May 04, 2005

Clevenger Clarifies, Then Vents Ad Hominems At 'Communique'

A Little Late-Evening Folderol

Since we claim to be all about the transparency, and have developed a far thicker skin than we had when we first got online more than a decade ago, it seems right and proper to pass along the latest from the previously-mentioned Nathaniel Clevenger.

In an email this evening sent both to us and to Zach Dundas of Willamette Week, Clevenger first offered an apparent clarification to the bit in today's edition of that paper regarding contracts he's had with the Portland Development Commission.

"We lost a contract for 2005," Clevenger wrote, "The PDC rejected our response to their 'request for qualifications' for marketing firms in late 2004." While the Willamette article said that he had two contracts with PDC earlier this year, Clevenger says that those contracts were from 2003 and 2004.

Beyond that response to the Willamette report and our own mention of that report, Clevenger added an extra bit aimed directly at us. Here is that part of his email in its entirety.

How many people did you employ? Or, did paying an intern to help your rumor-mongering business not factor in your parents monthly support of your hobby? But enough of this childishness, how about you and me in a public debate. You bring your slander and innuendos. I'll bring a group of friends and some chips 'cause I know you can’t really afford to buy snacks on your parent’s allowance. Oh, but you’ll have to crawl out from under that rock you live under to do it. Name the place, I'll bring my friends, you bring yours (if you have any). I'd like to see you address me in public the way you do in your site - you sissy. I'd say more, but am sure you'll print every word I write and I recognize children may be reading this. I know infants are. If you don’t set a date, I'll find you at Stumptown and we can make a big show of it. Game?

Setting aside the bizarre threat to stalk me at one of Portland's fine coffee establishments, we now feel the time has come, at last, to relate the story which led to our own less-than-fond impressions of Clevenger. We've refrained from doing so in the past in any detail because it involves (or at least references) an off-the-record conversation we once had over coffee with Clevenger and Bruce Wood, who at that time was still an employee of Opus Northwest.

We're not going to specifically divulge anything from that off-the-record conversation. But we are going to discuss its circumstances, because at this point, given Clevenger's amusing ad hominem hysterics, it's time to put all the cards out on the table.

Some number of weeks back, we were contacted by Clevenger about the possibility of our sitting down with him and Wood to discuss the Burnside Bridgehead project and the (at that time) on-going selection process.

Despite it being rare for us to do extended face-to-face conversations -- not, as Clevenger has suggested (you'll see in a moment), because we hide behind our keyboard, but because in face-to-face conversations it's too easy for the force of personality to control the discussion, whereas obtaining information or comment via email allows for us to have research and other material close at hand -- we agreed, especially once Clevenger said he would help us make sure we had access to equipment to record the conversation.

That last part is key, so remember it.

When the day and time arrived, we sat down with the two of them at the downtown Stumptown, and suddenly were surprised to be told that the entire conversation was meant to be off-the-record background. Two things to note here: First, nowhere in the preliminaries was it said that the conversation would be off-the-record; and second, the exchange about recording the conversation underscores the first point.

Right off the bat, then, we were a little wary of what was to come. Within mere moments, we had gone from walking up to what had been an on-the-record conversation sitting down for suddenly-off-the-record background.

You tell us: Would that catch you a little off-guard, and put you at least a little on alert?

As we said, we won't go into the discussion itself. We've mentioned its existence before, but we've respected it as off-the-record despite the bait-and-switch nature of how it came about, and we will continue to do so.

But here's what happened next.

Later that evening, we received voicemail from Clevenger (despite the big to-do at the end of the meeting in which we established that the quickest and best way to get ahold of me was via email, a point of which he very specifically made note at the time) whose thrust was this: He wanted to know whether or not the meeting had changed our mind at all on the subject of Opus Northwest's proposal for the Burnside Bridgehead.

Now, we've known enough public relations professionals to know one thing, no matter how much Clevenger may come to deny it: That follow-up call is the sort of thing flacks do because if they succeeded in changing your views, the background will automagically become foreground and you'll be allowed to write about what was discussed in the off-the-record discussion.

Our response to him was simple: If he and Opus wanted to know my thoughts about Opus post-meeting, then they needed to lift the off-the-record restriction and they could read about it along with everyone else.

Needless to say, said restriction was not lifted. What's more, Clevenger requested a reversal of the norm, seeking to have everything he ever said to us from that moment on considered off-the-record until and unless he specified otherwise. Typically, it's the reverse which holds sway, and a source must specifically request that something be off-the-record if that's what they wish.

Everything, at any time, is considered on-the-record unless specifically requested to be off-the-record. That's how this works. Every other source we've ever had understands that dynamic, and in the more than two years we've been publishing this site, Clevenger was the first person ever to try to establish the opposite.

All of which describes the context through which we've expressed our views of Clevenger over the past few months, and the reason we keep an eye out for anything that crops up with his name in it, such as the Willemette Week piece from earlier today.

And that piece, and our mention of it, brings us back around to the email we quoted from at the start of this item. In the time it's taken us to write this far, that email exchange has continued. In keeping his his tone, although not his ad hominems, we asked if "but am sure you'll print every word I write" meant that in this case, he wasn't going to pull another switcheroo and suddenly declare his remarks to be off-the-record.

I am dead serious about taking this debate to a public forum. Now that I am not a paid Opus or PDC flak, I'd be happy to address your specious and slanderous ravings face-to-face or does that idea not suit your delicate constitution? I realize you feel more comfortable hiding behind that key board.

And, I asked you -- politely, I might add -- to allow Bruce to talk "on background" as I wanted to be respectful to him and to you. I did the same thing with all of the other reporters. It was a technical subject and I was not very comfortable with the numbers when I first started working with Opus. I got educated fast, though.

If I seemed flip flop, I am sorry for that. Human error. You do know what that is or is your capacity for human empathy completely gone? Perhaps a lack of real human contact?

Further, your hair trigger reaction to my asking in a thoughtful way if we could just talk before we went to an on the record forum was childish, unprofessional and served only to have me and my client dismiss your relevance. I realized quickly that you were not interested in the truth. You weren't interested in fair and balanced journalism. You are only interested in gossip and innuendo. Have you once asked me what my point of view is on my relationship to my friend Matt Hennessee? Hell no. Why? That would spoil your game.

It should be noted, for the record, that we did publish a comment of Clevenger's on his relationship to Matt Hennessee. It should also be noted that in the above he continues to suffer from some sort of bout of ad hominem eruptus, while at the same time charging us with childishness and a lack of professionalism.

Additionally, it should be noted that while he's sitting around somewhere tonight sending out emails challenging us to some sort of public debate and accusing us of hiding beyind our keyboard (or "key board" as he puts it), Clevenger has never once posted a public comment to this site on any of these issues, or any other, preferring instead to (we have to say it) hide behind his email and waiting to see what we did or did not do with it.

All of that said, we see that he now says he's drafted his press release, in which he will issue a challenge to us, daring us to debate him in public. Since we have that forewarning, we may as well give our response here and now, in the form of a question.

Given the entirety of the context provided in this post, and given Clevenger's propensity to reduce himself to the use of ad hominem attacks at the same time he calls others childish and unprofessional, would you debate this man?

« Previous Next »

Comments (79)

  1. Jinx on 04 May 2005

    Don't lower yourself to this creep's level, b!X. His emails sound like they are coming from a high school student. Debate, indeed. Why taint yourself with the even brief association of PDC slime? remember what Jack B. calls the PDc members? Snakes in the grass. Truer words were never spoken. You are dealing with a vituperous thug.

  2. N Clevenger on 04 May 2005

    OK, Bix. I'll bite. So clever with words. But, the challenge to publicly debate remains. I've read your site. You have a lot of the same folks in here. Some make sense. Some don't. So, in a nod to a John Ford plot line, I say we do this in person.

    Let's see how articulate you are face-to-face. It's not a challenge to a duel, Bix. So, you want need to bulk up at the gym. You frankly sound a little paranoid. But, I think all of us are a little tired of webloggers who sling half-assed arguments while hiding behind a key board. I'm sick of advising clients to ignore people like you. Weblogs have got to stop hiding behind the first amendment when they feel it convenient.

    Also, Your diatribe here is full of holes, mistakes, ridiculous fantasies (although, I do admire your creativity) and other specious claims. Some people are getting a little tired of your arrogant rantings, Bix. You don't do face-to-face, because that would mean you have actually have to speak with real live people. Where's your guts, man? Take all this clever angst you have and turn it into a real debate; one you can be proud of!

    I have nothing to hide. So, let's make a date. It'll be for a good cause.

  3. Luke on 04 May 2005

    Wow, that's really quite sad. The whole e-mail might as well be word for word out of a thread on politics or religion, or whatever from any open internet forum. It smacks all over of "internet tough guy", particularly the hiding behind the keyboard bit.

    How pathetic.

  4. N Clevenger on 04 May 2005

    Jinx,

    Vituperous thug, eh. Gosh. What is that? I have been called a pugnacious recalcitrant before. I need to run that one by my kids. They'll enjoy that. You sound pretty creepy yourself. Maybe you can be the emcee for the debate?

  5. N Clevenger on 04 May 2005

    How an open and honest request for a public debate can be called pathetic is, well, in itself pathetic.

    Here's the deal. I am inviting -- for charity purposes -- Bix to debate me in a public forum. Bix, I have repeatedly and politely asked you to join me for coffee and you have refused. Where I am from, that is considered rude.

    I am now inviting you again. And, for a good cause. It's so damn easy to call someone a vituperous thug (whatever that is) when there are flat screens and miles of distance between you.

  6. Randy Leonard on 04 May 2005

    "I think all of us are a little tired of webloggers who sling half-assed arguments while hiding behind a key board."

    Ouch. I think I just took an incoming collateral hit....

