Thursday, December 27, 2007

Looking for the Blog that Miro Cernetig Mentioned in his Column on the Barring of Bill Simpson ?

[Photo: Vancouver Sun]

Looking for the blog that Vancouver Sun columnist, Miro Cernetig, mentioned in his Dec. 24th Vancouver Sun column on the barring of William "Bill" Simpson from Carnegie Center? This is it.
Cernetig wrote about the Downtown Eastside Enquirer, although he avoided actually mentioning it’s name. We knew that Cernetig had interviewed Simpson and was writing a column about his barring from Carnegie after being accused of being linked to the DTES Enquirer blog. Simpson told us.

Related stories:

City of Vancouver Bars Elected Blogger From Board Meetings

City on "weak, weak ground" in Barring Elected Blogger

25 comments:

oneanon said...

Probably just a typo, but you've got the "n" and the "t" reversed in Cernetig's name.

Yes, so is he a little wary of using your name, or maybe he wants to headline you in the next article after he's checked with his lawyer. He does like your blog and I've heard that he thinks you're a much better writer than the editor of the Carnegie Newsletter.

Anonymous said...

In writing about this situation, even though he himself has been mentioned in less than glowing terms in this blog, he showed he has the ethics that the City should emulate. A big person, an ethical person, acts on principal, not spite, and he has clearly showed that being mentioned on the blog does not, and should not, preclude a person's actions toward righting the wrongs that are also mentioned in this blog. I thought it showed a lot of integrity that he did that.

oneanon said...

I don't think it's a matter of letting William in for some Christmas cheer, and by the way I was there yesterday a couple of times and it seemed to be business as usual. I didn't see any indication that staff were getting into the "holiday spirit" on Christmas Eve. You know, like donning Santa hats and maybe going around and actually talking to the members maybe handing out candy canes or whatever and spreading some goodwill, acting like they actually wanted to be there and knew how to have a good time with the people they are there to help. I did see the Director having a fairly serious looking tete a tete with the president of the board though - maybe after reading the Sun article.

I think Mr. Cernetig needs to dig a little deeper if he thinks that William would actually go in just on the offer of "fruitcake and coffee". I don't see William going in at all until some process has been gone through to expose and air all the issues related to his barring first from the Learning Centre and then from the building.

I've emailed the mayor and the other papers with the link to the article, and stuck a few copies of the article up. I hope others will talk it up so the issue doesn't get dropped now that the Sun has shed it's light on it. Speaking of others or the Simpson issue supporters - where are they? Your blog gets some comments, but not as many as I would have thought given what you hear about disgruntled Carnegie members. How many are there out there who acually think this was wrong what happened to William? Why aren't they speaking up? Now's the time.

I want to see fairness in the treatment of all members and I support any efforts to resolve the issue of how William was treated at the Carnegie. However, I don't support the way William goes about doing whatever it is that he seems to want to do with his website and his ideas. I don't have enough experience to comment about his views about how the system works or doesn't, but I have to say that I find him too forceful, too defensive when challenged and too self-centred in his motives in spite of what he says about what he's doing and why.

Look at the quote from William at the end of the article, "If I get back in, I'm going to organize the other Carnegie Centre's members and kick that entire board out." That kind of bravado does not endear me to him or his "cause", and what about RD - is he going to kick her off too? And where is any mention of people who came to his defense, including RD? And why does he have to wait until he gets back in to rally his supporters? Why isn't he working right now toward organizing and enlisting support for a new board to be elected at the next AGM? His own handling of the issue of his own barring has been inconsistent to say the least.

There was a recent email exchange between William and the board with one Director in particular answering on their behalf. In William's last response to the the Director (the self-appointed moral and legal authority speaking on behalf of the board) he suggested that this person "check his heart more carefully". Well, I say William could also benefit from a little serious self analysis.

By the way, RS, you get dishonourable mention in that email. Nothing you can't handle though, I'm sure. Kudos to you and RD for staying on this story.

oneanon said...

David Berner's blog has a bit of action on it too.

http://thebernermonologues.blogspot.com/2007/12/povertarians.html

http://thebernermonologues.blogspot.com/2007/12/elizabeth-james-posts-in.html

dag said...

