cogmeyer comment-57079 2011-09-12T19:51:06Z 2011-09-12T19:51:06Z With 25% of the co-op owners voting for the boycot candidates, the Sacramento Co-op probably looks like fertile ground to the BDS wackos. cogmeyer 2011-09-12T19:51:06Z newguyinsac comment-57065 2011-09-12T15:37:55Z 2011-09-12T15:37:55Z Very happy that my fellow co-op members refused to bow to the anti-Semites. Stand with Israel! newguyinsac 2011-09-12T15:37:55Z Steven Maviglio comment-57063 2011-09-12T14:47:34Z 2011-09-12T14:47:34Z Sadly, Paul, the local BDS leader says she will not rule out future litigation against the Co-op and issued a press release yesterday with a laundry list of complaints against the Co-op, including attacking our store once again. Steven Maviglio 2011-09-12T14:47:34Z Casey Kirk comment-57042 2011-09-11T19:57:22Z 2011-09-11T19:57:22Z We've fixed the link, Steven! Casey Kirk 2011-09-11T19:57:22Z Paul Brown comment-57038 2011-09-11T19:20:07Z 2011-09-11T19:20:07Z Hopefully this issue will be put to rest now. Paul Brown 2011-09-11T19:20:07Z RobSJacobs comment-57026 2011-09-11T06:21:31Z 2011-09-11T06:21:31Z Congrats to those who successfully fought the terribly divisive BDS movement from those who successfully fought the BDS boycott efforts at Seattle's Central Co-op and Port Townsend's Food Co-op and who are still fighting the Olympia Food Co-op's improper passage of a boycott there. Six years of BDS effort in the U.S. and only one small co-op in Olympia has passed a boycott. One would hope they'd get the message . . . StandWithUs Northwest RobSJacobs 2011-09-11T06:21:31Z Steven Maviglio comment-57024 2011-09-11T01:23:23Z 2011-09-11T01:23:23Z Error in link: should be www.sacfoodcoop.com And thank you Co-op owners for your strong support! Steven Maviglio 2011-09-11T01:23:23Z Steven Maviglio comment-54238 2011-07-31T18:56:52Z 2011-07-31T18:56:52Z The Bylaws say that any initiative needs to follow the procedures in the Election Code. The code only allow votes on measures are comply with the Cooperative Principles (open membership, no discrimination), our Articles of Incorporation, and California law. This measure fails on all counts. The bottom line here is that this measure has NOTHING to do with food or our mission. Steven Maviglio 2011-07-31T18:56:52Z Peaches comment-54149 2011-07-29T20:29:24Z 2011-07-29T20:29:24Z While I agree the ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer as to which products they choose to purchase or boycott, it seems to me the elephant in the room is the Sacramento Co-op's By Laws. Why simply didn't the Board TRUST its owners to vote on the referendum as legally required? I'd lay money the majority of owners would not support Ms. Coulter and her initiative. Terri Fann Peaches 2011-07-29T20:29:24Z Davi Rodrigues comment-53997 2011-07-28T05:58:37Z 2011-07-28T05:58:37Z No, I've never been an owner. As I recall, in the olden days of the co-op, you had to work the store, and couldn't just buy in. I know that's changed, but I've never been anything but a customer. And working inside of a grocery store as an employee of same always seemed quite a foreign concept to me. Grocery stores were something I built up or tore down. I felt as though working inside permanently were like some sort of whirlpool I'd get sucked into, never to go anywhere else again, and where rule 144 would be my constant companion Davi Rodrigues 2011-07-28T05:58:37Z Steven Maviglio comment-53996 2011-07-28T05:14:57Z 2011-07-28T05:14:57Z Thanks for your comments. Good stuff! Hope you still shop at the store and are an owner. We've come a long way since then but our mission is the same: supporting local growers and promoting cooperative economics in our community. Steven Maviglio 2011-07-28T05:14:57Z Alicia Dienst comment-53994 2011-07-28T04:45:25Z 2011-07-28T04:45:25Z Well said, Steve. You know I was also reminded of the importance of our Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op tonight while I sat in the deli area eating my dinner. I read the Sacramento News and Review's article about the corporate takeover of the natural food and beverages industry. Small businesses are cashing in on their good name to large parent companies like Coca-Cola and General Mills. But the Co-op stands as s bulwark against such companies. It is not for sale to the highest bidder. It is now and forever will be a locally and membership owned business, not a profit making and good public relations side project for investors. And that as well as its support of natural foods and local farming, is what makes it special- people serving each other, not some foreign shareholder. By the way, the fresh basil from Soil Born Farms is also to totally die for this season. I bought two bunches for making pesto. Check it out! Alicia Dienst 2011-07-28T04:45:25Z Davi Rodrigues comment-53993 2011-07-28T04:43:54Z 2011-07-28T04:43:54Z Steve, I sold store equipment to the first co-op when it opened back in the 70's. I think one of the first principals in the co-op whom I dealt with at the time was named steve also. There were no politics that I recall back then. It was all about natural foods. I became a customer back then, not a member though. I got hooked on raw milk, and even raw milk cottage cheese, kefir, etc along with numerous other natural foods. The store had good stuff. They also had that little sandwich shop where I was introduced to sandwiches with sprouts, cottage cheese, and..hell I forget what else. I'm glad to hear the co-op is still searching out the quality products from american family farms. Not to thrilled that the Boldt's got all their help from mexico, but at least it sounds like they only use legally present workers, so that's a big, big plus, unlike those corporate whores who operate agribusiness that hire illegals at low wages and then expect the taxpayers to chip in the rest so they can make profits and lowball their products in the marketplace. I've shown up at the co-op with political messages big and bold, but have confined my activities to the public right of way. I have received a thorough tongue lashing from those who have a different opinion, but you've got to remember that the type of person who shops at the store is usually aware and awake as far as their community goes, so you have to expect a certain level of volatility from them. In contrast, even the ones with opposing views and accompanying dramatic involvement beat the hell out of the brain dead walmart shoppers whose only goal in their community is making sure their favorite sports team doesn't leave town. Davi Rodrigues 2011-07-28T04:43:54Z Steven Maviglio comment-53983 2011-07-28T00:37:45Z 2011-07-28T00:37:45Z You're welcome. Head down to the Co-op and get some of their fruit. It's good stuff! Steven Maviglio 2011-07-28T00:37:45Z Mark comment-53980 2011-07-28T00:10:33Z 2011-07-28T00:10:33Z Thank you. Mark 2011-07-28T00:10:33Z cogmeyer comment-53159 2011-07-11T16:56:33Z 2011-07-11T16:56:33Z Clearly Ms. Coulter and her group are the most pathetic kind of activists, who attack and attempt to extort small grocer stores for their warped political purposes. Kudos to Sac Co-op for fighting the good fight on this one. While Sankwaimento's point may be a bit extreme, there is also a kernel of truth in what he says nontheless. It is interesting that everywhere I have lived always has a local co-op facing