Disqus - Latest Comments for ebrayton

Re: Emotional community addresses Haslett school board

ebrayton — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:08 -0000

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Rutkoswki. We have updated the original piece with the following editor's note at the mention of your name:

Editor's note: Although the police report contains conflicting testimony on who was in the room at any given time while the actual drunk shaming was occurring, Rutkowski says that he was not present at all while the incident took place, but was rather outside at the bonfire and only later did he go inside. His only role, he says, was driving Piechotte and Etheridge home because he felt it was unsafe for them to drive.

Re: Glenn Beck on Detroit: Today’s progressives are like yesterday’s slave owners

ebrayton — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:14:38 -0000

What cracks me up most about this is Beck's claim that slave owners were people who "encourage you to become dependent on them." Yes Glenn, that's the problem with slave owners. It's not that they owned human beings against their will, beat them mercilessly and killed them if they tried to escape - it's that they "encouraged" dependency.

Re: Haslett teacher reveals ‘drunk shaming’ by fellow employees

willholiday — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:03:02 -0000

Please stop taking off ones that don't fit your agenda and have all your reports, and you too, read your code of ethics out-loud together.

Re: Haslett teacher reveals ‘drunk shaming’ by fellow employees

ebrayton — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:34:37 -0000

We have deleted some comments for this story and have turned off any future comments due to a large volume of posts that contained needlessly inflammatory language and/or allegations that cannot be substantiated. All future comments that violate this policy on any other page will also be deleted. Thank you.

The comment box may still appear on the bottom of the page, but any comments left from this point on will not be published on the page.

Re: Haslett teacher reveals ‘drunk shaming’ by fellow employees

ebrayton — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:39 -0000

test

Re: Haslett teacher reveals ‘drunk shaming’ by fellow employees

ebrayton — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:08:35 -0000

I'm not sure where you got this information that Piechotte tested negative for drugs. She admitted to using marijuana that night, both to the police and to us in an interview. I have the full police report and have seen nothing in there to suggest she tested negative for marijuana; even if she had, that would clearly impeach the validity of such a test because she fully admits to having used it.

Correction: Sorry, I did miss that part of the police report. Apparently the toxicology report did show a negative result for marijuana. But since she admitted to using it, I don't see why it matters that she tested negative. That calls the validity of the test into question but adds nothing to her defense (which she doesn't need anyway, for the reasons I pointed out).

That has nothing to do with culpability here, of course. Nearly everyone present that night smoked pot and drank to excess. None of that gives anyone any right to do what they did to the victim here.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:11:00 -0000

I have an addendum where I think we can agree.

If this story is about:

when you pay a bunch of underage kids to come to the conference, allow them in to parties that you paid for and arranged with an open bar and then don't take the proper precautions to prevent them from being served. We do not know which, if any, of the campaigns actually did this. That's why we didn't accuse any of them of doing it and that's why we made clear that at least one campaign had denied and another had taken positive steps to prevent it.

Only one campaign paid a bunch of kids to come to the conference. It's well known - a google search would have turned it up. You could have interviewed me, for that matter (the Republican campaigns ignore you for reasons I'm sure you're well aware of - they involve a libel suit last year). Snyder. He denies having any party. That's probably true. The other campaigns had fairly tight staffs of (mostly) mid-aged folks. The Snyder people didn't come to other Governor's candidates parties - at least in significant numbers (the shirts, as you note, are what I base that on). Should the other 4 Gub candidates be responsible for Snyder's decision to bring a few hundred students on the island? Did the candidates that had open bars have the bars take normal precautions to comply with the law? Yes, or at least no evidence they didn't. And if the "open bars" were so "open" -- why would the students have needed to go to their hotels rooms to get more alcohol -- which we know they did? When I was young (and over 21), I always drank what was free before tapping into my own reserves.