Most people likely have some sympathy for William Simpson as a person, especially at this time of year, Christmas and freezing, he being shut out from a city-run and tax-payer funded public building. Bill is an identifiable face to put to this story, a likable face, too; but the story goes way beyond Bill the homeless individual to the very depths of City Hall and even deeper, right int the nature of povertarianism. Who the Hell do these people think they are? How can a city employee making $104,000 per year, (that we know of,) put on an act of being "poor" and then, rather than do her job as a baby-sitter of adults, simply bar a guy who pisses her off for being associated, however loosely, with a blog that shows the woman to be lazy and incompetent and spiteful? Simpson is out in the cold, and the povertarians who "celebrate" those who are unemployed -- or dysfunctional to the point of being incapable of feeding themselves -- professional ideologues who promote the virtues of socialism and sharing (other people's money and labour) dump on a guy like Bill.

Tax-payer: What are you getting for your money? Bill Simpson is just one case of abuse by the ideologues who use emotional black-mail against the city's residents to squeeze money to pay their $104.000 per year salaries. This whole business sucks, and those who pay for it should be demanding some looking into the way their money is paying a clique of yupppie povertarians who bounce a homeless guy into the cold just because they can and no one says boo but a blogger.

The columnist above, Miro, at the risk of misspelling his name, is doing the city's tax-payers a big good service in bringing this case to the larger public. It's now up to the public to look at it and draw some intelligent conclusions: That the povertarians have made "poverty" a romantic concept in the public mind and media; that the povertarians are hippies who pretend "poverty" is something cool and daring and out of the mainstream of boring middle class people; that it's a scam that only the povertarians are noble enough in mind and spirit to do good for the "poor" in an uncaring world"; and the average tax-payer should consider that this nonsense of sentimentality is a set-piece of money grabbing guilt-tripping; and the tax-payer should keep in mind that those "colorful characters" who don't follow the script get shoved out if the povertarians feel that their scam is being exposed for what it is: A Scam.

This idea of "the poor" as cartoonish people who live as "Free, and Liberated from the constraints of society," is noxious and sometimes leads to fatalities. No one thinks they pay for death in paying for so-called social services, but that's the ultimate effect in giving money to the likes of the bureaucrats who bounce a guy like Simpson for "blogging." Giving money without accountability to a clique of people who pretend that poverty is cool and noble is to ensure that "poor" people will suffer till they die, especially those who don't play the role of smiling and grateful sycophants.

Where is your money going, and what for? It's not just a Christmas question. You work and pay taxes through out the year. Ask where your money goes. Look at the mess of this city and ask if you're getting what you think you're paying for. Ask Simpson where your money's going. Ask Milo. Ask the blogger who does the work here: What's your money doing in the pockets of povertarians?" Why is Simpson on the street?

oneanon said...

"Why is Simpson on the street?" is the question.
What's easier and more logical and more likely to get results? Try to answer that question by resolving all those issues Dag speaks of, expecting citizens at large to start asking questions and get involved in the broader issues he lists; or start by enlisting the support of those closest to this specific issue involving William and the Carnegie by encouraging group support and action from those closest to one aspect of the problem? Why not start with the basics of the William Simpson affair.

1) the bogus barring from the Learning Centre by the Cap. College teacher and then being allowed no recourse to defend himself, as well as the role of the Carnegie Director and the Carnegie Board in this barring in spite of the fact that the Director has said it's in the teachers hands not hers and,

2)the barring from the building by Jacquie Forbes-Roberts on behalf of the City and then not being allowed to represent his constituents at meetings because of that and where are the rules that are being followed by this action?

Dag, in my opinion, your expertise could be better served, and could no doubt do a better job than I could, of offering up a comprehensive and simple laying out of what exactly are the issues to formally address with the City and the Board at Carnegie with respect, at this time, to the William Simpson affair. Let the other stuff be exposed with the help of a William back in the Carnegie working with the members to elect a better board who will inspire some rightful change in those "povertarian" issues of which you speak. I believe William has characterized the Carnegie's problems as indicative of Canada's, and what better place to start he has also said. It's important to hear about the truth of your words, but right now with the publishing of this article what is needed is action.

Rachel Davis took concrete, persistant, right action to get the article published. Reliable Sources and the blog provided credible information about the situation for Miro Cernetig to verify the need for the article. More dialogue now relative to a resolution to the issue of getting William back in should be the order of the day.

People in the community need to see and be able to understand this particular issue, so that they can see how the rest of what you're saying is going on. Community level support is needed and if that is to happen, I can't see it happening if the issues are not framed and made easier for everyone to understand. Not just other politicos or activists who have the ability and time or whatever to grasp and be involved in issues that concern them, but the average Carnegie member.

Nothing I've seen so far lays out the issue clearly, simply and free of unnecessary rhetorical baggage.

