Three items today related to what is apparently the biggest breaking news in Anaheim, William Fitzgerald’s verbal attack on Jordan Brandman, compiled from some anonymous writer. What’s going on won’t really become clear until you come to the third one.
Clockwise from the pointedly included ACLU logo: Councilwoman Kris Murray, William Fitzgerald, James Robert Reade, City Attorney Michael Houston.
(1) LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS STRONGLY DENOUNCE HATE SPEECH IN ANAHEIM
Mr. Mayor – Free speech is not Hate Speech
The Log Cabin Republicans of Orange County Strongly denounce the anti-Semitic Attacks and Hate Speech allowed to be expressed this week during the Anaheim City Council Meeting.
Anti-Semitic and Hate Speech Targeted at Anaheim City Councilman (click here)
We urge Mayor Tom Tait to immediately stop referring to these attacks as free speech. Hate speech is not free speech. We urge all Republicans to contact the Mayor and ask him to immediately provide decorum at meetings and put an end to the attacks on the Jewish and Gay Communities. He can be reached at ttait@anaheim.net
A rally is planned for next Tuesday at Anaheim City Hall just prior to the City Council meeting. Please attend and help us urge Mayor Tait to Stop the Hate.
October 8th – 4:30 pm
Anaheim City Hall
200 South Anaheim Blvd
Good for them for denouncing Fitzgerald’s attacks on “bad Jews” and his use of a homophobic slur. But they’re wrong about the law. Don’t trust my word on this; ask Anaheim’s City Attorney Michael Houston. (In fact, why haven’t they asked Michael Houston about this before issuing such a demand? He told me, the only time I tried to interview him, that he avoids talking to the press — but maybe someone else can get an answer out of him.)
Here’s the thing: What Fitzgerald said is, without question, protected free speech. By making it impossible for Fitzgerald to speak, as requested, Tait would be violating the law on Anaheim’s behalf and putting Anaheim on the losing end of yet another lawsuit. Fitzgerald has been represented by the ACLU before, and won, in a similar case; he knows how far he can go. (So does Tait; so, I presume, does Michael Houston.)
Tait can interrupt a speaker like Fitzgerald and ask him for decorum — and he did. He can condemn what he said after he speaks — and he did. He cannot legally gavel him down and make it impossible for him to speak. Those people who are asking him to do that are asking him to break the law. If they are urging him to stop referring to these statements as “protected free speech,” they are urging him to lie.
An unflattering possibility is that the goal is to (1) rile people up against Mayor Tait and (2) change the subject from the rip-off of the public by the Pringle Ring, but I’ll presume for now that the Log Cabin Republicans aren’t following Anaheim politics generally.
(2) CAIR-LA CONDEMNS ANTI-SEMITIC ATTACKS ON ANAHEIM CITY COUNCILMAN
The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) today condemned a series of anti-Semitic remarks targeting an Anaheim City Councilman earlier this week.
During a public comment session at a Monday morning council meeting, an Anaheim resident spewed vicious slurs against Councilman Jordan Brandman. In his tirade against Brandman, William Dennis Fitzgerald blamed the Holocaust on Germany’s Jewish population.
His bigoted comments also characterized Jews as “evil” and “scheming.”
SEE: Anaheim resident spews anti-Semitic remarks at city councilman
“A person’s religion or race should never be vilified because of political differences or otherwise,” said CAIR-LA’s Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. “We stand in solidarity with Councilman Brandman and the Jewish community in condemning this hateful and discriminatory act.”
In addition, CAIR-LA calls upon the city council to issue a statement rejecting such hate speech in the strongest terms.
The Council had met to discuss a proposed modification to the process for setting the agenda for council meetings.
CAIR is America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Good for them, too. Fitzgerald would probably say that his argument was that only a small minority of Jews acted in ways that precipitated the Holocaust; that doesn’t save the argument from being anti-Semitic. The issue is not so much the logic of the argument as the venue in which it is presented and the purpose for which it is deployed. If Fitzgerald wants to write an academic paper about Hitler’s landlord, former teacher, and ex-girlfriend having riled up the future Fuhrer — these examples are from vague memories, as I’m not totally up on current anti-Semitic theories — he can. Using them in a public attack against Brandman is not only offensive and wrong, but it’s politically stupid; it allows Brandman to change the subject and renders him sympathetic.
I know that Fitzgerald thinks that he has to do this sort of thing to get people to pay attention to the Anaheim City Council. Well, it finally worked — and, as should have been obvious would be so, it completely backfired. It moves people from talking about potential city corruption to Fitzgerald’s own bigoted statements.
But here’s the thing to bear in mind about attacks on free speech — they often serve some darker purpose, such as to leverage a legitimate complaint against one person into an illegitimate complaint against many people. Take this, for example:
(3) An Anonymous Blogger Tries to Blame It on Tait’s Supporters Generally
It bears mentioning that William Fitzgerald cannot be construed as a supporter of Tom Tait by any stretch of the imagination, and I’ve no doubt Tom was as horrified as anyone by those comments. Fitzgerald is a disturbed individual who has launched his scuds at Tom Tait for years, as well.
