I don't think characters necessarily reflect an author's viewpoints;
Agree 100%. Notice I didn't call Webb some sort of deviant? Let's keep the OSC example going. From his books, it's not a surpise that he's 1) Religious, 2) Mormon, and 3) fairly conservative.
I'm not drawing comparisons to a particular book or character, but rather his entire body of work. Is this unfair? I think it's entirely possible that an author could explore a world and mindset completely unlike his own, and could continue to do so over his entire works. And some authors pour some of themselves into their work.
It's a discussion point, not an argument.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Errr...I'm not hanging on to anything. I'm just accurately characterizing your link. All it had was George Allen and his mother saying that he didn't know she was Jewish, which doesn't exactly constitute hard proof that this is so. Do you disagree with any of this?
I'm not saying whether they are lying or not. I'm basically neutral on the question.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mr. Allen has a schtick he does about "real Virginia," basically everything except Northern Virginia.
Dags, I'm glad you mentioned this, because it's one of my main issues with Allen. There are many reasons that NoVa feels separated from the rest of the Commonwealth, and rather than trying to unify the varying regions he continues to be devisive.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Scott, reading the article again, I can say pretty confidently that George Allen lied about this at least once.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All it had was George Allen and his mother saying that he didn't know she was Jewish, which doesn't exactly constitute hard proof that this is so. Do you disagree with any of this?
Saying, 'Well, there's no hard proof that they're telling the truth,' implies that one thinks that they're telling a lie.
Do you agree?
EDIT:
quote:I can say pretty confidently that George Allen lied about this at least once.
Yep. Because his mother asked him to, and he said yes. My question, though, is about WHEN he knew-- not that he knew when he lied to the reporter.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it implies that they may or may not be telling the truth and that there really isn't any way to tell. Plus, your article clearly demonstrates that he did lie about his mother's heritage.
quote:Allen's heritage became an issue in the Virginia Senate campaign Monday, when television reporter Peggy Fox raised it at a televised debate in front of 600 business executives in Fairfax County. Allen repeated what he has said in the past: "My mother's French-Italian with a little Spanish blood in her. And I was raised as she was, as far as I know, raised as a Christian."
In fact, Allen had just recently learned about their Jewish roots when he made those comments. Allen declined to comment, but his mother said she had sworn him to secrecy.
quote:Yep. Because his mother asked him to, and he said yes.
Again, we have nothing beside his mother's say so that this is true.
Is it really so hard for you to concede that a politician and people associated with them aren't necessarily telling the truth about things, especially ones that would seriously hurt them?
Your statements, not mine, are making clear implications. You are not even admitting that they may not be telling the truth. I'm saying they may or may not be and we really have no way of telling. This is not saying he and his mother are lying, but it admits that possibility the this is so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think that means, Squicky, for George Allen? What should it mean? Should he continue to campaign as a Christian (as he was doing on ESPN yesterday afternoon)?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the heck do I care? I just don't think that your representation of "We know from that article that he didn't know about it." was accurate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm inclined to believe him and his mother until someone comes up with proof otherwise.
Apparently not just inclined, but so attached to the idea that you'll attack people for even suggesting that it might not be true.
edit: And, that aside, your personal belief as to whether or not he was telling the truth doesn't change the fact that your representation of what was established in your link was inaccurate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Geroge Allen is a liar and a smarmy, racist liar, at that. His hair looks fake, which suits him, as his smile and demeanor also look fake.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I realized I should have changed that, but you caught it before my edit. What I meant was you'll attack people's suggesting that it might not be true. I was trying to say that you were attacking my saying "We don't know if what they were saying is true or not." and I realize that how I phrased it didn't really convey that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:your personal belief as to whether or not he was telling the truth doesn't change the fact that your representation of what was established in your link was inaccurate.
My representation of what the link says:
quote:I linked the article to show that Allen only found out recently that he was Jewish, and that he had promised his mother he wouldn't say anything.
My reason for bringing it up:
quote: Your [Squicky's] post may be construed by some people to indicate that he had known for a long time, and was hiding it for political reasons.
Was 'construed' too strong a word?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be construed by people that way, but those people would be doing as poor a job representing what I said as you did the article you linked.
Look, all you needed to do was put a "says" in there, as in:
quote:I linked the article to show that Allen says only found out recently that he was Jewish, and that he had promised his mother he wouldn't say anything.
That was my point, that the article did not in anyway establish more than that he says this. I'd even put this down to an imprecise statement if you weren't still fighting even the idea that him saying this doesn't automatically make it true.