  7. N Clevenger on 04 May 2005

    No offense intended, Councilmember Leonard. Perhaps I should have said "weblog editors." Maybe you'd like to host the debate? We could charge at the door and give the proceeds to a local charity. Of course, I'm not much of a draw, but you would be.

    P.S. I suppose I should disclose that I know you too and would normally call you "Randy." I think Bix has a point about transparency.

  8. Randy Leonard on 04 May 2005

    Actually, I think you have already been drawn into the debate here...and you are not winning.

  9. N Clevenger on 04 May 2005

    My intent is not to "win." It is to try to bring some balance to this one-sided forum. Besides, who could possibly win in this type of venue?

    And if I have been drawn in, great. Let's finish it in a place where we can have a more balanced dialog. Sounds like you think it is acceptable to sling innuendo? I can't believe that. I won't believe it. I admire you too much.

  10. gabriel on 04 May 2005

    Unbelievable. This is the gentleman that Hennessey and Woods have chosen to deliver and tailor their message? Are you confident that these are Clevenger's posts? Do these guys have time to defend another foolish action? I would love to hear the fallout! Oh, if there are tickets I am buying… and whatever you are drinking Mr. Clevenger…you should know that some medications do not mix.

  11. pdxk on 05 May 2005

    N. Clevinger- a quick word. If you don't stop this conversation in immediacy, any credibility you and Matt Hennessee have is going to be washed out. It is no way you are saying, but you are saying it. Don't go down this road; you, and sadly also Matt, will never be able to recover politically. Please heed my words and give some thought to the repercussions you are creating. Remember this word - credibility.

  12. pdxk on 05 May 2005

    N. Clevinger- a quick word. If you don't stop this conversation in immediacy, any credibility you and Matt Hennessee have is going to be washed out. It is no way what you are saying, but how you are saying it. Don't go down this road; you, and sadly also Matt, will never be able to recover politically. Please heed my words and give some thought to the repercussions you are creating. Remember this word - credibility.

  13. no one in particular on 05 May 2005

    gabriel: Yeah, the fact that Clevenger works in public relations is the best part of this entire exchange. You're not selling yourself too well here, N.

    What exactly do you want to debate b!X about, anyway? Whether or not he's a dick? Whether or not you are? Something about Opus' proposal? It's not really clear.

  14. gabriel on 05 May 2005

    pdxk, you are kind. not fun...but kind.
    Hennessee owes you big.

  15. thinkbigpdx on 05 May 2005

    at first it seemed odd to me that a professional on clevengers level (being that he has worked for PDC and Opus) would enter this type of debate and so I thought gabriel was right--check the posts and make sure it is him! Then I re-read the history and i think I have found two things to be true: 1. It is clevenger. 2. if i were him i would be as frustrated as he is.

    the pieces that have been written about him and the tone of the pieces is far below the standards of this site and certainly below any standards for journalism that I have seen over the years of dealing with the press. while I agree that clevenger's request for a high noon show down is silly, i think the request shows a conviction and willingness to meet the public that far exceeds that of our friend B!x. Often times it is easier to ignore what you believe is below you, but in this case, with an anonymous typist making personal attacks on your integrity, professionalism and sexual preference all in the sticky sweet package of somehow representing the community I have to say I applaud clevenger's chutzpah. while I am bothered that it takes a personal attack to get someone like him to pay attention to a site like this, i am equally bothered that B!x would lower himself to innuendo (the "platonic" Hennessy comment) and outright attacks.

    Clevenger should stick to getting his clients in the paper and B!x should stick to reporting the local happenings. If you two want to debate, go do it in private somewhere so no one has to see it and none of us will be dumber for having experienced it in person--bad enough to run into it late at night.

  16. The One True b!X on 05 May 2005

    I'm avoiding getting into all of this until tomorrow, because I've long since learned that you don't get into conversations like these online in the middle of the night, but I need to interject a note to "thinkbigpdx" (an ironic name to use, given that he or she has a problem with me being anonymous, which I'm not as anyone who has bothered to check this site's "about" page would know): Try some reading comprehension, dude.

    The "platonic" term was taken from the newspaper's article, which said tht Clevenger himself used the term to describe his relationship with Hennessee -- by which I assumed he was talking about professional or political relationship.

    So if you have a problem with the term, you'd better make sure to yell at Clevenger himself, since he's apparently the one who first used it.

  17. gabriel on 05 May 2005

    Not to suggest that Mr. Clevenger do anything further to jeopardize his standing, but if he would like to eliminate the "innuendo," he could direct the editor of the site to accept the previous conversations as "on the record." This gesture would go a long way to removing some questions.

  18. thinkbigpdx on 05 May 2005

    context my one true b!x, context. He may have used the word, but you took it and used it as you did within your statements and there is certainly a snide implication there. I am sorry not to have read the "about page" but it has nothing to do with reading comprehension, "dude", it has to do with a complete lack of interest in who you are, but a vested interest in what you have to say. I choose to spend my time on the posts, not who posts them.

  19. The One True b!X on 05 May 2005

    I choose to spend my time on the posts, not who posts them.

    Then going out of your way to refer to someone being anonymous (sorry, incorrectly do this) is not much more than the gratuitous ad hominems Clevenger was emailing to me late last night.

    You're the one who brought up the anonymity issue. So obviously you're not merely concerned with what is said and not with who is saying it.

  20. thinkbigpdx on 05 May 2005

    to the idea of clevenger going "on the record" it seems that his reluctance to go on record was due to a conflict at the time. I think his offer of a debate, as much as i think it is silly, is his way of going on record without violating any previous obligations of confidence. At a debate he could say it all to B!x again and in public this time--no way to be off the record there, right?

  21. gabriel on 05 May 2005

    I don't understand what "conflict" would now be eliminated. I assume that Mr. Clevenger will
    awake in a better mind and realize that a "debate" would not serve his nor his clients' interests.

  22. thinkbigpdx on 05 May 2005

    on anonymity--i apologize for the use of the term and you are correct that i misused it. when i used the term, i was empathizing with clevenger that it must be frustrating to have someone typing at him all the time with no way to respond beyond e-mail--as you say it is an impersonal medium--and further empathizing that the frustration must increase exponentially when the attacks are so personal and in such high contrast with the medium. i will retract my reference to your anonymity and rephrase with, "a typist making deeply personal attacks in an equally deeply impersonal medium, it is no surprise to me that clevenger has decided to join the fracas and attempt to bring the level of personal interaction up and thereby raise the level of discourse from where it is on this site at this time." further, i believe clevenger is conceding the point being made my other readers that he does not stand a chance in an online argument with you in your forum and where all the rules are yours and he is therefore requesting a more neutral site, and one where he feels he stands a better chance of making his points, in public and on the record. maybe he took debate in high school instead of typing--who knows, but the more I think about it and as silly as it is, maybe you two should just get a coffee and get it over with.

  23. gabriel on 05 May 2005

    The site's editor has attended almost every Bridgehead meeting or presentation. I do not understand why it would be difficult for Mr. Clevenger to speak with him in person concerning his feelings. I am not sure what rules exist that are being exploited. In my experience, you post and up it goes.

  24. justin on 05 May 2005

    B!x:

    Dang! You get letters from Clevenger.

    Lucky!

  25. Big In Japan on 05 May 2005

    This is awesome. Keep it up fellas. I await the challenge to whip out everyone`s dicks and take a measurement to prove once and for all who is the biggest man.

  26. Jack Peek on 05 May 2005

    GEE...talk about hiding, Randy Leonard thinks along the same lines that it's ok to do just that.

    While my "tone" and credibility are questioned here and my "rants" are always dissed, I DON'T HIDE from the guy that stole my vote.

    This is off topic maybe, but is it?

    If the gentlemen wants a face-to-face on a topic, the B!X needs to do it and just face man to man the guy he writes about.

    Mr. Leonard should know that even if he choose's to run from me, an he has. The issue of public safety, that being the placement of (5) dangerous people next to a grade school in Randy Leonard's city is still there and in fact, the placement of more of the same, in numbers that would and should scare the crap of of us is planned.

    Mr. Leonard really is a person who runs from a solution I have because I decided going down the same path with the same people as he wanted me too do was a fricking waste of time.

    If he runs some more after this post and will not meet me face to face, then if the issue I mentioned ever deals a blow to this city as I say it's headed for, then he will be a focal point of who is and what good is an elected offical that denys a citizen his due to personally confront a man who he trusted to at least try to fix a serious problem, an held accountable for it.

  27. Dave Lister on 05 May 2005

    I suggest balloons and blunderbusses over the sewage farm....

  28. alan DeWitt on 05 May 2005

    Oh, Mr. Clevenger. Public relations specialist. [snicker] THANK you for the most fascinating implosion of recent local times. Unlike Tonya Harding's or Niel Goldschmidt's, yours is funny.

    You seem to be under the impression that a series of personal attacks on a journalist whose reports will be in a public archive indefinitely is a good PR move. Heh. It' so mind-bogglingly hilarious I am moved to tears. Public CLMs are the best CLMs.

    I suggest that if you two meet at all, it be in a live, online, text-mode debate. But frankly, I think we can already guess the outcome of any such meeting. It probably won't happen, though... unless he's completely daft, your employer will drop you like a radioactive rock and you'll be instantly irrelevant.

    Thanks for the laugh, though. Hope you have a decent severance package. :-)

  29. DK on 05 May 2005

    What a meltdown. That the people who are building our city put their trust in this jackass is really disheartening.

  30. belinda on 05 May 2005

    The Oregonian has an article today about "Than".

  31. Cab on 05 May 2005

    What does it say about Hennessee the "Pastor" to have a special relationship with a nut job like Clevenger?

  32. Isaac Laquedem on 05 May 2005

    Old saying updated: Never start an argument with someone who buys bytes by the megabyte.

