I do have the courage of my convictions.

I have taken far more beatings — physical and verbal — in my life than you can even imagine. And, every last one of them began with words uttered by my parents designed to “put me in my place” and/or to exact from me an acknowledgement that they — no matter how drunk — were my “superiors” by dint of my being a child.

It is entirely possible to criticize someone or something without coming across as a hatemonger or barbarian.

What is your goal — to piss people off or to persuade them to see your view?

Why DON’T you start your own blog? What is wrong with that idea? If you really want to “express yourself,” you could provide a forum for all those who wish to engage in merciless ad hominem attacks 24/7.

~ Joe

P.s. Merry Christmas!

Still, as I have counseled and comforted friends and children over the years, I readily acknowledge that I strongly disagree with the bromide: “Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will never hurt you.”

Words do hurt. Hate language dehumanizes and corrodes the souls of both the speaker and the receiver. Now, more than ever, we need to remember the power of words and offer them in the hope of healing, rather than hating.

I offer the following poem by Countee Cullen as a vivid example of what I am trying to say:

“Incident”
by Countee Cullen

Once riding in old Baltimore,
Heart-filled, head-filled with glee;
I saw a Baltimorean
Keep looking straight at me.

Now I was eight and very small,
And he was no whit bigger,
And so I smiled, but he poked out
His tongue, and called me, “Nigger.”

I saw the whole of Baltimore
From May until December;
Of all the things that happened there
That’s all that I remember.”

A noteworthy excerpt from the article cited above:

“Hate speech codes raise important ethical questions. When civil liberties are pitted against the right to freedom of speech, which does justice favor? Do the costs of hate speech codes outweigh their benefits? Is the harm that results from hate speech so serious that codes to restrict freedom of speech are morally required?

“Arguments Against Campus Hate Speech Codes

“The most fundamental argument against hate speech codes rests on the idea that they violate a fundamental human right, freedom of speech. Such a fundamental right, it is argued, should not be limited except to prevent serious harm to others. Libel or shouting “Fire!” in a movie theater, for example, can cause serious harm and, therefore, are legitimately banned. In contrast, what campuses prohibit as “hate speech” is primarily opinion that, while often offensive and unpopular, does not cause serious harm. The fundamental right to free speech should not be restricted merely to prevent hate speech.

“Additionally, critics assert that the costs of hate speech codes far outweigh their benefits. Threatened by “politically correct” students who are backed by hate speech codes, students who have reasonable yet nonconforming points of view will be afraid to speak in classes. As a social institution, a university should be open to all opinions, popular and unpopular. As Oliver Wendell Holmes commented, “The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think.” Hate speech codes thus inflict a major harm on our social institutions.

Even so, one of the great things about America is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to express said opinion.

were all just people, we have our beliefs, are our beliefs not who we are?when you disagree with someones beliefs in a sense youre telling them they are wrong, no one like to be told they’re wrong, its like sayin “you’re stupid” So I think if one wishes not to be offensive when disagreeing their must be some tact, i guess theres an art to it. Some are blunt some arfe smooth. I like the lyrics of the Itals’ song Satisfaction “sometimes i wish my tounge could speak more clearly” this sweet song is available for hearing free on youtube.com

The Founding Fathers got this one right — separation of Church and State.

@gray- Thomas Jefferson warned people to be wary of electing clergypersons into public office. I hear what youre sayin about once you argue certain people shouldnt run then you have to include a bunch of people. Its the same logic Buddy uses about censorship,- you have to censor everyone ….or no one

I do not vote preachers into public offices. Once there, however, I am willing to work with them.

Here’s some good links to the debate of Journalists running for office and keeping their journalist jobs.

http://newsandmediablog.com/2008/12/05/chris-matthews-journalists-run-political-office/

http://www.robertfulford.com/Objectivity.html

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Jul/16/ln/ln27a.html

Lawyers and others you mention in public office should recuse themselves from any policy votes where there may be a conflict of interest.

Not a word from the naysayers.

I also noticed how some support Reverend McQuinn on one thread then scream separation of church and state and how ministers shouldn’t run for office on others.

I think the arguments against bloggers and reverends running for city council could also be used against corporate and realestate lawyers and developers and architects, the list could go on and on.