As it is, I'm not sure why you're standing so strongly behind the integrity of this likely racist who clearly already lied at least once about this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a family member who is high up in Virginia's government (the non-elected bit) and has been for about 20 years. He says that Allen is the biggest idiot and was a horrible governor that coasted by because he's a friendly Good Old Boy sort of guy. So, I'll be voting for Webb, who is at least literate.
Posts: 1281 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a resident of SW Virginia, I can say that Allen's "Good Old Boy" image is definitely what has kept him in office. He appeals to the religious majority down here by being a moral family man.
However, I've disagreed with most of his decisions and policies. I also feel like Allen has been a lot nastier in this particular campaign, and that's another reason I'm voting for Webb.
I'd love to see VA as a blue state in '08.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure why you're standing so strongly behind the integrity of this likely racist who clearly already lied at least once about this.
I don't support George Allen.
What I'm arguing for is the PRINCIPLE that when someone says "FACT X ABOUT MY PERSONAL LIFE," it is acceptable to believe that as a fact until/unless some evidence is shown to counteract it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What I'm arguing for is the PRINCIPLE that when someone says "FACT X ABOUT MY PERSONAL LIFE," it is acceptable to believe that as a fact until/unless some evidence is shown to counteract it.
But when that someone is a politician, and fact X could damage his chances to win elections, it is also acceptable to most people to be very skeptical.
Like Launchywiggen and others say, Allen's Good Ol' Boy image is crucial to his chance to win, and Kinky Friedman is the only Jewish Good Ol' Boy I know of. I wish that wasn't true of the Bible Belt but it is.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when that someone is a politician, and fact X could damage his chances to win elections, it is also acceptable to most people to be very skeptical.
Hmm... I think that kind of skeptiscism is beyond me.
As far as whether his Jewish ancestry will matter to Virginians-- at least one PoliSci professor doesn't think so:
From the linked article:
quote:Rozell said most Virginia voters are not likely to see the question of Allen's roots as an important one in determining how they will vote in November.
"I don't even think among some of the more hard-core religious conservatives in this state it will cause him any difficulty," Rozell said. "When it comes down to it in November, voters are going to look at George Allen's record, the war in Iraq, Jim Webb, a lot of policy issues."
posted
I am confused as to why people think this would hurt Allen's chances to win. It seems to have been bandies around as if it were true without even an attempt to back it up other than a correlation to some polls that is more easily explained by other events.
quote:As it is, I'm not sure why you're standing so strongly behind the integrity of this likely racist who clearly already lied at least once about this.
When did he clearly lie about this?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"My mother's French-Italian with a little Spanish blood in her. And I was raised as she was, as far as I know, raised as a Christian."
In fact, Allen had just recently learned about their Jewish roots when he made those comments. Allen declined to comment, but his mother said she had sworn him to secrecy.
posted
Dag, You may want to read the thread again, then (edit: Hint, look 2 posts above yours). People have offered a pretty clear reason why this would hurt him. For that matter, learning a politician lied to you tends, at least among people I know, to often diminish someone's support for that politician.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Learning a politician's mother lied to him and he then honored her wishes actually makes him look better.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Generally, when I try to figure out if I should trust peopel to tell me the truth, I consider many factors, among them how likely this thing is, what they have to gain by not telling the truth, and what I know of the character of the people involved. Depending on these factors, I may consider it very likely that they are telling the truth, very likely that hey are telling me a lie, or somewhere in the middle.
In this case, I see no reason to believe what was said. That doesn't mean I necessarily disbelieve it, but I don't think accepting it as an established truth is at all warranted.
I think that the idea that "When people say things about their personal life, we should assume that this is true beyond a doubt unless we have specific evidence that these statements are false." while very nice, doesn't fit in very well with the way the world is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People have offered a pretty clear reason why this would hurt him.
The reason offered is that it would hurt him. It's been reworded a little (he depends on his good 'ol boy image), but that's still an assumption that I haven't seen backed up. I've spent a lot of time in Virginia politics and seen a lot of assumptions like that bandied about for years in the face of clear conflicting evidence. We elected the first black governor in the nation.
I'll be more specific: what are the reasons people think that Allen's basis of support is such that people finding out Allen is Jewish will cost him support?
As to the lying, the only proof anyone has that he lied is his own statement. He could have simply never revealed that conversation and easily said he had just found out.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Three Allen supporters--possibly campaign staff-- tackled/assaulted a blogger who shouted question(s) at Allen at a campaign event in a hotel. AP and CNN have picked up the story.
quote:The video showed the protester trying to get Allen's attention and asking the Republican incumbent about his first wife. "Why did you spit at your first wife, George?" the man asked.
posted
To follow up on the Jewish debate: I'll take Dag's word that he knows Virginia and it's politics better than I.
