posted
MD and VA are having bitter elections this year-- in VA, the Republican and Democratic candidates have both been vitriolic to the point of embarassment. The Republicans have completely lost my vote for their heavy-handed and emotionally manipulative campaign ads; and I don't really trust the Democratic candidate.
It's worse in MD, apparently. The lieutenant governor, Michael Steele, who is African American and a Republican, was called "the personification of an Uncle Tom," by the President of the Maryland Senate. He also has had oreos thrown at him.
This is my notice to all politicians-- clean up your campaigns or loose my vote.
posted
My only comment was to agree with you. I didn't see that as furthering discussion so I didn't post. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Uncle Tom comment is four-years-old, and in my experience, and overwhelming percentage of the time, it's used in poor taste. I mean, I've been called an Uncle Tom quite a few times, and we all know how I feel about white people. Throwing oreos is just stupid, but the bashers did that, not the other politicians.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I think it's revolting. After giving this a lot of thought, I've resolved that it has quite a lot to do with the development of "national wedge issues" as primary campaign themes at all levels of government.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, didja know that the flap which the Republicans are creating is over an incident that occurred four years ago? I thought not. Irami Osei-Frimpong did though. Which oughtta tell ya something about your intellect being drawn toward ignorance.
Taking interest in people's (interpretation of their own) experience is more enlightening than ignoring their statements.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Living in Northern Virginia, I did in fact know about the statements age, and how it's being interpreted and disseminated to the public.
What I didn't know was Irami Osei-Frimpong's feelings about white people or as he put it:
"we all know how I feel about white people."
and that
"he's had his fill".
With no context these do seem like ignorant statements. It would certainly be counted as ignorant if I made a statement saying "You know how I feel about black people." and "I've had my fill of them".
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>didja know that the flap which the Republicans are creating is over an incident that occurred four years ago? <<
Let's clarify: The president of the Maryland Senate called Steele an Uncle Tom four years ago. However, the slurs continue today-- please see the article I linked to above.
Of particular note is Chuck Schumer's (or his staff's) illegal activities in relation to Steele-- they stole his SSN to illegally obtain his credit report.
Thought you might want to keep informed, aspectre. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, I don't see how Irami's statement is ignorant. It is a direct statement of how HE feels, and if HE says that HE has had his fill of white people, then that is TRUE. His opinion might be based on ignorant ideas and a false impression of events, but that doesn't make his statement of his own feelings ignorant.
That's like saying that "I'm unhappy today" is an ignorant statement.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of the things done to Steele happened a few years ago and were done by bloggers and/or people on the street. However, just recently democratic candidates and officials have endorsed such attacks as being justified. I expect some of the ignorant masses to bring these sorts of attacks, I don't expect elected officials to endorse them because "Party trumps race" (State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden)
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certain statements of feeling can be characterized as ignorant. It goes without saying that "I'm unhappy" isn't one of them. However, expressing a feeling that is based on the characterization of a group of people is inherently ignorant. All I've done is skipped the debate over whether the reasoning is ignorant and passed judgement on the concluding statement.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Already knew what is in the article days ago, ScottR. A couple of the items, a lot longer.
Interesting that an employer is allowed to seek out credit and other background information to screen potential employees. Except when the employer is the public.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying he's had his fill of white people doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks we're all the same, although it does suggest it. It could very well be that he's tired of all of us, and accepts that we're all different.
That sounds silly, I know, but the point is, "I feel" statements are never ignorant if they accurately portray the speakers feelings. All I'm saying is that you can't skip of the debate over the reasoning. If you think his statement is based on ignorant assumptions, say THAT.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A potential employer isn't allowed to steal your SSN to do a credit check without your permission.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, an employer can only get the credit info of a potential employee if he has the employees permission: Credit reports. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA (15 U.S.C. §1681), employers must get an employee's written consent before seeking that employee's credit report.
If an employer stole someones SSN and used it to get his credit info without permission, it would be a crime. This is what the dems did to Steele.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. But what are the odds that an applicant would feel comfortable refusing to give such permission to a potential employer? What are the odds that an employer would call back an applicant who refused such a request?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aspectre-- what these folks did was illegal. They are being investigated by the FBI.
From what I understand, they obtained the SSN from court documents, then used it to obtain his credit report. They were doing opposition research.
When you call Schumer a potential employee, I think you misunderstand how his staff got the information:
quote:According to the FBI, two Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee employees illegally obtained Steele's credit report.