some kind of division and turmoil. I am okay with that BTW... if a group of people want to have democratized their grocery shopping and can deal with the wackos that will constantly get involved, more power to them. cogmeyer 2011-07-11T16:56:33Z JonHaber comment-53151 2011-07-11T11:46:00Z 2011-07-11T11:46:00Z A bit late, but some thoughts on the suit: http://www.divestthis.com/2011/07/so-sue-me.html JonHaber 2011-07-11T11:46:00Z MikeSII comment-53103 2011-07-09T17:10:40Z 2011-07-09T17:10:40Z Environmentally conscious people wouldn't sell so many products made with palm oil. Oil palm plantations are destroying the last of the rainforests, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions and animal extinction. The Co-op board is well aware of this issue and the store still carries a large number of products contributing to the loss of rainforests. MikeSII 2011-07-09T17:10:40Z Rhys02 comment-53092 2011-07-09T01:18:44Z 2011-07-09T01:18:44Z Have you ever been in the Co-op...much less a member? I have never read a more misinformed, indeed plain dumb comment. Rhys02 2011-07-09T01:18:44Z TheTruthSquad comment-53085 2011-07-08T23:22:52Z 2011-07-08T23:22:52Z Tony: the "group" who is suing the Co-op and who thinks the bylaws isn't being followed consists of a handful of political activists with a political agenda. On the other side, is the Coop Board (unanimously), the Coop Policy Committee (unanimously), the Coop's attorney, the Coop's General Manager, the past five presidents of the Coop, and David Thompson, one of the leaders in the American cooperative movement. TheTruthSquad 2011-07-08T23:22:52Z Tony Sheppard comment-53083 2011-07-08T23:10:25Z 2011-07-08T23:10:25Z I'm not a member and don't shop at the Coop - but I've been reading these stories for a while. if nothing else, with two opposing groups claiming to be acting in accordance with the organization's own by-laws, while in direct conflict with each other, there's probably cause to re-write at least some of the rules. In related news, every US product should be removed from the shelves as we just executed a Mexican national in violation of international law. Happy shopping. Tony Sheppard 2011-07-08T23:10:25Z Steven Maviglio comment-53056 2011-07-08T21:17:49Z 2011-07-08T21:17:49Z "Extremist membership"? Our coop is proud to have owners who have varying political points of view.That's what makes our Coop strong and why politics have no place at the Co-op. It is a shame, however, that Ms. Coulter, who barely shops at the Co-op at all, is forcing the Co-op to waste its funds on a meritless lawsuit rather than on sustainable agriculture. Steven Maviglio 2011-07-08T21:17:49Z Sankwaimento comment-53047 2011-07-08T18:51:31Z 2011-07-08T18:51:31Z Sow the wind; reap the whirlwind. With the Sacramento Coop and it extremist membership, its never been just about the food. When you purport to be "environmentally conscious", you have crossed the line into politics. The entire environmental "movement" is nothing more than gutter politics loosely covered with a tissue-thin moral wrapper. I welcome the Coop spending its members money on utterly pointless political exercises. Perhaps its membership will think again when its "environmentally conscious" brethren file the next politically motivated lawsuit or boycott. Sankwaimento 2011-07-08T18:51:31Z TheTruthSquad comment-53044 2011-07-08T18:12:07Z 2011-07-08T18:12:07Z It's outrageous that these people are now suing the Coop. Clearly, they don't care about the store and its mission. Let's make sure their candidates for the Board of Directors are NOT elected and the incumbents are returned to make sure the Coop stays strong. TheTruthSquad 2011-07-08T18:12:07Z GAT comment-51853 2011-06-08T23:17:23Z 2011-06-08T23:17:23Z How about you BDS people just cover the back of your Prius's with pithy bumper stickers, and leave us good people to get our organic cruelty free arugala in peace... GAT 2011-06-08T23:17:23Z LCS comment-51722 2011-06-05T22:58:57Z 2011-06-05T22:58:57Z re: LCS May 31, 2011 | 2:53 PM edit It is my understanding that after a policy was issued disallowing anyone from tabling on the Israel/ Palestine issue, some other groups generally seen as in opposition to the BDS group, were allowed to table. Is this the case? 0 0 REPLY SaveOurCoOp June 1, 2011 | 5:34 PM No. The BDS people were banned from tabling because they were harassing shoppers. The subject was not banned, only the people who behaved poorly. "SaveOurCoOp"'s reply does not appear to be accurate. Would anyone care to attest to the late March gag rule on the topic, not simply on particular individuals? That is my understanding, based on documents I have seen. LCS 2011-06-05T22:58:57Z LCS comment-51721 2011-06-05T22:44:37Z 2011-06-05T22:44:37Z Oh, boy. Bad logic 101. Tough to take a lot of these comments seriously. LCS 2011-06-05T22:44:37Z Justin Dyke comment-51527 2011-06-02T20:36:40Z 2011-06-02T20:36:40Z Please keep the co-op free of politics, I can decide what I want to buy and what I want to avoid on my own. I'm an adult, that comes with the territory. Also, please keep the protesters away from me, they're rude and take away from the shopping experience. There are much bigger stores/places that do worse things, go bother those shoppers. Justin Dyke 2011-06-02T20:36:40Z TheTruthSquad comment-51500 2011-06-02T02:38:52Z 2011-06-02T02:38:52Z Josh and Maggie don't shop at the Co-op, as the GM pointed out at a meeting not long ago. They are using it as a soapbox for their cause. I guess they feel better about patronizing Safeway, Trader Joes and Raleys, corporate-owned stores that stock and sell many more Israeli products. TheTruthSquad 2011-06-02T02:38:52Z TheTruthSquad comment-51499 2011-06-02T02:36:57Z 2011-06-02T02:36:57Z Members can have their own opinions. Just dont shove them down the throats of other members. You don't want to buy products from Israel, then don't. TheTruthSquad 2011-06-02T02:36:57Z TheTruthSquad comment-51498 2011-06-02T02:33:11Z 2011-06-02T02:33:11Z JHCADJI -- notice that all your "politics" issues have to do with food, nothing to do with a nation. And if you are so concerned about human rights, amend your initiative so it includes EVERY nation with human rights violations, including the United States. TheTruthSquad 2011-06-02T02:33:11Z TheTruthSquad comment-51497 2011-06-02T02:31:50Z 2011-06-02T02:31:50Z Wrong. The Election Code that dates back to 2002 -- long before Josh and the BDS tried to shove their political views down the throat of the Co-op -- required the policy committee to review ballot initiatives for compliance to the Co-op's bylaws and articles of incorporation. The Co-op's Bylaws CLEARLY state that initiatives must follow the Election Code. And the Election Code says that everything that goes to the ballot must be reviewed by the Policy Committee for legal and other compliance issues. If BDS had its way, a ballot initiative to endorse Barack Obama would automatically go on the ballot. So would one allowing African-Americans to be banned from the store. Or requiring employees to wear green ties. TheTruthSquad 2011-06-02T02:31:50Z John Boisa comment-51490 2011-06-02T00:34:48Z 2011-06-02T00:34:48Z No. The BDS people were banned from tabling because they were harassing shoppers. The subject was not banned, only the people who behaved poorly. John Boisa 