One thing to consider though: it's not so much that he has Jewish ancestors, as the timing of the revelation. If he had been know for many years to have Jewish grandparents, the effect might have been more negligable, even among the NASCAR set. But to have it thrown out in the last days of a campaign makes it more of a wild card, and could magnify the effect.
edit:In other words, the Allen campaign lost control of the candidate's image, right before the election.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'd say to your friend "I've been on the same server with Dagonee. Dagonee is a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Dagonee!"
But seriously, he's your friend, Mr. Squicky. I don't know about his views, and looking back in the thread you say he's not very political and I don't see his views or experience related, so
edit: BTW, Mr. Squicky, I like and respect both you and Dag. I don't know why you guys pick fights.
If he used the timing of the revelation and the poll as part of his justification, I'd say he ignored a very important interim event - the Post story with the detailed racism allegations.
If he didn't use that as part of his justification, I'd say he's indulging in a common stereotype of Virginia that doesn't really play out. The two most populous areas have enormous numbers of people from out of state. Together, these areas are a majority of the people in the state. And many people who haven't lived in either Tidewater or Northern Virginia have mistaken view of Virginia.
Beyond that, there have been substantial changes in the more traditional areas as well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFAIK, the timing of the revelation was unplanned by anyone. edit:I just realized you were talking about the timing vis-a-vis the analysis, not whether it was planned or not.
I didn't realize there were so many people from out-of-state in Virginia. Sounds like Atlanta metro, which has been transformed by migrants, first from the Rust Belt, more recently from Mexico, Central and South America, and Asia.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In 2000, Virginia's population was about 7 million. 1.8 million lived in 4 counties and 5 cities around Washington, D.C. The cultural northern Virginia area probably includes two to five other counties and 2-3 other cities. (In Virginia, cities are not part of counties but totally independent.) Hampton Roads has about 1.6 million in 9 cities and 6 counties.
The DC area attracts a lot of people from out of state to work in the federal government and associated industries. Norfolk is the the largest Naval base in the country, and it's only one of several large bases down in the Tidewater/Hampton Roads region. So it, too, gets a lot of out of state people.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aha, in this longer video of the assault/aggressive bouncing we can see that the former Marine who questioned Allen didn't ask "did you spit on your first wife?" (a rumor that's been going around lately) until after he was shoved and put in a head-lock by 3 guys who appear to be campaign staff. After he said that, one of them repeatedly said "now it's personal!" and they forced him to his knees and slammed him into a glass wall. It's unclear why he was pushed around and head-locked initially. See for yourself.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, cross-complaints are likely. It's hard to tell on the video if pushing set off the conflict, or if it was just Allen's people trying to insulate him from an insistent questioner, but it escalated quickly. Even if a push from the blogger started it, don't the other 3 have to show restraint? From what I could see, the blogger didn't strike or fight back at all except to try to maintain his balance and position.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this guy will have a hard time - the contact he made pushing around the guys is minimal, but he clearly had an obnoxious motive. Minimal contact suffices for misdemeanor assault if the contact is offensive, and his motive will be taken into account.
If he's guilty of assault, I doubt he can win a case against the three guys.
From his letter:
quote:I will be pressing charges against George Allen and his surrogates later today. George Allen, at any time, could have stopped the fray. All he had to do was say, "This is not how my campaign is run. Take your hands off that man." He could have ignored my questions. Instead he and his thugs chose violence.
I question his legal acumen here regarding criminal liability for Allen. There's no duty to "stop the fray" even when it's in your capability (assuming you, personally, didn't start it).
Further, this:
quote:I was attempting to ask Senator Allen a question about his sealed divorce record and his arrest in the 1970s, both of which are in the public domain.
Is fairly ridiculous. The records are sealed. Therefore, they aren't in the public domain.
Civilly, his case against Allen is stronger if these people worked for him (even as volunteers), especially if part of their job was crowd control. In that scenario, Allen would be the principal and the three men would be his agents. Their intentional torts (battery in this case) can be imputed to Allen in certain circumstances.
Again, though, his behavior will come into play.
I wish they had just ignored him, although I can see why they wouldn't want to let him get between them and Allen. If they hadn't touched him, I'd feel better about calling him an a-hole for doing that.
Edit: and let me add, those guys were flat out wrong. They would have been justified to basically set up basketball picks - force him to bump them in order to get by - but kicking him out was both dumb and an unjustified use of force.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting New Yorker article from the Oct 30th issue, talking about the campaign controversies and giving interesting profiles of Webb and Allen (with more of a focus on Webb).
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Doesn't Webb have the longest forehead in the history of the world? It's like...an Easter Island statue...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
