Selectivity on steroids…Could we just be honest?
As I sat down to write this, it was with a deep sigh that I started…I am so tired of the selectivity and the lack of transparency and honesty that’s allowed to continue in our community and the most perfect example of what can only be called “selectivity on steroids” is in the editorial pages of yesterday’s daily newspaper.
You’d never know there is any investigation going on related to the campaign finance signatures by the Lucas County Republican party from the pages of today’s daily. You’d never know additional questions have been raised about a lack of reporting of in kind donations from the pages of today’s daily. You’d never know that Jon Stainbrook wants the Lucas County BOE job and that the motivation from what’s being called “the old guard” is not Lynn Olman’s financial health. It’s simple…Just as it appears the editorial stance of the daily paper is to want to keep Stainbrook in power, the goal of the others is to get him out of power.
There are people out there right now who say they were threatened, who won’t say anything on the record because they don’t want to be the next target of the daily paper and there are a good many who say they don’t want to see Jon Stainbrook appoint himself to the BOE, but don’t say anything publicly. Those who don’t speak up are part of the problem, they allow this to continue with their silence, they are accomplices who share responsibility in allowing this to continue. I know that sounds harsh but it is the truth. If some of the things I’ve been told have happened, have really happened? It needs to stop. If some of what was said is not true? It needs to stop…
There are only 37,705 registered Republicans in all of Lucas County as of the last administrative report from the Lucas County Board of Elections dated 10/26/2009, more are outside of Toledo (20,823) than inside Toledo (16,882) so whoever is in control of the party needs to not only work with others but to be able to encourage either Democrats of which there are 112,818 total in the County, 39,110 outside of Toledo or the non-party voters of which there are 156,188 total for Lucas, 47,027 outside of Toledo to vote for Republican candidates. Those numbers are the real reason why whoever runs the local Republican party faces a challenge and why traditionally Republicans who have been seen as more “moderate” are among the few that win.
This is not the first time the Lucas County Republican Party has struggled, they have had problems with funding and supporting candidates in the past. So while the daily may focus on Noe, it’s clear that even before that was the excuse, there were problems and so far? Stainbrook has not been the solution to making a stronger party in this area so that Democrats are challenged, which has been the reason given as to the daily’s interest in a party that supports a platform that is in opposition of many of it’s editorial stances. While Paula Pennypacker stated in 1998 “It’s going to be a new day for the Republican Party,” and Jon Stainbrook stated, “Larry Kaczala has been my political mentor” then stating that he felt Kaczala had taken a wrong turn, it shows you how long part of this battle has been happening with factions within the Republican Party, over a decade. At different times people have been presented as the ones to “heal” the party, one example, Dee Talmadge, 1998:
Ms. Talmage would take the reins of the party as it contemplates recovery from a bitter fight for control. Activists have worked recently to oust Mr. Brennan, charging mismanagement of the party. He consistently denied the charges.
Democrats have escaped any focus in all of this, the daily paper along with too many of us have not focused much on the failure of the Democratic Party officials at the Lucas County BOE to take action. They are the ones who should be stepping up and making sure the Republicans (old guard or new) are following the law. The whole signature fiasco still being investigated by the Lucas County Prosecutor’s office and the latest games played with extensions rather than action demonstrates Democrats are just as responsible. While what Rita Clark stated in 2005 is a noble sentiment:
“They all have the same feeling I do – not to be Republicans and Democrats,” Ms. Clark said. “We’ll all work together to make this the best board of elections in the state of Ohio.”
Sometimes you have to call the other party out if they are unable or unwilling to act against their own. When are we Democrats going to do that?
As to the Blade’s position on Olman now that Stainbrook is in power, it’s been a dramatic change. In 1996, the editorial stance:
While we have reservations about the performances in Columbus of some of our area legislators, we are encouraged that legislative leaders such as Lynn Olman and Sally Perz have begun to emerge.
Olman was described as representing “the voice of the Other Ohio,” and ran unopposed in 1998 to re-election to the House.
In 2000, the daily endorsed Olman when he faced John Billis for re-election, in a race that was full of accusations of election campaign law violations and plagiarism stating:
In House District 51, Lynn Olman has been a productive lawmaker with significant seniority, and we believe the Maumee Republican should get another term.