2011-06-02T00:34:48Z John Boisa comment-51489 2011-06-02T00:30:32Z 2011-06-02T00:30:32Z More accurately, we want to be free from your politics. John Boisa 2011-06-02T00:30:32Z jhcadji comment-51451 2011-06-01T08:15:19Z 2011-06-01T08:15:19Z If the Co-op wishes to be politics-free, then it should, a) change its Bylaws to reflect that wish, which clearly state that members can initiate boycotts over political issues, and b) cease having an animal cruelty-free product policy, buying fair trade products, buying local, buying organic, not buying trans fat or high fructose corn syrup products, and most of all CARRYING MEAT, all of which have political ramifications and are tied up in huge industries backed by huge political groups. Co-ops are inherently intertwined in political issues, except that the Board just doesn't want to be involved in this particular one, even though their Bylaws allow for it. jhcadji 2011-06-01T08:15:19Z LCS comment-51446 2011-06-01T05:33:52Z 2011-06-01T05:33:52Z I am absolutely baffled by anyone who thinks that the co-op is somehow "politics-free." The degree of naivete that displays is something I wouldn't have expected from co-op members. I expected too much, clearly. LCS 2011-06-01T05:33:52Z John76 comment-51445 2011-06-01T05:11:35Z 2011-06-01T05:11:35Z If this group ever succeeds in making the coop boycott Israel, I will want my $300 membership money back from the coop. They need to keep politics out of it. John76 2011-06-01T05:11:35Z jhcadji comment-51438 2011-06-01T04:08:45Z 2011-06-01T04:08:45Z The problem is that the Election Code was updated in order to thwart the boycott proposal (it was last updated in 2008 and before that in 2003, not every year like the Board claims.). The update to the Election Code was made to give power to the Policy Committee to review initiatives, when according to the Bylaws, it did not have that power in the first place. So basically the Policy Committee gave itself power that the Bylaws did not allow for. Giving it power to review the boycott initiative is a violation of the Bylaws, since the Bylaws don't state that the Policy Committee is allowed to review initiatives. Therefore, the Policy Committee does not have the authority to review member initiatives, and any doing so would be a violation of Co-op Bylaws. In conclusion, the purpose of updating the Election Code to allow the Policy Committee review over initiatives was to sidestep Co-op Bylaws in order to sidestep the boycott proposal itself, which is cheating. Check out the Co-op's Q&A about this very question for a plain and simple contradiction on their behalf: "Every year, the Co-op’s Election Code is reviewed annually and revised as needed to bring it up to date with the Co-op’s election calendar and BYLAWS"...(emphasis mine)...IN FACT, THE BYLAWS ITSELF DON'T ALLOW FOR POLICY COMMITTEE REVIEW OF INITIATIVES, SO BRINGING THE ELECTION CODE UP TO DATE WITH THE BYLAWS MEANS THE POLICY COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REVIEW MEMBER INITIATIVES! Now, the Board DOES have the ability to review Bylaw AMENDMENTS, but these are distinctly different than member INITIATIVES, which is why the Bylaws makes a distinction between the two. For example, the Bylaws apply different standards for each and even make Bylaw amendments and member initiatives separate categories in the Bylaws, since one requires Board review (Bylaw amendments) and one doesn't (member initiatives). Finally, and most importantly, the Policy Committee not only does not have the right to REVIEW member initiatives (despite changing the Election Code in order to give itself power to do so) but even if it does review the initiative, it does not have any power to implement any decisions it makes after reviewing it. Nor does the Board have the power to do anything with the Policy Committee's review, as per the Bylaws. Simply put, neither the Board nor the Policy Committee can prevent members from voting on an initiative, since the Bylaws and its designers never gave them that power. As you can see, the Board is simply trying to avoid letting members vote on this issue based on their subjective opinions about Co-op boycotts rather than following the Co-ops Bylaws, which require them to allow initiatives on the ballot. jhcadji 2011-06-01T04:08:45Z jhcadji comment-51439 2011-06-01T02:54:24Z 2011-06-01T02:54:24Z I think it must be said that John Boisa only joined the Co-op about a month or two ago just to oppose this initiative, so this really isn't his Co-op, as he states. In fact, his position as the director of the JCRC is to oppose anything that brings into queston Israel's treatment of its neighbors, which he is paid to do. Sac BDS and those brought forth this measure are volunteers for truth and justice; we are not paid to oppose anything. We do so because we believe enough in the cause to volunteer our time, money and energy to stand up for what is right. And we actually care about the Co-op and have shopped there for decades, which is why we don't want it to be complicit in supporting an Israeli government that has consistently violated the human rights of Palestinians for a long, long time. In fact, several members of the groups that are for the boycott have been Co-op owners since the store was on Freeport Blvd!. We have members of all different religions who have been shoppers since the 80s, many of whom worked there and were on the Board too. As opposed to Save our Co-op, which is just a handful of people who seek to suppress any criticism of Israel, any actions which seek to shine light on its illegal occupation. Not to mention many members that just recently joined the Co-op to oppose this measure, not to mention a tiny organization in comparison to the hundreds (if not a thousand) that have signed on for this boycott proposal. jhcadji 2011-06-01T02:54:24Z LCS comment-51426 2011-05-31T21:53:13Z 2011-05-31T21:53:13Z It is my understanding that after a policy was issued disallowing anyone from tabling on the Israel/ Palestine issue, some other groups generally seen as in opposition to the BDS group, were allowed to table. Is this the case? LCS 2011-05-31T21:53:13Z mgreenham comment-51425 2011-05-31T21:49:40Z 2011-05-31T21:49:40Z Avoiding a vote, avoiding the opinions of the members, is what creates a non-democratic organization, creates unrest, and rightfully so. Expressing an opinion and having a vote is the American Way, the democratic way. This is simply a vote by the membership about the products made there. What are you afraid of ? BTW, I've lived near Haifa, worked on a kibbutz, and know Israelis and Americans, and know true democracy, and phony democracy, where insiders control an organization. mgreenham 2011-05-31T21:49:40Z mgreenham comment-51424 2011-05-31T21:38:00Z 2011-05-31T21:38:00Z Nonsense. What are you afraid of ? Let's not be afraid of opinions. Blowing things out of proportion is not the way to get the democratic sense of the co-op. Getting a vote is. Preventing a vote is a bad idea. If the vote goes the wrong way in the opinion of legal counsel, so be it, and that can be a basis for reversing it. But simply to ignore the procedures because you like or dislike something in international politics is not a good reason. mgreenham 2011-05-31T21:38:00Z John Boisa comment-51157 2011-05-25T21:40:21Z 2011-05-25T21:40:21Z Thank