  33. JS on 05 May 2005

    As "an entrepreneur, marketing communications strategist and speech writer," I would think Than Clevenger should be comfortable engaging in a debate online. And it seems that the blather and attacks going back and forth within these comments is a missed opportunity for Clevenger, b!X, the readers of this blog, and the citizens of Portland (I won't bother assigning blame--all of you can read the articles and comments for yourself, and come to your own conclusions).

    However, regardless of any "ad hominem attacks" in the back and forth between Clevenger and b!X, comments from often-insightful Communique readers calling Clevenger a "nut job" or "jackass" aren't very helpful, and give credence to Clevenger's (incorrect, I believe) assumptions about bloggers and blogs, particularly this one.

    If Clevenger is going to bother commenting at all on this blog, I would be interested in hearing exactly which issues are up for debate. Anyone who has written "speeches and or correspondence" for President Clinton and a long list of others should be able to hold his own in this medium.

  34. Noah Brimhall on 05 May 2005

    "You bring your slander and innuendos."

    Clevenger accuses b!X of slander and innuendo, which I saw no evidence of when I looked back at the stories featuring Clevenger on this site. It would be nice if Clevenger would provide direct quotes or evidence of his accusations. Also it should be noted that slander is legally defined as: "Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation." I believe that Clevenger is actually accusing b!X of libel: "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation."

    On the other hand, here are some of the innuendos that Clevenger has presented in this posting:
    " . . . parents monthly support of your hobby . . ."
    " . . . you sissy."
    " . . . lack of real human contact . . ."

    The only thing these quotes do is undermine Clevenger's credibility and make him seem mean spirited.

    However, I do think that b!X label of Clevenger as a PR Flack was not meant to be flattering and probably was a bad idea. Flack has pretty negative connotations and it probably wasn't fair to stick that label on Clevenger.

  35. Penny on 05 May 2005

    This reads like the script for a reality show: "When PR Thugs Attack."

    Let's see how Clevenger's scorecard adds up:

    Lying and obfuscating -- check
    Unprincipled and unprovoked attacking -- check
    Weenie wagging -- check
    Projecting ("you sound a little paranoid") -- check
    Sounding unhinged -- check

    Pass the popcorn.

  36. Alan DeWitt on 05 May 2005

    Over my humor fit now. Time for a thoughtful reply.

    "... it must be frustrating to have someone typing at him all the time with no way to respond beyond e-mail..."

    That's a rather silly thing to say in an area of this website open to public comments. You responded to b!x, right there, in a manner other than e-mail. Mr. Clevenger, or someone claiming to be him, has also responded in this conversation. Apparently the capability exists, no? (If he's having trouble, maybe he can ask Jack Peek for help.)

    thinkbigpdx, you seem to think little of the person you are defending if you think he cannot hold his own in a text-mode conversation. It's as fair as an intellectual contest can get: both parties have time to carefully consider their words and post thoughtful and well-researched replies to one another. (The founders of our nation would recognize this form of debate as familiar. They also held public arguments in text, through the medium of the printed pamphlet.) If Clevenger's ideas are sound, he should have no more trouble debating b!x in text than I would. If his ideas cannot stand up in text-mode, then that would constitute fairly convincing evidence that he's mostly style and little substance. (Although the question of what would be gained in such a debate is a little puzzling. What is there to debate? What is Mr. Clevenger hoping to gain?)

    This site may not be neutral, but it appears to be fair ground. I strongly suspect that this site's author would not abuse any power he has as editor in such a conversation; his site policies and behavior thus far demonstrate that liklihood. He also surely knows that in any such contest his credibility would be at stake as well. Should he choose to host a public text debate here, I have little doubt that he would keep a mountain of traffic logs to shield himself against any accusations of cheating. It would probably be wiser of him to ask another site to host, though... BlueOregon comes to mind.

    Lastly, I don't see that the site author has made unwarranted personal attacks on Mr. Clevenger. I don't read everything on this site, but from what I've seen he's pursued a story that points to a potentially unethical conflict-of-interest. What you call "deeply personal attacks" are, in fact, deeply public attacks. Like it or not, Mr. Clevenger has chosen employers whose public behavior is subject to public scrutiny. If Opus or the PDC have acted unethically in connection to him, or in a manner that gives the appearance of impropriety, any commentary on the situation is the public's business. Mr. Clevenger can choose (and apparently has chosen) to take this personally, or not.

  37. Jonathan on 05 May 2005

    The challenge to a duel is nuts, showing a lack of professional acumen and a lack of common sense (a point I realize has already been made here). Is a keyboard really different than newsprint? Would it have been a little odd (well, immensely odd) for Mark Hemstreet to have challenged John Manning to a public debate/duel. Or maybe our former mayor and governor has missed an opportunity to challenge Nigel Jacuiss to a debate/duel.

  38. William on 05 May 2005

    Dear Mr. Clevenger:

    If you can't handle the heat of a showdown in written format, then I really can't understand why you would slam anybody for chosing not to debate you verbally. Frankly, given the obstreperous tone of your text correspondence, you should be "man enough" to debate b!X in every medium there is.

    I prefer the online medium. It gives you a chance to compose specific details, and to provide documentation that backs those details up, and it provides b!X the same opportunity in defending himself from your charges of libel.

    So, please, bring the specifics, leave behind your character attacks, and let the debate begin. The comment fields here are available for the public to see (which is what you seem to want) and your charges of this field somehow being tilted in b!X's favour don't match up with reality; I have not known b!X to wipe out anybody's posts.

  39. doretta on 05 May 2005

    I was under the impression that the guy who issues the challenge has to let the challengee pick the weapons. Swords, anyone?

    Mr. Clevenger, don't you get it that being a professional PR guy you just look like a bully with all this "mano a mano" stuff? You may well be more articulate than b!X in person, what's that got to do with the issues at hand?

    b!X allows you to respond freely here. You've had the option all along to address the substance of the statements he made about you. You obviously also know how to use a keyboard. It appears from your comments that the last thing you want is a fair fight.

    Commissioner Leonard is right. In the PR battle going on here, you are losing in a landslide.

  40. Jack Bog on 05 May 2005

    I'd like to see the speeches and correspondence that Than wrote for the president. "Ladies and gentlemen, let me say to my opponents, bring your friends and I'll mess you up, sucka." LOL.

  41. Betsy on 05 May 2005

    I'd also remind everyone that Than can create his own blog - at no charge and minimal effort - if he really wants to air his side of the story online without fear of censorship or editing.

    Last time I checked, Blogger was still available. He can have all the control he wants there. And I'm quite sure he'll have quite the array of inbound linking opportunities if he so desires...

    b!X, you'd toss him a link or two, right...? Jack, you'd be up for it, no? And there's a host of us local folks who'd be happy to point folks his way so he can adequately air his grievances and/or defend his honor.

  42. justin on 05 May 2005

    I just finished reading the Oregonian article on Than. And if he lost money on his PR contract with PDC, than that's one hell of a binder he put together for Mayor Potter. Gold Plated, I imagine.

  43. Suzii on 05 May 2005

    b!X, next time a source springs an off-the-record surprise on you, I hope you'll say 'thank you for your time' and find something better to do!

  44. Jack Bog on 05 May 2005

    Top 10 names for Than's new blog:

    10. I'll Find You at Stumptown
    9. yo_mama.com
    8. I Ain't Vituperous
    7. I'm O.K., You're an Arrogant Sissy
    6. The Brains Behind Rev. Matt
    5. Mess You Up...

  45. Elaine of Kalilily on 05 May 2005

    As one myself, I know that successful PR people are performers at heart. They love a live audience.

    Journalists/writers tend to think better sitting down and surrounded by researched materials.

    Because Clevenger is the former and b!X the latter, having a public debate would give Clevenger a distinct advantage.

    Debating online removes the edge that Clevenger has as a PR/performer and puts the focus where it should be -- on intelligent dialogue and not on personality or performance.

    And, Mr. Clevenger, what's wrong with a family believing so strongly in the importance and value of what one of its members is doing that such family is willing to help fund the effort? Seems like a really cool thing, to me.

  46. shannon on 05 May 2005

    There's plenty of material here,

    BUT, the final amusement of these exchanges is Clevenger ridiculing B!X's familial aid, while claiming his own "platonic" aid as perfectly legitimate.

    Apparently accepting underwriting from those who believe in your cause is beneath the preferences of Public Contracters who would rather take advantage of questionably awarded no-bid contracts.

    Of the two income sources, I'll guess that contract work is the higher earner. Here's to putting your "heart and soul" into it, Mr. Clevenger.

  47. Jonathan on 05 May 2005

    Waiting for JackBog's top 4, and I can't wait any longer ... how about ...

    4. Hypocrite.com ... I'll bash you for blogging, but have not problem hiding in the other room while the PDC announcement is made

    3. Quite a vituperous punch for a short guy.

    2. Me-as-an-ass-in-person-and-online.com

    1. It's-my-turn-at-the-monkey-bars.com

  48. Suzii on 05 May 2005

    You know, calling a PR flak a "PR flak" is really no more objectionable than calling a used car salesman a "used car salesman." Right?

  49. Jack Peek on 05 May 2005

    Did you all notice that the good Mr.Leonard hasn't had the time to respond in written text to my continuing request for a meeting he promised with me,(NOT THE PRINCIPALS 0F THE PEOPLE WHO SLAMMED A CRIMINALLY INSANE GROUP HOME IN A SE PDX NEIGHBORHOOD), but a man who fell over for his "direct talk", no BS,kind of personality, he got my vote on.

    Sure...you all have been busy, so I guess you must have missed it...I know I did too.

    First you folks diss a face to face meeting requested by somebody with the B!xer, then the debate has to be on the "OLD BLOG", then its pistols at 50 yrds..." say"s DAVE LISTER" (funny thing about Dave, he always has something too say, but when the stuff hits the fan, he can't be counted on, he has a business to run....Shut up DAVE!

