The best part was six young men being sworn in as police officers. To see the pride and love in their families eyes was very moving. To see the indifference amongst some members of the public was disappointing.
As I arrived at the township complex, the parking lot was almost full and there was a large crowd in the vestibule. I thought to myself, "holy s-word, Dangler brought out his troops!" As soon as I entered the building I realized that the crowd was there to support the new police officers. It was a big event for these young men and their families. Like a graduation or wedding, it marked a major event in their lives.
The other highlight was a presentation by two township employees from the Health Department. It was quite impressive to hear all that the Middletown Health Department does to protect the residents and visitors to Middletown. It is a great deal more than restaurant inspections. I couldn't help but be struck by the dedication of the employees, one of whom has been on the job for thirty years. Didn't he get the memo to retire after 20 years and get another job in the system?
By the time the public portion of the meeting was opened it was after 10 PM. Mr. Dangler wasn't there. Ali vs Frazier and Ali was invited but didn't show*.
I delivered my statement, slightly abridged by constraints of time.
The questions from the committee and other public comments were political gamesmenship, not about my message but around the public notice given for and the validity of the Middletown Human Rights Commission's "special meeting."
Committee member Patrick Short was trying to score points by "blaming" an unnoticed "special" meeting on Mayor Scharfenberger. Scharfenberger admitted that he reached out to the Human Rights Commission secretary in response to communications he received about the July 17 post that generated all the fuss. Scharenberger insisted that he didn't call a special meeting. A Human Rights Commission member backed him up on that.
I really don't care how the meeting happened. It is water under the bridge. I just want them to have another one where I can have my say.
Jim Purcell made a statement, wherein he revealed probably more information than he intended to. He revealed himself to be the hapless political hack posing as a publisher that he is. Much more about that in the upcoming series of posts about what I've learned about Purcell and The
* It is not entirely surprising to me that Dangler wasn't there. I don't believe he is a regular reader of this blog. I doubt he saw my invitation. I don't believe he reads The
What comes around goes around and Jim Purcell's comeuppance is long past due. Say good night Jim. The rest of the year is going to be very long for you. Nothing personal. Just your politics and punditry.
Posts
7 comments:
Hear-Hear Art. Wonderful speech last night. Short & the editor from that rage paper would now like to make this a political thing then really talk about race. Did the Middletown Human Rights council just condem you or did they also condem rev. Jackass remarks? I think they are just picking on you. I wonder, who was your friend with you & what did the editor of that rage have to say to him when they went out in the hall last night? Keep up the great work on this subject & on that rage paper.
DEFENDING PURCELL AND THE COURIER
Dear Art,
Now what good would I be as a conversationalist if I didn't speak up when I disagree with you?
If you want to pound Dangler, be my guest. He's in the outrage business.
I think you have the wrong view of Jim Purcell and the Courier.
The Courier is a for-profit business (your blog is pro-capital so you respect that).
All businesses have to depend on their paying customers (in Jim's case readers and advertisers).
Accordingly, they must be careful about what those people think about them.
If they think well of them, they give money; if they think poorly of them, they don't.
As a business, you can't cry foul if your reputation takes a dive over an issue you couldn't control. You can only react to how you and your business are being perceived - you can't always control it (ask any office holder about that).
So Jim and the Courier rightfully have to monitor their image.
They had a relationship with you, Art.
You proposed on your blog, "Take a nigger to lunch day."
Whatever your intention, to start a conversation, satire, to be a provocateur, etc., did you really think the whole world would see it your way? On an issue as charged as that?
As a blogger you pay close attention to politics and pop culture. So I know the answer to the above questions. Of course you knew that large portions of people reading what you wrote would have a terrible reaction to it, rather than merely see it as a conversation starter.
Considering how anyone caught in a a racial "gotcha" moment is treated these days, am I to really think you are genuine as you say you are "Shocked, Shocked!" at any backlash you may be getting, Captain Renault?
The proof of that reaction is clear. You've had to deal with it by constantly posting about it since, being the subject of a weird hearing, and now having to spend your time at council meetings.
Don't you think the people that have a relationship with you might have to deal with it too, Art? Can you blame them for taking steps to clarify regarding the post, just as you have been?
You have no good argument to say that Jim and the Courier were wrong about severing ties with you and your blog. Or for reporting about it.
I'm not saying it was good or bad, right or wrong to take you on. I am saying that he has a good argument that it was necessary. It was.
If word spread that they kept an association with someone who said "Take a nigger to lunch day" it could affect their revenue in lost advertisers and lost readers.
I don't blame them for being proactive about protecting their revenue. Any true capitalist would understand protection of revenue. Anyone arguing against it relinquishes thier capitalism membership card.
Don't you think you are being a little hard on Jim for doing exactly what you have been doing these past couple of weeks - dealing with public perception of your post?