That’s a good and welcome point. One reservation: I don’t think that Fitzgerald is mentally disturbed; I think that he is making what he thinks is a rational calculation that creating a disturbance of this sort is a way to call larger public attention to the City Council’s antics. What he doesn’t seem to get is that (1) people are by now already paying attention and (2) this actually distracts from the points he wants to drive home about public corruption. But you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks.
Now, take a look at what the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce’s paid blogger is paid to do: take your justifiable revulsion at what Fitzgerald said and try to unfairly smear all critics of the Council with it.
At the same time, a tone has been allowed to develop in the council chambers since last year, and it is a mobbish tone characterized by hooting and jeering and booing aimed at those who disagree with the mayor and agree with the council majority. This atmosphere is a deterrent to regular Anaheim citizens making use of public comments if they happen to agree with the council majority on an issue. Most people are anxious or fearful of public speaking under the best of circumstances, will certainly not take to the podium knowing they’ll be heckled by a goon squad.
You know, I’ve attended a lot of Council meetings this year, and I don’t recall a lot of “hooting and jeering and booing.” Maybe occasionally, but I’m not even sure that I need to concede that much. Mostly, what you hear is a lot of cheering of people who are willing to the City Council’s giveaways (and its insults towards speakers.) If there has been booing of speakers at the dais at all, I suspect that it was met with disapproval from Tait supporters.
But maybe this anonymous blogger is right. You know what’s really great? It’s all on video. If he’s right, it should be easy enough to find such examples of the crowd hooting down speakers who support the Council’s giveaways.
So, to the mysterious “Anaheim Insider”: I think that you’re wrong about what happens at the meetings. I’m sure you’re wrong that it’s in any way prevalent. (I furthermore think that you’re intentionally lying — or being deceptive just short of actively lying — about it, because your writing seems to be characterized by this.) I therefore issue you this challenge:
You compile time-stamps of all of the examples you can find since January of this supposedly oppressive tone created at meetings by a “good squad.” Meanwhile, I’ll compile time-stamps of all of the examples I can find of City Council members, primarily Murray, falsely accusing us poor and fretful public speakers of being misinformed.
You really want to have this out? Then we’ll have it out. I doubt that I’ll even have to get to the point where I have to compile the vile and vicious greatest hits of James Robert Reade — who is embraced by both the Council Majority and this anonymous blogger’s own blog. Where’s the rally to ask him to stop taunting bereaved mothers of sons shot to death by Anaheim Police, like Theresa Smith and Donna Acevedo, with his glee that their sons are dead?
(Yes, he really does this — continually and without rebuke from the dais.)
I think that if someone wanted to rally to criticize Reade — who unlike Fitzgerald and Tait is part of those Council Members’ circle — they’d be justified. But if they were to call to shut him down, I’d oppose it.
You know why? Free speech. The law on that is clear — like it or not. And a city government is — or at least should be — bound to follow the law.
UPDATE: And, secondhand through Mayor Tait, the question in the title has been answered! Here’s his reply.
This past Monday, a special meeting of the Anaheim City Council was held, and an Anaheim resident, who regularly attends council meetings and regularly makes offensive comments, came forward and made statements that were particularly egregious as they were both anti-Semitic and bigoted, and directed toward my council colleague, Jordan Brandman.
I’ve had some time to stew on this terrible experience and I want to make it clear to anyone who was in City Hall Monday morning, and to all of the people who live, work, shop or play here in the City of Anaheim that we believe that all people are created equal, and that we soundly reject hate-mongering, anti-Semitism, and bigotry wherever it should rear its ugly head.
For years this individual has repeatedly attacked the council and me in a vicious and untruthful manner. My council colleagues and I sat stunned during his rant, because we recognize that the courts have found that censoring such comments would violate First Amendment rights to free speech. However, his comments on Monday set a new low even for him. I used the limited powers that are allowed to me as Mayor to attempt to bring forth some sense of civility from his comments. I have been told by our city attorney that I cannot legally stop him from saying such hateful things, but I can call it what it is, morally reprehensible.
It was already clear that Tait condemned Fitzgerald’s remarks from the meeting itself, but this is a good elaboration — and it answers the question of why he didn’t gavel Fitzgerald into submission (or whatever it is Kris Murray is suggesting he should have done): because he and the City Attorney both know that he can’t do so — and that stifling his freedom to speak for that three minutes is asking for yet another expensive lawsuit.
(Of course, some Council members seem to have no problem spending lots of the City’s money on doomed lawsuits. Could be worse, I suppose — could be Costa Mesa.)
Is this the weekend open thread?