It’s also interesting that the daily paper targeted Paul Hoag and tried to paint him with the Noe brush since Hoag actually opposed Noe being reappointed chairman in 2002, because Hoag in part didn’t agree with Republicans supporting Ray Kest, he felt Republicans should have sat out. Funny how history keeps repeating itself isn’t it? The daily paper also endorsed Olman for his last term in the House in 2002, that’s also when they endorsed Maggie Thurber over Sandy Isenberg for Lucas County Commissioner…The daily endorsed Tina Skeldon Wozniak for Lucas County Commissioner in 2004 instead of Olman, who they described as “a former Maumee city council member and veteran legislator with a decent 10-year record in Columbus on behalf of suburban Toledo.”
The man who in 2006 was lauded for his devotion to pushing through the mental health parity bill, who the paper did not target from his appointment to the BOE in 2005 until 2008 is now a regular target of the daily.
What was reported in 2005 as:
The resignations were a reaction to a decision by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who called for the removal of the board members after a long investigation.
Mr. Olman is a former state representative who lost a bid in November to become a Lucas County commissioner. Mr. Kriner is a former Sylvania councilman and a onetime chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party.
Was reported in 2008 as:
The part-time job of being on the four-person elections board of directors pays $17,261 a year, plus government-paid health insurance and a public pension. The two Republican members on that board are Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman, whose original appointments were recommended and engineered by Bernadette Noe, a former party chairman, election board member, and wife of Tom Noe, who now sits in a federal prison in Florida for illegally funneling more than $45,000 into President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign.
Will those who want Stainbrook out of power continue to stand up? They are off to a rocky start though I find it disingenuous to focus on their paperwork errors considering the number of issues outstanding related to the Stainbrook faction’s time in power. Though it’s impossible to not wonder if either side can or will get it together. While a Democrat, I do share the belief that if we are going to have a two party system, the second party needs to at least be strong enough to challenge the majority’s candidates, to make sure there is a balance of power, that candidates are challenged to be the best; I just disagree with the way that theory is being put into practice.
So while editorials are opinion pieces and are not judged at the same expectation level of fairness and lack of bias as a news story, selectivity on steroids can create the unintended consequence of few listening anymore — the irony being that the very reason editors and publishers write editorials is to influence the public through the power of their readership. When they disregard the the past, disregard their own personal motivations, a quote that inspires me, as far as what to try to strive for, from Michael Kinsley comes to mind:
In any event, the proper question isn’t what a journalist thinks is relevant but what his or her audience thinks is relevant. Denying people information they would find useful because you think they shouldn’t find it useful is censorship, not journalism.
Lisa wrote:
“I am so tired of the selectivity and the lack of transparency and honesty that’s allowed to continue in our community and the most perfect example of what can only be called “selectivity on steroids” is in the editorial pages of yesterday’s daily newspaper.”
As you speak for many of us, welcome to the club of dissatisfaction with the “lack of transparency and honesty in our community.” While we need a more balanced overview of what affects the community, with more fair and balanced discussions, some of the media and organizations have decided that “opaque” is the way to go. Like bats in a cave they do not want light and consider anyone that comes into their cave with a miners cap light as intruders into their domain.
Blogs such as GCJ are like a miners cap lights. We can’t let it dim.
The more the public wants transparency the more “they” want to darken the tunnel of information. The battle is on and will continue forever. It is the oldest battle in the world. The battle of Dark vs. Light. Forgive my intrusion into the realms of mysticism but that is where we are.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pmWell, it would be better to be a light on a miner’s cap then to be the canary taken into the coal mine. Many times, the canary didn’t make it out alive.
I don’t disagree the struggle between what those in power want you to believe versus what is true has existed probably as long as man has. You’d think by now we’d have that much figured out.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pmEvery time you set out to bash Stainbrook (who I do not know personally btw), you attempt to make it sound high minded and for the good of the community.
A few things occur to me each time. First – and this just screams out for an answer – why is a Democrat so invested in protecting 2 republicans – Olman and Kriner? I read the editorial yesterday, and as a registered republican, agree holeheartedly with the Blade editor. The old guard wants to hold on to jobs that provide at public expense precisely what individuals who run their own small business desperately need – pension and full family health care beneftis. You would be amazed how many local (& national) attorneys, for one example, have their own practices ONLY because their wives work at a local corporation and provide the family with health benefits that way.
The Blade hit the nail on the head. That is what this life and death struggle is about. The benefits included with the moderate annual pay that Olman and Kriner get. Incidentally, interesting how you dismiss that, but make it somehow evil for Stainbrook to want the same job – which he has worked for.