    Lets get back to responsibility....when an issue is presented no matter who brings it up, (STAY WITH ME NOW) If it is a matter of public safety, (As in, " YES Jack ,They are dangerous.")qoute from a principal of the non-profit that placed them there on a video tape of a public meeting...and you bring that fact to an elected offical who promises you some action on it, and then does nothing because you say that's not what you promised to do, ...and you refuse to kiss his "ring"( THIS IS A FAMILY BLOG).

    The issue hasn't gone away, its going to get worse..and the SO- refuse's all communication.

    Who needs their BUTT KICKED ?

    If it isn't a blog,if it's not an email, a phone call, a face-to- face on the front porch of the taxpayers house who pays for the group home,and the elected offical's paycheck...THEN HOW IS THE PROBLEM FIXED?

    Maybe a charity event...(3) one minute rounds, winner takes all for a selected favorite...Take your choice Randy, Think of all the people that would buy tickets for this one event....at least you would get a chance to respond when the bell rings for round one.

    Journalists/writers tend to think better sitting down and surrounded by researched materials.

    Because Clevenger is the former and b!X the latter, having a public debate would give Clevenger a distinct advantage.

    Debating online removes the edge that Clevenger has as a PR/performer and puts the focus where it should be -- on intelligent dialogue and not on personality or performance.


    HELL ....I can't get any of the above, so tell Randy what's best for him to respond with. JP

  50. myrln on 05 May 2005

    Hey, Jack, whattaya hear from Aryan Nation lately? I ask simply because as usual you're anywhere but on topic, so I figured the question might show you as much. Focus, man, try to let the thread penetrate so you can understand what's going on in this whole long exchange and realize your comments, as usual, are irrelevant.

  51. Lily on 05 May 2005

    Thank you Myrlin for your comments to the ever tedious Jack Peek. God forbid he should stay on topic or stop to consider any other agenda but his own.

  52. Jack Peek on 05 May 2005

    Hey, Jack, whattaya hear from Aryan Nation lately?

    ACTUALLY...The post is dead-on.


    If you want an answer on an issue, you need to choose the forum/format.

    I just want an answer...and I CAN'T GET ONE!

    Let Randy pick one, I'll settle for anything he wants, I'm just sick of his running.

    As for the "Aryan" commment, I HATE JUST ABOUT ALL THINGS LEFT.....I TAKE AFTER HOWARD DEAN.

  53. Alan DeWitt on 05 May 2005

    Jack, I understand your frustration with the lack of response. But just because this is one place that Mr. Lenoard reads and posts does not make whatever you say to him here on-topic.

    This thread is about the public spat between Mr. Clevenger, soon-to-be-ex PR flack for Opus, and the Stumptown-swigging host of this site. The only way you've addressed that topic is to use it as a very brief lead-in to your attacks on Leonard.

    You're being very rude by shouting across everyone else's conversation here. Fortunately, unlike at a church or a movie, such crosstalk is pretty easy to ignore online. The downside of that for you is that it's equally easy for your target to ignore you. [grin] If you're willing to be this rude, and you actually want a chance at getting results, then I'd recommend you go picket City Hall.

  54. Jack Peek on 06 May 2005

    You're being very rude by shouting across everyone else's conversation here. "said Allen."

    In no way do I mean,nor want to be rude...PLEASE! accept that statement.

    The issue I have " ranted " about is well past a critical mass, with over 200 plus "criminally insane " people, "ALL DRESSED UP WITH NO PLACE TO GO!" say's a lead editorial in the Oregonian.

    These " New Neighbors" will continue in Buckman neighborhood as Lily has observed as already staturated with social services of some nature that are not a plus for raising kids with these places next door.

    The problem is that for the time I have called out about this, the agencys, the advocates, that place these people "refuse" to provide real, dare we say "honest" information about the real nature of these folks because they don't have too.

    That falls back on the people we elect to provide the "basics", that being public safety as Job "ONE"!

    When you go against the grain as I HAVE, and bring out information that has the impact of what it is....."YES, JACK, THEY ARE DANGEROUS!" a qoute from a video tape response of one of the principals of the so-called non-profit group that takes alot of our money to provide that accurate information and hide behind over used laws that say they don't have too give that information out...myself and I would think any of you as a loving and caring person for whom ever you care for, would want that knowledge to see your needs are first over the so-called rights of those who damn well have hurt or killed others in the past insane or not.


    I took this to the people like Katz, Sten(who said there is a percieved saturation of social services in Buckman) and a host of others...asking for support...and got no where!

    These people well not have places built or provided for them by Homer Williams...nor will the areas where Homers's friends live get them.

    They are and will be placed where we live.

    As for Randy Leonard, whatever his lack of support for my effort's on this issue..that fact remains...THE PROBLEM IS THERE...IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE, and he refuses as promised to accept a meeting with me on this because he hasn't as all the electeds, the guts to go against DC. and the advocates of the mental health community that refuse to separate the violent crimianally insane,(THAT ARE DANGEROUS) from the mentally ill who are not.


    If the above isn't enough for you, maybe it will be when you have to leave your wife and kids/ loved ones alone for extended periods or work related travel with 4 murders and an arsonist next to your grade school on your back fence. Please consider this before you suggest Randy Leonard continue to ignore me because he refuses any area of communication.

    That is not what I thought I WAS going to get when I VOTED FOR THE GUY.

    Lastly ,I'm not a nutcase...nor HAVE, I ever been in a grouphome, but I will make local and national news when one of these places explodes, because its not a case of ever, BUT WHEN ONE DOES.

    Please..as a city, lets do a better job on a real issue that can cause harm to us if we don't do a better job of looking out for ourselfs when those we elect will not.


    OK ..its not the right thread..but it's an issue. Why not do it here?

  55. Jack Peek on 06 May 2005

    PS...PS. Its about PDC as well, they helped finance the group home at a so far below market rate of interest ..IT WAS OBSCENE!

  56. mytulpa on 06 May 2005

    Just a quick note from the English department Bix, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Never criticize spelling unless you're absolutely sure your own is flawless.

    To wit:
    "Willemette"

  57. thinkbigPDX on 06 May 2005

    In response to Alan DimWitt—

    First, sorry to be late with this, but I am now ready to throw my hat back in the ring and will start with a thanks to the one true B!X for creating such a vibrant forum.

    Now for my thoughtful reply in kind—I would suggest that we focus our efforts on the message contained within the arguments and not on the technical definitions of the words that make up the arguments. I have tried to make this point to B!X on the use of the word “anonymous” and I find myself again arguing semantics rather than moving the discussion forward in any way shape or form. That said, I will concede the point about the use of the word “e-mail” and start out down 1-0 to Mr. DimWitt.

    As for the debate in this forum with B!X, I think right now it is sort of like heckling a stand-up comic. He who holds the mic wins. If B!X was willing to consider a format of posts between him and Clevenger that started with opening statements and then allowed each of them to pose 5 questions to the other, one at a time with an hour to respond and 30 minutes for rebuttal and then end with closing statements due the next day, I think that would be a level playing field. After they are all done with this private session, B!X could post the whole thing here and we could all read it and see who is the winner.

    “(Although the question of what would be gained in such a debate is a little puzzling. What is there to debate? What is Mr. Clevenger hoping to gain?)”

    If you have read all the posts about Clevenger on this site, the debate is pretty clear. Topics on the table include Clevenger’s involvement with the PDC and OPUS and the legality of that involvement, the integrity of this site including the charge that the editor does not live up to his own journalistic and web log ethics and the effect that this has on the readers of the site and city politics. Seems like a healthy debate to me—you?

    “What you call "deeply personal attacks" are, in fact, deeply public attacks”

    This clever twist of words is well done and I appreciate the effort but the reality remains that B!X has chosen to attack a person on the other side of an issue, not attack the issue. If he follows his own advice on the elements of journalism (listed below for your reference) he would not have taken this tactic.
    Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.—B!X has done a good job on this one, but the truth is a slippery little thing and he certainly tends to lean on the reporting of others pulled into the context of his choosing. This has served many people quite well including our currant president. Maybe if Karl Rove ever retires, B!X can run Jeb’s campaign.

    Its first loyalty is to citizens—good job on this one as long as the citizenry only includes people who agree with the editorial spin included in his choice of topics, links and posts. Sort of like how FOX News speaks to the “citizens”

    Its essence is a discipline of verification.—the level of verification is the question. If you are pre-disposed to believe something it takes a lot less “verification” to alleviate doubts and bouts of conscience.

    Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.—This one is so clear that even Mr. DimWitt must recognize B!X’s failure here when it comes to Clevenger.

    It must serve as an independent monitor of power.—to report what the powers are up to is one thing, to interpret what they are up to is entirely different.

    It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.—B!X has done a great job at this and the discussion on this forum is admirable, passionate and usually takes place at a high level of intelligence. The city is better off with the one true’s opinion, but it is important to recognize it as ONE opinion.

    It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.—Making the significant interesting and relevant is a great goal as long as you stick to the other elements in this list. The problem is when one person is deciding what is significant, often they will make the insignificant seem significant by making it interesting (reality TV vs. CNN) and the irrelevant appear relevant (Anyone recall the Weapons of Mass Destruction conversations of a few years ago? How about the use of 9-11 as a call to go to Iraq? Moral questions in electing government officials? Gay Marriage?)

    It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.—See above on this but in short this says to keep it fair and balanced if it’s news. Opinion is a whole other thing.

    Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.—There is a clear difference between exercising your personal conscience and spewing your personal opinion.

    The biggest problem in all of this is that while I love the read B!X’s opinion on everything he covers because I tend to agree with him, I see many people reading his opinion as news. This is not a problem for B!X as it gives him more power in his innate ability to write in that slim grey zone between truth/news and opinion/editorial.