Miro Cernetig's article paves the way to get going on this, but it needs the work of a cohesive group of locals willing to work together. You, William or someone else out there with the history and experience in the community could help get this kind of right action going.

And by the way, using the "Christmas" thing of being out in the cold on that particular day is just buying into another load of hogwash and exploitation, as far as I'm concerned. If people are to have compassion for others in Williams situation it should be so on any day. And from what I've heard there are others besides William who are out of the Carnegie maybe by choice or maybe because of some action taken against them by the establisment. So, they should be spoken for too.

reliable sources said...

oneanon,

Thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that I had misspelled Miro Cernetig's name. I've corrected it now.

Anonymous said...

Here's a link to copy and paste for Miro's blog

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/politicsandlife/archive/2007/12/24/poverty-in-vancouver-the-world-s-most-liveable-city-we-host-the-olympics-in-2010-but-also-have-a-ghetto-in-our-midst.aspx

dag said...

If anyone knows the "href" formula to paste in a hot link it would help some of us to get to the on-line copy of The Sun column.But those links are only good or a week or so and then one must pay as a subscriber to the paper, which, good as it is, few of us are likely to do. I would suggest that if you have a hard copy and wish others to see it for a long time yet, photocopy it and pass it around the area so others can see for themselves just what goes on.

However indirectly, the tax-payers of this city pay for the imitation Stalinist bi-weekly Carnegie Newsletter, the building and resources all coming from the city itself. You as citizens have to go against them with your own samizdat, your own underground efforts to get the truth out. You will have to go from place to place getting your daily allotment of five free copies per place, perhaps, but it could be worth it. Miro's copy on Simpson is a good start.

Simpson isn't the end of this story. This story is about him only in that he is one face among hundreds, perhaps, who live outside the system because they are literally pushed into the snow by the povertarians who just can't be bothered doing their jobs properly, preferring to dump a guy that to address real issues of real people.

Something must be done. There is a genuine need for the Carnegie Centre and places like it, essential, given the nature of so many people who are unquestionably in need of social services. Ethanol and the like are failing to do their jobs. They cost a lot of money, which is central, but worse, they cost the lives of many more. Every drug over-dose, every suicide, every beaten woman is a signal failure of Ethanol and her lot who do not do their jobs well. Some one must if people's live are to be spared. Some one must do the work rather than pander to friends and family and the right attitudes and cliches. Someone must take over from the current lot, and it could well be you. You don't have to be, like Ethanol, a trained artist of some sort, a woman who can sing and dance or balance a ball on your nose. You needn't have such stellar qualifications to do the job of minding the genuinely needy. Nor do you need $104,000.00 per year to do it and a two million dollar a year budget and a union staff. You, dear reader, can do the job yourself because it is a job for people, not poseurs.

Rid the city of the professional ideological povertarians and bring in a new lot of people who will do the social work of the humane for the sake of the needy.

Pass around the hard copy of this story and let people see for themselves just what a foul mess of it Ethanol and her lot have made. And then more. Compete against the Carnegie Newsletter and the money Libbie Davies pumps into it. If you're short of cash, use your imaginations. Get the word out that it's not good enough to sit idly watching people die of poverty and madness to indulge the phantasies and pension plans of povertarians.

Write Back against the povertarians! Spread the word.

dag said...

This is one code for inserting hot links:

My Title

I think one inserts the link at 'mywebsite.com'

I try it and it works about half the time.

truepeers said...

here's the link to the Sun article by Miro. I don't think it disappears after a week. The Sun is not the Globe and Mail which operates under the delusion that it is the journal or record. Who pays for that stuff which is often junk?

truepeers said...

Great blogging on this story for many many months now, RS. Glad to see that "povertarians" is now making the rounds. Who coined that brilliant term?

wilfr said...

If anyone has seen William, please tell him to call me or check his email asap. Thanks.

dag said...

Wilf has done something above that most of us might simply skip over without thinking through: He's left a note to have Simpson contact him, an ordinary thing in most circumstances; but consider the nature of the medium here: we live in an aetherial reality in which names appear disconnected from bodies and beings in all but the most peripheral sense, Simpson being to most of us just a figure on the Internet. Yes, we know in a nodding way that he is in time and space a real thing somewhere; but he is very specifically a real guy who is living in a tent in Canada in the winter-time, a chilly prospect for most others. Does Simpson really exist in the minds of povertarians? Is he anything more than a name on a page or on a screen, a few letters to be acknowledged with a check mark or an X in form-letter box? For someone making $104.000.00 per year, that we know of, Simpson-the-man-in-the-cold is easily lost in the paper shuffle.