No. As a favor to you, I’ll delete your comment once the WOT is up.
War On Terror? You mean never?
Weekend Open Thread. War on Terror is officially “GWOT,” because it’s global. (No joke.)
“Hate speech is not free speech”
This is the typical horse-manure dished out by ignoramuses who do not understand the First Amendment. The Log Cabin Republicans need a refresher course in basic law.
The issue is not allowing one to engage in it (Heckler’s veto) if there was evidence of it other than from a smarmy douchehole from the CoC alleging an organized mob.
A) it is not Taits job to keelhaul fitzgerald, it is houston’s job. But then it is also his job to tell council that signing an agreement means something.
B) funny these same people didn’t bitch when pringle let fitzgerald run off at the mouth.
C) If this merry band of miscreants spent half the time watching anaheim’s bottom line as they do looking for ways to slap the mayor anaheim would be a better place.
D) go watch the council meetings in Bell when citizens woke up to their leaders, how long before anaheim hits that level of hostility watching our arrogant leaders ignore us?
It is Tait’s job – he would have been within the bounds of the Brown Act to gavel this scum bag down for speaking on a subject not within the jurisdiction of the public agency.
Michael Houston apparently disagrees with you, skally, and that’s who the City has hired to advise Tait about such things.
Sometimes a person in a position of authority needs to grow a pair and do what is right.
Thanks for sexualizing it, sweetheart.
In such cases, what’s right is generally what’s legal.
Time out, folks! But for the Nanny-State moniker that CA wears, isn’t it first BRANDMAN’S job? A guy who wants to give the Mayor “Death of 1000 Cuts” can’t handle a mere audience heckler? Give me a break!
“So, to the mysterious “Anaheim Insider”: I think that you’re wrong about what happens at the meetings.”
Anaheim Insider didn’t write that post, Greg. I did. it says so right there on Anaheim Blog. Get with program. Attention to detail, Perry Mason.
Again, no discussion involving Matt Cunningham is complete without pointing out that Matt Cunningham outed sex abuse victims. Carry on.
He did WHAT???
Ouch, that’s a Matt-Greg twofer from Gustavo: http://bit.ly/15QZ2qB
Ah, those were the days. Oh wait, they’re still here!
My understanding is that you are the mysterious “Anaheim Insider,” and no matter who or what wrote that post — you’re still wrong about what happens at the meetings.
Since your here: has anyone in the majority, or Pringle, or Ament, or Nocella, or whoever you’re in touch with talked to Michael Houston about what is and isn’t permissible speech during public comments, what the governing law is, and what consequences ensue if you are wrong?
Let me guess: you don’t know.
“It was my understanding….”
Whenever Greg Diamond writes that, it is generally followed by some misstatement of fact or fairy tale conspiracy theory.
Whenever Matt Cunningham writes anything at all, it is generally a lie. (Hey, this making unfalsifiable general assertions rather than arguing over specific factual allegations is more fun than I thought!)
Matt hid his financing for the blog and routinely hides its authors. I make no apology for trying to figure it out as best I can from context and others’ suggestions.
If Matt wants to hide his political saboteurs under masks, it’s not because — like Occupiers or various political revolutionaries, including our own Founding Fathers — he fears political or economic reprisals. He’s on the side of the rich and powerful; the worst he faces from others are rickly earned sneers. Maybe it’s sadism; maybe it’s just a nod to the grand political tradition of attacks by people with their features concealed.
He’s really good at one thing, though: not answering questions posed to him. See above.
ipse dixit?
“He’s really good at one thing, though: not answering questions posed to him. See above.”
Haha…. that hasn’t changed over the years, it has been his hallmark. He’ll just stick with saying what he wants to say, or changing the subject. Good practice for a propagandist. Not so much for someone on an honest quest for the truth.
Blah, blah, blah. Useless as ever.
Or should I say: bloviate, bloviate, bloviate.
Wow — Matt quotes Gustavo! Hey, Matt — what does Gustavo say about your outing sex abuse victims?
(For the record: Matt. Cannot. Answer. Legitimate. Questions.)
Gustavo twists the truth about that incident, you pipsqueak.
Gustavo? Are you twisting the truth about that incident?
“Gustavo twists the truth about that incident, you pipsqueak.”
Pipsqueak???
Call us a “venomous, grandiose and self-imporant gaggle of ankle-biters” and you may get immortalized on our masthead … but call my associate a pipsqueak, and brace for blowback!
What does Gustavo twist? He (and the whole damn county) says that you “outed sex-abuse victims.” Is this true, or not?
Apparently, in your eagerness to defend Monsignor Urell, a protector of pedophile priests whom practically everyone here now finds loathsome, you uploaded, onto your blog, a document that included the identities and contact info of the victims in the suit.