You, Steve, for your service to, and defense of, our co-op. Thanks should also go to the other members of the board who have endured maltreatment from these BDS people. I have personally witnessed the ridicule and disruption these people have inflicted upon the Board, and upon the community of Co-Op patrons and owners. Thanks also to Co-Op staff, especially Paul. We know that Paul, our manager, is put in a tough position by this whole mess. We promise to do our best to make this experience as pleasant as possible for everyone, while performing the necessary work of defending the Co-Op against outside agendas. Sincerely, John Boisa Save Our Co-Op John Boisa 2011-05-25T21:40:21Z John Boisa comment-51155 2011-05-25T21:26:08Z 2011-05-25T21:26:08Z Nobody has the "right" to put initiatives on a Co-Op ballot. Obviously, there needs to be some review of such proposals to ensure that they are consistent with the Co-Op bylaws, legal, etc. If anybody and everybody were to have such an absolute right, we would soon not have a Co-Op. We would have chaos. Does Maggie not understand what words like "democracy" and "censor" really mean, or simply think that we don't understand them? John Boisa 2011-05-25T21:26:08Z Steven Maviglio comment-51037 2011-05-24T00:17:17Z 2011-05-24T00:17:17Z As been explained to you repeatedly and as cited in your own post , this section a refers all matters on the ballot to be ruled by an Election Code (see above, "under the procedures outlined in the Election Code). The Election Code clearly requires any initiative to be reviewed by the Coop's Policy Committee for compliance with bylaws, articles of incorporation and the cooperative principles. Steven Maviglio 2011-05-24T00:17:17Z MRC comment-50956 2011-05-22T18:24:37Z 2011-05-22T18:24:37Z The Co-op Board is trying to take away the fundamental right of Members to put measures before a vote of the full Membership, which is included in Section 10.06 of the Co-op's Bylaws, see below. If the Board is concerned about avoiding lawsuits, it should follow its own Bylaws. Section 10.06. Referendums and Initiatives a) Any official act, either proposed or taken, at a membership meeting or a Board of Directors meeting, shall be submitted to a referendum or initiative of the Membership under the procedures outlined in the Election Code in any of the following situations: 1) A petition stating the action requested, signed by at least that number of Members which constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business as set forth in Section 7.05.a is received by the secretary of the Board. 2) The majority of the Members present and voting at a duly called regular or special Membership meeting deem it necessary. 3) The Board so directs. b) The results of any referendum and/or initiative shall be binding on the Board and the Membership. MRC 2011-05-22T18:24:37Z alanedelstein1 comment-50933 2011-05-21T20:34:03Z 2011-05-21T20:34:03Z As a member of the SNFC and a part-time resident of Israel, I very much appreciate the Board's action and your very clear and cogent explanation. Israel is not a perfect place. But it is a democratic country that respects the right to free speech and religion. It is not right to single it out, and it is not right to drag the Co-op into a divisive and often bitter international dispute. Doing so would harm the Co-op and set a very dangerous precedent. Many thanks to you and your fellow Board members. alanedelstein1 2011-05-21T20:34:03Z Steven Maviglio comment-50916 2011-05-20T23:30:21Z 2011-05-20T23:30:21Z Thank you. This will likely be discussed at our Co-op Owner Meeting on June 7th at 7 p.m. in the Community Learning Center if you would like to share your views. Steven Maviglio 2011-05-20T23:30:21Z cogmeyer comment-50913 2011-05-20T20:58:48Z 2011-05-20T20:58:48Z Lets not mince words here. SacBDS are scumbags and extortionists. They are extortionists because getting Israeli products off the shelf is just a secondary goal. Their primary goal is actually to gain legitimacy for their cause by being able to claim that the Sacramento Co-op is a fellow supporter of an Israeli boycott. And the fact that they would use their extortion tactics on a co-op grocery store makes them scumbags. cogmeyer 2011-05-20T20:58:48Z Fredric Hayward comment-50871 2011-05-20T00:30:02Z 2011-05-20T00:30:02Z Thanks for your insight. I can see how this group is creating divisiveness and undermining the mission of the co-op. Fredric Hayward 2011-05-20T00:30:02Z EastSacSteph comment-35690 2010-08-26T05:54:59Z 2010-08-26T05:54:59Z It's unfortunate that more isn't being done to enforce this law. The homeless in my area of East Sac continue to go through both my blue bin (which is the only place I would put recyclables) and my garbage bin (where they tear open and dump out my bags of garbage and find no recyclables). They also come onto my property to go through the bins before I put them on the street. It's extremely frustrating and annoying, but there's nothing I can do. EastSacSteph 2010-08-26T05:54:59Z Harris comment-31969 2010-07-01T16:49:27Z 2010-07-01T16:49:27Z Ok for the sake of argument. most of you are commenting with your feelings,not with the facts. I am the CEO of Hand & Hand Foundation (www.handandhandfoundation.org ) an environmental and childrens charity. We have the "Cans 4 kids" program so we are recycling collectors / charity and we are out there seeing the problems / benefits of the homeless recycling. 1. Homeless people ARE a big part of the recycling industry.They do scavage tons daily of recycle from our city streets and dumpsters. 2. Some do have permision, the ones who don't are the problem.The homeless that unlawfully trespass to take recycle, dump garbage on the ground,climbing over walls in locked facilitys, etc. we even seen a homeless guy stealing one of our recycle bins with recycle in it walking down the street one day that he took from a locked facility by breaking the lock on the door. So he was STEALING from us, and children that this program supports. These are the ones who make it bad for all. This creates a problem, if a homeless person in digging thru your garbage on your property, lets say in your backyard (similer to a business locked garbage area) you would call the police or prob. hold him at gun point, why? Because he doesn't belong there doing what he is doing. Business and residents are just fed up with the trespassing and the mess SOME make. How comfortable are you if you go to a resturant and see homeless people laying around the resturant property or digging through the garbage bins, I bet you make sure you lock your car doors right? or you might not patronize the business? Who benefits? Nobody. The law itself is another one that won't be actively enforced by the police unless it was called in by the property owner/leasee AND the culprit is still in the immediate area. (i'm an ex-police officer too) . The only way I see to curtail the problem is NOT to have recycle in a outside bin. Okay here comes the shameless plug. Call us, Hand & Hand Foundation we provide FREE cans,bags, and pickup service to businesses ( residential / multi-family coming soon), we have most of our cans located inside of businesses, we rinse and disinfect our cans at every pickup for inside cans so there is no smell or bugs,and you support the children charitys in your community. 