"Helping, sharing, caring, giving back to the community" crap is unimpressive when one realizes that it is a profession followed by highly paid lay-abouts who rake in the cash while Simpson-- and who knows how many others-- are sleeping in the cold each night because they have in some way made the lives of the povertarians, at worst, uncomfortable.

If Ethanol and Julia Forbes-Roberts and the lot of them can pull down six-figure salaries each year for abusing people like Simpson, where's the glamour in the pose of being a povertarian if the man actually shows up and presents himself as a man in the flesh? Shouldn't these people rather fall down on their knees in shame? When Ethanol and the clique of povertarians close doors to social services they're paid to keep open to instead retire to dark rooms to count their money and dial up their stock-brokers, isn't there a face peering in the window and frosting up the glass? Yes, and it could be Simpson freezing. Or it could be you.

What's this man done to find himself tossed onto the street in winter in Canada? He's offended the povertarians, shown their vanities to be vile and dirty, made them look to be the fools and greedy grubbers they in fact are. What offence? Simpson was mistakenly thought by the geniuses who run so much of the poverty industry in Vancouver to be a blogger who wrote unflattering things about said povertarians. The latter couldn't even get that part right, though they make $104,000.00 per year, (that we know of,) and many of them make twice as much; not smart enough to pay attention to written details, they simply tossed Simpson into the snow, homeless, and abused him rather than deal with their own laziness and incompetence. Falling back on Communist slogans to cover up their incompetence and their idiocies, "All Hail...." as the so-called editor of the Carnegie Newsletter has written in Stalinist homage to totalitarians everywhere, these trite and foolish ideologues who can't compose a thought outside the realm of hippie cliches have found it permissible to dump a living man into the snow because he -- supposedly -- pissed them off. And the povertarians got the wrong man. Are you next?

Who did they want but weren't smart enough to find when they stupidly tossed Simpson into the snow for blogging? Me! I Am The Blogger. But me or another, you or your friend, the point is the povertarians will toss out any number/person/file into the snow if they feel like it. Are you the blogger? Well, consider that you too are a flesh and blood person who might well be in the cold if the povertarians don't like your attitude toward them. It takes nothing, literally nothing at all, to get yourself thrown out of the system of povertariansim if the povertarians decide they DON'T LIKE you. And then you have no recourse beyond advocacy from bloggers. You, friend, you real person somewhere, can get thrown in the snow by thugs and Stalinists living off the tax-payers, (and damned well at that,) simply for being thought of as me. You. How would you like Ethanol and the folks at City Hall to toss you into the snow because they're too stupid and too lazy to track me down, picking on you instead?

These povertarians have no idea of you as a person. Are they looking for you to talk to or to have coffee with? No, they're counting their cash. They might even be making frantic phone calls to their lawyers to protect their contracts should they be sacked for incompetence or to finagle buy-outs should they be terminated from their careers as professional povertarians.

You? What do you matter to them? They aren't cold. It'll be you, in your flesh. Frozen. You, for real.

You are Bill Simpson, waiting in line till you too are dumped. You, friend, will find yourself at the mercy of idiots and ideologues and savages who care not a shit about your life. They're in it fo rth e money and for the glamour of "saving" you. These evil religious fanatics are a menace to your life. Figure it out before you too are William Simpson.

Me? I Am The Blogger!

Are you the blogger too?

Cerebus said...

As for the staff of Carnegie being in the Christmas spirit, I happened along the corner on Christmas Eve and thought what the heck, why not ask if I could go in and play. On Christmas Eve they have a jam set up and if you play, they reward you with $10. Hell, it's Christmas Eve, they should let me in for that small amount of time to harmlessly play a few tunes. The security (which I suppose I shouldn't name) just laughed and said you have to be kidding! So much for the good cheer. All for being blogged about and dating the wrong person. To hell with all of them. I'm out of this city come spring and getting back to some semblance of normalcy. Tata.

reliable sources said...

cerebus,

So Security confirmed that you are barred from the building!

I'll just re-cap "The barring of the boyfriend" saga for any readers who aren't familiar with it.

You were barred from Carnegie this year despite the fact that you had NOT BEEN IN THE BUILDING SINCE 2005. You were barred after a Carnegie staff person prone to having sex with clientele was exposed on the Downtown Eastside Enquirer. Because you had been one of the clientele who had a sexual relationship with her, and she was pissed off about her behaviour being exposed, you were told that she would feel uncomfortable if you entered the building. So you got barred, sight unseen.

