike but I'm sure Jackie will be more than happy to post.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:38:52 PM
JIM_PURCELL said...
Dear Mr. Seward:Truth is simple and lying big is hard. The train station story is simple. It follows a path of documents and interviews. They are either real or not: In fact, they are real.You want to go off into the Neverland of tangents. Well, I'm not in your classroom and not inclined to discuss everything under the sun on some message board.So, there it is. As for your insight, I think it's lacking (as are your command of facts and critical thinking). You play semantical games from points out of context and throw them around. Frankly, I think it's petty nonsense, as are many of your statements. So, we're done.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:13:25 PM

William H Seward said...
Jim said:"The train station story is simple. It follows a path of documents and interviews. They are either real or not: In fact, they are real."I never questioned your facts. I questioned your motives for "investigating" that story and giving it the amount of ink you did, while giving very little ink to stories involving your friends.Jim said:"You want to go off into the Neverland of tangents."No I don't, I just want better journalism from you.Jim:"Well, I'm not in your classroom and not inclined to discuss everything under the sun on some message board."I don't have a classroom, and you're evidently not inclined to discuss much of the substance of the issues I raise, which is not unexpected.Jim said:"As for your insight, I think it's lacking (as are your command of facts and critical thinking)."I guess I had a bad day...yesterday I got credit for an intelligent post! And it was in yesterdays post that I asserted any facts. Today I raised questions and expressed opinions.Jim said:"You play semantical games from points out of context and throw them around."se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language. Isn't that what we're here for?I did take your "Ignorance is bliss" quote out of context, but after all, it was a shot you took at me, without basis. You basically agrued that you were ignorant of your friends' wrong doings and said you wanted to stay that way...thus my head in the sand reference, which may have been petty, but it was clever and it fit.Jim said:"So, we're done."You mean you will let me have the last word?
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:31:32 PM


JIM_PURCELL said...
At my newspaper, I do not influence my reporters' views and I do not tell them what to write or not write, nor does anyone else. I write as I see fit and publiosh it. The GOP has its own house organs in the area, and I do not discount them simply because of their ownership and orientation. Their newspapers have a perspective, whether they want to admit it or not. I'm not "outing" any publications in particular, because that lacks dignity.Similarly, just because I treat something editorially in one way does not mean that I ever want to steer a reporter my way insofar as slanting a story. Matt and Jackie can readily affirm this, as could Doug or anyone else who has ever worked for me.Yet, to ignore something editorially simply because I know of it first-hand is ridiculous. I have written extensively about John Merla and the rest of the people I knew and didn't know regarding the FBI stuff. Of course, there have been news reports in my paper about this (more than most I believe), but there have also been editorials I wrote urging people not to rush to judgment until John's case has been heard. Others who are pleading out will be treated editorially in an appropriate way when news is announced. I credit John with standing up and fighting his fight because I do believe he is innocent, until a judge says otherwise in a verdict. But, he is standing up.In Middletown, Pat Parkinson's case was never heard because neither he nor his lawyers (paid for by the township) wanted it heard. They settled. So, I speculated. Before that, when the case was filed, Mr. Parkinson wasn't truthful with my newspaper when he said the case didn't exist (during October of an election year). So, I shouldn't allow for this editorially? I don't think so.As for Lisa's comment...very adult. I'm glad you're so insightful.When it comes to one's rights...even a journalist's ...I never signed anything saying I would not participate in the county where I pay taxes (away from work), nor the town where I pay taxes. I will not become deaf, dumb and blind because I am in publishing.In Mr. Seward's township, where he holds office, the media is supposed to fetch and step for the committee, to which Mr. Seward belongs. But, that is just not the way it works. I do not influence news. I show reporters how to write it and let them do their jobs.I am disappointed by the idea that there is so much derision and pettiness, not to mention outright immaturity, in some posts. I like Abe. But, this is my last post here. Frankly, I hate to say that Mr. Seward and company have lived up to my expectations.Have a good meeting tonight, "Mr. Secretary."And Mike, I called you...ball's in your court. But, you're riding a dog of an issue, in my opinion. FInally, as for my role in the Dem Party. Well, I'm just looking to do the best I can participating in the system. Bipartisanship is what America is all about. I've never been a candidate for office and daresay I don't have the voracious ego of a "Mr. Seward" to stomach it.Goodnight and goodbye, my best. Abe: I'd appreciate you wiping out the personal derision above regarding me. It lacks dignity in my opinion. I certainly never spoke to anyone on this site in that way.Besides, if I wanted to hear anymore sophomoric critics, I could just open some of my mail at work. : )
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:20:47 PM

William H Seward said...
Jim said:"In Mr. Seward's township, where he holds office, the media is supposed to fetch and step for the committee, to which Mr. Seward belongs. But, that is just not the way it works. I do not influence news. I show reporters how to write it and let them do their jobs." and:"Have a good meeting tonight, "Mr. Secretary." "Well Jim, as you can tell by the time of this post, I am not at a meeting tonight and your investigative skills and/or guess work have failed you. I am not an elected official, and probably not from the town you think I'm from.I'm sorry to see you go, and I hope you will reconsider. After all, this thread started as an acknowledgment or your fine editorial last week.As for your opinions that I am sophmoric, immature, derisive and petty, well, we obviously disagree, for the most part (I've admitted to my jeering), but I respect your right to those opnions and your right to express them.So, if I am not who you think I am, who am I? I am one of your readers. A politically active reader, obviously, who has been very disappointed with the quality of your work lately.I'm been wanting to engage you in a dialog, and I'm grateful for the oppourtunity that "Abe" gave us. I'm grateful that you took the bait...I didn't think you would. I'm sorry to see it end so soon, if it does, but I said most of what I had to say to you, regarding the matters at hand, and I've learned a few things. I hope you have too.BillPS...in honour of what happened in Trenton today, I should mention that I was also a Govenor
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:21:03 PM