    On to the web log ethics:


    Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true.-He sets a standard for truth and if it were published and acknowledged it would make the whole site a lot more honest. The problem is, B!X has become so good at making opinion look like fact and associating facts in such a way that the logical interpretation of the facts results in a conclusion that matches his opinion. The question that the readers should ask themselves is which came first, the opinion or the ordering and association of facts.

    If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.—Technicality and B!X is great at those—see “Anonymity” time sink in my previous post.

    Publicly correct any misinformation.—This would require an objective editor. That is not what we have here and so instead we are required to take the opinion for what it is and compare to other sources. Again that blurred grey area that exists when you cannot disagree with yourself otherwise known as the “One true Fog”.

    Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.—see above on technicality.

    Disclose any conflict of interest.—This one is avoided as B!X does not seem to benefit from anything he writes and he is very honorable about this whole thing.

    Note questionable and biased sources.—He does his best on this, but the stilted commentary that often accompanies his use of source material overshadows his ability to appropriately judge the sources of his information as well as the fact that he mostly borrows from other reports rather than doing his own research.

    In closing this thoughtful post I think it is important to point out that I believe opinion is a good thing as long as it is appropriately labeled and on this entire site there is a great deal of wonderful opinion to be seen. I also think it is important for me to address the Bridgehead project. The difficult thing for me to accept and the thing that makes me regret being from Portland is the small town nature of the support for the beam project. The city is bigger than the central eastside and thank god for that. The money that will go into the Bridgehead comes from everyone in the city, not just the people who speak their minds at public meetings. The Beam team didn’t have the money. It is too bad, but in a city where we have schools closing and cuts to just about every other agency in the city, for a small group of people form one of many, many neighborhoods to feel entitled to drive the process and to believe that the PDC has some obligation to listen to the vocal minority is small minded. To feel wronged because the PDC did the fiscally responsible thing with the citizen’s tax money and decided that the way to develop the central eastside will involve some change as development usually does, is a powerful kind of stupid. It is a kind of stupid that will hold back Portland, it will maintain a status quo that needs to evolve and it will keep us from ever enjoying the benefits of a thriving, large city with wonderful values about the environment and what it means to lead an “urban” life. Portland has a chance to be a global city like San Francisco or Boston, it has a chance to be an example of how things should be done, how growth should take place, how to innovate in development and city planning. We have a board that is charged with doing that and an elected official appointed that board. If you are not happy with the board, don’t look for conspiracy or reasons why they were influenced—that is obvious and it is all dollars—instead, focus on getting the elected officials to listen to your feelings and if they won’t, speak with your vote the next time you have a chance. For the PDC to choose Beam would have been fiscally irresponsible, but additionally it would have been socially irresponsible. The Beam project would require the use of new market tax credits that were intended for entrepreneurial and minority developers. In fighting for the Beam project, the inner eastside citizens are implicitly stating their belief that their desires for a project that will be developed by “one of their own” in a way that meets their desires is more important than the proper use of these new market tax credits to support their intended recipients. They are also showing their sense of entitlement to control a process that involves tax dollars from every citizen in Portland, not just those with 97214 in their address. The opus project did not require the new market tax credits, the opus project did not require as many of the citizens’ tax dollars and the opus project has a financial track record to hang its hat on. If I were on the PDC I would have voted the same way they did—it should be noted that not one member of the commission voted to support Beam so can we stop the small minded, powerful stupid, obstructionist bitching and searching for evidence of collusion where none exists and move on to something else so the city can grow, or is that too much to ask from the almighty, self-proclaimed high-tide on Burnside activism for inertia, fight for the right to keep the neighborhood buried in its own funk, entitlement for “us”, keep it in the family because if we don’t we’re scared of what might happen when “they” move in next door, if you don’t drive a Subaru stay the hell out of my hood, social change through live-work flex space for artists that I like not small businesses up in North Portland where I don’t go anyway crew from the greatest neighborhood in all of the world—the Central East Side.

    I think it is clear that this is my opinion and that while it is based on facts, it is just one opinion—B!X—you might not agree…but you understand!

  58. JS on 06 May 2005

    Whoa. Towards the end of this last post I almost passed out from lack of air, and I was just reading, silently, to myself.

    I don't want to dismiss the entire post, but I think the majority of it, while thoughtful and probably earnest, was irrelevant.

    But the parts that are relevant have been largely overlooked here (and elsewhere). I'm posting this, not because I have strong feelings on the following issues, but because I hope to learn something from a discussion of them.

    The difficult thing for me to accept and the thing that makes me regret being from Portland is the small town nature of the support for the beam project. The city is bigger than the central eastside and thank god for that. The money that will go into the Bridgehead comes from everyone in the city, not just the people who speak their minds at public meetings.

    However, I think this -- "To feel wronged because the PDC did the fiscally responsible thing with the citizen’s tax money and decided that the way to develop the central eastside will involve some change as development usually does, is a powerful kind of stupid." -- is a distortion of the cause of the "feel wronged" sentiment. My take, and I could be wrong, is that people are upset because the PDC paid only lip-service to the public involvement process. Apparently, they had very little interest in what the people who took the time to participate had to say.

    But back to what I would like people, who know more than I, to address:

    For the PDC to choose Beam would have been fiscally irresponsible, but additionally it would have been socially irresponsible. The Beam project would require the use of new market tax credits that were intended for entrepreneurial and minority developers...The opus project did not require the new market tax credits, the opus project did not require as many of the citizens’ tax dollars and the opus project has a financial track record to hang its hat on.

    Obviously, I'm more interested in the accountability issue--the dynamic between the PDC and the public (both the vocal "minority" and the silent "majority" of Portlanders). Thanks.

  59. Elaine of Kalilily on 06 May 2005

    Lest commentors here forget, b!X is one lone financially-stressed individual doing his level-headed best to shine some linked lights on possible dark places in Portland politics. And, lest commentors here forget, any weblog that has comments enabled works well as a place to bring up issues for detailed examination and additional linking by other interested parties. And also, lest commentors here forget, one's weblog is a place to voice one's own considered opinion.

    It seems to me that many of the criticisms of how b!X runs his Communique are based on assumptions about weblogging, in general, and this weblog, in particular, that are off the mark.

    Weblogging is not strictly journalism; rather it intersects with journalism and b!X has links to information about the implications of forging a place for oneself where those two arenas intersect. Weblogging can include elements of journalism, elements of commentary; elements of creative writing..... B!X clearly states his "weblog ethics," and, from what I've seen here, he adheres to them. I'm not sure, however, if he feels obligated to adhere strictly to the "elements of journalism," and in the weblogging arena, that's acceptable.

    It's interesting to see people who don't now much about weblogs and their functions trying to fit that square peg into a variety of other round holes.

    Furthermore, anyone who would like to see b!X do more investigative research himself (which, I'm sure he would like to do) is welcome to help him make that possible with money to buy more efficient and effective hardware and software and pay someone else to do all the site's technical maintenance AND give him a car (with insurance paid up in advance) so that he doesn't have to use up a lot of investigative time taking buses to where the action is.

    I'd like to see any one of the commentors here do what b!X tries so hard to do well and do it as well.

  60. JS on 06 May 2005

    To clarify, when I wrote:

    "Whoa. Towards the end of this last post I almost passed out from lack of air, and I was just reading, silently, to myself.

    "I don't want to dismiss the entire post, but I think the majority of it, while thoughtful and probably earnest, was irrelevant."

    I meant "comment" instead of "post." I was referring to thinkbigPDX's most recent comment, including his 165 word final sentence.

    IMHO, b!X usually does a great job with this site.

  61. Dave Lister on 06 May 2005

    Jack Peek wrote:

    say"s DAVE LISTER" (funny thing about Dave, he always has something too say, but when the stuff hits the fan, he can't be counted on, he has a business to run....Shut up DAVE!

    Jack,

    An apostrophe in the word "say" would indicate either a conjunctive expression meaning "say is" or a posessive meaning that Dave Lister belongs to a person or thing named "say". Of course, you have used a quotation mark rather than an apostrophe so I'm not sure what you meant. Perhaps you were looking for the past tense of "say" which, for future reference, is "said". "Too" (with two o's) is an adverb synonymous with also. You were attempting to join the verb "say" with the pronoun "something" which is done with the word "to" (with one O).

    By the way, I don't think I will shut up. I do have a business to run, and that business keeps five Oregon families fed, clothed and sheltered. I also find the time to devote four half days each month to doing real work on the city's business advisory council, which is helping people create jobs to make our city a better place.

    What do you do, Jack Peek, except rant and froth?

  62. Lily on 06 May 2005

    Right on Dave!

  63. voline on 06 May 2005

    This is only my opinion, but Jack Peek's contributions are clearly far more noise than signal. Responding to him only wastes your time and encourages him to post further, thus cluttering up the site with off-topic, poorly-reasoned ravings. In the process he often succeeds in dragging the conversation off-topic, as he has here.

    I think that Jack Peek is the functional equivalent of a troll. If we ignore him he may go away, or he may not. Either way the discussion will certainly be more on-topic.

    The following are excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on "internet trolls":

    An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent with such content. The term derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" and ultimately from trolling for fish;

    Troll food refers to replies to the original controversial troll posts, that the trolls subsequently use as feedback to throw more fuel to the fire of their posts.

    "Please do not feed the Trolls" is a warning sign that other article readers post to warn newbies that they believe the original poster is a troll.

    In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention.

  64. Alan DeWitt on 07 May 2005

    Some pseudonymous person writes: "In response to Alan DimWitt"

    Wow, I don't think I've ever heard that one before! Gee, now I feel all intimidated by your l33t cleverness and stuff.

    Or... not.

    It's an amazingly petty thing to do leading in to such a thoughtful comment. Speaks volumes about you, especially considering your own anonymity. Alas that I have no way to respond beyond e-mail!

