Netiquette...There's An Illusion

Let's talk about Net etiquette for a moment...since I may have violated it. I have been told that the Internet is the "Wild West," and that I should not expect any salvation in my demands for openness and the ability to face one's accuser. In fact, it seems that to demand the identity of persons placing nasty posts is tantamount to shredding the Constitution..so I am told.

Some context. In response to my blog discussion about another poster's Third Reich comment in a private forum, it was written IN PART on www.coffeenot.com that:

"I am deeply sorry that I provided you with ammunition that you have chosen to use to again set people against one another and inflame passions. Shame on me also, for not considering that my comments could make it to the web at large, although it is a breach of netiquette to post material from a private forum on a publicly accessible webpage, as it is a breach of netiquette to publicly post private e-mail correspondence. However, I ask you, how does posting a comment from a members-only forum on your blog page, and then challenging readers to attack you for doing so, “heighten and further” discussion of issues important to the town?"

Keep your netiquette and hold it close, because if I had made that post on any forum or in any e-mail, it would have been posted by the opposition in every possible place. If you believe that Internet etiquette would have saved me, please reconsider your position.

I did not challenge anyone to attack me. Indeed, I have become accoustomed to it and have come to expect it from those who have delighted in doing so, because, as one of you has already stated (a director of CFO), I make it so easy, and they believe it irritates me. There is a rationale that breeds trust and open discourse--not. I have been attacked regardless of whether I make any postings and even when I am not involved in the issue, which certainly gives me a bit of freedom. Do you see no fault in yourselves? Is everything as black and white as you profess?

As to providing ammunition, ammunition for what? The comment made was not a terrible comment, and as I said, it was an academic analogy. I am Jewish (I didn't just live in a Jewish neighborhood), and a member of the BOS and a member of Town Meeting. Do I really think you were saying that I am tantamount to being a member of the Third Reich? I guess if I were over-sensitive and looking for a way to attack you, I could say that your comment was anti-semitic and offensive. However, I believe better. By the way, has MR reported you to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League yet? I think not. Has she called any persons with whom you have business relations yet to indicate that you are somehow an anti-semite? Imagine that, an antisemitic jew.

Your comment seemed to be your frustration with the proposed resort and other failings of the municipal government. However, realize that much rage has been personally directed at me and my family by people that you support. I am treated as if I were some sort of a Svengali that hypnotized an entire BOS, Town Meeting and many others to support this project. I only wish that I had the immense influence and power that opponents have ascribed to me in making me the focus of often cruel discourse. I seek no sympathy (I chose to run for election and I made my choices), I only raised this issue to show that it is not really the message that people are attacking, it is the medium and the messenger. Look at the fact that you made the post and I am being criticized for discussing it--and the etiquette issue is simply a red-herring and you know it.

As to openness of discussion and debate--that takes mutual respect and the ability to not only see the faults of your prey, but yourself. I will never be able to convince a true believer (of which there are few), but I will continue to have open discourse with anyone wishing to do so on the level of respectful disagreement. As a Selectman, regardless of the opposition and what it has said or done, I will continue to make inroads to provide more access and transparency to Town Government. It is why I originally ran, and I now may be in a position to make it happen. The casino has NOTHING to do with this goal, and it must be accomplished whether the casino comes or not. I am perfectly able to separate my feelings here from my charge as Selectman.

As to the coercion issue, you call it what you want, since this is a matter of opinion (until such time as it is adjudicated through the long and arduous process of litigation). But logically--assuming that your allegations are true that the businessman was wrong--are those people who have done wrong undeserving of protection of the law, or in your world, once you have opined that someone is bad, are they subject to the whim of any pack of predators who wish to tear them apart by potentially illegal means. Are you actually advocating that allegedly bad people are not protected by the law.

