Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Al’s Corner – Late March 2024 – It’s not April yet, fools!

811640ae-2bcf-40c9-9852-e54b7e9de7ac

 

 

 

 

 

I just wanted to say that 111 people have given money to the Davis Vanguard, to ward off evil spirits.  Apparently these people weren't waiting for April fool's day to be foolish with their money, and fools.  And here they are:

Anonymous

I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Allen Lowry
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Snow Hernandez

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous
    $250

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • susan pelican
    $50

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Elizabeth Lasensky
    $50

    Thank you for all of your good work!

  • Don Palm

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Walter Shwe
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    We cannot let retaliation by our current D.A. for truthful reporting succeed, nor can we allow the only source of in-depth local news to be silenced.

  • Paul GEPTS
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Roy Kaplan
    $360

    Save independent journalism

  • Anonymous

    Thank you! I appreciate your important, tireless, excellent work and commitment to justice. With love and support…wish I had $ to spare…

  • Williaml Bastuk
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Hiu Tung dawn Kwan
    $50

    We need to support independent journalism that sheds light on the truth!

  • ella taran
    $1,000

    I'm donating this to support Susan Bassi. Nicole Ford and Nicole Myers must be held accountable for child abuse.

  • Marshall Hammons

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Kristine Gual
    $500

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Toby Epstein

    Toby Epstein

  • Debra L White
    $100

    Keep up the great work!!!

  • Anonymous

    in support of local journalism! I hope you reach your targeted amount soon!

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Kathy Guruwaya
    $100

    I'm so grateful for the work you do…and pissed off that people are coming after you. Keep on fighting.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Murray Jann
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Brian Sway
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Meredith Wade

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Madison Whittemore
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous
    $100

    Hi, my prayers are with you and I was so happy to see you!

  • Tamara Fletcher
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Barrientos Law
    $250

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Roxanna Jarvis
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Judy Brooks
    $250

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Hiram Jackson
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Daniel Pskowski
    $50

    Independent journalism is crucial for a free society.

  • Anonymous
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Brad O'Brien
    $250

    Keep doing the important work!

  • Maeve OBrien
    $50

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • susan pelican
    $50

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Yackzan Group
    $300

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Brian Youngs
    $250

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous
    $250

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous
    $50

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Richard McCann
    $500

    Sorry that Anya and I are otherwise engaged tonight. Here's our donation toward protecting this important community voice in Davis.

  • Tina Chadwick
    $50

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous
    $100

    Support free and independent journalism!

  • Anonymous
    $500

    No peace without justice.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • David Thompson

    Thanks for your valuable coverage of low income housing

  • MATTHEW LUCKETT
    $100

    Good luck!

  • Peter B. Collins
    $100

    Vanguard's vital work must continue!

  • alexandra cock
    $100

    I'm proud to donate to such a wonderful organization – free press is so important in a democracy.

  • Saira Delgado

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Whole Consulting LC
    $100

    In honor of Juan Haines – incarcerated journalist at San Quentin State Prison.

  • Georgina Valencia
    $500

    David, What would Davis do without your reporting. Please continue your good work. Good journalism is the oil that keeps our country a democracy!

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Pamela Bendich
    $500

    In support of Davis Vanguard

  • Jon Bendich
    $500

    So important to keep our freedom of the press. Carry on the good work!

  • Michelle Lopez
    $100

    My family and I support the Vanguard and all their hard work in reporting the local news. Thank you!

  • Anonymous

    The Vanguard has been violating federal nonprofit laws for years. It’s great to see them finally being held accountable! RIP

  • Elisabeth Dubin
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Doug Buzbee

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Allen Lowry
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Vera Sandronsky
    $250

    The Vanguard is the essential platform for supporting dialouge about what Davis is and should be. David informs this dialogue with history.

  • Anonymous
    $250

    In support of this vital non-profit.

  • Nancy Crocker

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    This is for the fundraiser at Sudwerk on Feb. 28.

  • Brendan White
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Nora Oldwin
    $700

    The vanguard is our only independent news source-it’s vitally important to keep its voice alive so we can purposefully dialogue in this public square

  • Mark Dempsey
    $100

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Roy Kaplan
    $180

    Vanguard is key to keeping the community informed

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Martha Goldin
    $250

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • William Julian
    $1,000

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Daniel Ramos
    $250

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous
    $500

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Alan Miller
    $1

    Chew on a dollar bill, Greenwald! And I'm looking forward to more articles on trees and environmentalism 😐

  • ELLEN KOLARIK
    $500

    The Vanguard is an important platform for individuals to share their views about about local matters which impact our community. I support its work.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

  • Anonymous

    I donated in support of this campaign.