You claimed you did this mistakenly, and quickly took it down. Charitable people like myself grant that maybe that was so. Less charitable people like Gustavo and Nipsey think you did it on purpose. Maybe only God and you know. But long story short, it wouldn’t-a happened if you weren’t so fired up to defend a pedophile-priest protector.
NOW you hide under the definition of the neologism-verb “out” which – I checked the dictionaries – means “to INTENTIONALLY expose.” So you got the dictionary on your side, and Gustavo has occasionally been modifying his charge. Still i think that’s a half-assed definition, and purposefully or not, you outed the identities of sex-abuse victims in your zeal for defending the perpetrators.
It feels, to many of us, to be “all of a piece” with what you’re doing nowadays…
As I’ve already told you and Vern: you can’t crap on people and then expect they’ll answer your questions.
So, Greg: will you be doing an interpretive dance at Tuesday’s Anaheim council meeting? That puppet show was precious.
I’m glad that you’re pretending to have liked the puppet show. It was appropriate early morning fare.
No interpretive dance this week, sorry. Ballet or nothing.
Greg: He’s really good at one thing, though: not answering questions posed to him. See above.”\
Vern: Haha…. that hasn’t changed over the years, it has been his hallmark. He’ll just stick with saying what he wants to say, or changing the subject. Good practice for a propagandist. Not so much for someone on an honest quest for the truth.
Matt: As I’ve already told you and Vern: you can’t crap on people and then expect they’ll answer your questions.
*
I said “Over the years.” That means going all the way back to 2008, when our banter was more buoyant. And I NEVER expect you to answer any of our questions, haven’t I made that clear?
This “crap on people” … you’ve been saying that lately, and it’s apparently in reference to my story about how you worked for two big OC strip club owners, to help them build a “Tilted Kilt” in Orange, over police objections. Hey, I kept hearing you were gonna sue me over that story. In fact, famed legal whiz Dan Chmielewski swore up and down that the story was actionable. And yet, it’s still up: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/08/how-sanctimonious-matt-cunningham-worked-and-fought-for-strip-clubs-last-year/
Every day I go out to my mailbox to see if I’m being sued, but … nothing! Do you need my address, Matt?
hey, i know matt cunningham, he is no john briggs
Hated to visit your site again, but I checked: no author is credited at all. It’s your blog, so in the absence of a byline I credit you with it.
I’ll also credit you with the other one posted today about Tait’s response.
His dopey blog …. what it is is he hasn’t figured out how to include a writer’s name on the story itself… but if you are there on the home page, the author’s name is written.
He never fails to make fun of any of us critics for us not knowing who wrote the story … as though he hadn’t created the space for these pro-Chamber voices to have their devious say.
And as though us not being sure whether it’s Matt or Anonymous Friend of Matt writing somehow throws our own arguments into the crapper.
Kinda lame for the undisputed godfather of the OC Blogosphere.
The author byline is there on the blog. The bylines disappear when one clicks on the headlines. It’s a design function of the template that I can’t fix, even though I’d like to.
You could, of course, put “by Matt’s Sockpuppet” or whatever right in the text of the story — if you wanted to. Is the ACoC really to badly out of money that they can’t afford a better template?
That’s why the Anaheim Insider begins posts with an identifier. Dude, learn to pay attention. I am continually amazed at your sloppiness and the abandon with which you hold forth on things you know nothing about. For the sake of your clients, I hope you don’t bring the same I attention to detail to bear on their cases.
I have no idea whether this is what you actually think. In fact, I doubt that you have any idea of what it is you actually think. What you present as your thoughts is determined by what you consider useful to you and your clients.
If you say you think that I’m “sloppy” — and your lack of examples for me to slam back over the net hard enough to lodge in your face suggests that you’re just bullshitting as usual — then all we know from that is that you think it’s useful to plant a seed in people’s minds that I’m “sloppy” so as to serve yourself and your clients. That’s all we know because that’s the only “analysis” you had to do before deciding to write it. “Is it true” plays no evident role in your decision over what to write; “is it useful” — largely involving “can I get people to believe it” is all.
The sad thing is that someone with your take on life, as an opportunity to make money off of “marks,” tends to think that this is how other people operate as well. Outside of your circle, it’s generally not. I have my disagreements with people here, but few of them strike me as stating facts and expressing opinions simply for personal gain — such as that they’re getting paid to do it. It’s sad; it leads to soul-sickness. But it’s a choice you apparently made long ago; it’s the skill that you can market to a depressing clientele.
So, you contemptible smudge of a semi-man, you want to talk about sloppiness and abandon, you had better come armed with specifics. I’m sure that I make some mistakes, but most of them are small and what we in the legal trade call “immaterial” — ones to which one can answer “yeah, but so what?”
I don’t have the time to check every last detail because unlike you I am NOT paid to blog; I do it in my spare time (and too often lately in time I shouldn’t spare.) I wish that I had your resources to fund my writing, but people who want justice in the world don’t have the same reason to spend money on writers as do those who hope that their investment in the likes of you will pay off in hundreds of million dollars that rightly belong to the public. No wonder they try to cover up that they pay you, but association with you is just a cost of doing business.