You went back over 10 years to trot out an editorial opinion that had nothing to do with the Board of Elections – it was about when Olman represented a House district.
One other thing on the horizon is that when Kasich wins the governorship, everything at the BOE will flip to the Republicans in power. Olman and Kriner see this coming. They are desperate to hold on to their BOE positions.
Your dislike of Stainbrooks clouds your vision here. And again – that a Dem hates him, makes me think he is definitely the right guy for the job.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pmcorrecton: yes, I know it’s spelled wholeehartedly.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pmLast comment, I don’t know the rules of these central committees, but I know sleaze and underhanded when I see it. Stainbrook needs to lawyer up with a really mean attorney (a la Barbara Corcoran when Donald Trump tried to run over her like a Mack Truck). If the old guard is going to play dirty, fight back hard and mean would be my suggestion.
If you missed Barb on “Shark Tank” this summer, her book is: “Use What You’ve Got”.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:28 pmYes, as stated in one of the other comments, Olman helped for many years and helped get the Mental Health Parity
Law passed in Ohio.
However, Olman has been and is currently on the Lucas County Mental Health & Recovery Board
for quite a number of years and look at the complete mess that board, agencies, Connecting Point closing, shootings of mental health consumers,
2 mental health consumers dying of heat
strokes in a group home, etc
Has he ever publically stated anything about these tragedies? Not that I am aware of!
Olman has been on practically all types
of boards, committees, etc. He is as many others, just opens his mouth when
it suits him!
Olman, as a majority of others, politicians or whoever, follow the
December 28th, 2009 at 4:01 pmcode of silence for everything!
wholeheartedly – there, got it right
December 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pmTruthseeker for a “registered Republican” you don’t sound like one.
First, the Stain has brought the LCRP under investigation because they have dealt in a less than honest manner. A shock since he’s so vocal about Noe.
Secondly, the Stain has yet to lead the party to any success. He can’t take credit for Sarantou or Ludeman. The “organizing” he did for the party has led to bumpkiss.
The only thing he’s been successful at is threatening to sue people whenever possible and causing internal party strife. Hell he can’t even get a book published when he has an interesting idea.
Besides why would a Republican take the Bland’s side at anything? The Bland has been working to keep the Republican party as the minority party for over 40 years.
As for Lisa Renee, while she is a Democrat, I have found her to be fair. She’s a good journalist because of this and that’s why many of us committed Republicans care about her opinion and take her reporting as face value. Something we cannot do of anyone working at the Bland.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:13 pmTruthseeker – I highly doubt that either Olman or Kriner needs the cash, in fact I was under the impression that both gave most of that back to the party and to R candidates on a very regular basis. From what i have read the last paying job stainbrook had was poolboy, for a guy in his mid 40s that could be viewed as lacking in ambition to put it politely, so who do you think really needs that less than $18 K job? As for power? really? seriously? it is the Lucas County Board of Elections, not some fortune 500 that they are “desperate” to hold on to. I would also imagine that given their position in life they likely have much better things to do with their time than to have this constant battle with a troublemaker like stainbrook.
I believe that Olman and Kriner are holding those positions at the BOE for the right reasons, to ensure fair elections. Stainbrook has threatened many jobs at the BOE, many believe he wants to clean house so that he can give his unqualified street urchins positions, that would help to keep them in line and involved which would keep stainbrook in power. If their job were ti depend on him I’m sure they will do what he asks.
You say you don’t know stainbrook and from your post I am led to believe that you get most of your information from the blade. And you say you are a registered Republican? I find that hard to believe, but then again many of stainbrook’s supporters are registered R’s. You can pull any ballot that you want, nobody knows who you actually vote for. You can also say anything you want under some anonymous name on this blog, we really don’t know who you are.
Ask yourself this, the blade is obviously a left leaning paper. Why are they so incredibly interested in making sure stainbrook stays chair of the GOP? Why have they had this non stop barrage of pure b.s. with stainbrook for nearly 2 years?
And for the record, Lisa Renee has been a very fair person with this blog. You wonder why a Dem is so interested in this GOP battle? Because she has stated on this blog on many different occasions that she believes our elected officials serve us best under a strong 2 party system.
As I said in a previous post, what dirt(y) pics does stain have on block? That should be the question we are seeking the truth on.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:26 pmDD Boots – Olman is a true champion of mental health, he has a relative who suffers from mental health issues. What other board members have commented on these tragedies? Oh, maybe ben konop? Board members are not the public face of an organization, they are the decision makers on certain issues.