Oh, I'm one of them!   Well, I must be a fool too.  But, The More You Give, the More You are a Fool!  And since I just donated $1 — so I could say something negative about the Vanguard in the comments — I'm just a little bit fooley.   Apparently a lot were ashamed of their donation, as many donated anonymously.  I have just one question for y'all:   WHY!!!!!!!???????!!!!!    Lawyers and Developers and Fools, oh my!

Posted by

Alan C. Miller

on

in

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

64 responses to “Al’s Corner – Late March 2024 – It’s not April yet, fools!”

  1. Tuvia ben Olam

    Does the Davis Vanguard not add some detailed information about the issue because it’s pending litigation?
    To be clear, I don’t seem to have an issue with my comments not being published in the Vanguard stories and I find some of the civil rights and legal articles interesting and useful…. But I don’t understand why they are never any comments on them.

    Reply
  2. Alan C. Miller

    “Does the Davis Vanguard not add some detailed information about the issue because it’s pending litigation?”
    The attitude seems to be, ‘tell the people nothing, and the fools will pony up anyway’.
    “I don’t understand why they are never any comments on them.”
    Because Alan C. Miller has been banned from commenting in the Vanguard comment section.

    Reply
  3. South of Davis

    Tuvia asks:

    I don’t understand why they are never any comments on them.
    My guess is that the lack of comments is related to the small number of people interested in reading an article that David’s unpaid interns cut and pasted from somewhere else.
    P.S. Like so many “grassroots” aka “Astroturf” sites it is obvious that David is a working for someone rich that wants him around (probably to sneak in pro-development stuff in between all the left of center articles his interns plagiarize that nobody reads):
    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/dark-money-2020-new-ways-to-hide-donors/
    P.P.S. To the Anonymous developer making more than a dozen “Anonymous” donations in a row is not a great way to hide a donation (he could have just given the cash to David’s friend Maria to donate in her name as big money donors have done in the past):
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/03/a-community-activist-ran-an-ie-against-reisig-in-2018-he-tried-to-charge-her-criminally-for-doing-so/

    Reply
  4. Ron O

    “But I don’t understand why they are never any comments on them (civil rights and legal articles).”
    Because it’s not worth engaging, and those issues rarely have any local impact or require any local decision.
    The primary regulars on the Vanguard at this point consist of a handful of growth monkeys – with David as their leader. (Though I have noticed that he’s had some problems keeping them “on message” regarding single-family developments).

    Reply
  5. catherine L portman

    I don’t get it? What’s your point, Al? People donated money to support a local media outlet voice? why are the donors fools? Pls explain.

    Reply
  6. Alan C. Miller

    “Fool” is in the eye of the beholder. I can only relate my own beholding, not convince someone who beholds differently.

    Reply
  7. Ron O

    The link below shows the reason I’m generally aghast regarding development proposals.
    Does anyone look at this (with its $1,250,000) “starting price” as anything other than a permanent blight on the coast?
    (Other than the 70 future homeowners and Scott Wiener, who is now targeting coastal areas as well?)
    https://www.newhomesmag.com/community/harbor-view-at-bodega-bay-new-homes-bodega-bay/

    Reply
  8. Ron O

    “I will also work to remove burdensome regulations that stand in the way of the construction of affordable housing.”
    Not that it matters to me (as I don’t “identify” with one party or the other), but does anyone else find it strange that folks like David Greenwald, the YIMBYS, Scott Wiener, and Cecilia Aguiar-Curry all agree with Trump supporter Kari Lake?
    And does anyone actually believe that Arizona has “burdensome” regulations in regard to the housing market – or anything else?
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/kari-lake-wants-to-change-arizona-s-housing-market/ar-BB1kLTvB?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=11dd19ee93d649e2b67ead20cc9859cb&ei=12

    Reply
  9. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    SoD wrote: “David’s unpaid interns cut and pasted from somewhere else”. I understand the “intern” thing, and on principle I don’t support justifying internships due to college credit people are receiving, no matter the legal status of an organization if they are doing core work for that organization.
    But please clarify “cut and pasted”. Normally – and obviously – this is relatively easy to reference.
    If we’re going to criticize some entity, we need to do it from a position of strength and truth. You’re being “anonymous”, too? I accept that you might not able to not be, but it’s not the strongest vantage point to comment on other anonymity, is it?
    Ron O. – Can we tell how many people are reading these stories I mention (the ones not about BB nor the supposed “Out of Infill Apocalypse”. )?

