Earlier this week, San Jose Inside published a story on the violent past of Rick Alexander Green, the husband of county education trustee and State Assembly candidate Darcie Green.
Many people had a visceral reaction to the report, prompting a multi-faceted conversation on issues such as domestic violence, feminism, sexism and the privacy granted to elected officials and their families.
Oh, there was also some backlash.
Darcie Green went on the offensive shortly after the report’s publication. In a Facebook post, which began with a solicitation for support (i.e. money) for her Assembly campaign, she wrote:
“It's time to end the intrusion of male dominated media into the personal choices of women and the public shaming of women when we choose a partner or a reproductive option another man can’t understand or agree with.”
The assertion that the story was sexist, or meant to shame her, is a twisted attempt to avoid the uncomfortable truth that Green’s husband, formerly known as Ricardo Alejandro Monzon, has a long history of mistreating and abusing women. Beyond numerous restraining orders placed against him for nearly half of his life, he also has multiple convictions for domestic violence.
The contention that the story had anything to do with a woman’s “reproductive option” is a disingenuous misdirection.
And the suggestion that San Jose Inside reporter Jennifer Wadsworth, a professional with nearly a decade of experience, did anything less than a fair and thorough report, or was inappropriately influenced by male colleagues, is actually a sexist comment on its face.
Darcie Green and her husband were given ample opportunity to explain his past behavior, and twice he abruptly ended phone interviews. During these brief conversations he refused to discuss his past in detail, but he did admit to having more children than his wife knew a day prior. This suggests he may have more skeletons in the closet.
How Mr. Green even came to public relevance is it’s own story.
A few weeks ago, the campaign of Darcie Green pitched San Jose Inside a story about her husband taking her last name. They billed it as a progressive decision by a secure, respectful man—and, in some ways, the actions of a feminist. He may be that person today, but it’s indisputable he was not that person just a few years ago.
In the last six months, Mr. Green has been a constant presence at public functions related to his wife’s campaign, and they have actively encouraged the narrative of two high school sweethearts reconnecting after all these years. He has attended rallies to close the gender pay gap and frequently posted support for his wife and women through social media. They are fond of selfies.
During this time, Darcie Green and her husband have never mentioned his past, and it appears they had no intention of ever publicly acknowledging it in the future.
Darcie Green’s own campaign team was informed of her husband’s criminal record but had no idea it was on the scale of abusing women, or that one of the domestic violence convictions was as recent as 2011. Had people associated with Mr. Green’s past not commented on the original story, perhaps none of this would have ever come to light.
That falls a rung below accountability.
Since the truth was reported, Darcie Green has chosen to appeal to people’s basest sympathies. If it’s not sexist now, it will soon be considered racist, or an elitist take on domestic violence.
All of these arguments are specious, and they ignore the fact that it shouldn’t require an epiphany at age 32 to know it’s unacceptable to attack women.
Darcie Green also serves as president of Democratic Activists for Women Now (DAWN), which released its own statement this week. The organization’s board of directors said the report attempted to “assault the impeccable professional public service record of a strong, progressive female candidate through sensationalizing the issue of domestic violence, and intruding on a family’s private life.”
If anything, this statement diminishes the issue of domestic violence.
In our reporting, San Jose Inside spoke to several people who lead local organizations dedicated to serving women. These women also happen to be friends of Darcie Green. None of them took exception to the story’s reporting, but all of them expressed concern for her wellbeing.
We can debate the privacy one should expect as the spouse of a public official, but people who go fishing for positive press should be prepared for questions that go beyond the superficial.
This is going to be non stop until her adverser can advise them to speak up and speak the truth. I think that is all the public wants now being she is running for a public office
Great reflection Mr Koehn. The thing that has struck me since the first article SJI printed on 12/29 was that Ms Green & Mr Alexander Green (nee Monzon) solicited this attention themselves by trying to make a big deal of his name change. They are either woefully naive or completely self important and thought no one would dare question their attempt to raise him (NOT HER) as a feminist. It is almost sad how poor her judgement is. I’ve never been particularly impressed by Ms Green and her somewhat inflated resume of surface leadership but anyone with this much distraction in their personal life needs to get that house in order before trying to take charge of our important state business. No way I’d vote for Ms Green and I wish there was a way to remove her from the County Board of Education because that group is a mess without all this personal distraction added on
“A few weeks ago, the campaign of Darcie Green pitched San Jose Inside a story about her husband taking her last name.”
