UncategorizedPosted by Robert at 31 Oct 2006 09:17 pm
Today Rob Black asserted that I am on loan from SEIU to the Daly campaign. That assertion is completely false. I have been on vacation since the beginning of last week. I have not demanded an apology from Rob. Frankly, I thought it was a cheap shot.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Team Black really has no shame, does it? Does anybody know how is the Daly campaign holding up?
November 1st, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Whether or not you are on vacation, which would be difficult to prove or disprove, your “official” involvement with Daly still smells pretty bad.
I would say the same thing if you were helping anyone else in this campaign - it’s really just not good ethics.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Actually Suze, what’s sleazy is to make an accusation that has no basis in fact and is slander per se. Rob Black has accused me of breaking the law without any evidence beyond his own opinion. I have not.
I was loaned last year to run the Alliance For A Better California campaig. It was a declared contribution.
I have not been loaned to the Daly campaign by my union. No one from my union asked me to work on the Daly campaign.
I am on vacation and I am not running the Daly campaign. Rob Black owes me more than an apology and so do you. I have followed the law in every respect.
Rob Black is stooping to nasty, personal attacks on a labor organizer in the same article in which he calls himself a labor person. Right.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:24 pm
You did not make it clear that you were not working for Daly. You simply said that you were on vacation.
I’m not going to apologize to you because I did not accuse you of anything. I still think that being involved in an organization that officially endorses a candidate and then having that organization loan you out is pretty stinky, ethically speaking. It may be entirely legal - but as we all know, sometimes the law and ethics do not match up.
Whether or not Rob Black wants to apologize to you is none of my concern. I would suggest that you contact him with your demand rather than being snippy with me. I don’t even know the guy. Seems like you’re a bit touchy about that.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Well Suze, the union did not loan me to the Daly campaign. Thanks for your feedback but I take the law pretty seriously and I am less interested in apology and more interested in a retraction. As Rob knows, he has accused me of breaking the law. It would be ethically and legally wrong for me to be loaned to the Daly campaign but since I haven’t been loaned, I am not worried.
But it is sort of like saying, “Well, Suze, when did you stop beating your wife?” It assumes you are beating your wife without any evidence of you doing so and assumes that you were breaking the law, neither of which are true or at least I have no evidence that you have done so.
I am on vacation. As you know, my time is my own.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Wait a minute, Suze. Let’s at least try to given the illusion of being evenhanded here. You’re quick to suggest that Robert’s actions are “pretty stinky.” It seems to concern you enough to post a blog about it.
But when you’re confronted with facts that suggest Black’s allegations are false, they suddenly become “no concern” of yours? And that’s not stinky?
“Whether or not Rob Black wants to apologize to you is none of my concern.” Where’s the ethics in Black’s willingness to use false information to promote himself but not take responsibility for it?
And for the record, I don’t know about you, but baseless accusations tend to make ME “snippy.”
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:14 am
Suze does a great job hiding behind an online name! Robert does not. I would say Robert is being honest.
I will do what Suze does and hide too!
Then I will make all sorts of taunts and accusations! Whoopeeeeeeeeeee!
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:45 am
I’m sorry - what has happened here?
And I could say the same thing about waffling - first Robert wants me to apologize, then he wants Rob Black to print a retraction?
I was commenting on my perception of the situation, which was not made clear by Robert. I made my concerns clear and I still think they are clear.
And now I’m accused of “hiding” behind an online name on a blog to make accusations. Using an online name Like 90% of the posters here. Making accusations of…what?
Ok. I’m just going to back slowly away from this topic because you all are nutty. Chill the fuck out. Seriously.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Oh, stop with the overdramatics, Suze! I just bet you need to back out.
You’re being asked to hold Black and yourself as accountable as you’re trying to hold Haaland and Daly. When you thought they were doing something wrong, they were stinky, unethical, etc. When the facts don’t support this, you cry foul.
I personally don’t care what name you use, as long as you’re willing to be honest about what you write.
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I can’t win no matter what I say so I’ll just go along with it…
Yes, I personally accused Robert of working for both teams and then for saying it was a bad bad bad thing to do.
Yes, I personally am responsible for Robert Black saying that Robert H. was doing so and then forcing him not to follow up or apologize in any way.