And for the record, Olman and I disagreed on the mental health parity bill.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:31 pmOlman has been in the public eye for
years and as long as it is something
nice about something he has has been quoted on.
Board memebers whether public or private are on those Boards as long as they go along with the Code of Silence
December 28th, 2009 at 4:41 pmas well as Public or Private Business.
By the way Meghan, Konop never makes comments regarding mental health issues
December 28th, 2009 at 4:45 pmbecause of his 5 secret reasons for not
doing so!
lol!
December 28th, 2009 at 5:11 pmBoard members, committee members politically, publicly, or private enterprises are the hidden figures believing that can make decisions when they have no knowledge or idea how an organization and or business performs
December 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pmtheir daily operations.
Interesting commentary Truthseeker, it’s a theory you’ve suggested out before, there are several problems with it. The main one being I’m not bashing Stainbrook, what I have repeatedly done is pointed out history and the selectivity factor. I understand the attempt to try to paint me as bashing him, it allows those of you who don’t want to look at the facts to ignore it and to try to discount what’s being written. It is the classic shoot the messenger syndrome.
All I’m seeking is a basic premise, if it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It’s rather simple, if someone’s history from 20 years ago that the editorial position of the paper doesn’t like matters, then those the editorial position of the paper does like should matter as well. If one paperwork not being done properly matters for one side? It should matter for the other as well. If one bench warrant matters then another bench warrant should matter, etc. If I were to come across those from my party doing this type of thing, I’d treat it the same way. Which if you should know by now, I’ve had no problem pointing out problems or concerns with “my own” — which since I do use my own name comes at a personal price, which I’m willing to pay else this isn’t worth it.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:19 pmwell said Lisa Renee!
December 28th, 2009 at 6:51 pm“I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is the best policy.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address to the People of the United States
Honestly is being out numbered in public,private affairs as with
December 28th, 2009 at 7:22 pmgovernment, Departments, Newspapers,
television & radio media, books, internet info,organizations, businesses, etc. and with their half-truths and codes of silence!
As someone who has exchanged political discussion with Lisa Renee a time or two, and likewise someone who is not a Republican; I too would like to say that I have always found her fair and willing to discuss issues, even when we disagree. I believe that she has done an admirable and honest job here of trying to present historical references to bolster her position.
That being said, I think it’s interesting that while little negative comment was made by the Blade during what could easily have been called the “Stainbrook Coup”, much is made now over the tactics used in this recent effort. It’s also interesting that discussion of old guard politics on the Republican Party appears relevant to the Blade, but not that of the Democratic Party.
What most interested me however was the characterization which the Blade made of this internal struggle, likening it to Hitler’s Brown shirts moving in on Communist party meetings; finding the reference more hysterical than historical. First, it portrays an outside group moving in rather than the internal struggle that this actually is. Second, the references to the Nazi party and the Communist party were not lost on me, and even though I am not a Republican, I found them offensive.
It appears that the Blade would like to use the very incendiary rhetoric on this subject that it and other media outlets have long decried in blogs. They hope by this, to cast aspersions on one particular side of the battle. I fear that the only one who got dirty in this editorial piece however is the Blade itself.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:33 pmThat is another facet of this discussion Tim, that you raised rather eloquently on your blog, (Link for those who have not yet read it) and some additional media coverage on that aspect from the Toledo Free Press.
I didn’t raise that as an issue, in part because the use of the word Nazi has been so overused lately that I focused on other parts of the editorial and the history. Though I did find it interesting that the Blade editorial identified the wrong DeWine, since it is Kevin, not Mike who is in charge of the Ohio Republican Party…
December 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pmLisa Renee,
I think that few would disagree that the Blade seldom lets the facts get in the way of a good story (or editorial).
Thanks for the link.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:48 pmMost people just seem to have a very
sensitive attitude and sensitive feeling for the word.
Seems to me that the word and reference to it is just to compare and make a point of one
small technique or one action or rule used by that regime and not referring to all the rules and acts of that particular
regime.
Maybe most need Sensitivity Therapy.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:58 pmMany people refer to someone as a Judas
December 28th, 2009 at 9:15 pmor John Wilkes Booth.
Does everyone in the community get so, so sensitive about that??