Come on now, we are all adults. There is no need to come up for a rationale to allow puerile, hostile, and mean behavior.

Citizen journalism is a different animal and let’s not pretend it isn’t. This site is part community news and part forum, with the emphasis on forum. This isn’t the national news, its a blog.

I want to put forth two questions to John Murden:

1. Do you consider yourself to be a journalist, and this to be a news site?

2. And if so, can you tell me why the ethics adhered to by other journalists do not apply here?

“I’m not rejecting JJ because of the “machine” comment but I’m so tired of the thuggish tone of his followers”

It’s not just JJ’s followers with a thuggish tone.

I’m so glad that I’m not one of those folks who takes everything anyone says with the most negative possible slant. If I were, I would consider that a pretty serious personal problem, and something for me to work on.

And, some posters reslly take this blog much too personally and take any criticism as a personal attack. Calling people names or just being mean does not constitute an argument or a rebuttal.

Mostly, it just makes that poster look bad.

Sometimes I think that we just need to get over ourselves. Yes, this blog is well-read, but it does not reach all the members of our community. The things said on this blog do not represent a mandate for Church Hill. There are plenty of people, voters, here that have never logged in. And this segment of the population needs representation as well.

This is one of things I’ll be watching for as I choose my candidate – the ability to represent all.

The best cure for “blog envy” is to start your own. They are free.

Anyone with some brains and time can do it. And, therein lies the difference between your example of Al Franken giving up his Air America program and Murden continuing CHPN — not just anyone can get a time slot on Air America or a job at a newspaper for the asking and for free.

So, I urge you to please start your own blog should you so desire. You might even consider running for Council. But, please stop attacking Murden because the guy had the gumption to get up and actually do something to improve this community.

You can also chill with all the talk about everybody looking each other in the eyes etc. We still do, but you sound like some kind of luddite. Maybe we should just go back to pre-telephone days, eh?

Each generation uses the best tools they have for communicating. I am glad there are techno-hip community activists like Murden around. You should be, too.

My reference was with regard to being accountable for my own behavior. It is not anti-anonymity, in and of itself, to make the observation that making nasty posts under a pseudonym is lame.

If you remember, the only reason why I ever got crystal clear and directly identified myself was when some bizarro, inappropriate, anonymous attacks were happening. And I directly identified myself in order to try to bring some reality to the situation, a situation where I would be willing to bet a thousand dollars that none of that nonsense would have been happening in person. No interest in solution, because if there had been, I would have been contacted. Cowardly. Period. Hiding behind some weird cyber-bravado. It’s problematic on the internet. These little blogs are not unique.

I have no interest in constantly broadcasting my full identity, and I am not sure why you might think I (or anyone else) would be. I don’t think of anyone here as really broadcasting, anyway – more like taking part in a conversation. I don’t represent anyone except for myself, so there is not any need for extreme clarity, either.

I do have a job where we tend to be a bit public, and I work around here a lot. But I’m not your typical Prada-wearing, 50 dollar pen slingin’ REALTOR, anyway, who worries a whole lot about pleasing everyone, and what people think about them all the time. I work with folks who dig my work boots and jeans, and want to check out houses in a rugged-ass Jeep. (And if we need to bring your kids, it’s really best if we drive separate.)

Works great for me. Cause I’m really not anybody worth being overly-identified, in general. Just some regular girl down the street.

What I am surprised about is the inability to digest the distinction between posting as a regular person – even anonymously, and making snide cracks under a false identity. Which happens. And these are two different things.

Funny that it would be said that someone is concerned about the big bad world out there, and then gets scoldy with me for not posting my surname with each comment. Why hold other people to a doubly higher standard than one holds themselves? Odd. And very surprising.

because of reverse blog envy

I feel more cofortable being annoymous, nom de plume, i dont need some blog maniac gettin in my face because I think shockoe stadium is a bad idea. but none of us are really annoymous because you do have to give a valid e-mail and all our respones/comments can be tracked back to an IP address, in case some unstable person goes nuts because someone called them a name. bloggins alot of fun, i enjoy takin a good blog.

Maybe you should start your own blog- you sure do have a lot to say. It seems foolish to bother to respond to your ongoing ‘pull the chpn plug’ campaign, but where would you be complaining and telling others how to behave without this as a forum?