    "If you have read all the posts about Clevenger on this site, the debate is pretty clear. Topics on the table include Clevenger’s involvement with the PDC and OPUS and the legality of that involvement, [...]"

    I have gone back and read them. (Just posts, not necessarily all other comments.) But while these allegations may be topics of discussion at some hypothetical debate, none of the questions raised can be answered in a debate. They only can be answered by the relevant ethics oversight bodies. Such a body may answer them in Mr. Clevenger's favor, or to his detriment... it depends jointly on his past behavior and on the integrity of the ethics oversight body. The questions were properly raised in the press, but it is not up to the press to determine guilt or innocence. No debate should substitute for a fair hearing; doing so is a disservice to the accused and to the public.

    "[...] the integrity of this site including the charge that the editor does not live up to his own journalistic and web log ethics and the effect that this has on the readers of the site and city politics."

    Like Clevenger, b!x has made himself (in his role as editor and publisher of this site) a public figure whose public behavior is subject to public scrutiny. That he's become no different in this regard than Busse or Stickel is a sign he's made it as a journalist. Fire away! I'll be following his response with interest. That said, his journalistic ethics, or lack thereof, are almost entirely irrelevant to Clevenger's amusing reaction. Several other public figures have been more soundly excoriated on this site without coming unhinged.

    "This clever twist of words is well done and I appreciate the effort but the reality remains that B!X has chosen to attack a person on the other side of an issue, not attack the issue."

    There we differ. I see b!x attacking an apparent conflict of interest between a public body evaluating bids and a bidder for a multi-million dollar contract. (Speaking as a taxpayer, I find such conflicts are rarely a good feature in government contract processes.) That apparent conflict of interest happens to be channeled through a particular person. Any person in such a position is bound to get his name mentioned, but that person's only real relevance comes from his status as the vector of the conflict of interest.

    Apparently you see the issue as an attack on the outcome of the process, rather than on the process itself, and that the attack is directed against this one person simply because he is a handy vulnerable target.

    Public attack or private attack? Beats me which is the truth. I don't know what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

    Based on the history of this site, though, I'd say b!x has demonstrated that he's a fan of good processes in government. (Try the google search "process site:communique.portland.or.us" to see how many times the word has appeared. It's an amusingly high count.) Also, given that these "attacks" started well before the outcome of the process was known, it seems unlikely that it is some petulant retaliation. To me, the evidence suggests my interpretation is likely to be closer to the truth than yours.

    "The biggest problem in all of this is that [...] I see many people reading his opinion as news. This is not a problem for B!X as it gives him more power in his innate ability to write in that slim grey zone between truth/news and opinion/editorial."

    On the contrary, I happen to know that this very point is of great importance to b!x. Of all your criticisms, I expect that's the one which was most likely to make him wince. Still, I think it's obvious that this site is a blend of news and opinion. While the two are not explicitly labeled, he's pretty clear about his sources when he's doing reporting, and the transitions between news and opinion seem pretty obvious to me. (Especially in the previous Clevenger posts.) For one man filling the usually-isolated roles of reporter, editor, and publisher, I think he's doing a pretty fair job under difficult circumstances. Certainly it's nothing he should be ashamed of, even if j-schools wouldn't approve.

    But that's not really relevant to Clevenger's unhinged response either. (See above.)

    When B!x noticed the Clevenger connection between Opus and PDC and originally pointed it out, he did so in a very value-neutral way. He said it made him uncomfortable, but that he imagined it was not rare. It was a very citizenly comment, I thought. (Not a "Look, here's a smoking gun!" comment but a "Gee, that's funny..." comment.) The complications and escalations since then have been more due to the reporting of other news outlets and Mr. Clevenger himself than to b!x. Therefore Clevenger's wacky comments to b!x seem to me to have come out of nowhere and been entirely unjustified.

    Maybe you'd care to explain them, thinkbigpdx? You are Mr. Clevenger, are you not? You write much better now that you're sober. One can almost believe you successfully work in P.R.

  65. thinkbigPDX on 07 May 2005

    i have read with interest the response of Elaine of Kalilily and Mr. DimWitt. Elaine's maternal interest in B!X and his career is quite kind, but the circumstances of his life are of little relevance to his ability to be a repsonsible reporter and the request for a car with insurance? Thanks mom.

    I am sure that Mr. DimWitt and I will have many exchanges about the ethics of journalism on this site in the most recent thread that B!X started today. I have yet to read it, but appreciate the one true's willingness to open it up for discussion. In the post from the previouusly mentioned DimWitt, he asserts his belief that I am, in fact, clevenger. First, I am not--I think "than" has shown his willingness to post on his own and his lack of posts recently are probably due to a combination of a severe hang-over and coming to his senses. I am glad DimWitt knows B!X so well and I am greatful for the preview of what B!X will have to say about my comments. Thanks Alan, but I can read it for myself.

    In your latest post, after i sort through the warnings and advice about what B!X will say (you are not him are you????) I think I can sum it up for you like this:

    The hearing you mention where the accused get a fair trial is hard to come by in the court of public opinion and that is why clevenger is asking for a debate. the conflict of interest is a matter of interpretation and as the PDC vote was 5-nil, i can't imagine that you really believe clevenger is able to influence them all and even if he could, can he influence them all more than the mighty inner-east side and old portland people like Bob Walsh et al? Get real, it's the money stupid. The PDC made a responsible choice and while all three bidders were working hard to get it, OPUS won.

    How about asking all the same questions about the BEAM team and their lobbying of the PDC and the PDC staff and the community and the press. You know they did everything they could and that they certianly used all the same tricks as anyone else. I have no idea how clean or dirty the fight was, but i am sure that no matter how dirty it was, it was the same on all sides. The process may need to be cleaned up, but if that is the case, let's see what B!X can turn up on the Beam team and how they worked the system, then let's reflect on the process and demand process changes next time, not focus on trying to tear down a good decision and delaying a project that was won within the rules as they stand today and within the context of the RFP.

  66. The One True b!X on 07 May 2005

    For what it's worth, my references to Clevenger's connections, to my knowledge, never carried the explicit odor of alleging some sort of conspiracy. When I first started talking about Clevenger and Opus, it was in the context of feeling very specifically as if they were trying to snow and manipulate me into seeing things their way.

    As has been mentioned already by someone else, when I first brought up my sense of being manipulated and the various connections Clevenger had, I did indeed also say something along the lines of "this sort of thing probably happens all the time" but stated that I reserved the right to be uncomfortable with it -- on the premise that "everybody does it" doesn't make it proper, even if it's legal.

    I'm all aware of the fact that many people, including some of my readers, have been in outright conspiracy and "the fix is in" mode for months (although many of them mistakenly thought the fix was going to give the project of Gerding/Edlen). I've never played that particular part of the game.

    The entire reason that my experiences of Clevenger made it onto this site is because he and Opus are the ones who approached me. None of the other teams did. As I've said repeatedly over the years here, this site has never been anything more than my experience of learning about this City. So if one party involved in a three-party competition goes out of their way to do what feels to me like an attempt at snowing me, that's going to be reported here.

    it isn't my fault that neither Beam nor Gerding/Edlen tried to do the same thing.

  67. Alan DeWitt on 07 May 2005

    "The hearing you mention where the accused get a fair trial is hard to come by in the court of public opinion and that is why clevenger is asking for a debate."

    So, you're saying he's asking for a public debate to avoid being judged by the court of public opinion? That seems a bit counterproductive.

    More probably you mean that he seeks to tell his side of the story and defend himself against b!x's "attacks". I don't see that a debate will help much there either, for two reasons.

    One, it doesn't appear to me that b!x's intent was to do anything more than expose the connection. It's exposed, so the journalistic mission is complete. Although I may be wrong, I don't think he has any interest in prosecuting the conflict of interest, only in reporting the story as it develops. So there's really no motivation for b!x to debate at all, let alone debate well.

    Two, if Clevenger's main interest in holding a debate is to get his story out, he has other options. There is nothing preventing Clevenger from using any number of tools to get his side of the story out. He could post it here, he could start his own blog or website, he could issue a press release, he could tell his story to a sympatehtic reporter for another news organization, he could take out a print ad... I'm sure he could think of more, being a PR specialist and all.

    So why debate?

    From the unhinged nature of Clevenger's comments, the only thing that springs readily to mind is that he wishes to publically humiliate b!x as a matter of vengeance for some imagined or real slight. That doesn't seem like a winnable game for either side... I can't imagine why b!x would choose to play.

    I'm willing to listen to other possible explanations if you have any.

    "i can't imagine that you really believe clevenger is able to influence them all ..."

    Not only do I not believe it, I don't even care who won! I don't even live in Portland. I'm just a mildly interested bystander from down the valley. The apparent conflict of interest and the daft response of Clevenger are far more interesting to me than the outcome of the bid selection.

    "[...] his lack of posts recently are probably due to a combination of a severe hang-over and coming to his senses."

    Thank heavens for small favors.

    I am glad DimWitt knows B!X so well and I am greatful for the preview of what B!X will have to say about my comments."

    Well, I don't really. I met him like five times. But on most of those occasions that very subject was discussed, so I think I'm probably not too far astray.

  68. torridjoe on 07 May 2005

    Replying to N Clevenger:
    "Also, Your diatribe here is full of holes, mistakes, ridiculous fantasies (although, I do admire your creativity) and other specious claims."

    I'm sure everyone would welcome an enumeration of any of these. It would certainly constitute a move towards debate, rather than shape-shifting topic diversion. It certainly doesn't appear, assuming you are Than Clevenger, that you are disputing relevant facts/claims: changing the terms of the conversation at Stumptown; receiving contracts from both OPUS and PDC in the recent past; your close personal and political relationship with the PDC Chair; your attempt to swing B!x's reportage with off-record commentary, with the carrot of switching to on-record; and your subsequent request to seek fairly unprecedented status as a source for reportage.