But as I said two comments above, if this is what you want to criticize ... paying a bunch of underage kids to come to the island ... then the pox is on Snyder's campaign (its not a particularly huge one, since even he has apparently dispersed responsibility, but ...). That we agree on, albeit its not as big a story as "Underaged drinking problems for GOP". MM may not have "known" which campaigns did what because many chose not to respond to you, so MM effectively accused them all of doing it in the general way of writing the story. That's why I reacted to it the way I did.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:46:22 -0000

Actually, I do note how her report was written in such a way as to have not-credible portions of it. The overall tone is hyperbolic, it lacks key specifics, and the one specific we do have - rubbing off x's is both unusual and rules out at least two candidate parties (I can't attest to the third, Bouchard party).

Mr. Heywood's article goes far beyond the mere reporting you and I agree on would be reasonable. Just one example would be the second paragraph:

...had been served alcohol at official parties sponsored by several Republican candidates for governor ...

I don't see where Oblinger claimed SEVERAL Republican candidates for governor served her alcohol, let alone claimed any gubernatorial candidate did. She refers to "open bars" in the generic in her tirade, but doesn't identify any bar. The more I read it, the more I think ... this is a girl trying to brag to her peers about drinking more than she really did. Perhaps she deserves some investigation here, and if it rubs off on a candidate so be it, but I don't see that as likely and there is no evidence of any candidate being responsible at this point.

I also don't see where she's "named names" - unless you're talking about a few of her friends (which I don't see in this article or any other). She named no candidates, no bars or bartenders, no friends over 21 that got her the "drank". You haven't shown us any of the photos, in your journalistic excellence, probably because they had little editorial value to the conclusions you'd like to draw. Don't introduce into evidence concepts from evidence you haven't introduced into the debate. I can't reasonably respond to it.

Finally, if you don't want to be viewed as a George Soros hack, stop writing stories that act as that. Stop attacking your readers for raising fair questions. And when you're losing the argument, stop attacking them with ad homimens, like we're both doing now.

If this story were running in reverse and it was a young Democrat, you'd be accusing those doing the story writers of being on a witch-hunt ... that is, if it even saw the light of day in the media at all, which I suspect it wouldn't. Don't be surprised when a sting-with-video is done at the next Jefferson-Jack dinner, and I expect the writer to get the MM award for good journalism if it turns something up.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

ebrayton — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:32:18 -0000

chetly wrote:

Yeah, Ed, I can think of a reason.

Teenagers try to impress other teenagers. They occasionally tell "tall tales" - even on, or perhaps now especially on, blogs and facebook. Young men are reknowned for this - but society has evolved and even young woman get into it as well. I think the LCC and local police know that too, and when they don't have specific facts, as they don't here, their investigation, as the MIRS quote of Island police chief points out, is unlikely to result in anything. Everyone here talks of Oblinger's writing as gospel truth ... that's far from apparent.

You're beating up a straw man here, chetly. No one here claims that what she said is "gospel truth." What I said, and what remains true, is that she made a credible report of underage drinking. Credible - not indisputable, not inviolable, but credible. One can always come up with a hypothetical reason why someone might be lying, but that is a far cry from providing a compelling for believing that they are lying. If Oblinger made it all up to impress someone, she went to great lengths to do it - taking pictures of her friends at Mackinac Island during the conference, in campaign shirts, and pictures of them playing drinking games and falling down drunk on the lawn. And she even named names. That's not the hallmark of a hoax, chetly. Could it hypothetically be? Sure. Guess how you find out? Through an investigation.

Cut the bull-turd argument that I think "news" should avoid Republicans. My point was that the "journalism" here in this article lacked evidence for its claims, as does Brewer. You get evidence one of the candidates or campaigns did something active or negligent to encourage underage drinking, and I'll slam them hard. Publicly and behind the scenes. It's not there. Perhaps MM should have covered it - its certainly news in the sense that Brewer had a press conference. But that's it - so far.

And that's all we've reported. Again, you're attacking a strawman, pretending that we went off on some wild-assed accusation. In fact, we did exactly what an ethical journalism site does, we contacted each and every campaign that had underage people there and threw parties. The only one that called us back was Snyder's campaign. But we also got our hands on evidence that the Cox campaign had taken steps to avoid underage drinking and we reported that. We also went out of our way to point out that the campaigns that paid their way there could not be held responsible for what went on at the hotels, that a good portion of the story is nothing greater than "kids will be kids." But there is responsibility, I think, when you pay a bunch of underage kids to come to the conference, allow them in to parties that you paid for and arranged with an open bar and then don't take the proper precautions to prevent them from being served. We do not know which, if any, of the campaigns actually did this. That's why we didn't accuse any of them of doing it and that's why we made clear that at least one campaign had denied and another had taken positive steps to prevent it. If the other campaigns had returned our calls, we would have reported their positions as well.