Seems like the crucial fact that could have come first…totally changes my initial reaction that this a private matter…
The toughest part of being in the public eye is when your family becomes part of the news story. Franklin Roosevelt took umbrage at this fact in the famous “Fala” speech when he noted that “they attacked his dog”.
Metro News, and by extension, Jennifer Wadsworth and Josh Koehn wrote an accurate story. One can debate the relevancy and Josh has done a good job explaining his rationale above–but the public figure in this story is Darcie Green. It is her record, her accomplishments, and her history that is important to voters. Too often voters are intentionally distracted by the people and issues not germane to the campaign. A spouse’s behavior is such a distraction, Hillary Clinton has to deal with the same issue on the national level.
Darcie’s new husband is a human being and his redemption will be in how he proceeds from this time forward. Richard Alexander Green is a man committed to his community, his profession and his personal life.
As Ghandi said,”A sincere apology with a promise never to do the act again is the highest from of contrition.” Richard continues that process.
But his situation is not relevant to Darcie Green’s leadership capabilities, her record or experience. She has been an outspoken champion for women and she will continue to lead the fight for women’s rights, against sexism in all its forms and she has and will fight for victims of domestic violence.
Darcie will continue to lead, as she had done in the past. To the degree the Metro has highlighted the those issues; they have actually done a service to the community–however painful it is for the people involved.
But let us not confuse people as to who the candidate is, what she stands for and why spouses, children and other family members should–with very rare exception–not be included as political fodder.
Last, Jennifer Wadsworth and Josh Koehn are very professional journalists in an industry that is losing many fine people and whose industry ethics have been diminished because of 24/7 Cable News and new technology that does not adhere to fundamental principles of integrity and fairness.
Though we may all disagree with many news articles and opinions–we nevertheless recognize the ethics, professionalism, integrity and value of the journalists whose job is not to please us–but to inform the public.
But next time, could you pick on Ash or Madison? (that’s a joke)
> A spouse’s behavior is such a distraction, Hillary Clinton has to deal with the same issue on the national level.
Hillary Clinton was Billy Bubb’s enabler, “business partner” AND co-beneficiary.
Hillary’s campaign for president ended when she said “rape victims should be believed”,
It’s not going to work for Hillary to attack rape victims as “bimbos” and send goons to intimidate them and kill their pets, and then pretend to be sympathetic.
If Juanita Broaddrick had had a concealed carry permit, pulled out her 32 caliber purse gun, and shot Billy Bubb between the horns to prevent his raping her, would Hillary believe Juanita?
And, why does Juanita Broadrick need a concealed carry permit anyway?
If Darcie Green and Rich Robinson were real feminists, they would be DEMANDING the government to issue gun permits to any woman who requests one. Better even, they should AFFIRM every woman’s right to carry a self-defense weapon WITHOUT needing to get the permission of Barack Obama, or Jerry Brown, or Laurie Smith.
Darcie made this a part of her political story. Never involve the dog, unless the subject marches the dog out and tells the media it’s part of your political character in an attempt to get votes. Wadsworth has been more concerned about joining the clique than doing the story for a very long time. I still have the emails to remind me. This is what happens when you set ethics aside and pick up bias as a journalist. She, of all people, should have known better.
Nice try. This issue isn’t simply about her husband’s past behavior. It’s about her judgement and integrity. In other words, it’s about whether she’s qualified to,hold public office.
She claims to be a feminist, yet chose for her a husband a man with a long history of abusing women. She then attempted to keep his history a secret. Once that secret got out, she diminished his victims (“I don’t want to diminish anyone who FEELS (emphasis added) wronged by him”) and cynically attempted equate public scrutiny about this issue with an attack on a woman’s right to choose. As Koehn points out, she also diminished the female reporter who wrote the story as having simply been pawn of the “male dominated media.” I guess she’s only “an outspoken champion for women” when it serves her political purpose.
Rich,
How much is Ms. Green paying you?
You have been associated with local politics for some time.
