There were several major reasons that I started this blog, but one of them that continues to stand out for me is that ability to correct the public record about statements that Bob Dunning makes in his Davis Enterprise column that are potentially damaging to progressive office holders if left unchecked.
Yesterday, Dunning went into his mailbox and addressed some emails by commenting about them in his Enterprise column.
The recent "bitter" letter to the editor was from Bill Ritter. Is "bitter" a clever play on words?
Mr. Ritter sought to set the record straight in terms of the background of Councilmember Lamar Heystek.
Dunning at the time wrote derisively:
Secondly, the letter contains the assertion that Heystek "spent months pillorying mercilessly" Officer Pheng Ly. Never once did Heystek even mention or attack Officer Ly. Heystek only expressed general and moderate support for better means to oversee the operations of the police department including the establishment of a civilian police oversight board. I challenge Dunning and Mazelis to show a specific statement that proves otherwise.
Dunning himself then makes the assertion, "if you wish to wear your struggles on your sleeve..."
This is another false assertion. Heystek never mentioned his upbringing or his struggles at any time during this debate, during his campaign for office, or during his ten years of living in Davis. In fact, Heystek does not talk about his background. Even most of his close personal friends knew nothing of his upbringing and the adversity of it. The reason I found out about Heystek's past was because of Dunning's column. The only people who brought up Heystek's background were people defending Heystek from Dunning and Mazelis' attack. Heystek never mentioned his struggles, they are much too personal and too raw for him to discuss, let alone wear them on his sleeve.
Dunning and Mazelis have turned this into a personal crusade against Heystek, even though their facts were initially wrong and they now attempt to distort the argument.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
Yesterday, Dunning went into his mailbox and addressed some emails by commenting about them in his Enterprise column.
"Writes N.B. at aol.com, commenting on a recent bitter letter to the editor about the struggles of a certain City Councilman: "Seriously, Bob, doesn't this bit about overcoming much hardship through genuine struggle apply to some 20-50 percent of the adults in this fair city? That category would include Officer Pheng Ly, whom Lamar … and the shadowy and cowardly CAROLE, spent months pillorying mercilessly."Who is N.B.? None other than Noreen B. Mazelis--the writer of the original letter to Bob Dunning.
N.B. — Indeed, struggle is part of the human condition, and it doesn't always have to do with which economic class the struggler finds himself in. If you wish to wear your struggles on your sleeve and openly brag about them to gain advantage, fine, but don't discount the struggles of others, just because they keep them to themselves."
The recent "bitter" letter to the editor was from Bill Ritter. Is "bitter" a clever play on words?
Mr. Ritter sought to set the record straight in terms of the background of Councilmember Lamar Heystek.
Lamar does not come from a privileged background. He has overcome much hardship through genuine struggle in his life. Lamar grew up in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Oakland where violent crime was frequent. His family life is filled with adversity and tragedy. For Dunning and Mazelis to make belittling comments about Lamar's life (which evidently they know little or nothing about) was appalling, careless and just plain mean.The letter Dunning cites from Mazelis distorts a couple of key points. The letter to the editor was written in response to the exchange between Dunning and Mazelis in which Heystek's credentials to speak at a talk on "struggle" were called into question by them.
Dunning at the time wrote derisively:
Dunning wrote: "Writes my friend Noreen: '… Lamar Heystek will be on a panel with three other privileged men to discuss 'struggle.' " Dunning then adds: "... wow, nobody knows the trouble he's seen, overcoming his college education and teaching position at UC Davis to become one of the youngest City Council members in Davis city history ... struggle? ... Lamar? ... heck, he's not old enough to have even struggled with a razor ..."That was the context for the letter and the complaint. Whether it applies to 20-50 percent of the adults in Davis is irrelevant. Dunning and Mazelis were questioning Councilmember Heystek's credentials, not whether or not the others had struggled. If 20-50 percent of the adults in Davis could speak on the issue of "struggle" so too could Heystek. So why bring it up to begin with?
Secondly, the letter contains the assertion that Heystek "spent months pillorying mercilessly" Officer Pheng Ly. Never once did Heystek even mention or attack Officer Ly. Heystek only expressed general and moderate support for better means to oversee the operations of the police department including the establishment of a civilian police oversight board. I challenge Dunning and Mazelis to show a specific statement that proves otherwise.
Dunning himself then makes the assertion, "if you wish to wear your struggles on your sleeve..."
This is another false assertion. Heystek never mentioned his upbringing or his struggles at any time during this debate, during his campaign for office, or during his ten years of living in Davis. In fact, Heystek does not talk about his background. Even most of his close personal friends knew nothing of his upbringing and the adversity of it. The reason I found out about Heystek's past was because of Dunning's column. The only people who brought up Heystek's background were people defending Heystek from Dunning and Mazelis' attack. Heystek never mentioned his struggles, they are much too personal and too raw for him to discuss, let alone wear them on his sleeve.
Dunning and Mazelis have turned this into a personal crusade against Heystek, even though their facts were initially wrong and they now attempt to distort the argument.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