What really bothers you about my writing is that my analysis often pins you and your wealthy patrons to the wall — and that’s what you can’t stand. What you patrons don’t get is that the more they sic your contemptible lying ass onto the trail, the more people come out of the peanut gallery to wonder why this guy is on the case and start to fight back. And the beautiful thing is that everything stupid thing that they say, and that you say on their behalf, leaves a record that can ultimately be used to tell the story of the siphoning of public assets for personal gain.
Thank God that you’re so transparent. Thank God that you’re so clumsy. Thank God that you’re so arrogant as to excuse your lack of ability and that your patrons are stupid enough to trust in you. All of this will come in useful someday. (Your patrons won’t be able to say that no one tried to warn them about you.)
So, back to the topic at hand: you identify what you want to complain about and prepare for your answer — or man up and admit that you basically have nothing except a desire to convince people, once again, of something that would be nice for you if it were true, but isn’t.
And people of Anaheim — are you really HAPPY that your tax money is being funneled from the Council majority through the deeply indebted Anaheim Chamber of Commerce to pay for this weasel?
Oooo… a Diamond comment for the ages. Save this one you-all….
Matt until proven otherwise I assume ALL posts at AnaheimBlog are written by you, at the every least they are written by someone you have provided with a venue and cover, essentially telling readers we have no need to know the identity of the writer because YOU find them credible enough to offer them space, so yes you DO get to account for anything written on your blog.
You also get to take the lumps for the anonymous comments posted over there, since you clearly moderate the comments meaning YOU choose what does and does not get through, and YOU have found those words worthy of air space, while others do not get through.
That said, I find it hysterically funny that you object to taking responsibility for what appears on the website YOU own and control, while taking the position that Tom Tait must account for the comments of a bat shit crazy man who has been offending citizens through the administration of three Mayors, none of whom succeeded in stopping him previously. Indeed Mayor Tait has objected to Fitzgerald’s comments FAR more than Pringle’s “ignore him” tactics ever did. Great logic there.
That twisted thinking matches the rest of the horse manure being shoveled from your side of the blog-o-sphere. We hear claims (coming primarily from the Majority themselves or those with a stake in keeping the majority in power) insisting that Tait is unpopular, the people of Anaheim hate him and his misinformation campaign, and Kris Murray is loved and rides a magic unicorn to work. So then why would they work so hard to shut him up? If nobody believes Tait, the hated discredited Mayor, why not let him rant? He has no power to change the votes of the majority, why not let him sit there and waste his breath making statements “nobody” agrees with? The very fact that the majority is DESPERATE to shut him up tells us all that even despite his inability to collect enough votes to change the outcome on the dais his words have enough power and persuasion to make a difference. And if his words have impact, clearly someone out there finds him credible, and worthy of support. You will notice nobody out there is screaming about Steve Roscoe ranting against a vote, because he has no credibility. The reactions of the very people who claim Tait has no community support give lie to the claim. They fear him, badly, and they SHOULD because there are people listening to Tait’s words today who have never paid attention to the Council before, those morons really stepped in it this time.
Corruption and cronyism thrown onto the front pages by a high profile big-name deal will be the undoing of those four idiots, and all the attacks on the Mayor not only fail to cover for them, they make it look even WORSE.
Good luck with the double-speak Matt, how long do you think the house of cards will hold together and keep you employed?
Oh Greg, silly man, you assume the Curt Scouts are interested in truth and reasonable actions. It is clear to me they are interested only in what they can throw at Tait to divert attention away from their own headline making bad behavior.
Nah — I don’t assume that. I just think that turning a legitimate attack on bigotry into a means of smearing all opponents of a rapacious political claque is also offensive, so I’m calling them on it.
If they have an anti-Fitzgerald rally on Tuesday, they’re entitled to it. If it turns into an anti-Tait rally — well, I’ll save that commentary for the video.
I find it interesting the the Republican Party condemned the homophobic remarks in their statement but CAIR (a civil-rights organization) did not. I have asked CAIR Community Relations Manager Sherrel Johnson about this and have yet to receive a response.
Correction: It was the Log Cabin Republicans not the party.
However, I would expect a human rights organization and the Democratic Party to be right there with them.
If you’d be willing to make a list of all of the homophobic slurs expressed in public by private citizens, John, perhaps we could condemn them all at once.
As it is, this is not a Debra Pauly or one of those other OCGOP figures making an offensive remark here; it’s a unaffiliated gadfly. You really want to elevate a gadfly with official party condemnation? If so, you can submit a resolution to the DPOC committee, but I think the fact that absolutely no one is defending him speaks for itself.