After the responses from the public with reference to the articles written and posted by San Jose Inside concerning Ms. Green and her husband, do you really believe Ms. Green will be elected to “any public office” or are you just stroking her checkbook under the doctrine of, “Fish-On?”
Keep pouring it on JK and Jenn W.-Good reporting!
David S. Wall
@David S. Wall –
Ms. Green is running for state assembly, therefore, all of her campaign donations and expenditures have to be reported, including any amounts she pays her political consultant, Rich Robinson. That information is available through the Secretary of State’s office.
https://www.campaignfinanceonline.state.pa.us/Pages/CampaignFinanceHome.aspx
I don’t have time to do the search right now. If you’re interested, I believe Rich Robinson’s company uses his last name as part of the business name.
I appreciate your reply Santa Clara County!
My question to Rich was to give him an opportunity to come “clean” with his association with the Green canpaign with reference to; his obvious use of San Jose Inside as an “Advertising for profit instrument’ to further the interests of his client, to the detriment of those who read the aforementioned tripe referencing Ms. Green’s alleged talents and service.
Again, Thank-you Santa Clara County!
David S. Wall
Sorry – typing too fast! Here’s the link
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/
Her FPPC campaign committee i.d. is:1376250
Campaign committee name is:
GREEN FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 2016; DARCIE
Here’s what I found:
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1376250
There are not yet any contributions or expenditures listed. The status is:
“This committee has not electronically filed a Form 460/461/450 for this election cycle. For further information, click on prior sessions to see if historical filings are available. Also check for late contribution filings if a major filing deadline has not yet occurred for this election cycle.”
From past experience viewing campaign finance reports, yes, candidates do pay Rich Robinson, so at some point voters should be able to see Ms. Green’s campaign expenditures and how much she’s paying her campaign consultant. It is January, so there should be a campaign filing deadline coming up soon which will disclose contributions and expenditures up to Dec. 31st, 2015.
http://www.robinsonwins.com/wordpress/
You can look up Robinson Communications on the CA SecState’s business entities search for more information (like the address registered for service…which when I looked last was not the same as the office address listed on Robinson’s website).
Robinson communications shares office space with the Alexander Law Group.
haven’t had time to look it all up, but it seems Darcie has been a bit of a perpetual candidate looking at the county website. The two documents I did take the time to pull showed she paid Robinson $3000 in the first half of 2015 and another $10K for the 6 months prior. Those were for her County Trustee run from the looks of it. There are no pdf filings, only in office filings for her current campaign, so no idea what she’s done there exactly. Haven’t gone to the state site yet, but it appears someone has already done that. I’m guessing a run for state office it’s going to pay a bit more for Richie. Honestly for that price one would hope he could come up with something better than “I am woman! Ignore my record!” but then again, they voted our illustrious sheriff in on that bag of tripe and look how well she’s doing, so there’s no accounting for the voters’ intellectual apathy and how little work it takes to manipulate them.
I disagree with you, Rich, but I think Darcie would have been a lot better off if she had used your words and not her own.
Quick question: Why would Ms. Green or her campaign team be accountable for discussing her husband’s past? Are all other candidates similarly accountable for the same disclosure? Will investigation into their backgrounds and the backgrounds of their significant other’s be occurring anytime soon? Because apparently the public has a right to know.
Further, all political campaigns seek positive press. It’s part of running for office. If you look at any other candidate’s Facebook posts, tweets, photos at events, and yes – even selfies – you’ll find they too are seeking to raise their public profile in such a way to hopefully engender supporters amongst the electorate. This is not a behavior solely confined to Ms. Green, though she seems to be the only one being targeted for it at this time.
You seem to be missing the point that Ms Green sought publicity on an issue that would have to be realized to be controversial regarding her husband. If you are going to suggest articles saying he is a great feminist and champion of women when you know full well has a shady background that includes multiple restraining orders against multiple women AND convictions and time served for domestic violence AND that those women and children live locally you have to wonder what her thought process was to think they’d be immune from commentary and scrutiny?
Quick question: Why would Ms. Green or her campaign team be accountable for disclosing or discussing her husband’s past? Are all other candidates similarly accountable for the same disclosure? Will investigation into their backgrounds and the backgrounds of their significant others be covered in another follow-up piece? Because apparently the public has a right to know.