    Reply
  10. R Keller

    The Vanguard is a content farm that uses unpaid student “interns” to produce articles that are entirely plagiarized from other sources—usually a single source per article and usually unattributed. They also fake byline locations to pretend they are reporting from the locations where the stories took place.
    Here’s one example. Original is from a legit nonprofit news organization with real reporters:
    https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/11/07/berkeley-police-arrest-resident-observer-west-berkeley-homeless-camp-closure
    Here is the Vanguard’s version: https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/12/west-berkeley-homeless-camp-closure-ends-with-2-arrests/
    As you can see, the Vanguard “article” is just a mosaic/patchwork plagiarism of the original reporting and writing in the Berkeleyside including using the same links they did, and presenting itself as original work. The original story is not even linked in it.
    It’s easy to find examples of this every week in the Vanguard. Just Google a direct quote in any of the articles with a faked out-of-town byline location to get to the original.

    Reply
  11. R Keller

    Here’s an example today in the Vanguard where the intern Cindy Chen faked a New York byline location (unless we think they Vanguard now has a budget fly its unpaid interns across the country to report), and then plagiarized an article published in the City Limits weekly. Unlike most of the Vanguard’s content theft, at least this “article” has the decency to mention the original source (even though it doesn’t provide a link to it).
    Here’s a sample paragraph from the original:
    “Afterwards, I filed a lawsuit against the city and the nine officers who violated my rights. The city recently agreed [link] to pay me $125,000 for what those officers did, but the officers themselves faced no punishment. They did not contribute to the settlement, they were not fired, and they were not disciplined.
    And this is from the Vanguard:
    “Afterwards, Lee said she sought a lawsuit against the municipality and the nine officers. While the city recently agreed [link] to compensate Lee with $125,000, the officers faced no discernible consequences, neither contributing to the settlement nor facing termination or disciplinary measures.”
    The link is the same in both. The Vanguard intern did no additional research/reporting in the “article” and simply repeated the content in the original, substituting in synonyms and using quotes from the original.
    This violates journalistic ethics in many ways. Since David Greenwald isn’t actually a journalist, he teaches this behavior. His exploited interns producing content for him on a daily basis are ruining their chances to ever get legitimate jobs in journalism—future employers would immediately disqualify them for such egregious plagiarism and theft.
    Many of a Greenwald’s own “articles” follow this model: say somebody wrote a letter or posted an article, and then proceed to post the contents of the entirety of it without a link to the original and without any new language or reporting. He’s ripping off the intellectual content and production of others for advertising money.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/03/new-yorker-opines-bloated-police-budgets-dont-provide-safety/
    https://citylimits.org/2024/03/22/opinion-bloated-police-budgets-dont-make-us-safe/

    Reply
  12. Ron O

    Todd: I suspect that a significant number of people do read the “social justice/legal” articles outside of the Davis area (e.g., attorneys, those studying to be attorneys, criminal justice reformers, etc.).
    And some within the Davis area, as well.
    I believe that the Vanguard can track online access for each article.
    Most of the articles are a form of political advocacy, and not an attempt to objectively report the “news”.
    I do recall that there used to be more comments in many types of articles. But it’s ultimately a lot of work to put forth “counter-arguments” (from those who might disagree), and one wonders if that sways anyone, regardless.
    There’s a reason that the local blogs are not viewed as a valid/primary source of “news” in the annual city survey.

    Reply
  13. R Keller

    “Does the Davis Vanguard not add some detailed information about the issue because it’s pending litigation?”
    Just as a note: the IRS does not post information about its investigations. But, the Vanguard posted that the IRS made findings against it. They are trying to fundraise for legal fees to appeal. It is almost a certainty that the IRS findings, if upheld, would remove the Vaguard’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, and thus also be liable for back taxes and penalties.
    At his poorly-attended fundraiser a few weeks ago, Greenwald confirmed that nonprofit law violations for campaigning for candidates is the issue. He also referenced the 60+ violations in this complaint that was filed with the IRS: https://californiaglobe.com/articles/new-irs-complaint-against-non-profit-davis-vanguard-news-service/amp/
    And here is a follow-up: https://californiaglobe.com/fr/attorney-says-non-profit-davis-vanguard-news-service-continues-to-violate-despite-irs-complaint/amp/
    And here is the 36-page documentation of the alleged violations:
    https://californiaglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Davis-Vanguard-21.10.18-Appendix-A-1.pdf

    Reply
  14. Ron O

    But “speak of the devil” (social justice-related articles), I see that there’s a letter to the Davis city council (published in the Vanguard), opposing facial-recognition technology.
    For what it’s worth, I support technologies that result in the identification of those harming a given community, and look forward to seeing more of them implemented.