DD Boots,
If history has taught us anything, it is that words mean things. If those who write have learned anything from history, it is that historical references should be chosen carefully for the powerful emotions that they can awaken. This knowledge should be especially familiar to a media outlet that makes their living by the use of words.
It is therefore unsurprising that some should find referencing the tactics of Hitler and his Brown Shirts to be considered offensive when used in reference to the actions of members of a political party in this country considering the historical facts.
And yes, there is a sensitivity to some words more than other, as some would and should be considered more offensive in use. Editors of newspapers, who are taught the skilled use of language should be especially sensitive to potential abuse and take careful advantage of their “bully pulpit”.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:05 pmI guess then one needs to refrain from mentioning or referring to the
December 28th, 2009 at 10:23 pmCivil War, Pearl Harbor, or the
American Indian Wars, viet Nam, etc because I know
many people when someone is referring to any of those they are sensitive to it and find it offensive.
There’s a bit of a difference, if you compared someone to Jeffrey Dahlmer, they might take issue, as an example. Referencing historical events where people died is a bit different than comparing someone to Hitler, or Brown Shirts or Nazi’s. People do get offended when they are compared to that, as you saw not long ago when you used the word Nazi, DD. People have used that word here enough inappropriately that it’s one of the words that triggers moderation, so that I can try to prevent the more outrageous uses of it from taking us off topic.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:43 pmTim Higgens #23
“It is therefore unsurprising that some should find referencing the tactics of Hitler and his Brown Shirts to be considered offensive when used in reference to the actions of members of a political party in this country considering the historical facts.’
The use of some of these historic incidents and especially the trigger words of the Hitler/brown shirt tactic, are used as a convenient but unintelligent scare tactic by those that can not make a sound assessment or interpretation of what they see. Using these terms are extremely poor examples of what we have here in Toledo or elsewhere in USA politics. It is the same maximum scare tactics used by both political parties when describing the president or a political party when they lack solid argument. The purpose is to try to connect the worse fears and memories of a horrific event to the action of the current opposition to whatever or whomever they are against. It is called a “cheap shot” when it is not even close to the political actions taken. It is the same as trying to frighten children when all parenting skills have failed with the Boogie Man story by telling them that the ‘Boogie man will eat them if they don’t eat their spinach. If we were talking about the extermination of an ethnic group or an attempt at world domination it would apply. But in the case of local politics it is more akin to the antics of Machiavelli, union busting (without violence) or just plain old politics. Those that run to the Hitler/brown shirt scare lack the ability to really label what they see and cop out with those old scare tactics. When I see people run to these tactics I usually dismiss them and find more intelligent discourse as I realize that they do not know how to form an opinion on the situation. Although I know that it will be with us forever, I thought the subject was current political journalism in Toledo and the use or misuse of it. I was enjoying this until the old scare tactic/name calling became a diversion from this much needed discourse.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:30 amDifferent assessments and interpretations can be made by people of any spoken or written words. Some will see them as a scare tactic others see them in another perspective as a one time comparison or any other interpreation their unconscience mind puts with it.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:02 amAnd still we come back to the point that the editors at the Blade are supposedly well-educated journalists who are expected to do proper fact checking before going to print. They are also supposed to be well trained professionals who should understand better than most the effect of such inflammatory comments when they make them. I therefore find it interesting that they would fail to do such fact checking (something Lisa Renee has proven herself extremely able at) and sink to a level of discourse that she has stated would trigger moderation on her blog.
If this is the level of journalism and editorial credibility that the Blade now aspires to, perhaps we we should grant it to them and treat their product accordingly.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:48 amDD BOOTS #27 Says:
“Different assessments and interpretations can be made by people of any spoken or written words. Some will see them as a scare tactic others see them in another perspective as a one time comparison or any other interpreation their unconscience mind puts with it.”
According to Freud, the mind can be divided into two main parts:One of them is the “unconcsious mind.”
2. The unconscious mind is a reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that outside of our conscious awareness. Most of the contents of the unconscious are unacceptable or unpleasant, such as feelings of pain, anxiety, or conflict. According to Freud, the unconscious continues to influence our behavior and experience, even though we are unaware of these underlying influences.
wwforlife;
December 29th, 2009 at 11:22 amthat is my point. That when people resort to the recesses of the mind and lack the ability to form opinions based on the facts__as they see them__ they resort to scare tactics and are unaware of the real underlying influence that makes them use these standard scare tactics. To compare the tactics of Hitler in this blog on journalism is an admission that there is a lack of reasoning by someone on the Toledo journalism question so let the unconscious mind dig up a little fear tactic from World War II. And unless it is a discussion on ethnic cleansing, cruelty, evilness or an attempt at world domination, it seems to me to be out of place in this Toledo journalism discussion. This is my last comment on this subject as I look forward to a continued discussion on journalism here in Toledo. DD__ I hope I don’t lose you on other subjects that we might agree on.