Further, all political campaigns seek positive press. It’s part of running for office. If you look at any other candidate’s Facebook posts, tweets, photos at events, and yes – even selfies – you’ll find they too are seeking to raise their public profile in such a way as to engender support amongst the electorate. This is not a behavior confined to Ms. Green, though she seems to be the only one being targeted for it at this time.
You should meet “MOVEONALREADY.” The two of you seem to,have a lot in common.
While I agree that the focus in an election should be the candidate themselves, didn’t Ms Green invite this scrutiny of her husband by soliciting the publicity/article and using her own social media to highlight her husband and his name change? It was a poor decision on her part and it is not the judgment of Mr Alexander Green that causes folks to question her ability to lead but the poor judgement she uses in not only choosing a partner (despite love making one do strange things) but in putting them in a position to be be judged and challenged because of his very local and nefarious background. It seems from the immediate and pointed reaction from the actual family members and ex wives and ex girlfriends that were victims of his abuse that his contrition an redemption are not as far along as both Ms Green and Mr Alexander Green would like to believe. I wish them luck in their marriage but in good conscience I cannot vote for someone who uses so poor judgment in complex and important matters.
Now you know how it feels. That’s exactly what Angelica Ramos, part of Darcie Green’s feminist/political clique, tried to pull on me simply because I asked why they supported Sheriff Laurie Smith beyond the fact she was female and pro-choice. Every one thought it was funny at the time… I was called a bully, and even at one point told I was male (not) and misogynistic (also not). I faced enough backlash from those that had supported my efforts to oust our sheriff, I finally posted the conversation timeline so people could see what REALLY was said by who to whom. http://caseythomas.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/were-not-all-boys-and-legitimate-questions-arent-bullying/
SJI, you contributed to the attitude that this type of response to tough questions was okay. Rich Robinson, both the sheriff’s and Darcie’s campaign manager, reveled in the attack and pretending he was a feminist.
These are the people that are making women turn away from the words feminism and feminist. These people are not feminists, they are people turning a positive effort to improve the status of women into a political battle ax that is both offensive and embarrassing, not to mention harmful to women and their efforts.
Looks like the chickens are finally coming home to roost.
“A few weeks ago, the campaign of Darcie Green pitched San Jose Inside a story about her husband taking her last name. They billed it as a progressive decision by a secure, respectful man—and, in some ways, the actions of a feminist. ”
Why oh Why SJI are you allowing a political consultant (“the campaign” = “Rich Robinson”, Darcie’s campaign manager) to ‘pitch’ i.e. write a story for you initially? If you’re going to allow that, then please put a disclaimer in the article, i.e. “This story was pitched to us by Darcie Green’s campaign manager, Rich Robinson.”
I agree with other commentators that had Darcie and her new husband not sought publicity, then this issue may not have come to light.
Just for the record. Darcie Green posted the name change on her FB page. I did alert the media to the story–I would not call it a pitch as much as I would sharing information. I have contacted news reporters from time to time to share other stories–not always for my clients. The reporters choose what is relevant and what is not, we often disagree–they choose what to write, how to portray the story. They do their job–and I do mine.
Of course it’s a pitch. You didn’t just share the information, you wroote a while piece on it. “Shared information for. Her Facebook.” lol. Coward.
I’ve been guilty of guilt by association towards Rich on other causes, and I’m biased, I like the Greens. /fulldisclosure
How is doing his job “Cowardice?” Rich’s job, chosen profession in life is to disseminate information that puts his clients in the best light to the public eye. He’s very successful at it, and many people I know in politics rely on the man to do this.
If he put out information that shaded his clients, he wouldn’t be doing a good job. I might not agree with all the mans politics, but I would never call him a coward for being successful.
And that’s exactly why people have such antipathy towards politics and politicians: because there is such a concerted effort made to make the truth irrelevant. In this case, Robinson is being paid to downplay and attempt to dismiss the relevant issues raised by this story. If he were working for one of Green’s opponents, he’d be telling us how the concerns raised by Green’s choices and actions make her unfit for public office. As you said, that’s his job. I wouldn’t do it.
I will always vote against any individual or ballot measure that uses Rich Robinson as a consultant. I’ve seen enough of the stuff he puts out for his candidates/ballot measures to know that I don’t trust him at all.