    Reply
  15. Ron O

    “I just wanted to say that 111 people have given money to the Davis Vanguard, to ward off evil spirits.”
    I’m tempted to think that some of those 111 people ARE “evil spirits”, based upon my experience on there at least. Also assuming that all of the “anonymous” donations are separate people/evil spirits in the first place.

    Reply
  16. South of Davis

    R. Keller wrote:

    Here’s an example today in the Vanguard
    I want to thank R. Keller for the clear long answer to Tuvia. I was just going to tell him to “Google a section from any Vanguard intern article to find where they cut and pasted if from”
    My guess is that nothing will happen to David since I’ve noticed that people that post thing that agree with the politics of the people that appoint the judges can do pretty much anything they want (left wing political blogs that violate the law tend to get a pass in blue states and right wing political blogs that violate the law tend to get a pass in red states)
    P.S. To Tuvia, I think I have seen you recently use both Todd and Tuvia, do you still use both names or have you decided to use just Tuvia

    Reply
  17. R Keller

    Today’s episode of Adventures in Plagiarism and Content Theft at the Davis Vanguard:
    David Greenwald’s “article” in which he just essentially reprints an op-ed from a real news source, the San Jose Mercury News. At least for this one, he did slightly better than his usual thievery and actually provided a link to the original source and put a lot of the original content in quotes. Still, he is ripping off someone else’s content for his own ad revenue and to boost his “article” count. Even his intro to the piece which seems like he would have written is just a re-worded mosaic plagiarism from the source. Complete laziness and lack of ethics from Greenwald—par for the course.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/03/sunday-commentary-state-senator-touts-the-success-of-project-homekey-in-battling-homelessness/

    Reply
  18. Ron O

    In regard to David’s article regarding his apparent support for the elimination of “parking minimums”, how does that align with his support for (more) single-family sprawl?
    Does he think that single-family sprawl “won’t” include parking (e.g., garages and driveways) – regardless of what the law eliminates as a requirement?

    Reply
  19. R Keller

    Further Adventures in Plagiarism and Theft from the Davis Vanguard, episode #2 from today:
    The entire “article” consists of information taken from two organizations’ websites and a press release, and there is no disclosure of the press release source or of the date the event took place. All of the supporting links are directly copied from the A New Way of Life organization’s material.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/03/new-los-angeles-home-supports-women-post-incarceration-aiming-to-prevent-recidivism/
    This intern’s bio on the Vanguard states “Vy Tran is a 4th-year student at UCLA pursuing a B.A. in Political Science–Comparative Politics and a planned minor in Professional Writing. Her academic interests include political theory, creative writing, copyediting, entertainment law, and criminal psychology. She has a passion for the analytical essay form, delving deep into correlational and description research for various topics…”
    The student is apparently learning from David Greenwald that “professional writing” consists of simply rewriting existing content produced by others under your own name without even providing a link to the original source material.
    But actual journalists get fired for reprinting press releases and misrepresenting them as their own work:
    https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2011/kansas-city-star-columnist-steve-penn-fired-for-plagiarism-2/

    Reply
  20. R Keller

    Going back five years: here’s documentation of the same plagiarism and theft of content practices from the Vanguard (see the comments too). Since then, I’d be surprised if there was a single day when there wasn’t plagiarized/stolen content on the Vanguard:
    https://www.davisite.org/2019/04/a-problem-with-the-davis-vanguards-citation-practices.html

    Reply
  21. R Keller

    Further Adventures in Plagiarism and Theft from the Davis Vanguard from today:
    The intern faked a Philadelphia PA byline location and then just simply copy-pasted/plagiarized a press release with no link provided to the original source. This would be a fireable offense for a legitimate news organization.
    In the bio listed: “ Praniti Gulyani is a second-year student at UC Berkeley majoring in English with minor(s) in Creative Writing and Journalism. During her time at The Davis Vanguard as a Court Watch Intern and Opinion(s) Columnist for her weekly column, ‘The Student Vanguard’ within the organization, she hopes to create content that brings the attention of the general reader to everyday injustice issues that need to be addressed immediately. After college, she hopes to work as a writer or a columnist in a newspaper or magazine, using the skills that she gains during her time at The Davis Vanguard to reach a wider audience.”
    The only “skills gained” at the Vanguard are disqualifying for working in journalism.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/convicted-16-year-old-released-after-further-investigation-declares-him-not-guilty-in-fatal-january-shooting/