Thanks for reporting that Security actually enforced the barring by stopping you at the door of Carnegie.

dag said...

I am the blogger, not the bopper. Too bad for me. I think....

Cerebus said...

It had already been confirmed one day when Kim from the front desk relayed a message from my ex-superior, that it was none of her doing that I was being barred. That's it in a nutshell, they all want me barred but who is going to take the responsibility for it? Upper management so they say. If that's so, how did they manage to wrangle my name out of the mess that they created themselves in the first place.

I, for one am going to take my name off of all roles where these people depend on volunteers. Eventually, if enough people do this, there will have to be a lot of questions answered as to why this is happening. Hit 'em where it hurts and take away their privileges, make them work for a change!

dag said...

Cerebus and Simpson have a good plan in theory, to withdraw their services from the network of povertarians, but where is the "strike fund" to keep them going at even a minimum? CUPE can stay out for months blackmailing the city and its residents to grab more pay for the same or less pretend work; but what can the users of such places as Carnegie Library do? Let's see....

One might suggest a meeting of concerned citizens at an off-site locale, the equivalent of a union hall, perhaps McDonald's, to discuss strategy and tactics. But is there a goal? What exactly do people want from the places they frequent? Not a pay raise, unfortunately, because this isn't a wage issue. What then do people want? Back up again: is there an organizing committee? Who would care to take on even that responsibility?

The issues are broad and many, but they all revolve around the provision of needed services in the Lower East Side, services that are not forthcoming or that when they are are poorly delivered to a select and arbitrary few at the whim of povertarians who are a clique. It takes as much determination and skill to win a round against such a powerful organization there as it would to defeat a 19th century Robber Baron at a sweatshop. We know it can be done. We don't know if the lot now using pubic services can do it. Can you? If you'll even try, then I will do what I can as a resident of the city concerned about my fellow man, for what it's worth. And in that you will find others the same. But there must be a first step by the users of the services themselves.

What do you want? Who will take on the responsibility of organizing against the cliques? How will you achieve your goals? How will you survive till you win? There are lear answers to these questions, but one must be committed to working toward them and have the discipline to follow through in spite of the scabs and and the wreckers who will fight you. It's life like the nineteenth century, but you can win if you will.

Talk it over and decide if you will continue at the whim of the povertarians or if you can take control of your own destinies.I'd like to know the outcome of such a debate. I'd be one to support your efforts, and you'll find others like me waiting to help.

Cerebus said...

Thanks Dag. It's what I've been telling people all along, go on strike and when there aren't any volunteers they will have to close the doors, albeit temporarily. Since I'll be long gone by the time anything happens, why not talk to the elected president Bill? He seems to be full of ideas and other things as well that we won't go into.
There needs to be a gathering of the volunteers wherever and find out the gripes. It all seems so simple but like you say, there will be scabs, which I believe you have a right to volunteer if you so wish, but don't bitch and whine about not getting a few extra pennies an hour for volunteering. What say you Bill?

Rachel Davis said...

Hello,
CBC will be interviewing William Simpson about his barring and other things on Wed. the 2nd on the Early Edition. If Jacquie Forbes Roberts and Ethel Whitty refuse their offer of air time, it'll be me joining him.

I'd also like to offer my services as a witness to de-barring interviews. These days the Carnegie has instituted a new rule, no longer are de-barring interviews done one-on-one, they are now two security people to one person trying to get back in. I find this to be unfairly intimidating, and so I would like to offer my services to those barred as a witness and support for those meetings. I can be reached at huntergreen2@mac.com, and I will do my best to be available for this service.

Thanks again,
Rachel Davis

Rachel Davis said...

Hello again,
I just got a call from CBC, 690 on your AM radio dial, and the William Simpson story has been bumped up to prime time, 7:40 A.M. on Wed. the 2nd
Rachel

dag said...

I would find it very difficult to suffer through a morning of the sound of bubbling ethanol on the speakers of my stereo system so early in the morning if not for the hope that Rachael herself will be there ot add some worth to the discussion. What will happen?

wilfr said...

Just finished listening to the interview on CBC with William and Rachel. I managed to record it to an MP3 file. If anyone would like to have it let me know by emailing ehbec@hotmail.com, or if anyone knows where and how to post the audio file on this blog or any other let me know as well.

wilfr said...

Go to NowPublic.com to listen to the interview. It's under Politics and titled, Barred Carnegie Director Talks To CBC.