Whether for candidates or ballot measures, there should be full disclosure of the facts on all sides without name calling. Just look back on past SJI articles written by Rich Robinson, and you can find some of the name calling he puts in writing. (By name calling, I mean stuff that kids in middle school would say to each other, not facts.)
I also find the candidates he works for to be really lacking in what we need in elected officials, especially ethics. Or maybe it’s that candidates who are lacking choose to hire him. Candidates and ballot measures he’s worked for have really hurt the community where I live, so I’ve seen it first hand. Just because someone has the money to hire RR to promote their campaign doesn’t mean the candidate/ballot measure is worthy.
Josh – really wish that SJI would not allow anyone who is a political consultant, such as RR, to also write articles for SJI. That seems to be an exercise in self promotion by the political consultant that is contrary to good journalism. And, of course, there is never an opposing point of view presented to provide balance.
Sorry. Meant coward because, well he can be just be honest. He’s a political consultant NOT a journalist. Might also explain his 2 anti-uber pro-taxi articles.
This has been very interesting reading. to see how many people can judge others. Darcie is supporting her partner not his past. She believes in change and that is what our eastside community needs.People have always judged this side of town in a negative way she has lived in the eastside and believes in our community and it’s change for better. how many of you commenting know our community or live in it.if she really wanted to hide his past they would not have put themselves out there as they did.every one knows you can’t hide from god or the internet.time to move on to more important.topics than a mans past that he has paid for time and time again.unless you do not have anything better do than sit there and judge because you are perfect.
Well I was born and raised on the east side and still live on the east side. I really can care less about their personal life myself and what he did in his past. Yes it not right his past I don’t agree with him abusing any female or male but I do feel what changes has she made for the east side expect jumping from seat to seat in the school system to better herself not the hood as people seem to call it. She was born and raised here as I was so she know this area better then the 2 running against her but again I am sorry but I don’t want her speaking on my areas behalf and what we neeed. She speaks with words like any other political person and shows no action. So the skeletons are out of the closet about him bet there is some about her to and her past. I’m sure there is someone out there who can share that dirt on her. But why should they. It is her past . Yes people do change but also history does seem to repeat itself with him according to public record. So their personal issues aside which seem to be a soap opera now online that is not why I am not voting or supporting her based on her personal life . I’m not voting or supporting her for the job she hasn’t done for my community the hood. I didn’t for for her in high school for asb president and I sure won’t now for bigger things that effect me and my family. Nothing personal.
Here’s where the public gets to add you to the judgmental crowd for judging those who have opinions on a convicted spouse abuser, deadbeat dad and the public figure/woman who married him and chose to parade him around as a feminist and pillar of society. I am from the Eastside too and still live and will vote in the eastside. I’ll be voting for someone who is not from the Eastside because the Eastside candidate (Darcie) uses terrible judgement, has a shaky resume of fluff and not substance and who has walked away mid-term from every elected or appointed position she’s held (including trying to walk away from the County Board of Ed for this assembly run) She’s obviously a “leader” in the style of Campos and that’s not a compliment.
I’m a D27 voter too, and I won’t vote for her, partially because of what you pointed out – she walked away from Alum Rock mid-term, and is trying to walk away from the County Board of Ed mid-term, without fulfilling a full term for either school board seat and without disclosing to voters during her runs for school board that she had no intention of completing her first term – and partially because she is tied at the hip to the SC County Dem party and groups like DAWN and Emerge which are only interested in promoting Dem party insiders. She would represent only the views and interests of a small group of people with whom she is already highly connected as an insider in the Dem party, leaving the rest of us without representation. We need someone who is going to represent all of us and have thoughts independent of any one political party, labor, and insider groups.
I do not respect people who just want to be politicians, and who use lower elected office solely as a means to climb higher. Other elected officials who started their political careers on school board actually served on school board for a decent number of years and didn’t try to jump ship in the middle of their first time (I’m thinking of Joe Simitian, Paul Fong, and Mike Honda.) By her actions, Ms. Green has made it clear that she doesn’t really care about school board – she only cares about climbing higher. We don’t need anyone like that representing us.