    Reply
  22. Ron O

    The student is apparently learning from David Greenwald that “professional writing” consists of simply rewriting existing content produced by others under your own name without even providing a link to the original source material.
    Hell, do they even need to do THAT, anymore? Why not just use AI?
    For that matter, I’d suggest awarding college degrees to AI instead of students. After all, AI is going to be doing a lot of the work, anyway.
    And let AI pay off those students loans, as well.

    Reply
  23. R Keller

    More plagiarized/stolen content from the Vanguard today. This one was “written” by “The Vanguard Staff” with a faked Riverside CA byline location.
    All the content is taken from an article from an article from a real news source, the Press Enterprise, without providing a link. I found it though Googling:
    https://www.pressenterprise.com/2024/03/28/riverside-county-offered-inmates-hush-money-to-cover-up-sex-abuse-allegations-lawsuits-allege/amp/
    Here’s the “article” in the Vanguard. David Greenwald is simply stealing content produced by real journalists to generate ad revenue from his content farm.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/lawyers-file-7-federal-lawsuits-allege-riverside-county-scheme-offered-hush-money-to-incarcerated-sexually-abused-by-deputy/

    Reply
  24. Ron O

    So, it does appear that the lawsuit that the Vanguard is facing is related to a perception that the Vanguard essentially endorsed Jeff Reisig’s opponent, per one of the comments at least. (I share that perception, though not the rest of the comment.)
    In fact, I don’t think that’s the only local candidate for office that the Vanguard essentially “endorses”.
    “We cannot let retaliation by our current D.A. for truthful reporting succeed, nor can we allow the only source of in-depth local news to be silenced.”
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/thank-you-to-the-community/
    My guess is that the $1 that Alan Miller contributed will ultimately put them over the top.

    Reply
  25. R Keller

    David Greenwald has a new post up grifting for more money for the “coming legal battle that we estimate will cost $75,000 to $100,000 in legal and other costs”.
    He claims that he has raised about $33K so far and lists the donors. But the vast majority are listed as “anonymous” and the vast majority of donation amounts aren’t shown. I counted just over $11K in donations in the list from about 50 named donors.
    So it’s a big mystery as to who is really bankrolling him. My educated guess is that it’s a couple of deep-pocketed donors with development interests, as has been the case for the Vanguard since the beginning— he doesn’t list his funding sources in his IRS filings, and the small amount he fundraisers from a small number of gullible local community members throughout the year is nowhere near his listed budgets.
    Anyway, if you want to know who the April Fools are, you can find them here: https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/thank-you-to-the-community/
    My $1 donation and associated comment did not get listed. Alan Miller’s $1 donation did get listed, although not his comment. Sorry Alan, I am more banned than you. I win! 😉

    Reply
  26. Alan C. Miller

    “Alan Miller’s $1 donation did get listed, although not his comment.”
    My comment was up for awhile, so my “fuck you” got through.
    Though since my comment was removed, par for the course with the fucked-in-the-head unnamed Davis blog, I will be suing as an “anti-democratic force” to get my dollar back.

    Reply
  27. Ron O

    At the end of the day, we are not going to solve our housing and economic needs without figuring out a way to get past the voters.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/commentary-council-seeks-to-develop-goals-for-2024-25-including-housing-and-economic-development/
    Yeap, that is David’s goal.

    Reply
  28. Ron O

    So today, David is engaging in his usual race hustling to justify sprawl. And yet, there was no opposition from him in regard to “Davis-connected buyer’s program” at WDAAC. Instead, he criticized those who opposed that program as I recall.
    What does that say about David?

    Reply
  29. Alan C. Miller

    What does that say about a hell of a lot of people in Davis?

    Reply
  30. Ron O

    That is a good question, Alan.
    Though one thing it probably says is that there’s a demand for “old-people” housing – the only segment of the population that’s actually increasing.
    There’s a rumor floating-around that young people eventually become old people. I never believed it, until recently.