Is is “news” like this that has caused The Blade to fall to the brink of insolvency. They have been so unfair and so devoid of intellectual honesty for so long that people like me and others simply choose to get fair and balanced reporting from other sources. As long as they continue to write stories that a 4th grader can identify the agenda and don’t even try to reach a higher standard of writing and debate people will continue to not read it. They are barely hanging on by their fingernails as it is. Keep up this kind of garbage and they will eventually be a distant memory.
I predicted the Blade’s position the night Stainbrook was voted out. I knew they couldn’t resist defending their boy to the death and being completely devoid of even a shred of balance in covering this issue.
Stainbrook is a failure on multiple levels and I sincerely hoping that he will soon be a ex-chairman and can check off one more failure next to his long list he already has.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pmThe paragraph that starts “There are people out there…” employs a tactic that a professional journalist would never use. That paragraph in particular is filled with hearsay and innuendo. These “sources” are neither enumerated nor identified. Anybody can do that. Like this:
There are “people out there” who think Olman & Kriner need to go – many people – many people not connected with or acquainted with Stainbrook think these two need to go. There are people out there who have had bad experiences with some of the old guard players the Blade identified in their long piece during the summer article (July I think it was, don’t have the article with me) – people whose experiences could easily back up the comment reported about politics being a man’s game. But these people don’t want to publicly comment for various reasons – including possible retaliation by current BOE Board members.
See how that works? Then there is the selectivity issue. The Blade article from the summer (2 page article) mentioned that one of the Democrat Board members was quoted as saying to the Blade that he felt Stainbrook was treated unfairly. Never mentioning something like that when you are conducting your “fair and balanced” vendetta against Stainbrook is kind of selective.
Meghan I didn’t say Kriner & Olman need cash – and you know that very well. Your tactic of, in effect, misquoting what I actually said about insurance benefits (solid gold benefits, by the way), is what people who debate emotionally generally do. The Blade editorial pointed out very well why these benefits are desirable. And beside that (am laughing at this point), how do you know what Kriner’s, Olman’s or anyone else’s financial situations are?
December 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pmActually Truthseeker you are wrong again, Olman actually had better health insurance under PERS than the county.
Then again, it’s clear you are not really interested in facts only what you want to believe.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pmp.s. – the constantly repeated (in every single Stainbrook posting) insult about somebody being a “pool boy”. In addition to being incredibly snobbish, displays a large degree of immaturity.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pmAm missing your point LR – PERS or the County. They are both paid by taxpayers. Do you mean he had other continuing insurance from when he had other public jobs – that he could have kept? And that he dumped in favor of less insurance?
Well if that’s the case, then the Blade had some important facts dead wrong. I don’t think so. What evidence can you show that he was eligible for better insurance than he gets as a BOE Board member?
December 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pmPerhaps you should read what’s been written on the blog since last night.
.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pmTruthseeker…you are wrong! PERS benefits are not paid for by taxpayers. Members contribute to PERS every payday while they are employeed in order to pay for benefits when they retire. Since you are seeking the truth, perhaps this will help in your quest.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:49 pmBob, just in case you are also seeking the truth, “perhaps” THIS will help you in YOUR quest…
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/09/equalize_state_employee_taxpay.html
Ohio taxpayer contribution rate to pers is 14%, whereas you posted above “PERS benefits are not paid for by taxpayers. So I guess I’m not, um, “wrong”.
In the past 20 years I have, by the way, gotten 2 PERS refunds – one for a job I was on for 2 years, the other for a shorter term job at a govt facility.
As for #35 – still waiting for dollar-to-dollar comparison and official-documentation proof as to how much each plan included. All I see is a post by “somebody” without any specifics provided.