I see your point with regards to the DPOC. However, you didn’t address the point regarding CAIR. Since they DID decide to issue a statement, their silence on the homophobic slurs is disappointing. But we’ll see. I’m still waiting for a comment from them.
John , it’s nice to have you commenting on this blog. But I’m surprised that it took a stupid gay slur from a certifiable nutjob who is otherwise on our side on the burning matter of Anaheim corporate welfare. Where’ve you been all this time while your city has been robbed blind? (And Unreconstructed Fitzy was always on the watch?)
Yeah, I’m disappointed by what I understand to be CAIR’s position on GLBT rights. But I’m also disappointed in a lot of other people’s positions on the sorts of issues that CAIR often raises. Most of all, I get disappointed when people — within a party and sometimes across parties — don’t recognize that to get things done we often have to cooperate with people with whom we have fundamental disagreements, but that such cooperation itself can be a bridge towards greater respect and understanding.
I’d be happy if they gave you a comment, but being from a conservative religious position I would not expect one — anymore than I would from many fundamentalist Christians, from the extremely conservative Jewish sects in and near Brooklyn, from religious/nationalist Hindu and Buddhist figures, and plenty more. CAIR is socially conservative in many ways (dealing with sex and gender, as opposed to poverty.) It needn’t be proven again and again, though you’re always welcome to take issue with it.
I have only said this on comments, but from what I heard (from Joanne Abu Khartoumi, who seems to know the crowd) is that CAIR refused Jordan their endorsement … not for any of the great reasons they should have, but because of the rumors about his gaiety.
As did the insane homophobic pastor Lou Sheldon, whom Jordan BEGGED for an endorsement. Uncomfortable stuff, John.
Jordan begged Lou Sheldon for an endorsement? Are you sure?
Sheldon said so and sounded credible and incredulous. He said so to me, Jason Young, Amin David, and Cathy White.
Sorry John, when I responded to you I hadn’t read Greg’s story yet, nor knew about the Log Cabin statement. I was excited to see your name on our blog, and then thought you were complaining out of the blue about Fitzgerald being nasty to Jordan.
That Log Cabin statement (which Matt Munson just sent me.) WTF? Why are they attacking Tait over this? I guess they think they’ll get more acceptance in the GOP if they join in on the corporatists’ side. Another cheap shot on the Mayor.
And “faggot” was Fitzgerald’s very last word. Can’t exactly stop somebody when he’s already walking away.
“I have only said this on comments, but from what I heard (from Joanne Abu Khartoumi, who seems to know the crowd) is that CAIR refused Jordan their endorsement … not for any of the great reasons they should have, but because of the rumors about his gaiety.”
CAIR doesn’t endorse campaigns nor candidates as I understand it. Hussam Ayloush of CAIR-LA did personally endorse Brandman away from his organizational affiliation.
Presumably the request was made to CAIR-PAC (or whatever their PAC is called) rather than to CAIR.
CAIR-CA PAC. I don’t know anything about that. All I know is that CAIR’s executive director endorsed him as a private citizen.
Good for Hussam (by which I refer to the “endorsing him despite his allegedly being gay” part.) He consistently comes off as a good guy.
Vern: In regards to Fitzgerald “otherwise being on our side…” If those who wish to bring an end to corporate welfare, etc… do not disassociate themselves with this man, there won’t be an “our side” left because all credibility will have been lost. I do not consider Mr. Fitzgerald to be on my side. Secondly, it was more than a stupid gay slur. And, being a gay man, I felt it doubly disappointed that a major local human rights organization basically condemned one part of his diatribe and ignored the other. That’s why I commented.
As for where I’ve been. I continue to be an Anaheim Commissioner as well as Chairman of the Anaheim City School District Measure G Oversight Committee. In matters of public policy, being a city official, I communicate directly with those I wish to voice my opinion to. Although we do not always agree, I assure you that I have spoken with all concerned about the many issues that you bring up. They hear me out and I extend that courtesy to them as well.
Vern didn’t say that Fitzgerald was “otherwise on our side” generally, he said that he was “otherwise on our side on the burning matter of Anaheim corporate welfare.” That’s a big difference.
I suppose that the proper comparison is to someone like Debra Pauly. In that regard, I’d say this: this would keep me from voting for Fitzgerald to a city office and if he were a Vice Chair of my political party, I’d want him removed. However, my disassociating myself from these words and the sentiment behind them (which, happily, each passing generation makes less acceptable) does not mean nor require that I can’t respect his unusual willingness to speak up with criticisms and NOT be a jerk in other cases.
CAIR might ask for each party to “disassociate” from those in each party who hold or express anti-Muslim sentiments (which are still pretty damned prevalent here — even among people who I think should know better.) Would you be down with that as well? How far do demands for disassociation go?
One really good ground for disassociation, in my opinion, is dishonesty. I don’t see a lot of disassociation around here on that ground.