    Reply
  31. R Keller

    David Greenwald called criticism of the exclusionary and discriminatory “Taking Care of Our Own” Davis-Based Buyer’s Program: “a dangerous game playing the race card.” Coincidentally, he was getting a lot of money from those developers at the time.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2018/09/view-dangerous-game-playing-race-card-buyer-program/
    When the rubber hits the road, we all know that Greenwald will choose $ over principles every single time.
    He’s also currently very sad that he lost a future advertiser/funder with AKT withdrawing their development proposal and said “the city’s housing crisis just got worse,” apparently because another poorly thought-out suburban sprawl development with a minimal affordable housing component won’t be built now. Talk about April Fools!
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/commentary-the-citys-housing-crisis-just-got-worse-the-thin-margins-get-thinner/
    He’s clearly panicked about the IRS findings against his illegal publishing practices violating nonprofit law. He’s going to have to grift even harder to try to raise $ to fight a losing battle.

    Reply
  32. Roberta L. Millstein

    For someone who claims to be concerned about racial issues, it’s quite bizarre that he keeps throwing around the dehumanizing term “Blacks” — I cringe every time I read it — rather than saying “Black people.”
    Anyway, I expect he was trying to make a point about Davis in that article, but what that point is escaped me.

    Reply
  33. R Keller

    RM: good point. It is bizarre! The guidance is really straightforward in contemporary writing guides for using “people-first” language and avoiding using adjectives as nouns. For example:
    “Don’t use adjectives as nouns.  Using adjectives as nouns is not only grammatically incorrect, it is often demeaning to the people you are describing. For example, use “Black people,” not “Blacks.” https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/centers/writing/writing-resources/writing-about-race-ethnicity-social-class-and-disability
    On another topic: this latest “article” today in the Vanguard bizarrely fakes a Grants Pass, Oregon, byline location and then entirely rips off an op-ed from another publication. The entirety of the content is from the other source.
    Somehow, this is less egregious than the Vanguard’s typical practices because the “authors” Emeline Crowder and Jocelyn Lopez (it took TWO people to do this?!) actually provided a link to the original article. Amusingly, they managed to use the phrase “op-ed” 23 times throughout while ham-handedly regurgitating the content.
    It’s still blatant plagiarism and content theft though.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/grants-pass-court-case-op-ed-urges-using-real-solutions-to-support-homelessness/

    Reply
  34. South of Davis

    Roberta wrote:

    he keeps throwing around the dehumanizing term “Blacks”
    Roberta may be surprised to hear that ~90% of the black people in the US also use the term “black” and “blacks” and just like ~90% of Latinos (and Latinas) hate term “Latinx” that only white liberal women (and the people afraid of them) use black people hate that liberal white women have decided to call them “BIPOC”.
    P.S, All my gay friends that came out in the 80’s still call themself “gay” not LGBT (or LGBDTTTIQQA+++ or whatever the hottest new acronym the liberal white women have come up with for them…)

    Reply
  35. Roberta L. Millstein

    Roberta may be surprised to hear that ~90% of the black people in the US also use the term “black” and “blacks”
    What’s your evidence for that claim?
    My point isn’t about those other terms, which aren’t about using what should be an adjective as a noun. The term “Black” is fine when it is used as “Black people” but not so when used as a noun. More generally, I do think people should be called what they want to be called, but I question your claim about what Black people want to be called.
    I find it fascinating that you think that “liberal white women” (a phrase you repeat twice — perhaps you think it applies to me?) are coming up with these terms.

    Reply
  36. South of Davis

    I find it “fascinating” that Roberta thinks anyone other than “liberal white women” (and the people who work with them and are worried about getting “cancelled” or “fired” by them) spend even a minute thinking about how liberal bloggers refer to People of Color (POC). If Roberta drives ten miles from Davis in any direction I’m sure she can spend the entire day day walking around and reading to David’s blog to people (of all colors) and not have a single person tell her it is “dehumanizing”…