1-877-289-8430 to donate your recycle or to find out more about this program. Harris 2010-07-01T16:49:27Z alpal916 comment-27306 2010-05-19T12:10:41Z 2010-05-19T12:10:41Z Look....I can not get a job. I've tried. I am forced to recycle to make ends meet and pay bills. I am partially disabled. I don't go on peoples property. I actually report those who do, so don't go stereotyping each of us that have no choice. Besides when you say the recycling money goes to help the homeless..RIGHT!!! What does it do for them? Not a damn thing. Before assuming this why don't you try going down to these HOMELESS help centers and try getting help. I'ts a big joke. So get off your high holier-than-thow horse and try looking into where the city's recycling money really goes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! alpal916 2010-05-19T12:10:41Z Rick Redding comment-23567 2010-03-20T00:28:01Z 2010-03-20T00:28:01Z Another candidate has entered the race. Please visit www.voteforrick.org for more information. Thank you. Rick Redding 2010-03-20T00:28:01Z TAB comment-16351 2009-10-26T12:00:22Z 2009-10-26T12:00:22Z whats in a name. I don't get it steven. I have been reading these articles for a long time now and have not read much in profanity. I maybe a senior but this is not a senior moment for me. TAB 2009-10-26T12:00:22Z TAB comment-16350 2009-10-26T11:52:30Z 2009-10-26T11:52:30Z I have found the guys who are critical like the guy who wrote this article or anyone have transgressions against the same. we can all look into our past where we have been critical of a person or a subject to find that we have acted in the same way that we now find ourselves being criitical of others or subjects. Very interesting how that works out. I find also it works out best so a problem does not hang up forever in time is by communiting it out. communication and more communication is the great solvent. confront and handle and all will resolve. Your on the right track Larry as far as finger pointing. finger pointing equals transgressions on the same subject or person your pointing the finger at. TAB 2009-10-26T11:52:30Z MDG comment-16339 2009-10-26T03:57:20Z 2009-10-26T03:57:20Z Taking his cookies and walking away is not the win.........having you and Marion give him so much attention by talking about him all day, is! "The Eagle does not hunt the fly" MDG 2009-10-26T03:57:20Z Marion Millin comment-16335 2009-10-26T03:15:24Z 2009-10-26T03:15:24Z Your misguided point is well taken. See. SM has not " turned his back and walked away." He hasn't won anything. You're right, HIS silence is deafening, because he's twisting in the wind reading these comments while clipping his toenails and telling himself he'll find a way to turn it all around. Good luck. SM has disappeared from SacPress before and shown up with new, iller tactics or other puppets to deliver the talking points. The last word has already been delivered elsewhere by Rhonda Erwin: "The only thing transparent about this is we can see through you." Marion Millin 2009-10-26T03:15:24Z Marion Millin comment-16333 2009-10-26T03:10:56Z 2009-10-26T03:10:56Z "Dithering" + "bickering" = "dickering"? There may be more agreement here than not. Are we talking about in general, or specific to dickerers like SM whose game is " puting ones rightousness ahead of a solution all the while not really listening"? Marion Millin 2009-10-26T03:10:56Z John Boyer comment-16329 2009-10-26T02:51:33Z 2009-10-26T02:51:33Z 'Bickering' sounds a lot like Dick Cheney's 'dithering'. The nature of a democracy is to 'bicker', or discuss, and air all rational views, synthesize, and hopefully, God willing, arrive at a better resolution than the status quo." They sound simular but are quite different. Wasting time, puting ones rightousness ahead of a solution all the while not really listening is bickering. Hoping and waiting for gods will? well many an org/nation/family has crumbled applying this old formula. John Boyer 2009-10-26T02:51:33Z bbbbmer comment-16326 2009-10-26T00:48:58Z 2009-10-26T00:48:58Z You have an interesting definition of a 'win'... Just because SM took his cookies and went away doesn't mean he 'won' anything -- frankly it looks more like the whining of a brat that couldn't get his own way... bbbbmer 2009-10-26T00:48:58Z MDG comment-16325 2009-10-25T23:46:05Z 2009-10-25T23:46:05Z There is no battle when only one side is fighting (or communicating in this arena). All of your feelings would have been more impacting if not one person had commented; he predicted it, he knows his audience,thus the silence would have been defeaning. All you have achieved is to empower him. I am not vested one way or the other in terms of who is more right or wrong, but as soon as he chose to pick up his marbles and leave the game, you should have let him, regardless of his reasons. It doesnt matter if there was any validity to his assertions or if he was completely on the mark, If that is the excuse he needed, right or wrong, then a thank you buubye is all that was needed. He has turned his back and walked away, so to attack him with his back turned just validates what his point was, doesnt it? You dont think he is reading each of your posts.......Steve wins, however you choose to define that. MDG 2009-10-25T23:46:05Z bbbbmer comment-16320 2009-10-25T21:58:45Z 2009-10-25T21:58:45Z 'Bickering' sounds a lot like Dick Cheney's 'dithering'. The nature of a democracy is to 'bicker', or discuss, and air all rational views, synthesize, and hopefully, God willing, arrive at a better resolution than the status quo. The whole SMI thing has been one ragged lie after another launched by KJ and his SAG group who brought this measure forward covertly interested only in outcomes sought by their benefactors rather than the community as a whole. It was intended to do so, long before the election was over, and no doubt withheld from press and public purview because its idea is odious to common sensibilities of thoughtful people in this town, especially given EVERYTHING that has emerged about KJ's character and that of his organizations. Opinion sheds light on 'facts' if done so rationally and honestly. There has been NOTHING honest about the SMI campaign -- it is indeed a power grab, it has been demonstrated to have significant legal and constitutional flaws, and it has divided rather than united our city council, its origins have been covert, and its legitimacy in its signature gathering process may very well become a question put by the California AG's office. These are 'FACTS', not one of which emerged from KJ's camp, all of which emerged from 'bickering'. bbbbmer 2009-10-25T21:58:45Z bbbbmer comment-16309 2009-10-25T21:47:11Z 2009-10-25T21:47:11Z Your perception if a 'win' is interesting... I'd think when literate reflective and thoughtful people refute the lies that have been put forward by an individual who in turn cries 'hate speech' because no one in their right mind, having a reasonable degree of prudence, will swallow such deceptions, the winner is US. I don't think pathological passive/aggression is a 'win' for anyone. bbbbmer 2009-10-25T21:47:11Z Rhonda Erwin comment-16315 2009-10-25T19:51:52Z 2009-10-25T19:51:52Z wow, what a clever way to say - "you won't see my comments here for a while because my comments have stirred hate, division and has been the