I am also personally responsible for Chris Daly’s temper tantrums, my own use of Suze as my handle when my name is actually suzanne (even though I also am personally responsible for people calling me suze because I do not stop them) and for stealing lollipops from children in the Tenderloin. Mmm, they seem to like the apple ones.
Further, I poop outside of Laura’s apartment and then hide until she sees it so I can quickly clean it up before Martha comes along in order to make it seem as if Laura is making it up.
I also pee on the street and everywhere I go, I attempt to foster discontent amongst everyone I meet because it is fun.
In short, I am an instrument of the devil. I never go to church and my mom even thinks I am bad.
Satisfied?
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:38 pm
suze,
didn’t good ol dad leave you enough money for therapy? how about a pair of diapers?
Just teasing. I have no problem with rich people, but what did you expect when you tried to slam on someone as beloved to the left as Robert Haaland?
It seems kind of ditzy to think that as skilled an organizer as Robert would break the law in a race that all of your peeps are watching like hawks.
Is team Black really that desperate that you’re making stuff up now?
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:40 pm
when did I ever say I was voting for or even in favor of Black?
paranoia.
and I’m not rich, by the way. I’m sure you all like to tell yourselves that. I make about 30% of what Chris Daly makes. If I made more, I probably wouldn’t be living in the TL, would I?
and I didn’t slam on Robert, I barely have any idea who he is - you guys are just wacky. seriously, if you can’t handle the pot without becoming completely paranoid, you should really avoid it. I’m just telling you as a favor.
oh yeah - and try to grow a sense of humor.
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:42 pm
ps - I know most of you are rich kids from nice families, so I get that you don’t understand about struggling, just like Chris doesn’t. So, maybe your daddies paid for your educations and your therapy - for most of us, life without student loans and with adequate mental health care is just a dim vision on the horizon.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:28 pm
You’re sounding a little desperate now, Suze. People are just asking you to be consistent with your criticisms. Above YOU said: “I would say the same thing if you were helping anyone else in this campaign - it’s really just not good ethics.” But then, you didn’t hold Rob Black to that same standard. And then, you got mad because people called you on it. I’m sure you’re smart enough to figure out that no one expected you to MAKE Black do anything. All people asked is that you state that he was wrong, in quite the same way that you were johnny-on-the-spot to suggest that Haaland and Daly were. You know, what we perceived trust funders call fair play.
And incidentally, the suggestion that you know what it’s like to struggle and others don’t is really silly. It kinda sounds like one of those accusations Rob Black would use. You just don’t know the first thing about me.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:54 am
and yet, I did not accuse you all of being “trust fund babies” until someone did the same to me. it does seem like there is a double standard - and perhaps we are both guilty of it. PERHAPS.
no one said that Rob Black borrowed anyone from any campaign that I am aware of. so, how am I not holding him to that same standard? as I said, whether or not Rob Black apologizes to your venerated Robert who-ever-he-is is really none of my concern.
none of you know the first thing about me - someone else accused me of having a rich daddy, and yet now you are all offended because I tossed the accusation back?
this has become a personal attack, not on Rob or Robert, but on me. simply because I do not agree with you on the Chris Daly thing. Martha talks down to me, kelly calls me rich, Robert demands that I apologize for something that Rob Black said to him and you call me desperate and a liar and tell me you would not be as nice to me as someone else who responded. Are you trying to win people over to your way of thinking? Seems like you are dead set on alienating anyone who doesn’t absolutely agree with you on any issue.
That sounds familiar. Because really, the way the people on this site behave is eerily reminiscent of Dick Cheney “you’re with us or against us.” Is Karl Rove up in there with you all or are you just channeling him? Who gets to be George Bush?
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 am
do you need a tissue?
you supported an accusation that Robert was breaking the law.
Those of us who know Robert know that people attack him because he is effective. Of course we are going to get pissed off when you say he broke the law.
God, we sound like a broken record, but for some reason you keep ignoring the fact that it is abhorrent to wrongly accuse someone of breaking the law.
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 am
Suze, I tend to get along fine with lots of people, including those I disagree with. Yes, the little hairs on the back of my neck can get piqued at times. But you’re really distorting people’s words.