I wouldn’t for an instant expect JM to dump CHPN for the sake of what is still (sorry) an unknown. His dedication and interest has spread and caused others to be more active in the community, thereby creating an immediate and viable network where much less of one ever existed before..

If you got along so well without CHPN before its inception, why don’t you consider swearing it off as a NY’s resolution? You might become a happier personage.

It sure would be nice to start ’09 without quite so much reiterative griping. Go get jolly, feller!

:)

Important distinction.

I’m really amazed that some of you folks do not get the implications here, but it won’t be the first time people vote for someone without really discerning certain practices of a candidate.

Blog envy, hell no. I do like to participate in civic discussions online and mostly in person where it counts more. I’m not oppossed to this site. Keep it going with someone at the helm. If a temporary replacement can’t be found, so be it.

Again, you are not reading what I’m saying. Media journalists and Church preachers have the right to run, but should not run for or hold political office, and keep those jobs. Another example is Al Franken giving up his Air America show to run. I don’t have a problem with Murden being a teacher and running for office.

Interesting how many have fallen silent, especially the blogger community, since my comments regarding this…

We all survived without this blog for a long time before and civic discourse still thrived. In fact, our discussion took place in person, in public where it really matters. We looked each other in the eye. Some of us still do.

It’s a discussion that is going to fall on deaf ears, I guess.

And before anyone wants to attack me for being anonymous, I will say that everything that I have said on this site I have either said in person at meetings, or would say in person without hesitation in public.

The reason that I am anonymous on blogs is precisely what tiny argued, it is foolish to post your full name for the world to have access. On a local level, I have no problem being seen or heard.

Why is it so important that people know who someone is, rather than what they say?

Attacks? Whatever…

Shannon: From a post somewhere on this site recently you defended the use of one’s real name, and claimed that you use your’s. You are still anonymous, even though you say that you use your “real” name. You don’t use your LAST name – big difference. How many “Shannons” are there in Church Hill, let alone the whole world? Most locals have figured out who you are, but you are not broadcasting to the entire world your identity.

Instead of starting their own damn blog, some people would much rather attempt to vilify Murden because he actually inists on a bit of decorum. So what if Murden has a blog? Anybody else out there can have one, too! I say more power to Murden if he insists that discourse on the blog be civil. His tolerance zone for what constitutes “civil discourse” is far greater than mine.

Ad hominem attacks help no one. Some stuff should really be kept in the privacy of one’s home or therapist’s office.

We don’t expect people to give up their jobs in order to become public officials. Murden is a teacher. Are we going to insist that he not communicate with any of the families of his students because that would give him an unfair advantage over a candidate who doesn’t spend time inside Richmond’s Public Schools? This is ridiculous.

Murden has my vote, but if I were he I might seriously reconsider trying to represent people who are so quick to find fault.

How about asking Murden some questions about what position he might take on issues?

If John were worried about PR, or trying to use this place for that, there would be more than a couple deleted comments.

Instead of pulling back on dialogue, the democratic way is to encourage more. I say make it the norm that campaign sites have a section for people to gather and exchange ideas.

Why not?

annonimity dosent bother me, i think it lets people be more honest, i hate sites that dont let you blog unless you give all this info. address, phone #, i remember a few years ago they wanted your credit card number to blog.

I dont know JJ but nepotism wont get the district the best representative, fair competion will. Jefferson strongly warned of religion and politics mixing; the Reverend mayors state house seat was replaced by the reverand councilpersons seat. Murden might want to take the reverend test, i heard its like 10 dollars

I think you are missing my point, and the heart of the matter.

Murden is running for office. This is a news site. He is the publisher, editor, comment moderator for this site. It is a conflict of interest for him to do so.

The fact that he does not recognize, as a candidate, the need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety show that he is ill-prepared for the task he is taking on.

I think a dialogue on blogs and censorship is absolutely necessary.

I think John has every right to keep this blog from becoming one of those “b*tch slap” sites. I hope your criticisms doesn’t end up shutting this site down. It is a great forum and sounds like you are trying to tell John he has to shut it down or either let it become a “uncensored” site that allows abusive language and personal attacks. He has made clear he doesn’t want this blog to go in that direction. That’s why we have moderated comments now; too many people simple could control their venom.

You guys were all for john in the first posts. You certainly turn on a person quickly.