reason some who supported Johnosn has lost favor in him...." The blame game is a tool Steve appears to have mastered. Someone once said, 'he who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense." Seems Steve is smarter than he's given credit for. His comments have appeared on this site as a lion in defense - and also attacking others to protect his cub (Mayor Johnson) Seems Steve is smart enough to know when to be a fox (blame others) and when to be a lion. (attacking /blame others )Whatever the case he has spent a great deal of time on this site and others spreading prophaganda moving around like a snake.............. Rhonda Erwin 2009-10-25T19:51:52Z John Boyer comment-16313 2009-10-25T19:21:12Z 2009-10-25T19:21:12Z A very good question. Id like to see a little more "Just the facts mam" and a little less "opinion," character assasination and degenerative ranting to a dead end disagreement. This only fosters paranoia,disconnect and seclusion and very little problem solving. Long story short we in the US of A are bickering our way to last place in all catagories of good living. John Boyer 2009-10-25T19:21:12Z Marion Millin comment-16311 2009-10-25T18:31:56Z 2009-10-25T18:31:56Z He's a professional liar. "For example, I have had significant disagreements with commenters when I respond to articles and comments on the strong mayor initiative. There's some good back-and-forth, and we agree to disagree without name-calling or insults or questions about our motivation." Marion Millin 2009-10-25T18:31:56Z bbbbmer comment-16308 2009-10-25T17:17:14Z 2009-10-25T17:17:14Z Good riddance! bbbbmer 2009-10-25T17:17:14Z MDG comment-16305 2009-10-25T16:11:32Z 2009-10-25T16:11:32Z Steve surrenders, and then he still wins..........he got you all to talk about HIM. Winston Churchil said years ago, and I will paraphrase since I dont recall the exact quote...but the battle is over when one side stops to engage. The White flag has been raised, why are you still shooting his direction? MDG 2009-10-25T16:11:32Z Stella M. comment-16304 2009-10-25T15:29:19Z 2009-10-25T15:29:19Z Marion, you'll get no argument from me on the points you've just made. I have followed Steve's articles here, and yours, too (nice writing, BTW). On the other hand, I have noticed that Mr. Maviglio seems to have taken his ball and gone home on this discussion. Stella M. 2009-10-25T15:29:19Z bbbbmer comment-16302 2009-10-25T12:31:53Z 2009-10-25T12:31:53Z "Bullies" -- now THERE's a 'loaded' term... and an apt one for the passive/aggression and duplicity of Mr. Maviglio's piece...and those he's crying foul for... bbbbmer 2009-10-25T12:31:53Z bbbbmer comment-16300 2009-10-25T04:53:06Z 2009-10-25T04:53:06Z The only truly 'outrageous' comments I've viewed here are the untrammeled and unchecked opines of KJ and Mr. Maviglio -- I must've tuned out those that you are referring to. Btw, my definition is from Black's, CJS2nd, and Prosser's Torts, so I'm glad you 'concur'... bbbbmer 2009-10-25T04:53:06Z Marion Millin comment-16277 2009-10-25T03:27:55Z 2009-10-25T03:27:55Z Hi StellaM, I read your comment and then reread bbbmer's before this comment. Bbbbmer doesn't seem "defensive" since that statement is true regarding that topic -- and that topic is really what Steve M is talking about here, as much as he tries to make it sound about hamburgers and T shirts. SacPress is one place that the mayor's team can come and try to dazzle folks with celebrity worship and disinformation and it doesn't succeed. The talking points, so many based on nothing or nothing but false information, are challenged and corrected here. The fact that SM is pretending that his complaint is broader than not being able to control what people say about Kevin Johnson and the SMI on SacPress AND the fact that he is trying to smear informed citizens and the community-oriented SacPress with the term "Hate Speech" (and the thinly veiled accusation of racism) reveals just more of his Macchiaviglian, propagandizing dirty tricks. It's kind of you to give him the benefit of the doubt and to address the broader question of interactions on SacPress. Casey has provided a solid reply, including contact information. She also recently commented in another article in answer to concerns about personal attacks. Those who are seeking factual information about the Strong Mayor Initiative are not doing it because they "don't like Kevin Johnson." That's something Maviglio and others here try to claim. If there was more to the SMI and the campaign to change the Constitution of Sacramento to suit Kevin Johnson's dictatorial management style, Maviglio and others would be able to articulate that. Instead, all they do is negative campaigning, invective and then claim to be targets of exactly what they are perpetrating. Marion Millin 2009-10-25T03:27:55Z Stella M. comment-16274 2009-10-25T03:08:22Z 2009-10-25T03:08:22Z bbbbmer...don't get all defensive now. I understand and concur with libel as you define it. There are, however, certain individuals who post here, who--despite any factual evidence to the contrary--insist on making wild conspiracy claims about various members of the community, local government, state government, and federal government. Some of their comments are quite outrageous and, when challenged, their only response is of necessity ad hominem attacks. It truly defies logic and civility. While I don't always *agree* with you, I appreciate your perspective on things. Stella M. 2009-10-25T03:08:22Z thsas comment-16269 2009-10-25T00:14:42Z 2009-10-25T00:14:42Z very hateful. thsas 2009-10-25T00:14:42Z Marion Millin comment-16266 2009-10-24T23:59:34Z 2009-10-24T23:59:34Z bbbbmer, "Libel requires malice and a known untruth" describes Maviglio's treatment of others here in SacPress comments. Marion Millin 2009-10-24T23:59:34Z Marion Millin comment-16265 2009-10-24T23:55:16Z 2009-10-24T23:55:16Z "...a noticeable pattern in the mayor's behaviour, and that of his 'followers' (for want of a more acerbic and accurate term)" Suggestions for "a more acerbic and accurate term:" 1. Chutzpack 2. St. HUBRIS Or regarding "a repeated whine of hypocrisy to the point of pathological passive/aggression:" 3. Republicans Main Entry: chutz·pah Function: noun Etymology: Yiddish khutspe, from Late Hebrew ḥuṣpāh : supreme self-confidence : nerve, gall; synonyms see temerity Marion Millin 2009-10-24T23:55:16Z Marion Millin comment-16264 2009-10-24T23:31:58Z 2009-10-24T23:31:58Z "Speaking from my own personal experience, he made accusations about me that were untrue. I asked repeatedly for him to back up his statements with any kind of evidence but he failed to do so." That's SM's M.O. I remember when he was doing it to you, obviously unfounded, yet insistent. Perhaps he's upset because it doesn't work as well on a smaller board like this one. The slime of false rumor and innuendo doesn't stick as well. Marion Millin 2009-10-24T23:31:58Z ric comment-16262 2009-10-24T22:41:08Z 2009-10-24T22:41:08Z So Steve is arguing that he will also stop talking with the Bee? he can't possibly find comments in Press more offensive? Maybe Steve is too busy finding who leaked the Waters affair. ric 2009-10-24T22:41:08Z bbbbmer comment-16248 2009-10-24T21:18:21Z 2009-10-24T21:18:21Z I think Mr. Maviglio is referring to me. Oh well. What is becoming a noticeable pattern in the mayor's