When I say I’m holding you to the same standard you set for others, I’m referring to the fact that YOU suggested Robert’s actions were “stinky” and unethical when YOU chose to believe Rob Black’s accusations. YOU. Now that you know that Rob Black’s allegations were completely false, why aren’t YOU calling them “stinky” and unethical as well? Isn’t that fair play? Why is it not okay with you for us to ask you to be accountable for your own arguments? If one standard applies to Robert, shouldn’t it also apply to Black?
I never referred to your income or status in any way. Another blogger did. I never called you a liar, nor did I say I wouldn’t be as nice to you. What I SAID was in response to your comments about Robert being “snippy,” that false allegations have that affect on people; I know I’d feel snippy if that happened to me.
YOU were the one that stated: “I know most of you are rich kids from nice families, so I get that you don’t understand about struggling” followed by suggestions that “daddy” paid for my education and therapy. You think this is fair?
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Kelly - can you read? This is my original statement.
“I would say the same thing if you were helping anyone else in this campaign - it’s really just not good ethics.”
I’m sorry that you do not know the difference between illegal and unethical, but please cease attributing your misunderstanding of 10th grade vocabulary words to me.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Suze,
I think I speak for the silent majority when I say “we’ve got your back”. You’ve touched a nerve with Robert. Kelly & Esperanza are simply taking the opportunity to pile on.
Robert is on a working vacation to support his boy Chris. Props to him for stepping into the ring of professional politics.
To Robert I would say this: if you can’t stand the heat of a Rob Black acusation, maybe you should consider Palm Springs for your next vacation? I hear it’s nice.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Esperanza wrote:
“Now that you know that Rob Black’s allegations were completely false, why aren’t YOU calling them “stinky” and unethical as well? Isn’t that fair play?”
Is that what you want? I’ve been asked for apologies for something someone else said, I’ve been berated and beaten about the head - and you want me to agree that falsely accusing Robert of doing something unethical (there’s that word again, Kelly) is also unethical?
I totally agree. Provided that it is absolutely not true I think it’s pretty low (and I thank the qualifier in front of that statement to writing techniques I learned from Martha). Tossing a false accusation of unethical behavior is mud-slinging towards both Mr. Robert whats-his-face and Chris Daly in a manner worthy of Karl Rove. I would be mad if it happened to me, that’s for sure. I’m pretty sure I would have handled it differently as far as a poster like myself is concerned, but then I’m probably biased.
And see how easy that was? I completely agree with you. It is wrong to wrongly accuse someone else of unethical behavior.
And amazingly, even though Kelly and Ozman seemed to really revel in it, it was not necessary to call me names nor to impugne my character nor to question my sanity nor my continence nor to demand that I apologize for something someone else said.
And if any of Robert’s issues had been communicated clearly in the first place, I wouldn’t be thinking all these mean things about you guys. Well, probably not quite so many.
Because, I have to say that Robert’s clarification was not really clear. Not to me. And I am an uninvolved 3rd party with ties neither to this website nor to any other campaign.
Now let’s move onto your other statements:
“I never called you a liar, nor did I say I wouldn’t be as nice to you.”
Actually, you said “sasha is a better person than me.” (in reference to yourself). Until just a moment ago, I thought you meant because she was civil. Now I realize that you meant because she understood what I was talking about. So, sorry about that.
I also apologize for the liar thing - that was Martha.
This statement:
“‘I know most of you are rich kids from nice families, so I get that you don’t understand about struggling’ followed by suggestions that ‘daddy’ paid for my education and therapy. You think this is fair?”
If you look above, you can see that Kelly again - I don’t see her posts anywhere else on here - is she in school?
“didn’t good ol dad leave you enough money for therapy? how about a pair of diapers?”
That was what incited my “you all are rich kids” statement. And as to Martha’s concern about scatological references - diapers? I mean, really. Ew.
So, can we just get along on this, buy Kelly a dictionary and call it quits?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Suze,
I really appreciate and want to thank you for your post. I also understand where some of our communication broke down. I didn’t see it at the time, but I see some of why you responded as you did.
I think this puts us over the curve of “politics as usual.” Imagine if the political process allowed for greater communication, a more in-depth vetting of the issues, and less time and money on sabotage efforts and negative campaigning.