The fact is that this is a perfectly reasonable article in both tone and substance. We didn't go off making wild accusations, we presented the evidence on both sides as it is known right now and we reported that an investigation has been called for. In response to that perfectly reasonable tone and substance, you went off like a partisan hack. Then you whine when you're responded to like a partisan hack. Don't want to be viewed that way? Stop acting that way.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:59:17 -0000

You know, this whole "You're a Republican consultant" line is wearing thin. It has no logical bearing on the arguments, Ed, and you should be ashamed to make it as an argument. Attack the arguments, not the messenger.

If it works against me, it works the other way. Your words would then mean nothing because your a George Soros funded operative, and Soros only funds Democrat and left causes.

Bias information can have some relevance in a discussion, but I've never concealed my history and it has no relevance to most arguments of logic anyway. It also doesn't ring true because I have an independent streak and have criticized the party where appropriate. I'm an individual who believes in the sovereignty of the individual, with conservative and liberty principles FIRST, before being a member of any party.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:46:06 -0000

Yeah, Ed, I can think of a reason.

Teenagers try to impress other teenagers. They occasionally tell "tall tales" - even on, or perhaps now especially on, blogs and facebook. Young men are reknowned for this - but society has evolved and even young woman get into it as well. I think the LCC and local police know that too, and when they don't have specific facts, as they don't here, their investigation, as the MIRS quote of Island police chief points out, is unlikely to result in anything. Everyone here talks of Oblinger's writing as gospel truth ... that's far from apparent.

Cut the bull-turd argument that I think "news" should avoid Republicans. My point was that the "journalism" here in this article lacked evidence for its claims, as does Brewer. You get evidence one of the candidates or campaigns did something active or negligent to encourage underage drinking, and I'll slam them hard. Publicly and behind the scenes. It's not there. Perhaps MM should have covered it - its certainly news in the sense that Brewer had a press conference. But that's it - so far.

That Snyder hired Oblinger explains a few things, which you seem to have come up with late in the game here, and it then becomes a pox on HIS campaign to some extent then, even if he denies his campaign admitted her to a party. Other campaigns had "teams", but most of a cadre of active CRs, loyal staff members, and older younger R's that were relatively small. Snyder's was the most vast I've ever seen, and he rightfully took some criticism for that based on their lack of knowledge about their candidate or politics, according to one video (ooh, I'm criticizing a Republican here.... something's out of place).

One uses stamps of some kind (some inks are very hard to transfer, contrary to your suggestion) as part of a larger system. The responsibilty, as you note, still devolves to the bartender at point of service - open bar or normal sales. I was carded once on the island at a bar and saw one person carded - so I know that happened too. Not in every case, but most cases involved clearly older people, as most of the attendance at these "parties" was 30 plus. Unless the other four campaigns did something special to discourage carding or encourage underaged folks in, I don't see their culpability. We don't even know they got in, or succeeded. Snyder's people were very visible because of their shirts - the underaged ones also disappeared from the island each night on the final ferry at midnight, according to the story-line. I saw no Snyder people at any other Gub. candidate event and some of Snyder's older staff at Bishop's event. Is it possible a small number slipped in somewhere or did other events? Sure - I can't prove a negative, and I'm not even sure where the moral culpability would be if the campaigns took reasonable pre-cautions in their dealings with the bartenders. Fortunately, criminal law is no longer based on Salem witch-hunt rules where a negative has to be proven. That's either your job or the LCC's.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

ebrayton — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:11:00 -0000

Chetly wrote:

With all due respect, you don't have any evidence, other than the blog post ramblings of a self-proclaimed (we don't even have evidence this person was on the island, is a dem plant, etc.) CMU College Republican, of any underage drinking anywhere.