    Nor do you appear to directly dispute the texts of emails and other communication between yourself and B!x, particularly with regard to personal attacks and challenges, all seemingly directed at the idea of an oral debate that is nonetheless to be infused on your part with 'mano a mano' physical puffery. It is as if you are a boxing promoter at the fight's-eve press conference. Of course, unlike a debate, a fight is fairly legitimate grounds for flexy machismo, no?.

    Certainly if you do not rebuke or otherwise recant these recent statements here, I cannot imagine how it would not materially harm your efforts to a) draft Matt Hennesy for public office, and b) establish your own niche as local powerbroker/Kingmaker. They make you seem substantially unfit for the task.

    Turning to thinkbigpdx, there are lots of things I might respond to, but I find most curious the overall basis alleged, that the Central Eastside was simply "thinking too small." Yes, the City IS bigger than the CE--but it's foolish to assume that the draw for business at the Bridgehead would include substantially more than the CE itself. And this perspective totally subordinates economic impact--which is certainly important--to environmental concerns. By that I mean "they who have to live with it in their backyard." It's not any accident that CE residents provided the bulk of public comment; I see no reason to disparage or discount their input--especially given the near-unanimity of perspective.

    I also question the entire concept of Beam's "granola" initiatives as being narrow-focally suspect. Artist atelier/retail spaces and chef/market stalls certainly have successful precedents; The Torpedo Factory in Alexandria, VA is a good example of the former. They are also both natural use-fits for the inmigrant population Portland draws--the creative class that is almost cliche but which has very real positive impacts on city growth. These residents are centered in the inner neighborhoods on both sides of the river, prominently so in the Bridgehead area. Or maybe you've not dropped by the Doug Fir or visited someone at the Jupiter Hotel nearby on Burnside and 8th--both classic examples of how 'creative class' business can thrive...and on existing, vacant sites yet!

    I fear I've already exceeded most people's tolerance for comment length. I close by asking Mr. Clevenger to wisely heed the counsel of those here who advise him to take a breath and a big step backwards before doing something REALLY ill-advised.

  69. thinkbigPDX on 07 May 2005

    “So, you're saying he's asking for a public debate to avoid being judged by the court of public opinion? That seems a bit counterproductive.”

    Now it is counter productive to ask for a fair hearing in the court of public opinion? With this and the rest of that post I am done with the Dimwitt on this topic.

    While torridjoe is late to the party I’ll respond anyway. On the Clevenger issue and the need to enumerate his claims against B!X, again, I am sure this is why he has requested a debate and why I have suggested that they debate online in some format.

    On to the Bridgehead—my point about the size of Portland is exactly that the Bridgehead is in all of our “backyards” and that if it is not going to draw business from more than the CE it will be a complete failure. I am certainly not subordinating economic impact to anything, in fact I think the economic impact of the Bridgehead should be to bring business from all over the city to the CE and in doing so allow citizens who do not visit the CE a reason to go there, to live there, to spend money there and to make the CE and the whole city more vibrant. I disparage and discount the input of the resident of the CE on this issue because their vision of the CE is locked in the past and represents a place that only offers one type of environment. Diversity of business, living spaces, placing the “creative class” in close proximity with white-collar business people and retail below living spaces is a recipe for success that has been proven around the country in successful urban planning, revitalization of old cities and right here in the Pearl, up on Alberta, Mississippi and what is starting to happen over on Interstate with Mint and Gotham Tavern. I think Doug Fir and Jupiter Hotel as well as the Farm are all great examples to follow, but they are the product of the “creative class” creating a draw for the whole city, bringing people to the CE for
    a night out is one thing, getting them to live and work there is another. The OPUS project will do that and bring with it an installed economic base that can continue to support the artists/creative set as well as expand the success that is the Pearl and the other neighborhoods I mentioned. The key to it all is being open to change, open to diversity and open to the idea that the way it has always been is not the way it should always be. From what I have seen the CE residents just want more of the same and with that wanted BEAM to get the project for reasons that did not consider the broader impact of the tax credits, the tax payer cost, or the needs of the whole city but just what they want now for their reasons with no vision towards the future.

    Given the content of your comments, I am sure that Clevenger will view your advice as wise and be sure to heed it, if I were him as DimWitt suggests, I know I would.

  70. The One True b!X on 07 May 2005

    For what it's worth, the point Alan was trying to make is that it makes no sense to seek a public debate in order to avoid the court of public opinion -- because a public debate would still be the court of public opinion.

    So it's not so much counterproductive, perhaps, as it is inherently contradictory.

  71. Alan DeWitt on 07 May 2005

    "Now it is counter productive to ask for a fair hearing in the court of public opinion?"

    I figured you would be bright enough to figure that one out, like b!x did. Guess not.

    "With this and the rest of that post I am done with the Dimwitt on this topic."

    Bye now! Keep those cards and letters.

  72. torridjoe on 07 May 2005

    thanks for the response thinkbig. I should apologize for using the wrong word--I intended to use SUPERordinate, not SUBordinate. Hopefully the context of my comment indicates that I find the needs and wishes of the neighborhood where the project is to be developed, quite important. I fail to see how basic retail draws in the whole city, while unique spaces for a segment of the business world that often lacks for such space, would not.

    I continue to hold Mr. Clevenger as bound to substantiate his allegations here, since a) he shows he is able to post and communicate in this medium, and b) he was the one to make the claims of falsehoods, mistakes, etc. If he wanted to keep his powder dry until a face to face debate took place, he shouldn't have fired a shot across B!x's bow on his own web page. The appropriate term for that is called "hit and run," and it not only lacks class, it lacks courage IMO. In other words, it's cowardly--hardly the presence Mr. Clevenger wants to impart.

    I think we could legitimately debate the merits of the Bridgehead award, and your comments in that vein are reasonably made (if not agreeable to me personally). But that's not the focus of this particular post, and as such I should perhaps apologize for trying to engage you on it.

  73. John Galt on 11 May 2005

    I came upon this site after the seeing the name of a fella I know by the name of Than in the Oregonian. Than is not a bad man. He is a good man.
    Than hails from the East Coast where they play ball a bit differently than here in PDX.
    Than is used to engaging in vigorous debate with people who like to spar, but can shake hands after the match. As a native of the Northwest, I know we operate differently. We don't like to spar. We tend to be passive aggressive--feigning indifference amidst our opponents and viciousness when they're just out of earshot.
    And despite our liberal reputation, we are some of the most intolerant people in the country-though you'd be pressed to get anyone to admit to it.
    Than also has a good sense of humor. It is important to realize this as many of his remarks have been taken a bit too seriously. When I see Than's throwing around "bring the chips" or "sissy" I know he is simply toying with Blix, much like a cat with a field mouse. Make no mistake, he knows wha he is doing and he is very good at what he does. And though a little frustrated by Portlanders penchant for passive -aggresive beahvior, I can safely assume that Than was smiling when he hit send.
    I, unfortunatley, am not. I am sickened by the commentary. I had no idea how ugly the underbelly of the Portland politcal scene really is. To see the likes of Randy Leonard sinking into the mire of this nasty little blog is in a word... depressing.
    As for the rest, this site reaks of Shadenfreude.
    The politics of personal destruction are alive and well in PDX, America. We're doing our part to keep America going backwards.
    You can criticize Than for many things, but if you think his call for debate is motivated by arrogance, hubris or machismo, you really don't get it. Debate is a vital part of democracy--especillay live debate. Have you ever watched the House of Commons? If not, I encourage you to catch their act on CSPAN. Sure the barbs are there, as are the personal attacks--but behind it all is a shared love for the marketplace of ideas and a shared respect for your fellow man.
    I fear that we stand on a most dangerous precipice. As the the media landscaped becomes more fractured, so does our tolerance. As media consumers, we now control the content. We can choose who to watch, who to listen to and where to blog. There is a flavor for everyone: conservative, liberal; libertarian, freeman; christian, muslim; etc, etc. Some choose Al Franken, some choose Anne Colture--the result is we are spending more time listnening to the echoes of like-minded thinkers and less time considering the voices of dissent.
    I long for the days of Murrow and Cronkite, when there was the facade of objectivity. When we only had three stations to get our news from. This put the pressure on the journalists to be "fair and balanced" not just use the phrase as a cheap tagline for their news network.
    Instead, blogs like this surface and when the call for real debate is voiced, the jackals come out because they fear that which is different. They fear exposure outside of the comfy confines of the internet.
    Than might have twisted arms and walked the line on his dealings with the PDC--so what? If you don't agree with his tactics, don't hate the player, hate the game. Are your heros so innocent?
    Keep workin' on it PDX, we are in bad shape.

  74. Alan DeWitt on 11 May 2005

    Mr. Galt, you may be right about Mr. Clevenger being a good man. I've never met him or had any dealings with him. But it seems to me that there's a fundamental misunderstanding behind this thread, one which you neatly summed up at the end of your post:

    If you don't agree with his tactics, don't hate the player, hate the game.

    Mr. Galt, we do hate the game, and that's what this is all about for us. The player is not really relevant, but it's impossible to talk about why the game should be hated without mentioning a player once in a while. That doesn't mean we hate him.

    The editor of this site, it seems to me, did nothing but attack the game by mentioning the player's role in it. In his original story, he said simply:

    Granted, we know all about Portland's infamous "two degrees of separation", and even beyond that we're sure it isn't unusual. However, we reserve the right to have it make us uncomfortable, and we thought it worth mentioning [...]

    There's no personal attack in that post that I can see. Furthermore, the editor went out of his way in the comments to clarify that he is not specifically impugning Mr. Clevenger, but the network of relations.