I hate to admit it, but, Dan C. might have been right, NONE OF YOU ARE BASEBALL FANS: LA is in the playoff’s battling for their lives against the Braves (apologies to the Native Americans affected by this obviously bigoted moniker). And you losers are here blogging. Presumably on computers that have IP address’s that can be tracked logged and used against you later!
Oh wait, it’s the OTHER LA team in the playoffs – Anaheim Stadium is….Dark?
Nevermind.
Thanks for being helpful in your own peculiar way.
John Santoianni,
Dude you know I love you, and there are very few people in Anaheim who have a better grasp of the areas of government I know you keep tabs on. But when it comes to this issue you seem a little lost. You do know that the “I” in CAIR is for Islamic, right? So….when was the last time you read their holy book? You know, the one that is as anti-homosexual as Leviticus ever was? yeah, that one. No, they are NOT likely to come out in condemnation of an anti-gay slur, sorry dear friend.
Nameless,
You pose a ridiculous premise, who the Hell cares whether someone is an Angels fan or not? Are we to forfeit our right to speak on issues related to the largest asset in Anaheim (other than Utilities, which is likely to be next on the chopping block if Pringle has a buyer?) There are fans of varying degrees of passion, but even a taxpayer who detests baseball has the right to speak on the issue of publicly owned property. I can support marriage equality without sleeping with another woman (Vern you sick bastard not even a hint of a fantasy out of you, perv) and I can reach out to Donna Acevedo’s pain even though I have never lost a child to violence. How stupid to make the argument one must have a personal frame of reference in order to have an opinion.
What the Angels deal, what ALL of these disgusting giveaways come down to is this; they are extras, they are the shopping trip for new shoes-appropriate ONLY when critical needs have been met. Now look around Anaheim and tell me that the basic functions of government like the repair of roads, sidewalks and curbs. has been fulfilled. NOT EVEN CLOSE, indeed Anaheim has areas that are decidedly third world in appearance, so we have NO business throwing around those extras to rich friends. We pay the rent before we go drinking.
The argument that it is OK to give away revenues in the name of civic pride is an insult, how am I to derive civic pride from a team named for the nearby City that draws Convention business (which DOES drive revenues) away from our coffers? How about a city free from graffiti with an adequate number of fully trained police? THAT would be something to make me far more proud of my city than a baseball team.
Next argument, please.
Hm… it’s nice to now be caught up with this whole discussion, after mouthing off at John – I see what you’re doing, John, and I agree. And I insist it’s six shades of delicious irony that CAIR refused to endorse Jordan just cuzza their SUSPICION he might be gay.
NOW I dance over to the other side, to tell a different story. At the Sasscer park event last month commemorating MLK’s Dream Speech (where I played piano) CAIR had a table, manned by a couple young hip Arab gentlemen. Feeling cheeky, I gave them grief over CAIR’s homophobia, and they were all “that’s not us, dude, that’s changing. That’s not the younger generation of muslims.” And they handed me a flyer for an event they’re having NEXT month – the great (and gay) Glenn Greenwald will be speaking on civil liberties. I asked them if they were also going to pay the airfare for his cute Brazilian husband Miranda, they laughed… Anyway they tried to get across the picture (which is probably true) that American Islam is loosening up as well.
Whether or not anyone is a fan of the late Peter Sellers, I cannot OVER emphasize my recommendation for viewing of “Being There”, his perhaps greatest film, fans of which will appreciate why I mention it right here, right now. (YES, I know this is NOT Weekend Forum!, and YES the innocence of Mr Brandman and Sellers’ ‘Chaunce Gardner’ are to me, polar opposites!) Spending this week transcripting the Monday meeting, where, like it or (mostly)not, you have to revisit each scrap of syllables typed, for (yes, still IM- perfect!) accuracy, a side effect for me is awakening daily with a troubling ephiphany from grinding all the prior day’s syllables.
Well, here is todays-
Amid the firestorm of outrage through this thread, V of OC, the outside Media, and everywhere else, with cross accusations (in both senses!) of INSUFFICIENT outrage, one thing is recognized only by it’s ABSENCE – a syllable of immediate (or delayed ) response or reaction from Mr. Brandman himself. Yes, silence is also an exhibition of freedom of speech, but the dichotomy between silence and cacophony, draws all the more question to both.
WAIT A SECOND — JORDAN IS OPENLY GAY???
This is what (openly gay Republican) Matt Munson put on my Facebook last night … after i’d been studiously NOT following this whole Fitzgerald kerfuffle….
Did I miss something? When did Jordan admit being gay? As long as I’ve known, he has strenuously denied being gay. Which I always figured meant he’s been really sneaky and secretive, or maybe he is celibate and counts that as being “not gay.”
But this is what the Log Cabin Republicans put up yesterday in their attempt to trash Mayor Tait. “An openly gay member of the Anaheim City Council was verbally assaulted etc….”