The Snyder campaign confirmed that Oblinger was there and that they paid for her trip, but they also say that she was turned away from their official party because of her age. Can you think of some reason why a member of the College Republicans there to stump for a Republican candidate would lie about what went on?

Also, it seems to me that if you think she might be lying, you would support an investigation that could document that to be the case.

Investigate? Go for it. It's a witch-hunt and distraction from the budget situation. I suppose all crime should be investigated, but prosecutors and police use some discretion with limited resources. It's the Governor's jurisdiction though (DNR/state police) so I'm sure the outcome will be unbiased.

The investigation will be done by the Liquor Control Commission and the local police. Since this is the kind of investigation that the LCC does every single day as part of their efforts to prevent underage drinking, why does it suddenly become a witch hunt when it involves Republicans? I bet you wouldn't be saying this if the same thing happened at a Democratic conference (and I have no doubt that it does, but since there is a credible report documenting it in this instance, the LCC has a legal obligation to investigate, don't they?).

Ah, "general complicity". You are reduced to this. OK. Sounds like "guilt by association", but I'll let you have this.

No, there may well be quite specific complicity here. That's what an investigation will reveal. Look, you live in a college town and you know damn well that the only even minimally effective way to keep underage kids from being served is for the wait staff and bartenders to card people when they order a drink (even that can be beaten, of course, but that will happen far more rarely than with an open bar and any kind of stamp at the door). If you stamp the underage ones, they can wash it off. If you stamp the overage ones, they can press their hands to the underage one's hands and rub it off. Anyone who's ever gone to college knows this.

Now, here you have a situation where the campaigns have brought a couple hundred kids to the island, many of them below the legal drinking age and then failed to set up the proper procedures to keep them from being served alcohol. On top of that, you've got those kids drinking alcohol at those official parties while they mingled with politicians, staffers and activists. Surely at some point, someone in a position of authority had to witness underage kids drinking and have chosen not to do anything about it. Again, this is what investigations are for. This is what the LCC does every single day in similar situations. You should be welcoming that.

Is Brewer trying to score political points with this? Of course he is. That's what Brewer does. It's also what the Republicans do every day and would be doing to the same degree if the tables were turned. But from a journalistic perspective, this is still news. You just seem to think that because it involves Republicans, no one should pay any attention to it. Of course, you're a Republican consultant so that's a rather convenient position to take.

Re: Council candidate Dearing caught fibbing

ebrayton — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:31:39 -0000

I think the punchline here is that even after being criticized or allowing his campaign manager to speak or him, Dearing then had his campaign manager deliver the apology too. How terribly sincere.

Re: Bernero challenger gives Lansing city attorney 2 weeks to have new FOIA rules

ebrayton — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:48:05 -0000

Mr. Sylvester, you are more than welcome to offer a substantive criticism of anything we write here at the Michigan Messenger. If you're just going to call names, you will not be commenting here anymore. I've deleted your comment.

Re: As city attorney stands his ground, new documents raise questions in Lansing sex sting case

ebrayton — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:39:34 -0000

You seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy, Joe. He could be both a public hazard AND a victim. Just like Rodney King could be both a felon and a victim of police brutality. The law is the law, regardless of your moral approval of the person whose rights are violated.

Re: As city attorney stands his ground, new documents raise questions in Lansing sex sting case

cheneygun — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:57:48 -0000

I understand that, however it makes a person who is wrong on so many different levels the victim. It doesn't mention the legal penalties for sex in public, or potentially endangering others lives if he didn't disclose his status. That would be an objective part of an article of this nature.

Re: As city attorney stands his ground, new documents raise questions in Lansing sex sting case

ebrayton — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:20:42 -0000

That's a rather odd response, Joe. We are a news outlet. Our job is not to lecture private citizens about their moral behavior, it is to be a watchdog on our public officials and their legal behavior. Whatever personal feelings anyone here might have about this man's actions, his legal rights were violated by someone in a position of power. This story is focused precisely where it ought to be.