    Reply
  37. Alan C. Miller

    The term “Liberal White Women” is dehumanizing 😐

    Reply
  38. Ron O

    The term “Liberal White Women” is dehumanizing 😐
    O.K., “Karen”.
    🙂
    But Roberta’s point that someone like David doesn’t use the latest, most politically-correct racial terminology is spot-on.
    Same with David’s criticism of those who pointed out the problem with the “Davis-connected buyer’s program”.
    Today, I see that David is continuing to claim that Davis will be “singled-out” for not meeting the state’s future RHNA targets, while also failing to explain how cities near the coast (which aren’t expanding outward) will meet them. Despite being asked that question many, many times.
    The state is truly going to have its hands full, invalidating every urban limit line and any other restrictions on conversion of farmland, under this scenario.
    David is also claiming that Measure J will be invalidated by the state, presumably so that some future council can approve every sprawling proposal that arises (beyond city boundaries – and not limited to Davis). But he’s also implying that future councils have no choice but to approve them, regardless. So what are councils even needed for, under that scenario? And what good is Measure J, if the only choice is to vote “yes”?
    What makes David think that a “revised” Measure J wouldn’t be challenged as too-restrictive? And does a revised Measure J mean that councils would have no power at all to decline a proposal, under that scenario? (Again, going back to the question of why councils would even be needed at all?)
    David is also noting that none of the proposals would actually address potential/future “affordable” RHNA targets in the first place – even if more than one was approved! So why approve them, if the purpose is to address RHNA targets?
    For someone like David, wouldn’t he prefer to see Measure J fall? His “concern” about Measure J’s potential vulnerability (if there is any) strikes me as fake.
    For that matter, wouldn’t the state’s own Williamson Act be targeted by Rob Bonta, using the same justification? After all, its purpose is to protect farmland from development.
    “The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use.”
    https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa#:~:text=The%20Williamson%20Act%2C%20also%20known,or%20related%20open%20space%20use.

    Reply
  39. Roberta L. Millstein

    SOD, so the fact that you didn’t provide any evidence for your claim that 90% of Black people don’t mind being referred to as “Blacks” tells me that you don’t have any — in other words, you just made it up — and your repeated references to what you presume is my identity are just an attempt to distract.
    Rik already provided evidence that “Black people” is the preferred term over “Blacks”.
    Really, I was just pointing out the irony of David’s article, let’s recall.

    Reply
  40. South of Davis

    And was just pointing out the irony of people who are not black (or Black, or AA or BIPOC) feeling the need to tell others how to refer to people that are black.
    P.S, I don’t have “evidence” that over 90% of kids like M&Ms but “over” 90% of the kids I have been around in the last 60 years have liked M&Ms just like “over” 90% of the black people I have know and been around over the last 60 years are fine with the term black and blacks and don’t care if anyone uses a capital B.
    P.P.S. I wonder if Roberta cam provide any “evidence” that a large number of people (of any color who don’t live or work on a college campus) would find David’s post “dehumanizing”?

    Reply
  41. Keith

    Let’s relax people, it’s not like anyone was called a “BOOMER”.

    Reply
  42. R Keller

    SoD: you seem confused about the difference between adjectives and nouns.
    Perhaps this will clarify things. This is federal government policy (the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and has nothing to do with college campuses):
    “Black is the preferred term when referring to an individual’s race. The term should be capitalized and used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example: “Benjamin Robinson was a Black soldier in the U.S. Army.” Note that Blacks and the Blacks are both considered offensive and should not be used. Black people is the preferred plural form of Black.”
    https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/lcdrg/appendix/black-person

    Reply
  43. South of Davis

    R. Keller:,
    Thanks for the “clarification”, but I was not pointing out the “proper” way to refer to “Black people” I was pointing out that other than a small number of people of color and a slight larger group of people who like to “virtue signal” nobody really cares if a liberal blogger uses black or blacks (and even of the people that “care” almost none of them will say it is “dehumanizing”)
    Like Roberta “cringes” when she hers the “improper” use of blacks I cringe when my fellow Americans (more often than not) drop the “ly” from adverbs but I don’t find “dehumanizing” and try not to take it personally (or personal) and I know that like adding an s to black or an ly to personal is something more than 90% of America just does not care about.
    P.S. My original post was supposed to be a little funny and maybe get people like Roberta to stop and think how few people (of any race) are offended by seeing an s at the end of the word black on a blog written by by a guy that goes out of his way to help people of color (when he is not getting interns to post stuff written by others to his blog)…

    Reply
  44. Roberta L. Millstein

    SOD wrote, “My original post was supposed to be a little funny and maybe get people like Roberta to stop and think how few people (of any race) are offended by seeing an s at the end of the word black.”
    Yeah, I don’t take my cues from people who comment anonymously on blogs and who bristle at the idea of taking a moment to think about their language — who object to changing it based on the evidence-free assumption that most people aren’t hurt by the language rather than just acknowledging that enough people are hurt to warrant making the smallest of efforts to be kinder.

