[CIMC-work] Re: process and culture

Thu Mar 18 20:40:25 PST 2004

Aargh, Rob, there is some really great political analysis in your post below, 
and I really really wish you had included it in this whole Brewer thing on 
the wire. Shit, I didn't tag the Bill Daley/Clinton shag, and I follow this 
issue pretty closely. This is the kind of info that empowers readers of our wire, 
and the kind of info they will get no-where else than from someone w/an 
insider's take like you. Would it have framed Brewer's candidacy more positively? 
Yes. But it's substantive political analysis, so so what? That is very different 
than posting something (your original post), that tells a bunch of readers 
(and IMCers) who don't have a detailed handle on this issue that Devine is bad 
and Brewer is better so vote for Brewer and check out his site, which is 
basically a comment (or if I got it as a campaign mailer, a commercial). The info 
you note below is also the kind of stuff I was hoping you'd include in your 
second post when we spoke last friday, although your second post did at least give 
readers excerpts from a lot of articles relevant to the issue. 

On the one hand, I think this has been a good (albiet combative) debate, 
although I still think the first post met the criteria of a commercial and would 
have supported hiding it for that reason. I disagree in hiding it because 
Brewer happened to have been a fed, since that kind of criteria would exclude 
material, for example, from every former CIA agent who's turned on the company and 
exposed its crimes -- and that would just be stupid. I would even have 
considered leaving the original post up if Brewer's actual website had provided more 
detail about his work history, but it doesn't; it's actually a very basic 
website with virtually no policy analysis or detail about his background, 
including his work on police torture and misconduct. Ironically, a lot of additional 
info about Brewer, scumsucking Devine, and the political shenanigans that 
continue to drive policy on this issue have been exposed in these back-and-forth 
posts to our listserve -- but not on our newswire where most readers could see 
it and benefit from it.

So my appeal to you remains much the same: given your voluminous background 
and running insight on this issue and Devine, if you decided to appoint 
yourself the standing house muckraker on this punk, I think both our readers and CIMC 
collective members would be thrilled. But for pity's sake, get the info up on 
the wire, not just in this list debate -- and let me remind you that you're 
much more qualified to do same than someone like me. You've expended a lot of 
effort going back and forth with CIMC volunteers, which is fine. I'm just 
saying the readers out there could benefit from this, as well.

Chris Geovanis

In a message dated 3/17/04 10:46:38 AM Central Standard Time, 
cananwil at ureach.com writes:

> Subj: [CIMC-work] Re: process and culture 
>  Date: 3/17/04 10:46:38 AM Central Standard Time
>  From: cananwil at ureach.com
>  CC: imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
>  Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> you are right about the swearing.. 
> 
> that does make it difficult. 
> 
> i'd like you all to consider the fact that i feel
> being censored is even more profane than swearing,
> so at the time swearing didn't seem like much of
> a communication barrier to me, because i felt
> communication had already been lost in your
> censoring me. and i'm just the kind of person who
> is not going to be nice to people i feel are
> abusing me. the circuits just don't fire that way.
> 
> 
> that was why i wrote the long cryptic thing and
> put that in the commentary section, because i was
> trying to find a way around the people having the
> problem with the election... where a discussion
> ensued that was pretty fruitful, until one of you
> posted my pissy, but private email, and deepened
> the problem. please consider your own actions as
> well.. or we won't get anywhere. 
> 
> had i realized there was this type of dogma
> prevelant at cimc, i would have couched the issue
> differently.. but i had no way of knowing. 
> 
> i would have couched it in terms of the cover-up
> taking place by the media.. ignoring Brewers
> challenge to Devine.. 
> 
> Now, you must realize the Republican Candidate
> Spiwak is going to capitalize, he will bring up
> the torture, and the wrongfull convictions, and
> jon burge.. he will get the Trib endorsement.. the
> Trib have wanted this town to be republican for a
> long time.. it's kind of a no-brainer really. and
> there are people around here who know that.. but
> they just keep digging... "we'll deal with it
> later, we'll deal with it later". well later is
> just about now.. 
> 
> so.. please understand my frustration as i've
> watched people cut deals with devine and daley on
> this issue for the past ten years. when i see
> folks like you unknowingly falling prey.. it
> really just frankly pisses me off. 
> 
> i feel offended by your censorship.. but at the
> same time see you as victims, because there are
> people among you who know this issue, but slide it
> to the back for short-term political expedience.
> and really muck things up for the long-term by
> doing so.
> 
> things are going to get sooo tough now. this might
> even find it's way to the presidential election
> because we were just about to get it dealt with
> when Clinton hired Bill Daley (Richies brother) to
> be the commerce secretary (this was like 93-94)..
> and that's when the deals started.. and the
> Republicans know that. so it'll be another Clinton
> scandal in a way.. and more fuel for the two-party
> thing that mucks everything up. so wanting to see
> brewer in there has it's reasons... and, he's
> really an ok guy.. he grew up in the Robert Taylor
> Homes. Am I going to criticize him for being a Fed
> at one time? I don't think so. 
> 
> thanks for responding.
> 
> 
> ---- On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Thomas Yun
> (mayday at riseup.net) wrote:
> 
> >Hello,
> >
> >sorry that you were offended.  In general, we
> are pretty tolerant of
> >discussion and I don't think any of have such
> big egos we won't admit if
> >we are wrong or not.
> >
> >In terms of participating in collective
> discussion it is important that
> >all parties put some effort into being nice to
> one another.  I personally
> >will welcome any discussion you have to bring,
> but would politely ask you
> >to refrain from swearing.  It makes it hard to
> discuss things that way.
> >
> >paz,
> >t
> >y
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >created on May Day 1973.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________
> Get your own "800" number
> Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
> http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040318/ecbd2204/attachment.html