Re: AP: Gitmo to UP prison transfer being seriously considered

retired_Sgm09 — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:08:35 -0000

You're right about one thing. A terrorist hasn't escaped to present day. But tell me what Standish has to do with being a "supermax prison"?? If you think the enemies of the United States have ill feelings about us now, wait until we have their "flesh and blood" on our soil. It won't be pretty and will anger the enemy more than fighting them in the own back yard. Wake up and smell the coffee and get a grip on reality.

Re: AP: Gitmo to UP prison transfer being seriously considered

ebrayton — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:56:39 -0000

We already imprison dozens of terrorists in the United States, including those who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. Not one of them has ever escaped or even tried to. No one has ever even attempted to break them out. You don't escape from a supermax prison.

Re: Stupak denies knowledge of connections to mysterious ‘C Street’ house

NonCompassionateLiberal — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:13:56 -0000

You're right. I should have written that she was "involved." Bill Maher was right when he said that the Democrats are now the "new Republicans." When James Carville married Mary Matalin was when it started to look scary, and now it's just scarier.

Re: Stupak denies knowledge of connections to mysterious ‘C Street’ house

ebrayton — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:55:02 -0000

Hillary is not a member, she's a "friend." The group is very conscious of distinguishing between members and friends (though there is no official membership roll, those within the group make a clear distinction). A member is someone who actually is assigned to a prayer group or "cell." A friend is someone who takes part in a prayer session or group meeting here or there but isn't really actively involved. They consider Hillary Clinton and Al Gore to be friends; Stupak, on the other hand, is a member, as is Ben Nelson.

Re: Stupak denies knowledge of connections to mysterious ‘C Street’ house

AlwaysOptimistic — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:53:41 -0000

Senator Bill Nelson is a member. Also, a democrat.

This group believes in no social programs and the complete deregulation of the markets. Bills in Congress have been sponsored by members of this group for decades, including the Silk Road Act which funneled millions of our tax dollars to Central Asian dictators with the expressed effort to open these countries to free markets. Sen. Brownback, member of this group, said once you did this....It would stop Islam and open these countries to the Bible....

Can you say Crusades?

Re: Stupak denies knowledge of connections to mysterious ‘C Street’ house

ebrayton — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:44:15 -0000

This is not a conventional religious right group. The group is about 80% Republicans and 20% Democrats. Stupak is hardly the only Democrat involved with them. Others include Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson. The Family is, quite intentionally, not tied to a political party the way groups like Focus on the Family or the Christian Coalition are. Their goals are much bigger and transcend party.

Re: Grebner lawsuit highlights recent pattern of young Republican scandals

MarkGrebner — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:18:31 -0000

Your UNCLE! That explains the eerie similarities, coupled to irresolvable discrepancies.

There's public access to voting information for the same "reason" as many other social rules: it's just an unfolding of the history of the activity. At the time of the Founding Fathers, not only was whether you voted a public issue, but so was WHO YOU VOTED FOR, since the secret ballot was unknown.

Since voting started out as a public act, the extension of privacy rights has been halting and erratic, implemented only when prompted only by some specific, over-riding concern. (Voter registration and secret ballots were imposed to break the urban machines, for example.) As a result, a surprising amount of information is available about individuals' political actions. In many states - not Michigan - every choice of party ballot in a primary is carefully recorded and disclosed.

Sorry this is so far off topic, but I suppose it's the expression of my repressed response to all the fascinating points raised in the rest of this thread.

Re: Grebner lawsuit highlights recent pattern of young Republican scandals

ebrayton — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:41:28 -0000

Thank you for outing the voting patterns of my uncle (not me, because Ed is not my proper name). I honestly can't understand why you or anyone else has access to how anyone votes. A person's votes should be absolutely protected and private. They go to all that trouble at the polling places to protect such data, giving every person a privacy sleeve to make sure the person next to them can't see how they vote, then they hand that information over to others. In my opinion, that should be criminal. The notion that you have a database of voters and you have them "coded" based on their votes makes my skin crawl.

I do not teach construction, I am not married and I am nowhere near being "about the same age" as my uncle. And frankly, I don't think my "leanings" are any of your business except what I choose to reveal to you.