It All Depends on Who Says it

In discussion on the topic of the Middleborough Town Meeting Articles, there was a comment by
fiferstone Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:21 pm

Hi Nemasket:
Sounds like a stock statement, sorta like the Reichstag convening once a year to rubber-stamp Herr Schickelgruber's emergency executive powers. After voting in favor of the extension, it dissolved itself for another year. Believe it or not, that's how the National Socialist "Government" operated in Nazi Germany, Hitler ruled by "emergency" fiat. Anyone who doesn't believe me can look it up, I recommend "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer, an American journalist who was in Nazi Germany and witnessed the rise of the Nazi party firsthand...but I digress. Seriously, the bit that scares me is the "by other means" bit. In other words, raid the emergency fund for ongoing expenses. The main thing that we do wrong around here.

Is this a Godwin issue? Is the Town's Town Meeting process being compared to Nazi Germany? Are the BOS being compared to "Herr Schickelgruber" and other evil men of the Nazi regime?
I really DO NOT think so. This is a historical analogy and an academic point.

However, I imagine that anyone with an opposing agenda could take great offense to this statement and try to pull the greatest amount of controversy and coverage as possible to slam fiferstone for this analogy. I have heard none--nor do I expect to. In fact, I actually expect that having pointed this out in a friendly way will simply create more criticism aimed at me. Can the nay sayers resist--I think not. Have at it!

New Town Manager Selection

I have gotten a lot of flack for the fact that I did not vote for Mr. D'Agostino, and that my choice was Mr. Cristello. For those nay sayers, I suggest that they read the entire Court file of the proceedings to get the flavor of the matter, rather than rely on blogs and newspapers--both of which generally have a dubious relationship with "fact." Also, ask yourself the hypothetical question: When seeking the CEO of a company--who is, among other things, charged with the hiring and firing of employees--do you select someone with a verdict against them and their prior employer? My view is that we have enough controversy in our own "company" and that what we need is a little more of a low key managerial environment.

I looked for a steady hand, not an iron fist, and I welcome Mr. Cristello into our Town, and wish the best to Mr. D'Agostino, who is a highly talented, well spoken individual. I have no doubt that he will prosper in anything that he does.

And by the way, Pat Rogers and Steve Spataro deserve credit for making the choice unanimous. They acted in the best interests of the Town and impressed me with their incredible professionalism in the action they took. Thanks guys.

Extortion and Coercion

According to Wikipedia:

"Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either unlawfully obtains money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution through coercion or intimidation or threatens a person, entity, or institution with physical or reputational harm unless he is paid money or property. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] additionally, exact in its formal definition means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]"

Fact pattern: Engage someone personally on the Internet. Blog about them to the point of damaging their reputation and business, and have that blog linked by several other sites at the same time. Then demand from the target of your blogging something of value in order for you to stop the blogging and take down the offensive material you posted in the first place. Sound familiar? Sound like coercion?

Discussion: At what point does the insanity stop? At what point do those people controlling their blogs begin to use a filter and stop acting on bitterness and rage. This is a completely unproductive pursuit, by people who apparently believe that free speech includes the right to scream "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. While God may have given man free will, he also gave man a conscience to be able to measure his actions appropriately.

Other concepts that should be looked at: Prima facie tort; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; defamation per se (4 categories where defamation is presumed to have damages); and common decency.

Have an Internet nightmare to share? Please provide it to the site, and we can blog about it. I won't accept anonymous comments, but I can post them without identification if you wish.

Removal of Links

Some of you may notice that I have removed some of the links that I previously had listed on this blog. I have done so due to objectionable content on those blogs. I have included the casinofacts website among the deletions because they continue to link to blogs that are printing objectionable content despite the emotional distress it has caused the targeted individuals. As it stands, I believe that they diminish themselves and their message by continuing to condone any form of politics of personal destruction.

Its the Historical Significance...Oh! No, its not, actually!

A recent e-mail received regarding the BIA meeting argued strongly against the land going into trust, and really focused in on the historic:

Mr. Bond,

I would like to retort the comment you made publicly in the record of the BIA hearing. Firstly, I will briefly comment on the second portion of your statement and be more specific later.

By virtue of the prevailing philosophy of Native Americans, no one has "ownership" of the land, but are only stewards of the land. This I am sure is what you meant to say as this is common knowledge and would apply to the Mashpee. Therefore the point would be a matter of presence and tribal territory, not ownership. The Mashpee Tribe owned no land at any point until after the plantation or reservation of Mashpee was established in or about 1658 as an Indian praying town. http://capecodhistory.us/Deyo/Mashpee-Deyo.htm More on that later.