I believe this has gone on far enough and people should be focused on other major city and state issues such as housing the homeless have more shelter for the less fortunate, bottom line we each have different point of views this story is a bore now and not valid enough being some of the accusations are criminal acts especially those spoken upon by Ricks son, which have no charges…josh I would like to know more about the issues our city suffers not the issues our city couples have!!
I agree with Teresa .
I generally agree. Unfortunately Darcie Green appears to have only provided information on her feminist beliefs and her husband rather than what issues she will address should she win and how she will address them. It is time to move the conversation forward — to candidates who have conversations with substance rather than dog-whistle politics.
I think your story would be a better one to cover than this Casey.
Not sure what you mean by “your story.” One thing I do know, as long as campaign managers like Rich Robinson keep feeding us campaigns like this, we will continually end up in conversations like this. It’s time to demand a higher standard. Hasn’t this area seen enough empty promises? Take one look at the Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors and it’s time for each and every one of us to ask ourselves why we voted for them and what have they given us that functions for us as a whole?
And for women like Darcie, if you want to run for public office, tell us what you plan to do. If you want to run again, show us what you’ve done and what you will do. You want to be a woman respected in politics, do a job that we can respect and your gender won’t matter. After all, that is the goal, right? That our gender doesn’t matter, it’s the job we do to prove we’re just as qualified?
I must have you confused with someone else.. I just remember around the same time I met you there was a lady who’s ex was an abusive sheriff deputy that in her mind, killed her son and Smith swept over the case with the good old blue shield.
I know exactly who you’re talking about. I am not her, but I agree, someone should cover that story. The problem is the complexity and length of time. The average media source doesn’t have that much energy and their reader/viewer that much attention span.
Sorry about the confusion :) It’s not that complex of a story, it just needs to be condensed (I think my above post is a good executive summary)
If Josh coverage of the Shirakawa/Campos saga is any indication of his ability to dig things up and make them presentable to the public, I think he could handle her story. I just have a feeling Josh would rather go after Green, because she doesn’t have a small army of armed soldiers.
RMC – You wrote “I just have a feeling Josh would rather go after Green”
I don’t think SJI/Josh is ‘going after’ Ms. Green. I get the impression that SJI is not happy that they went for the original ‘pitched’ story about the name change, and Ms. Green/her campaign consultant/new husband were not forthcoming about all of the details behind the name change. So the story as originally pitched was incomplete and dishonest, and basically left SJI with egg on its face for writing the pitched story without digging deeper.
Readers then provided the background details in the comments section, and SJI followed up to tell the complete story. When information is sent via campaign materials, voters expect some gloss and bias, but when information is published in a newspaper/news magazine, voters expect journalists to be unbiased and to write the truth. By publishing a pitched story that in reality was essentially campaign propaganda, SJI allowed itself to be used by Ms. Green’s campaign. So I’m glad that SJI set the record straight on this story, and I thank the commentators who provided information which showed voters just how ‘pitched’ the original story was.
I hope this is a lesson for the news media to not go for ‘pitched’ stories from political campaigns.
I agree.
I assume in all fairness then with the focus on full public disclosure.. sanjoseinside.com will next be writing an article on Ash Kalra and his jail time for a DUI arrest back in 2011… or does that not align with general public interest?
Kalra’s DUI arrest was well publicized and he never attempted to hide it. It looks like Green may have to start looking for a real job.
Yes well publicized for those that knew him 5 years ago. In the interest of timing.. I’m only stating that it’s relevant as well to those that may not know now or have forgotten.
And I apologize on the double post.. I wasn’t sure the first had gone through so I rewrote it.
Wether or not the decision was made “to hide”, “to honor”, “to support feminism”… whatever.
I hope on a personal level it was made by a man who wants to leave his name and the associated past far far behind and is only looking forward. Only time will tell..
In the meantime, Darcie won’t be winning over any of her doubters, those indifferent may sway or follow more closely, and her supporters are still going to support. What the Greens do from this point forward will speak volumes.. going on the record would be a start.
I assume in the interest of full public disclosure and bringing up criminal pasts, questionable actions, personal judgement, and bad decisions… sanjoseinside.com will also follow up with articles on other candidates such as councilman Ash Kalra and his arrest record/jail time in 2011 for an DUI arrest.