behaviour, and that of his 'followers' (for want of a more acerbic and accurate term) is a repeated whine of hypocrisy to the point of pathological passive/aggression, in that the rhetoric they voice disdain for is precisely what they have dished out to others, including me, always crying foul when it's shoved right back in their collective faces -- with a bit more wit and aplomb. As I, and others, have expressed ad nauseum, it is not 'hate' to question a pretender to power -- it's just good citizenship, especially when a supposed leader has a rather questionable past, and whose present acts are for the most part less than honorable. Oh, and about the username thing -- I rather like mine. I've been using this name for two decades. It's 'googleable', if more than a bit notorious, and very precisely describes my character, rushing around Northern California in my blue bomb Bmer, and it gives urchins like this piece's author just that much more to gripe about in their mundanity... I have not uttered a word or posted a comment here, or frankly anywhere, that I wouldn't state face to face to the recipient -- in fact, I think it would give me considerable satisfaction to do so. Bless your heart, sweetie... bbbbmer 2009-10-24T21:18:21Z bbbbmer comment-16261 2009-10-24T21:14:03Z 2009-10-24T21:14:03Z It is not 'libel' to publish comment reasonably believed to be true, even if that comment is offensive. Libel requires malice and a known untruth, and most of the time, if not all of the time, particularly in comments about KJ and his tribe of suckups, sycophants, and siblings, commenters posting opinions have a reasonable basis for doing so, especially given the controversial character of this mayor's past and present. bbbbmer 2009-10-24T21:14:03Z Marion Millin comment-16260 2009-10-24T21:05:51Z 2009-10-24T21:05:51Z Thanks tdramer, bbbbmer, StevieGee, Love this: "Note to Mr. Maviglio: If you can't stand the heat get out of my city government." Remarkable how much dependence the mayor's policies, campaign, power grab, staff, "volunteers," depend on Perception Management. Since it's more difficult for them to control on SacPress, even SM's faux protest above is a sleight of hand, a conceited deceit of masterful proportions. An example of this verbal subterfuge was at the kickoff for the SMI petition drive. A brief handout contained little in the way of information, for those who thought it was an open community meeting to hear Johnson speak on his proposal for Strong Mayor. The first page was a collection of talking points. The third page was "Frequently Asked Questions." Which was a cut and paste of the first page of talking points, in the form or questions and answers. Marion Millin 2009-10-24T21:05:51Z Bill Albertson comment-16258 2009-10-24T20:07:47Z 2009-10-24T20:07:47Z The irony, Steve, is that if the speech you were referring to were really legally defined hate speech, no online moniker would give any protection. There are specific remedies in place where someone clearly breaking the law will lose any anonymity from using a pseudonym. After working on tier 1 and tier 2 networks for the last 10 years or so, I have found that nobody is anonymous on the internet. I personally don't say anything to anyone online that I wouldn't say in person, face to face. I would suggest the same to yourself and anyone on this forum- please never presume you are anonymous, or that what you say online doesn't have real life implications. The old rule of presuming that you will meet someone you replied to within 5 min of leaving your home should always apply. I agree that people who are consistently rude shouldn't have a forum here, but once that becomes a forum policy it becomes very difficult to draw the line, and set who it is drawn for. There are other mechanisms in place to warn folks about the trolls (like people who get consistent thumbs downs in posts). I would also refer you to the comment above by Casey Kirk. There are hecklers everywhere, and in your role as a political consultant I'm sure you have encountered plenty in real life. I'm sure that you will be able to adapt to the online world of public forums in no time. Bill Albertson 2009-10-24T20:07:47Z Stella M. comment-16254 2009-10-24T17:10:31Z 2009-10-24T17:10:31Z So, Steve, what's the "balance" you think the Bee and the Sac Press need to find? What policy change would you support? How do you propose they implement those policies in their online forums? I too find some of the comments offensive (and downright libelous, oftentimes), but I support the Sac Press for erring on the side of openness. I think the flagging works in the case of true "hate speech"--which happens only rarely on Sac Press, more often (IMO) on Sac Bee. Definitely, we see "hateful" speech, but not hate speech, as William B points out above. While my inner fascist would love to see them ban/censure some commenters, my inner democrat (little d) knows it's wrong. Stella M. 2009-10-24T17:10:31Z StevieGee comment-16251 2009-10-24T16:28:55Z 2009-10-24T16:28:55Z Marion, you rock. The first thing KJ did as Mayor was to start his power grab. There were people with petitions almost on election day. It's not being done with the proper public debate but instead through a ballot initiative process. I have issues with this because election results are almost always skewed toward the money and KJ and his sprawl developer cronies are loaded with it. It's time for the citizens of Sacramento to stand up and REJECT THE POWER GRAB. BTW: I go by StevieGee on here but my name is Steven Grass. Note to Mr. Maviglio: If you can't stand the heat get out of my city government. StevieGee 2009-10-24T16:28:55Z bbbbmer comment-16249 2009-10-24T16:24:54Z 2009-10-24T16:24:54Z I think you write wonderfully, Ms. Millin! Your pieces are a joy to read! bbbbmer 2009-10-24T16:24:54Z tdramer comment-16245 2009-10-24T15:02:07Z 2009-10-24T15:02:07Z I think, Steve, you will find a more receptive audience if you publish in the Rancho Cordova Grapevine. Give it a shot and see how it goes. tdramer 2009-10-24T15:02:07Z tdramer comment-16244 2009-10-24T14:53:45Z 2009-10-24T14:53:45Z Well said Marion. tdramer 2009-10-24T14:53:45Z Matthew Keys comment-16240 2009-10-24T09:15:51Z 2009-10-24T09:15:51Z "I believe the Sacramento Press should find a balance between pure 'free speech' and what's appropriate for publication. So far it hasn't." Well, according to you it hasn't. What The Sacramento Press may find appropriate for online publication and what others may find appropriate for publication could be two different things. When you post on their site, you're playing by their rules -- and perhaps their way of playing the game is to allow for multiple perspectives. You have to understand that when you provide for an open and free forum of communication, comments like "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" will pop up, even IF the publication in question doesn't allow for these types of comments. In the ten or so months that I've known the folks who work behind-the-scenes (and often, in front of the camera too) at the Sacramento Press, I can tell you I've seen multiple instances where they have had to remind comment posters NOT to make personal attacks against a particular publisher, especially when the comment makes little to no contribution to any kind of dialogue