    Reply
  45. Ron O

    Roberta: Do you hold those who post anonymously (or semi-anonymously) to a different standard than those who don’t?
    And is anyone actually “hurt” by anything that SOD said?
    Personally, I find all kinds of inconsistencies and absurdities regarding the ever-changing “race/nomenclature guidance”, but I haven’t put forth any specifics here so far. But your point regarding someone like David using a somewhat “unacceptable” term is applicable, since he purports to be highly concerned about such things. (Even I knew the point you brought up, but missed it until you pointed it out.)
    Hell, I essentially called David a “race-hustler”, but you didn’t object to that. 🙂
    For what it’s worth, I do think he’s concerned about such things. What about David’s feelings? (Yeah, I’m kind of laughing as I type this, as he apparently has a pretty thick skin.)

    Reply
  46. Ron O

    Roberta: Do you hold those who post anonymously (or semi-anonymously) to a different standard than those who don’t?
    And is anyone actually “hurt” by anything that SOD said?
    Personally, I find all kinds of inconsistencies and absurdities regarding the ever-changing “race/nomenclature guidance”, but I haven’t put forth any specifics here so far. But your point regarding someone like David using a somewhat “unacceptable” term is applicable, since he purports to be highly concerned about such things. (Even I knew the point you brought up, but missed it until you pointed it out.)
    Hell, I essentially called David a “race-hustler”, but you didn’t object to that. 🙂
    For what it’s worth, I do think he’s concerned about such things. What about David’s feelings? (Yeah, I’m kind of laughing as I type this, as he apparently has a pretty thick skin.)

    Reply
  47. Ron O

    I’m still on the Vanguard’s email distribution list, so I just received the following message (a portion of which is posted below). So apparently, the IRS has decided to revoke the Vanguard’s non-profit status, and the Vanguard is fighting that.
    So unless one believes that the IRS is politically-biased, the IRS apparently believes that the Vanguard has indeed violated laws regarding non-profit status.
    Save the Vanguard
    Dear reader,
    For the last few months the Vanguard has been raising money for a legal battle against the IRS, which is attempting to revoke our non-profit status. The Vanguard has hired attorneys to fight this legal battle and we believe we will prevail.
    However, our biggest hurdle right now is to be able to pay our legal bills while paying for staff, rent, and computer costs. That is proving to be a huge challenge.
    I’m writing you because in the next week, we need to raise about $12,000 to make our payroll and other bills. This week, we have raised about one-third of that.
    Two ways to help…

    (Is there some way to help the IRS?)

    Reply
  48. Ron O

    “The bills are part of the historic 2024 Reparations Priority Bill Package introduced in February by the California Legislative Black Caucus.
    “This is a debt that is owed to the people who helped build this country. Reparations is a debt owed to the descendants of slavery,” said the bills’ author, state Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, vice chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus.
    Bradford also sat on the first-in-the-nation California Reparations Task Force to advance the case for reparations to California descendants of enslaved Black people.
    “This is not a handout or a charity of any sort,” Bradford said Tuesday. “It’s what is owed, what is promised, what is 160 years overdue.”
    So, I assume that any reparations provided to Black people will be promptly turned-over to the groups labeled as Native Americans. Or perhaps first to the Mexican/Spanish governments, who will then turn it over to Native Americans.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-reparations-bills-clear-first-state-senate-hearings-it-s-what-is-owed/ar-AA1nixRX?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c3f1b92aee8543ae866fa51605f6282a&ei=14

    Reply
  49. Ron O

    From today’s Vanguard:
    My View: If There Were a Naughty List, Davis Would Be on It
    So David, how many of the cities which you described as “pro-housing” are now pursuing sprawl as a result of the state’s targets? I’d guess that the answer is “none”.
    So how are you tying this in to your continuing attacks against Measure J?

    Reply
  50. Alan C. Miller

    “Personally I think, given the city’s track record over the last nearly 25 years, it seems difficult to imagine that the city would prevail in a legal fight.”
    — David Greenwald, some article in that boring, increasingly-irrelevant Davis blog that writes about housing over and over and has nothing new to say, and got busted by the IRS for violating it’s tax-exempt non-profit status, Ha Ha!!! Burn!!!
    “Personally I think, given Greenwald’s track record over the last nearly 20 years, it seems difficult to imagine that the Vanguard would prevail in a legal fight.”
    — Alan C. Miller, Lord God King Bufu

    Reply

Leave a comment