As for me, I will continue to watch the campaigns and will decide who to vote for in November.

“Yes. You just have to trust me :)”

Wow, really scary.

That’s like saying that when being intimate, you promise not to complete the act in a certain location. (I have a much better way of saying that, but it’s too vulgar for this site.)

To be fair, I think this kind of thinking, as quoted above, has been going on in politics in the town for a long, long time.

Candidate with a potential conflict of interest simply want it both ways. Is it ego? Economics? Well, let’s just say that in this instance, it isn’t economics.

Separation of the media from political power and a separation of church and state. Churches are not supposed to engage in political campaigning or endorse a candidate publically. Many of our elected officials in this town are of the clergy and still get paid to preach from the pulpit of their churches during and after political campaigns. By virtue of their employment their mere presence on the pulpit is making a political statement. You can’t preach to the people, be paid by a church to do so, and run on a political ticket, and yet, it continues.

And, yes, they too say, “You’ll just have to trust me.”

These are murky waters we have traveled down many of time in this town. In my mind, the power of the church and the power of the media are two areas that should be off limits to political office.

What is more important to you, keeping your blog or running for office? I think it’s problematic you can’t make a clear judgment call on this.

So, Mr. Murden, are you the change we can believe in, or are you just more of the same?

And as a side note, Richmond seems to like more of the same. Every incumbent returned to the Council. Speaks volumes.

Liberty, I just remembered, the online Times-Dispatch has censored my comments several times and I didn’t write any personal attacks, anything libelous, or curse words.

Maybe a forum could be held on blogs and censorship? Have all the online community news folk tell us whether or not they censor and why. Invite in the online journalist from the TD, Style, and Save Richmond and the guy from Tobacco Ave because he’s funny.

He has your vote because you’ve seen him hanging out with his mother?

Because you think he is ENITLED to it?

What are his qualifications?

I don’t, however, oppose censorship of comments that give personal information that could endanger someone’s life or disrespects a neighbor’s privacy. I’ve seen several of those taken down.

Tiny, I’m not rejecting JJ because of the “machine” comment but I’m so tired of the thuggish tone of his followers, “You Will Be Defeated…If You Want To Run You Better Get With Him.” Like we’ve got some Monarchy here in the eastend. Then they turn around and try to say he’s a “nice guy.” If JJ isn’t like this then he should find new friends and his new friends need to be more specific on his community service, something other than his campaigning experience. If campaigning is enough then several generations of my family is suited for political office.

So, I will be paying close to each of them. The election is not until next November. It should be a good one.”

Agreed. JJ is also a longstanding member of the Richmond Crusade for Voters (It would be nice if they had an official blog).

However, I am intriqued by John’s candidacy. I truly believe he is a good guy who wants to do well for the community.

So, I will be paying close to each of them. The election is not until next November. It should be a good one.

I try very hard never to use abusive language or personally attack people. However, some folks really get under my skin. Just the same, I try to always be as curteous as possible when expressing an different point of view.

gray- have you experienced censorship? I have two times since blogging on the Richmond sites. One site claimed they lost my response to a ridiculous smear of Paul Goldman by Bill Fartar, and once on Murdens site because “tiny” in my opinion flamed me and I flamed him back, no cuss words just minor comments along the lines of-try to add an intelligent comment if ya can. I noticed “tiny” was a cheerleader for Murden and he wasnt censored but I was. Once i commented harshly on Richmond Public Schools having the highest amount of money per student in the state and a poor drop-out, truancy and graduation rate. I expect more for my tax dollars. This got candidate Murden a bit riled up in my opinion. CENSORSHIP SUCKS!

I see no reason why why John can’t run the site as well as run for council. It’s not like this is the RDT and he is running for mayor. Once again things are getting blown out of proportion.

But yes, for those who don’t know him and are new to the community blogs, it will be a hurdle to accept CHPN as a news site with a slant and not as his political platform.

#67 my mistake, thanks.

I was replying to F.T. Rea’s Post #44 that scolded all of us for being “unfunny and annoying.”

Funny thing, a lot of folks read & post on this CHPN blog ’cause we learn from each other. I don’t see that kinda thing happening on Mr. Rey’s blog, he’s all by himself, tho he seems to think he’s a pretty smart & funny guy.

I agree.