Education is very important Trump is a very educated man but i will not vote for someone who will throw us back to the sixty’s and all it’s racism. Knowing the area and it’s culture is far more of what we need in our east side community .How well does Ash Kalra,Madison Nguyen,Van Le or Cong Do know our culture our people?People call it the hood and that’s how they want us to see selves look around slowly we are being pushed out of our own community. This used to be San Jose now we are best known as the Silicon valley.Food for thought.
It’s still San Jose. At least in the fun places it is…
Most people didn’t see “office space” and go, you know what, that’s awesome and exactly how I want to live.
Como dice la cancion El pasado pasado.
I would like to know why my earlier comment was taken down?Was it because it was in Spanish?earlier comment “como dice la cancion El pasado,pasado” translated The past is the past.is your article for English speakers only?
Thank you for reposting my earlier comment.
Viva la raza
> Viva la raza
You know, Mexicano, if you were actually in Mexico you could wallow in la raza to your heart’s content.
It’s probably a struggle for you to have to put up with all this “diversity” in the USA.
Not really, not for me. How about for you?
> How about for you?
It’s very confusing.
How does celebrating la raza foster diversity?
I would think that raza-nistas interested in celebrating diversity might, at some point, celebrate a white person or two.
By the way, we haven’t heard yet from MEXICANO3 and MEXICANO4. Do they also share your passion for la raza? Do any of the Mexicanos you know like anyone who isn’t la raza?
>It’s very confusing.
Really? Sounds like you have it all figured out.
I will make sure Mexicano3 and Mexicano4 (we are all related) chime in to celebrate a white person. Just to make sure you have “heard from” them and are convinced we like diversity. Did you have a white person in mind for us to celebrate? How about yourself? Because that’s who really needs some celebrating. And my instincts tell me you are not a lesbian African American female. Call me crazy.
Hey sjoutsidethebubble,i do not need to go to Mexico to wallow with la raza i live and love the eastside.Proud of my culture.My background is from hard working field workers.My grandmother worked till she pasted away and owned 6 properties through out the San Jose area.You should try and get to know more of our raza and add some diversity to your life.How many times have you been to this side of town?may be i can show you around some day.
Sorry, let me do it your way — certainly makes things easier to understand:
> It’s probably a struggle for you . . . .
Not really, not for me. How about for you?
Josh, outstanding journalism. You are an asset to the Bay Area.
Darcie Green, 5 reasons why you’re a joke:
1. You attack the media for reporting the truth. Shows terrible judgement.
2. You take on 5 new stepchildren during an election campaign. Lack of common sense.
3. You didn’t finish the full term on either school board. Lack of commitment, an opportunist who doesn’t care about anyone but yourself.
4. You are bringing down feminists everywhere by trivializing/condoning the actions of a serial wife-beater.
5. You don’t even know how many stepchildren you have, this publication had to tell you! You’re stupid.
Horrible to see picture of this guy who likes beating up women smiling at me, and his wife says it’s OK. They are both women-haters
Thanks for this article, SJI. If anything, it may encourage a better class of candidate to appear. Silicon Valley is full of smart, conscientious and trustworthy leaders, but they are mostly found in business/tech. We don’t have to settle for hypocrites with political ties.
Exactly.
Wow, incredible all this happening in my former hometown. How sad to see you all wallow in the filth and muck that this green and monzon (and RR and … and … and …) have created. Please stay in San Jose, do NOT come to Sacramento.
Don’t worry about me coming to Sacramento. Unless I have to. Sacramento — the Ultimate Urban Heat Island! And as far as “racism” goes? If a latino person wears a T-shirt proclaiming “Latin Pride” that is taken as a sign of cultural self-esteem. If I – as a white male wore a T-shirt proclaiming “White Pride” I would immediately be labeled a Racist, a Skinhead, a Neo-Nazi, or worse. Probably arrested for “inciting hate speech”. Riddle me this folks — why is there a double standard of such extreme boundaries? I could tell you exactly why Darcie Green married an abusive latino man. And so could nearly ever poster above — no matter their particular culture or race or gender “identity” for that matter. If they were all straight up honest. Those who are busy denying parts of their own culture and judging facets of other cultures are not to be trusted to tell the full truth about anything. Denial is a heavy duty part of the East Side of San Jose.