In regards to [a certain family's] ancestral "ownership" or presence in Southeastern MA (including Middleborough and in Lakeville), this is well documented both in Middleborough and Plymouth County records. Without having to search with much labor, you can go to the Middleborough Public Library on the corner of N. Main and Peirce Streets, not far from Thomas S. Peirce Playground, and view a copy of "The Peirce Family of the Old Colony" by Ebenezer W. Peirce, 1870. Other books he has written are: "Peirce's Colonial Lists" and "Indian History, Biography and Genealogy" (An on line version you can view here: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~massasoit/book.htm. It was published by Zerviah G. Mitchell, a direct decedent of Massasoit.) amongst other books. If you are history buff, you will find Ebenezer somewhat of a colorful writer who doesn't mince his words and personal convictions. I'm sure it could be said of any family ancestry that there are colorful characters. Also, I'm sure you are familiar with The Peirce Trustees who have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to activities and organizations in Middleborough for a great many years and may have access to other information on the Peirce Family as they relate to our area.

Now, more on the Mashpee Tribe. As I stated during the hearing, I am not disputing the Mashpee's existence in the colonial times, that their "ownership" ended nor their right to reservation in Mashpee. I am not disputing their affiliation with the Wampanoag Confederacy (or Nation) under Massasoit, who was a Pokanoket. There were numerous tribes under his jurisdiction and Mashpee was one of them. There was at least a village of Mashpee before 1658 and other tribes on the Cape at the time. There are some that would claim they were never a tribe before 1658 or after, I tend to disagree with that assertion. Even if evidence showed that they weren't before 1658, that doesn't mean they couldn't have become one after 1658 with the terms of final determination still applying. I have not seen any overwhelming evidence they weren't. My bone of contention is this: Does the Mashpee have a right as a tribe to land in Middleborough? Are they Wampanoaq, yes, but so are the Pokanoket, the Aquinnah (Gay Head), Nauset and Nantucket to name the few most common. As you know, the Mashpee and the Gay Head Wampanoaq are currently the only federally recognized tribes in the the state, although others are still making that attempt. Just because the Mashpee are Wampanoag, it does not mean they had tribal presence or influence over areas other than Mashpee. There is no evidence of such that I can find in any verifiable authenticated record. If you or anyone else has access to such records, I would like to see them. The Gay Head Wampanoaq would vigorously refute any Mashpee claim to Martha's Vineyard, since that area was also Wampanoag, but claimed only to Gay Head. That is why the members of the Pokanokets & Massachets strongly oppose any such claim by the Mashpee.

Massasoit's descendants, being Pokanoket, lived for several generations in the Assawompset Pond area. If you read [the books] referenced above, you will see that is true. Also,In the Mashpee's Final Determination (http://mashpeewampanoagtribe.com/PDF%20Files/mashpee_final_determination.pdf) there is no mention of Middleborough or any other surrounding communities where their presence or territory is documented through the criteria for recognition. There is no evidence of such. Have members of the Mashpee Tribe ever lived within the area? Yes, (Ebenezer makes note of one instance, but only for 2 generations and then leaves no descendants after that), but not under tribal or ancestral influence. The center of their heritage has always been Mashpee and that is where they always return, if some members lived any where else. It would be like, just because I once owned land in Boston that I have some claim to Boston Common as my rightful domain. I'd be laughed out of town.

The federal government recognizes the separation of Wampanoag tribes and their heritages by recognizing them as separate tribes. Would the logic for claiming Middleborough as "home" apply if the Gay Head Tribe, also being Wampanoag, laid claim to that land as "home" for them as well hold up under scrutiny? Of course not, they could make the same assertions that the Mashpee do, but it wouldn't hold up. You would have a real Indian war then. Gay Head and Mashpee fighting for the same plot of land.

That is why I oppose the land proposed in Middleborough to be taken into trust as initial reservation. They and you may disagree, but from my research they are not coming home. Their home is Mashpee.