You certainly can't look down your nose at the argument that you crossed the line between provocative and insensitive. You've seen the reaction.
Since you wrote for the paper, Jim has to deal with that reaction too.
Your thoughts and anyone else's will be appreciated (save the personal rantings about JP - it's off the subject. Plus I like it when people add light to a conversation, not heat).
(ps - I have not spoken to Jim or anyone from the Courier since you made your post - this is my opinion only).
Tommy,
You just did what Purcell's been doing. You took one half sentence of the Nigger Nuts post out of context and ran with it.
I understand that you don't read The Courier, Tom. I can see how you would not fully appreciate the situation, and how you would rather me go after Dangler than Purcell. However, I believe Dangler has been duped by Purcell, as you have.
Before severing his relationship with me, Purcell made the blog post a front page story. Show me where else bloggers "musings" are front page news.
That I no longer write my column for the paper has not been written about in the paper (unless I missed it).
He ran my picture on the front page inside the Ace of Clubs with the headline, TOP BLOGGER PULLS THE RACE CARD. No where in that issue was a statement that I am no longer a columnist. That news was broken here. I'll have to review the following issue again, but I didn't see any mention of the fact that I'm no longer a columnist for that paper. (Nor did I see the notification of the Middletown Human Right Commission meeting, which the Middletown clerk said she faxed to the Courier before its deadline). If I hadn't announced the dissolution of our relationship, it is unlikely Purcell would have publicly distanced himself from me.
Those facts really undermine your argument that Purcell is doing what he is doing for business reasons.
Over the next few months or so I will be detailing what I know and how I know that very little that paper does is driven by the business of journalism. It is a paper dedicated to political vendettas and the owner's desire for retribution over not getting their real estate development approved.
I don't have a problem with not writing the column in the Courier. Jim's been taking heat from Democrats over the popularity of the column for a while now and looking for a way out. Now he has it. Other venues have requested my column. One reader insists that the blog has more readers than The Courier anyway.
You just did what Purcell's been doing. You took one half sentence of the Nigger Nuts post out of context and ran with it.
Of course I did, and that's my point. The words were so very incendiary that the whole world was likely to take it out of context.
You should have known that would happen. You're a wordsmith.
The context wasn't perfectly clear, either. I searched for it because I know you.
Listen, unsolicited advice isn't always welcomed, but I'm going to give it anyway, because I have years of experience in the writing business for both law and journalism.
I've learned a few lessons the hard way.
Know that people do not read your work with as much thought and attention as you wrote it. Not even close.
Drone even a second too long and they don't read it (I only do a long post for posterity, to build a record, knowing full well it won't be read or absorbed).
Reading newspapers and blogs remember are not done for personal betterment - they are for relaxing or entertainment.
People don't read your work word for word and then rack their brain to gather every possible meaning and nuance you might have intended.
We both wish they did, but they don't. They won't contemplate and search for your ultimate meaning (until you run for statewide office).
Spell it out or they'll miss it. If they miss it, it's your fault, not theirs.
If you are going to have a post called "nigger nuts" and propose (no matter the context) "take a nigger to lunch day" then you damned well better take the time to explain yourself clearly in as few words as possible before anger turns the reader's brain off.
You can always expect your friends like me to defend your context and intentions (I have).
However a business relationship is different. There's money at stake. I'm not losing mine for what you did. THat's my point about the Courier.
I understand your point that the Courier didn't announce that you were no longer associated.
I thought they had since I read here on your blog that you were replaced by Caliendo and your links were taken away.
Maybe I'm wrong but that sounds like they were announcing a break with you, without addressing the issue directly. They could tell angry advertisers who call, "Look, he's gone."
I'll let one of them explain it if I'm wrong about that.
Maybe the lesson learned here is the Ann Coulter lesson - she has amazingly insightful thoughts, most of which are not heard due to her smash mouth presentation.
Over the next few months or so I will be detailing what I know and how I know that very little that paper does is driven by the business of journalism. It is a paper dedicated to political vendettas and the owner's desire for retribution over not getting their real estate development approved.,
You are right that I don't know much about the Courier. From what I've heard, you don't suppose you are breking a new story there, are you? I know I've heard this complaint before.
Anyway, I'm done busting your chops today.
Your blog was starting to read like an Art G fan club, so it needed a contrarian.
Jim Purcell is a very bad man with bad motivations. He attitude is exactly what make bad people bad. I don't care what it costs you, or your reputation, so long as I make a buck.
Jim Purcell makes me sick!
justifiedright.com said...
Your blog was starting to read like an Art G fan club, so it needed a contrarian.
I know you are a true friend.
Art,
I think you were helped by Jim when the blog meant less than nothing (most blogs still do not mean much) and now you are trying to hurt him because he isn't letting the Courier get dragged into the so-called discussion. That is the birds eye view to many people who are following this - all five of them?
Post a Comment