    In response to this, Mr. Clevenger started making it personal by attacking what the editor does here in an e-mail:

    (Additionally, he closed with this retort: "I suppose one could argue that I 'represent' him in the same way you might claim you are a journalist in that you keep a journal (of sorts).")

    The editor all but invited him to simply take part in this discussion:

    One last meta-thought. While what we're about to say bears no relation to what Clevenger had to say, we admit that we continue to be rather baffled about how he said it. By which we mean not the tone -- we can handle that -- but the fact that he didn't simply post a reader comment like everyone else.

    This is a blog, no one needs to jump through editorial hoops to express their views or respond to things. We suggested that he sent email as a way of daring us to post what he said. He had no response to that.

    Now, I'd think that a PR specialist, who has done business here in Portland for several years, would have realized that we don't necessarily do things here the way he did them back home. As you say, "As a native of the Northwest, I know we operate differently. We don't like to spar." If anyone should be expected to pick up on this, it would be a PR specialist.

    It wasn't until another news outlet reported that Clevenger actually had been paid by the PDC last year, as well as by Opus, that the editor said anything at all nasty:

    So much for them just being "friends" of the "platonic" sort. We suggest, in addition to watching for answers to our open questions for Opus Northwest, that the reader also keep a watchful eye on any involvement Clevenger continues to have on the Burnside Bridgehead project, and take whatever you might hear from him with a protective layer of salt.

    In that opinion (and it was a traditional blog/opinion post, not a news post) I think he was justified. The appearance is that Mr. Clevenger had misled the editor, and any editor is likely to react with hostility when a deception is exposed. If that reaction caught Mr. Clevenger by surprise... well, then I'd say he's not as good a PR person as he thinks he is. It seems obvious to me that deception exposed would make any editor mad.

    If you look, you'll see that in the reader comments to these stories thus far, the majority of the community response posts amount to saying "Don't rush to judgement, this connection might be innocent or irrelevant". There was one post asserting something nastier, but it was immediately shot down by another reader, end of discussion.

    Up to this point, the personal attacks were very minimal, and I'd judge that the editor's was a fair (or at least predictable) response to apparent deception. Then, as they say, the gloves came off:

    How many people did you employ? Or, did paying an intern to help your rumor-mongering business not factor in your parents monthly support of your hobby? [...] Name the place, I'll bring my friends, you bring yours (if you have any). I'd like to see you address me in public the way you do in your site - you sissy. [...] If you don’t set a date, I'll find you at Stumptown and we can make a big show of it. Game?

    As a regular reader, the only thing that came to mind was "Where the f*&k did that come from?! What did I miss?" Looking back on the archives, with the help of Google, I don't see that I missed anything the editor said about Clevenger on this site prior to this point. (I linked everything I found. If I missed anything, please respond and link it.) Some other readers said some things in another thread that weren't very nice, but that's not the editor's fault.

    Once Clevenger took this step, in apparent expectation that it would see print, I think he earned every bit of abuse he got here and elsewhere. Hell, a City Councillor tried to warn him off of this course, and he still kept at it. He seems to have listened when the anonymous pdxk warned him off 25 minutes later, though.

    Again, as you say, that's not the way we do things here. Clevenger should have known that. He can try to bring his game to our town, but he'll have no more success than someone playing the Portland game would have in New York. I don't work in PR, but I'd think this would be inherently obvious to even the most casual observer of local behavior.

    As for me, I suppose I may appear to be the biggest sinner on this thread. But even I have nothing against Clevenger personally. His public behavior here seems to be worthy of some ridicule for its ineptitude as well as for its apparently unjustified hostility; while I certainly gave him a dose of ridicule, my naked flaming was confined to thinkbigpdx. I have no notion if they really are the same person; honestly I believe that my guess about the identity of thinkbigpdx was probably wrong. (In any case, it was a random potshot aimed not at Clevenger but at tbpdx's anonymity.) None of my attacks on tbpdx should be construed as applying to Clevenger. (Unless they really are one and the same person, in which case he deserves more than double what I dished out!) Even with tbpdx, I made every effort to respond reasonably and address those of his points which I was competent to address. I suppose I could have refrained from also returning insults tit-for-tat; I'm not perfect. Yet even though I did return his barbs, I gave him a nice compliment by way of offering him a chance to de-escalate the personal conflict and return to good manners... a chance he declined.

    So, which politics of personal destruction are you talking about here? The only relevant destruction I see here is Clevenger's possible self-destruction. Again... what am I missing?

  75. torridjoe on 11 May 2005

    well, what a rousing apology for boorish behavior THAT was.

    Despite the fact that I joke with Mrs. Joe about Oregon being a paragon of diversity--since we have every type of white person imaginable--I must categorically reject the notion of Portland's intolerance--at least on a racial basis. I was born here but have spent upwards of a quarter century in the South, and despite the fact that the majority better understands minority culture there than they do here, I see much less resentment and suspicion in Portland between races in daily encounters. Ride the bus around the city as much as I do, and you'll see none of the sullen looks and hair-trigger hostility that I came to sadly expect in Virginia. Similarly, I don't hear people in this town referring to "the blacks" as some kind of monolithic body. I see people treated more as individuals.

    About the only thing Portlanders are rabidly intolerant about, I will admit, are people who clearly only give a shit about themselves, and think that gaming the system is OK if you come out on top.

  76. doretta on 11 May 2005

    Oh good grief. Contrary to your absurd stereotype, Mr. Galt, I love to spar and I'm certainly not the only one here who does. I think we Oregon natives are in the minority anyway--are you sure you weren't thinking of transplanted Minnesotans? (Never mind, inside joke.) If Mr. Clevenger had offered anything other than macho posturing no doubt someone would have been willing to engage with him on the subject that started all this. Had he done that we all might have learned something but Mr. Clevenger chose not to go that route.

    Has any topic here engendered more words about less substance? Possibly that was Mr. Clevenger's intent all along? If so, he succeeded admirably, although he had to trade in his potential reputation here as a nice guy or a reasonable human being to do it. If he's not smiling now about what happened here, he has no one to blame but himself.

  77. Tim Liszt on 11 May 2005

    This is downright embarrassing.

    As a long-time PDC employee, my perspective is that Mr. Clevenger's unprofessional (and immature) diatribe reminds me at best of a seventh grade boy taunting someone to meet him in the alley after school.

    And that we hired Mr. Clevenger to assist us with a "communications audit" seems even more absurd.

  78. lisa on 12 May 2005

    I know this thread is getting old, but just a shout out to Mr. Galt: So, B!X's website is a "nasty little blog" and "Than" is just "twisting arms and walking the line," like the nice guy he is. Galt, pull your f****** head out, fer Chrissakes.

    Meanwhile, B!X is still making an honest effort to shine a flashlight into the dark rat holes of City Hall, single-handedly catching "Than" -- again, what a guy -- as he makes off with almost $100,000 of taxpayers money for a crop of BS worthy of toppling the formerly-promising nascent politician, Matt Hennessee. Who appears to surround himself with "Non-Native Oregonians" (?!) who simply eschew passive aggressive behavior (WTF!?).

    "Than": the kind of civic con man who's always given government a bad name. Hennessee: caught in the headlights of an obvious power grab. No passive aggression there.

    Galt, jeez.....I can't help noticing the folks who are part of "Than's" good ol boy network, coming out of the woodwork to say what a great guy he is. You all need to check yourselves. B!X, again, thanks for the weird insight into who really profits from these funky, no-bid contracts (including nutty, cushy, pointless PR jobs) at City Hall. Don't stop now, you're doing a helluva job.

  79. Michael Teufel on 19 May 2005

    Appalling. Appalling. These people are being paid by citizens like you and I. I want my money back. I want these disgusting, poorly educated, public-dime bloated pigs off my property taxed time. You disgust me. Mr Leonard, Mr Galt (whoever you are) and the reprehensible Mr Clevenger, whose utter stupidity is only outweighed by his bigotry. You are a disgrace to public servants everywhere Mr Clevenger and personally I find that you are a revolting sick-bag of arrogance and immorality. Shame on you sir, Shame. Please, why is Mayor Potter not doing something about getting our money back from these vile hooligans posing as 'public servants'? Truly, a sad reflection on 'the most livable city in the country': how paradoxical, to combine 'livability' on one hand and then on the other to pay for the atrocious rantings of a morally-bereft school bully. I am DISGUSTED. Is this what he is doing with the computer and internet service time that I bought for him? We paid for his office, his staff, his dry cleaning and his obvious consumption of what is hopefully not crack but certainly creates and altered state of reality. I want my property taxes back please.

Trackbacks (6)

  1. PDC meltdown! on 05 May 2005

    It's an amazing day. The Portland area's most roguish agency and pork pot, the Portland Development Commission, is now officially in a state of complete and utter meltdown. Even the lethargic watchdogs at The Oregonian are smelling blood. Today they...

  2. Of train wrecks and tantrums on 05 May 2005

    A man applied for a job as a railway guard.

  3. PDC meltdown! on 05 May 2005

    It's an amazing day. The Portland area's most roguish government agency and pork pot, the Portland Development Commission, is now officially in a state of complete and utter meltdown. Even the lethargic watchdogs at The Oregonian are smelling blood. To...

  4. Who's that man behind the curtain? on 06 May 2005

    I haven't posted about b!X lately, but I'm getting a kick out of the current flap over his curtain peeking. (For those of you new to this weblog, b!X is my erstwhile son who stirs up Portland, Oregon politics to...

  5. The Pitbull PR Method on 18 May 2005

    This is not an episode in the Seven Deadly Agency Types series, but it could be - except that here we're looking at an example of an apparently deadly PR person, not an agency type. Long time blogger and citizen...

  6. Sam and Than on 23 Jun 2005

    Portland Commissioner Sam Adams's website apparently includes a capsule description of each of the 100 businesses that the commish visited in his first few months in office. Interestingly, one of the fearless entrepreneurs that it lists is none other t...