Sincerely,

XXXXX

In response, I wanted to find out if the issue is really historic or simply an opposition to a casino, dressed up in the garb of an academic argument. So I responded:

While I recognize the implied altruism of your position on this matter, would your position on the project be any different if the Mashpee project were a commercial casino on land that the Mashpee purchased in Middleborough through private sale and/or auction? Am I to presume that a commercial Casino venture on that Middleborough land would not drive you to opposition because it would have no historical implications?



I look forward to your response and further dialogue on this matter.



Adam M. Bond



The response was telling: The land into trust opponent responded:


Mr. Bond,

I would still be in opposition on numerous grounds. I have moral objections, some economic and some environmental impact objections to casinos and do oppose them on all those grounds as well. I'm sure you have heard them all. I've heard all the benefits, but still chose to oppose. If the sight was of some significant historical value that would be destroyed, I could then still be opposed on those grounds with a commercial casino as well. The catalyst for my opposition is the casino. The source at the moment is the Indian gaming laws. I may not have cared as much otherwise, if a casino was not involved, but it is, so I am. Many do not believe casinos are bad, but I do as do many others.


In my opinion, this is a scrupulous and honest man, who is holding to his convictions and has the ability to communicate his opposition in a clear and concise manner. My issue is that I believe that his opposition to the land into trust would not be so, if the Mashpee were seeking it as reservation land for the purpose of creating a living village, a wildlife preserve, or some other less controversial development, with which he agreed.

His position loses credibility--for me--where his opposition is to the casino, and his rationale is steeped in something other than his main basis for opposition. It makes me question the impartiality of his research. However, as I said above, this person is clearly honest and intelligent, and I thought that others should have the pleasure of viewing this exchange.

The Wampanoags Are People Too

Seems to me, from today's show, that the Wampanoags are pursuing that often cited American dream, in precisely the way that the Federal Government gave them--after they had put in their bid for recognition. They did not shoot for recognition to get gambling--the opportunity was given to them. In much the same way we are trying to deal with our demons of health care, education, culture, heritage, etc., they also seem to be grasping for their brass ring. In the same way that we each find the best way to provide for our families, they have found a way.

It became clear to me today that it is not JUST about money for the sake of money, but that it is about the opportunity and relief that the revenue will provide the Tribe to govern itself and prepare and secure its future. Self determination, as well as self sufficiency will lead to a greater sense of identity and dignity for these people. This is a step forward for a conquered people, that our ancestors conquered and/or erradicated. Think of it as restitution, of sorts, for the anglo-american history that began here only hundreds of years ago.

Someone stated at the BIA meeting that "no one wants to live near a casino." Today, there were several people who will, and claim to do so willingly (including myself). I do appreciate those people who give the other side of the story--even if they do sometimes speak in untrue absolutes to make their point. However, there does need to be some recognition that the Tribe has a certain right to its future, even at some cost to its neighbors.

I know that this is not a technical argument citing facts and figures. However, when you begin to consider the faces of the people being opposed--and to oppose their source of revenue and future as determined by the Feds is to oppose them--you may begin to appreciate that the money is emblematic of raw opportunity for the Tribe.

We are all capitalists in one way or another. We each may even work for capitalists from whom we earn our paychecks. Our economy is made up of people who exploit limited resources and prey on human weakness (e.g., oil companies, liquor companies)and who leave in their wake all kinds of very nasty impacts, which they never even attempt to mitigate. The difference here...in my opinion...is that the result will be the restoration of a conquered people to a level that will sustain them for years to come.

As to Middleborough...I still believe that Middleborough will fare well. Its an opinion. I also believe that we will enjoy a ccertain level of prosperity if we are careful in how we use this revenue stream. I know...I am skeptical of what we will do with the revenues also. However, our shortcomings are not the responsibility of the Tribe...we own our faults and they are ours to repair.

In any event, I learned some new things from my guests and was pleased. I do note that Mark was a little ticked at the "lack of balance," but I did do a CFO show (and hope to do another one). Also, I am not the news, and I though the phone in questions were very good, and helped to raise some of the opposition issues--how much are the impacts really; how much will the revenues be net, net, net;and won't the jobs really be going to flunkies of the investors and leave nothing for anyone buut the Tribe.