Also wondering why a grown man (Mr. Olman) can’t speak for himself as to why he is holding on so hard to a position he supposedly doesn’t in any way need for any reason. Why are FOL’s (friends of Lyn) feeding their arguments to a local blogger, instead of the man himself making his case. In my opinion, that’s what a real man would do.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:28 pmConsidering you don’t use your own name, I find it funny that you’d challenge someone on the virtues of being a “real man” — not to mention if you bothered to read the other material shared, this information had been given to at least one Blade reporter. They never felt it was important to share, hence giving to a local blogger, who actually happens to have a larger readership than most of the weekly papers in the area…
So first you blame me for being biased, then when information is shared that was not presented by the traditional media, then you blame the person instead of the media source. Not to mention the other information you got wrong, such as the insurance not being different…FOL didn’t “feed” me anything, as I clearly stated, I was in communication with him, and if what is reported here has no value? Then why waste your time here and why should anyone waste their time pointing out information to you?
December 29th, 2009 at 7:39 pmThe Blade article I mentioned is dated July 19, 2009. There are many facts in that article that you have repeatedly ignored LR.
Just one of many:
“Democrat Gary Johnson, one of the four elections board members, told the Blade that he b elieves some former elections board staffers were unfair intheir treatment of Mr. Stainbrook and his associates in the lead-up to his 2008 chairmanship….
Citing an example of improper behavior, Mr. Johnson recalled how Ms Kelly in April, 2008 allowed Wack, then the county GOP’s executive director, to file a legal notice for the GOP’s organizational meeting after the election board’s 4:30 p.m. closing time, a violation of office policy.
“I didn’t think that was fair”, Mr. Johnson said. I felt that was abusing the power of the office and I made that known.” [Jill Kelly] declined to comment on Mr. Johnson’s recent accusation.”
The July 19,2009 Blade article was a 2-page fact filled piece. But since many of those facts diametrically oppose the hate-filled picture you constantly paint of Stainbrook, you simply ignore those facts. Thereby kind of disqualifying as a judge of who and who does not ignore facts.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:46 pm2 things – you staked out a position opposing Stainbrook and allowing all kinds of real nasty posts directed at him that you don’t allow to be directed at others in the political arena. So if you wanted your opinion to prevail and anyone disagreeing with you to not post – ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS SAY SO.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pmNice attempt at subterfuge but it again has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. I never said everything that was reported was wrong, I’ve consistently pointed out what I’ve taken issue with or had concerns on.
You are the one who has a problem with admitting when you have been wrong and who makes ludicrious challenges regarding “real men”.
Which still has me laughing.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:51 pm2 things – you staked out a position opposing Stainbrook and allowing all kinds of real nasty posts directed at him that you don’t allow to be directed at others in the political arena. So if you wanted your opinion to prevail and anyone disagreeing with you to not post – ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS SAY SO.
My personal observation is that you can’t handle it when people challenge your views, particularly when you rely on emotion rather than facts. If someone else (not just me by any means) offers facts or fact-filled links, and they do not agree with your feelings, you simply ignore them.
I and others posting with handles are not public figures at the public trough. Lyn Olman is a public figure, collecting pay from the public. And we who have liked to hear him defend himself publicly have waited in vain.
I’ve said before, anytime you want only real names, say the word. But that would be a problem, from the standpoint that you appear to “think” you want debate to make your blog more visited and interesting. The evidence suggests you can’t handle debate. Too bad you don’t want anyone taking Stainbrook’’s side – but you should have indicated that up front, and I wouldn’t have bothered you and your syncophants.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:54 pmAw come on, you are a “real man” surely you can handle a little debate on the internet. I’ve never said anyone has to agree with me, some don’t but you clearly can’t handle debating facts.
Which is okay, but you could at least be honest enough to admit that I’m not the problem. I enjoy a good challenge and a good debate based on facts rather than just opinions.
You can try to put words from my fingers all you want, but I’ve been pretty clear as far as my motivations. Just as I know yours, the difference is I guess I’m more of a “real man” – lmao. You are the one who has constantly dissed me, but I seem to not be the one who’s lost my cool.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pmre real names – the meaning there was – say the word, and those who do not want to be identified and harrassed, or even stalked, including myself, can quietly drop out.
The fact is you can’t stand to be challenged. The reason most people (who even know about this blog) don’t contribute here is because they know if they don’t agree with you they will be attacked.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:03 pmI can handle being challenged, I’ve done this for years against those who relished debate just as much as I do, when it’s real debate…This isn’t real debate, though it is mildly amusing.
Which you are again changing the topic. You are the one who has constantly dissed me and my blog and now dropped this whole “real man” thing down. Which we should explore since you don’t appear to want to talk about the facts.