Those familiar with the incident, say Katie Barge and Lauren Weiner were working on opposition research in July. They found Steele's Social Security number in a court document and used it to obtain his credit report.
posted
The oreo and Uncle Tom issues are four years old, and have yet to be addressed. A group of Democratic politicians in Maryland recently, however, declared that such comments and actions were not inappropriate since Steele 'does not represent.' So that is recent. Also it was just a week or so ago that a left-wing blog photoshopped a picture of Steele so that he looked like he was in black face. That is recent. That site also consistently refers to Steele as 'Sambo.' That is recent. If it were a right-wing blog or Republicans pulling this garbage, then there would be riots. But it's all ok so long as the NAACP or their white liberal masters ooops I mean partners do it. It's just those darkies that strayed from the liberal plantation that get this kind of treatment, after all, and they deserve it.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm defending nothing in regard to breaking laws to play political dirty tricks. Throw the book at 'em. Then throw away the keys. Just pointing out the irony. And expressing my displeasure with the breadth of the law itself. Everything within a politician's credit report should be open to the public so voters can make a more informed decision. As should the credit report of every political appointee who has to be selected by and/or approved by elected officials, including judges. All reports on personal finances received by an elected official, a judge, or a political appointee should also be a matter of public record.
The IRONY, that I see, is that some members of a party that has a legitimate record for being the more pleasant, tolerant party, are being downright vitriolic.
Where's the irony you're supposedly pointing out? I see where you pointed out INFORMATION (insults are four years old) and MIS-information (SSN was obtained because Steele was seeking a job), but no irony.
BTW-- Steele released his financial records two years ago, revealing his unpaid debts.
How deep are you proposing we. . um. . probe into politicians' personal lives, aspectre?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rep. Albert R. Wynn, a black Prince George's County Democrat, admonished Baltimore lawmakers and even described Mr. Steele as "a likable guy."
"I think the comments and the attacks were outrageous and reprehensible. It does a disservice to the African-American community, and it creates a herd mentality that whatever the Democrats say we should repeat," Mr. Wynn said.
My point exactly; Representative Wynn hit the nail on the head.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the irony. Businesses do operate as if they had such a right, under the laws approved by elected officials and regulations drawn up by their appointees. Their attitude even extends to their customers and potential customers.
Get pregnant. Have it confirmed by a physician. Go to a pharmacy to fill a pregnancy-related prescription. Then ***poof*** Baby catalogs start appearing in your mail, insurance companies will try to sell you extra life insurance cuz "you will need more for your bigger family", realtors will call "because you may need extra room", etc, etc, etc. All before the pregnancy has even been announced to family and friends.
Graduations, receiving a promotion with a good pay raise, buying a house, buying a car, getting a drivers license or registering your car in a new state, filing for bankruptcy, etc will trigger similar avalanches of junk mail and telemarketers.
Go to a "club card" supermarket, and have everything you purchase recorded in your club card account. Which is -- at least partially, ie in terms of aggregate data -- resold to other business. Refuse to use a club card, and be punished with prices twice as high as normal. "If you don't like it, you should shop elsewhere."
Me, I don't believe that elected officials, judges, or political appointees should be allowed to keep financial information which is available to business out of the public eye to the degree that they are currently allowed. Nor should they even feel the need to keep such information private. If they don't wanna be "club card"ed, they should "shop in another supermarket" for employment. It's not as if there will ever be a shortage of better qualified people willing to accept those positions.
I'll even throw government bureaucrats, including military personnel, who sign and/or are in the top-level of the recommendation-for-approval/disapproval process for major business contracts in with that group.
I advocate that only the amount of money or real property -- including amounts&names of monetary instruments such as stocks and bonds, and ownership instruments such as deeds -- in purely financial transactions should be fully disclosed. I am not advocating such specificity in purchases of other goods or services. For those, 'line item'ing the monthly amount of money/etc into general categories is sufficient. While knowlege that a politician/etc chooses private schooling for his/her kids may be relevant to the voters' decision process, the precise where that those kids are going to school is not. And voters don't need to know which restaurants that a politician/etc goes to, or what kind of cheese s/he likes.
I'd also include a privacy shield that politicians/etc and celebrities don't currently enjoy: all appearances of photographs/videos of family members must be with the family's written permission before publication or any other public airing. Similarly, a by-permission-only on all photographs/etc, addresses, or other strong clues as to establishments that their family members frequent or vehicles that they use. Naturally, photographs/etc can be published without such permission when they don't contain family members. Or when the photos/videos of politicians/etc and celebrities which incidentally contain family members are taken at public events such as campaign fundraisers and rallies, awards ceremonies, publicity appearances, etc.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