between the commenter and the publisher, or the commenter and other commenters. With that said, I feel you're wrong in accusing The Sacramento Press of allowing comments that are detrimental personal attacks against a particular author while offering little to no value otherwise. As a publication -- online or print -- grows, the attraction of various kinds of people -- including "trolls," as they're commonly referred to -- will undoubtedly be visible, and occasionally comments will slip through the cracks only to be discovered months, or years later, or sometimes not at all. I think you're making a poor choice in leaving a forum that provides free and open communication simply because a handful of users disagree with your opinion. If you expected The Sacramento Press to be a political megaphone where politicians, and their volunteers, can preach why their ideas are right and everyone else's are wrong, expect that there also exists a fluid, free and public forum for others to tell you why they're right and you're wrong. Matthew Keys 2009-10-24T09:15:51Z LARRY MEADE comment-16223 2009-10-24T05:07:10Z 2009-10-24T05:07:10Z PS - Please note that I have used my real name. I'm not afraid to participate in democracy; Sacramento and it's future are too important. LARRY MEADE 2009-10-24T05:07:10Z LARRY MEADE comment-16222 2009-10-24T05:04:44Z 2009-10-24T05:04:44Z Wow. Reading this left me speachless. One expression came to mind: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Mr. Maviglio participated in most of the behavior that he says is causing him to leave this site. Speaking from my own personal experience, he made accusations about me that were untrue. I asked repeatedly for him to back up his statements with any kind of evidence but he failed to do so. As the mayor's behavior/actions are increasingly drawing criticism/concern for more and more Sacramento residents, it definitely is much easier to bail then to stay. I find it hard to believe that someone who has a long career of working for politicans such as our Republican governor, would be so distraught at some people's actions that he chooses to stop participating in a public forum. This shouldn't be completely shocking - Mr Maviglio was one of the people who met behind closed doors (without any imput from residents) to draft the Strong Mayor Initiative. This is just another example in an increasingly long list of concerns I have about Kevin Johnson and the people he surrounds himself with... So what lesson is learned here? When there is disagreement what do you do? Stay and try to share your viewpoint or leave and point your finger at people and accuse them of acting the same way you have? I should not have expected any less. Power to the people. LARRY MEADE 2009-10-24T05:04:44Z Marion Millin comment-16221 2009-10-24T04:56:36Z 2009-10-24T04:56:36Z What is a "user-namer"? Marion Millin 2009-10-24T04:56:36Z Marion Millin comment-16220 2009-10-24T04:54:11Z 2009-10-24T04:54:11Z Mr. M is a professional. If he says it, it's so. He doesn't need examples. Or facts. Marion Millin 2009-10-24T04:54:11Z Dan comment-16218 2009-10-24T04:45:10Z 2009-10-24T04:45:10Z So what were examples of this "hate speech"? Dan 2009-10-24T04:45:10Z Marion Millin comment-16217 2009-10-24T04:38:42Z 2009-10-24T04:38:42Z Another implement that comes to mind is a toilet plunger. Mr. M knows the discourse is clogged with his own excretions, yet is looking for someone else to blame for the mess. Marion Millin 2009-10-24T04:38:42Z Marion Millin comment-16216 2009-10-24T04:36:50Z 2009-10-24T04:36:50Z Mr. Burg, you're just not hep to the lingo: "Accountability" = "dictatorship" "Modernization" = "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" "Crime" = "in the eye of the beholder" "Hate speech" = "anything that questions or challenges the dictator" "Censorship" = "Maviglio not getting to control other people's free speech" Hypocrisy = Maviglio wriiting "I believe this website needs to have a policy that promotes civil discourse instead of publishing rants, expletives, and comments not based in truth." You first, Steve!! Go for it. We look forward to your illustrious return and civil, fact based offerings. Marion Millin 2009-10-24T04:36:50Z savemidtown comment-16211 2009-10-24T02:54:04Z 2009-10-24T02:54:04Z Sounds like Steve is a bit of a whiner and maybe even a bully. Bullys use loaded language and scare tactics to get people to agree with them. I doubt Steve thought any of this through. Classic spatula strategy - stir it up and see what happens. savemidtown 2009-10-24T02:54:04Z William Burg comment-16208 2009-10-24T01:10:39Z 2009-10-24T01:10:39Z "Hate speech" is a very loaded term, Steve. The term does not mean simple heckling or sarcasm, it specifically refers to speech that attacks a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group (race, gender, national origin etc.) and is considered a form of discrimination. Are you accusing Sacramento Press of tolerating or encouraging hate speech as it is legally defined? William Burg 2009-10-24T01:10:39Z Scott Beardsley comment-16204 2009-10-24T00:39:31Z 2009-10-24T00:39:31Z Steve, Welcome to the Internet. A world of anonymous posters, trollers, and a few legit folks. This is the beauty of the Internet and also its curse. I ran a small online forum for a while and I've seen the worst of it (from well-intentioned people). Censorship is never a goal but in many cases it is up to the community to set the policy. Sac Press is a company, they have advertisers. This is how they pay the bills (AFAICT). I can see why they might want to censor, but what they also have to worry about is turning their audience/community away (no audience, no money). If I'm censored, I'll be much less likely to contribute my opinions and "stories" to them (no writers, no money). BTW, I remember talking to Ben about this very topic (granted it was a year or so ago) and there are some important legal considerations regarding censoring their audience. A lot of the old school politics and good ol boys clubs don't work on the Internet. There is so much more transparency when you have the world at your fingertips. What was the saying about it being hot in the kitchen again? The longer you are around the thicker your skin gets. BTW, if we had censorship how would we find out about fraud being committed in our very own city goverment? I guess folks could always start leaking to wikileaks.org. My 2¢ Scott Scott Beardsley 2009-10-24T00:39:31Z Casey Kirk comment-16176 2009-10-23T23:19:35Z 2009-10-23T23:19:35Z Thanks for the question, Matt. I handle the majority of customer service issues at The Sacramento Press. When items are flagged or sent to our support email address I am the first person that takes a look to determine what action (if any) needs to be taken. In addition to myself, our Editor in Chief as well as our Operations Manager will generally also review the comment or story if they need to be moderated or taken down. All of these actions are overseen by Ben Ilfeld, a founder of The Sacramento Press and Chief Operations Officer who also runs the Customer Service Department. In addition to flagging duplicates, spam, or offensive items, we welcome and encourage anyone to send comments or stories that may be against our terms of use to support@sacramentopress.com. Casey Kirk 2009-10-23T23:19:35Z