Can a “real man” not use his name on the internet? If Olman should address you guys directly, shouldn’t he have the same right to know who you are? What else should a “real man” do? Are there differences between “real men” who are Republicans and Democrats? Do you open doors for women?
December 29th, 2009 at 8:11 pm{{{watching screen intensely}}}
December 29th, 2009 at 8:29 pmMr. Seeker…the 14% taxpayer contribution to PERS which you cite is a negotiated part of a labor agreement in most cases. Some contracts are less.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:34 pmKind of like any product that you purchase includes in the markup dollars for employee benefits. By the way, you sound like you had a bad day.
Just to clarify the PERS issues from someone who is currently (for only two more days!) paying into PERS. Under PERS, the employer (the government) pays a percentage – I think it’s currently 14% in to the retirement fund, while the employee pays a percentage – currently at around 10% I believe. Some unions have negotiated contracts whereby the employer pays both the employer and employee portion (or a part thereof). So, 24% of a government employee’s salary/wages goes in to PERS, from some source.
The ‘refund’ truthseeker is referring to, I believe, is not really a refund – it is an employee’s option (up until a certain length of service) to ‘withdraw’ the portion of contribution that the employee paid in while working once employment is terminated. This amount can also be rolled over in to an IRA instead of a cash withdrawal. So the ‘refund’ is basically an early withdrawal of retirement funds, kind of like taking money out of your IRA early – you get hit with a penalty and income tax on the amount taken out. An employee (or former employee) can not withdraw that portion of contribution paid in to PERS by the employer; that is forfeited and goes to support the system as a whole. (Not sure about the situations where the employer pays both employer and employee portion – whether that ‘employee’ portion is subject to withdrawal after separation from employment.)
December 29th, 2009 at 11:26 pmThanks DeeDee, I’ve spent some time reading information at the PERS website as well.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:30 amDDL – Yes the percentages are stated in the link I provided in #37. My own paperwork, which I still have, calls it a “refund”. I only included that personal comment to indicate that I’m not personally completely in the dark about PERS.
One thing should be clarified, as my posts were intended to defend Stainbrook and the Blade’s grasp of facts. A long-time friend who was peripherally involved in Ohio politics a couple decades ago e-mailed me, in part, the following last nite:
“In answer to your question, yes, I believe the Blade was on solid ground in saying that Mr. Olman doesn’t want to give up his county-paid insurance. What they did on the blog was adroitly change the subject on you. The Blade and you were talking about 2009, in the event Stainbrook deposed Olman. Whereas, they turned the discussion back to a question of whether Olman took the position to get the insurance, which of course he didn’t, thereby making him appear unconcerned about losing insurance now in 2009, which of course he is not (not unconcerned that is).”
December 30th, 2009 at 2:30 pmOh, by the way, my name is Frances Smith….
[watching screen intensely]
December 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pmMs. Seeker…I stand corrected on your gender.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:15 pmbobmc – actually I was making a personal point, and the person I was making the point to knows who they are, although they appear to be a little shaky on privacy and stalking laws.
Anyway – here’s something you may not have considered about the blogosphere. Just because somebody posts with a name like, say bobmc, or samantha, I never assume that the first is a guy and the 2nd a gal. That the first reason I choose non-gender-specific handles – as do the majority of posters on the majority of posting sites. The second reason is that I believe ideas should stand or fall on their own. The only thing about most online discussions that interest me is what is being stated or argued. I couldn’t care less whether you or anyone else are a man or woman, have a good paying job, drive an expensive car or anything else. If you are not a public figure, collecting money from the taxpayer – I don’t even want to know. I only care what the argument or discussion at hand is, and how people defend their positions.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pmPerhaps if you did not share advice on what a “real man” was it would have not created the gender confusion.
Your long time friend is incorrect on the insurance aspect, as previously pointed out, I’ve actually spoken to Mr. Olman on this. Further, it’s not logical to expect someone who had better coverage for free would want to keep less that comes at a cost. It’s also been told to at least one Blade reporter who has opted to not include that in any of the coverage.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pmGo ahead and yell at me Lisa, or delete my post,or give me a time out.. but truly, truthseeker, Francis, Mr. or Mrs. Smith…
(admin delete)
I’m sorry, I know name calling is a sign of ignorance but I just can’t take it.
Sorry, forgive me, I apologize but I don’t regret writing it. It needed to be said. UGH!
December 30th, 2009 at 5:22 pm