You click on that, and it does NOT say “openly gay” any more. It’s obvious, as I know from posting numerous OJ stories onto Facebook, that the first sentence of the story was changed since it was originally posted, but the bit that shows up on facebook is sternly loyal to the original version.
Someone at Log Cabin Republicans was under the impression Jordan was openly gay, and had to be corrected. Ah, the sorrow and pity…
Being gay shouldn’t be a problem, but the reprehensible statements of Mr Fitzgerald indicates otherwise. Other than being a role model, Brandman’s sexual orientation shouldn’t matter. It is his unfortunate vision of pro-corporatist politics, using his position as council member to control the resources of the city to favor the Pringle’s associated interests, is what truly matters.
With a hat tip (what ever the fuck that’s supposed to mean) to South Park Fan and closeted OJB reader Chris Prevatt, maybe the guy didn’t mean Jordan was homosexual, just an asshole:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7C0vd-L5lg
As for Pedroia’s overused apron picture, that was as they say worth 1,000 words, although only one was needed.
Don’t call Prevatt closeted … I know, your actual sentence was accurate, but that adjective doesn’t belong near his name. He has been brave, bold, and out, and is currently going through medical troubles and we all wish him the best.
No harm intended in the sexuality realm. I think his own bravery and outspokenness lends itself more to the style of this blog than his own.
Frigid. might be a word I would pick to describe the LOC’s approach. perhaps, “calculated” might be better.
One of the troubles with the internet (and more specifically, the blogesphere) is most people aren’t used to writing things, so often nuance and intention is overlooked. Which makes it way to easy to be critical of a commenter, but that is for another thread.
Heading to Chili N Pepper, I heard the got the old nearly “All Male” service staff back.
I think my point is fairly punctuated with this post:
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2013/10/07/piling-on-anaheim-mayor-tait-for-fitzgeralds-outrageous-rant-is-unwarranted-and-disingenuous/
Come on over Chris, they welcome all views at the OJB (unless they are contrary to Diamonds). My point was CHRIS is the level headed brother in the two man act over there.
BTW Chili N Pepper is still the best bargain for good Mexican food. DTSA looked bleak and frankly “vibrant-challenged”. Then again I was home by 11:00 PM. Old Man Schedule??? Perhaps.
Thanks for the link! I was surprised and impressed by it, after earlier today commenting to Chmielewski’s LOC piece on same subject. Every day, ya get surprised and learn something!
I think I can prove that views contrary to mine are welcome here, Shameless, by simply pointing out that at this very moment metaphorical crows are not eating your eyes out of the sockets of your pseudonymous skull.
Good find, though. Chris gets his own story here, thanks to you. (Good to have him back!)
Oh Shit, I just read my post apologies are in order!
I meant Pedroza NOT Pedroia ! Baseball on the mind.
RED SOX vs. A’s – Great Hopes: OCO, the only place you can sit three rows in front of a sitting governor and catch a whiff of pot, while your row hosts WWII, Vietnam Vet’s and some POWERFUL women from St. Elizabeth’s vision of hope, Convent!
God, just looked again at the stupid Log Cabin idiots statement, and they are demanding that Mayor Tait “immediately provide decorum.”
http://www.kintera.org/htmlcontent.asp?cid=626968
“Immediately provide decorum.” They really ARE the dim gay bulbs we all always thought they were, are they not.
If they want “Immediate decorum”, shouldn’t they go to Party City or Michael’s? Or was the flyer written after 9 pm? (rimshot)
made me laugh!
Then my job is done! Cheers!
Log-Cabin Dipshits: “…verbally assailed by a member of the public with hate speech and anti-semetic comments. ”
Anti-SEMETIC. That’s the way South Park’s Trey Parker pronounces it, to MAKE FUN of you ignorant PC idiots.
Mayot Taint – he taint conservative and he taint a lib – he’s a taint.
Exactly how is Tait not a conservative, genius?
Your brilliant wordplay aside, it’s your beloved council majority, your BFF Cunningham, and YOU, that are non-conservative taints.
You forgot one other Taint – he taint taint-ed by corruption.
So Pringle used what it seems a higher level operative, higher than Ament and Cunnigham, to take political advantage of bigotries that we all condemn, according to Adam’s article:
“The night of the council meeting, Todd Priest of Curt Pringle & Associates, a lobbying firm owned by the former mayor and whose clients include influential business interests the mayor has opposed, sent a text message to Irvine Councilwoman Beth Krom, who is Jewish, notifying her of the incident.
The next day, he contacted the Orange County Human Relations Commission and blamed Tait for allowing hate to be spewed at the council meeting.”
We got a spam comment on this post, which now sleeps with the fishes, but that coincidence is a good reason to bring its timely discussion back to our collective consciousness. So read it over, perhaps, to remind yourself of Anaheim City Policy on public comments. May come in handy!