See you on the way to the polls. I’ll be the one wearing the Daly ‘06 button. :)
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
I didn’t have to question your continence, I was just asking if you needed a diaper referring to how you said:
“Further, I poop outside of Laura’s apartment and then hide until she sees it so I can quickly clean it up before Martha comes along in order to make it seem as if Laura is making it up.”
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:08 pm
It may bear repeating that when I met Laura it turned out we live on different blocks — though maybe perception is part of the difference too.
It does at least sound like Laura and Suze and I have all walked around D6 on foot, which makes none of us members of Mr. Black’s target audience — he seems to be marketing primarily to newcomers who don’t leave their condos except by vehicle. That’s what bothers me about him the most — the idea of a candidate campaigning in large part among those of our neighbors who basically do not like our neighborhood enough to trust their feet to our sidewalks.
A few new neighbors in the condos on our street have made a real effort to meet older neighbors and work on neighborhood projects — one guy in particular is the local Friends of the Urban Forest rep and worked with us to get some new trees for the block. And there’s a sweet couple who run a dog-boarding business, and a guy who barbecues in front of his building. But there are quite a few others who just don’t seem to trust their new neighborhood enough to live as part of it.
As a probable consequence, the very nice Harvest Market at 8th and Howard is having trouble finding enough customers for its fresh prepared foods. A guy next door to us has a theory that the busy, well-paid singles who are the target market for things like $8 ready-made dinners are simply not willing to walk there. I think he’s probably right, and it’s sad.
It would really be great if these newcomers could summon the courage to come out of their castles and be neighborly. As I said, some do. It’s depressing that many don’t. Also kind of bad for safety, since foot traffic increases the number of witnesses to petty street crimes.
Suze, thanks for the laugh in the line Kelly just quoted. But I wouldn’t have said “Provided that…” in the sentence you blamed on me. Wouldn’t “Considering that…” serve your purpose better? And here I’m not talking like a lawyer. Yr basic lawyer would say “Assuming arguendo…”
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
P.S. Robert, you mean “libel per se.” Slander is spoken, libel is written.
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I was using “provided” as a conditional phrase. As in “IF.” In the back and forth there has been scant credibility on either side, as far as I am concerned. Definitely bears further research on my part.
“Considering” seems to be a more definite phrase in which the statement has been proven to me - which is not the case.
What is clear to me, however, is that Robert has gone to great lengths to proclaim that he is not running the Daly campaign, was not loaned to the Daly campaign by his union and no one from his union told him to go work on the Daly campaign.
I believe he is telling me that he is working on the Daly campaign; albiet of his own accord and without being loaned or directed to by his union in any way.
The carefully chosen words leave me with a slightly off taste - wouldn’t it be more honest to just say “yes, I am working on the campaign, but of my own accord and without being loaned out, etc?”
I can see why he would be hesitant to admit it once this piece came out with the presumably incorrect information. It would be difficult to prove how he became involved, either way - but to deny certain aspects of involvement without being forthcoming about exactly what is going on feels wrong.
At this point I have to explore my own assumptions about whether or not being involved bothers me or the weird half-denial of it. Also, what bothers me is not always considered “ethical” or “unethical” strictly speaking. I’ll also have to conduct some research.
The careful wording bothers me - I can’t get around that.
Of course, if I am wrong and Robert H is not working on the Daly campaign at all, then I take it all back and I apologize for being so suspicious. I can’t help it. It’s in my nature. I’m a lover of words with specific meanings…
November 5th, 2006 at 2:55 am
Sorry to miss a bunch of this. When my vacation is over, I’ll have more time to post. That said, the allegation was that I am managing the Daly campaign and on loan to the Daly campaign by my union. The answer to both issues is no.
Black made an allegation that is very serious and I consider it to be slander. He made the allegation without any evidence.
And while I appreciate the support Sasha, after some thought, I am not interested in an apology from Rob Black.
It just shows how hollow and false he is. He claims to be pro-labor in his article and then slams a labor organizer without any evidence and claims I am breaking the law by managing Daly’s campaign. Some shop steward he is.
As a former tenant organizer and a labor person, I have never, ever, ever messed with someone’s home or their profession/job. Doesn’t matter how much I don’t like or respect the person.
If he is a shop steward, I am worried about the members in his chapter. He would throw them under the bus to catch his own ride from what I can see.