Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Democratic senatorial staffer complains on a personal blog that too many incompetent people keep their jobs by playing the race card. To prove her wrong, the Democrats fire her   (politics.wizbangblog.com) divider line
40
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

421 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2006 at 6:21 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



40 Comments     (+0 »)
 
Weaver95
2006-09-18 5:12:29 PM  
It's unfortunate, because no matter how completely and utterly incompetant a person is, if he fits in the wrong demographic, you're stuck with him. It doesn't matter what his job history is, or that he may have been fired by every other campaign in the county's history, you can't let him go.


And God help you if you tell the truth of the situation.

It's the same way in some areas of the corporate world too, sad to say. Yet another legacy of affirmative action and political correctness.
 
rppp01a
2006-09-18 6:25:28 PM  
Weaver95: Yet another legacy of affirmative action and political correctness.

True. The Good Ol' Boys network does this as well. So does a pretty face and hot bod.
 
Fart_Machine
2006-09-18 6:33:33 PM  
Wow, talk about a non-story.
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 6:34:29 PM  
That is because there is no room for diversity of thought in today's Democratic Party. You have to think PC or you are out, even in PC is out of hand you better not talk about it. Lieberman showed a bit of diversity in his thinking and even though he voted the party line over 90% of the time they gave him the boot.
 
LocalCynic
2006-09-18 6:36:00 PM  
Weaver95: It's the same way in some areas of the corporate world too, sad to say. Yet another legacy of affirmative action and political correctness.

I hate to break it to you, but companies put up with incompetent people who they should get rid of ALL the time, and they're not minorities.

The work ethic of our country is pathetic, and that not because of political correctness. It's because people are so farking selfish and hedonistic nowadays that they don't have any concept of taking one for the team.
 
Dinki [recently expired TotalFark]
2006-09-18 6:37:54 PM  
Tyee: Lieberman showed a bit of diversity in his thinking


Um no, Lieberman wasn't displying diversity. He was supporting the administration in it's unjustified and unnecessary war. On certian issues there are no 'two sides with equal merit' and the war in Iraq is one of them.
 
nikknaack1
2006-09-18 6:41:01 PM  
Was what she had to say truthful? Yeah, most likely. Can I blame the campaign for firing her. No. Think of the political fall out had they not fired her, some of which I'm sure they will see anyway. When working on any sort of campaign or for any political party, this is one of the first things your are told. You do not speak in any such manner in public (it's best not to at all), and you never ever leave a written record of it, especially in a public place such as a blog. IMO if she is this stupid that campaign is probably better off without her.
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 6:46:02 PM  
He was supporting the administration in it's war

Your opinion that you share with many.
However Lieberman and the administration don't believe it is unjustified and unnecessary. His opinion diverges from party thinking on that matter, on over 90% of issues he doesn't.
 
scseth
2006-09-18 6:47:34 PM  
nikknaack1: d you never ever leave a written record of it, especially in a public place such as a blog

Yeah, it never fails to amaze me the people who say something negative in a public forum and then are surprised when they get canned.

Moral of the story, try to fix something from the inside first. If that doesn't work, you better find a new job before you begin publically crying about it.
 
jarrett
2006-09-18 6:50:41 PM  
I think the criticism of affirmative action is well-deserved. It's one of those ideas that sort of look good on paper, but in practice creates a new set of problems.

However, the sad fact remains that discrimination practices preclude the acquisition of "merit" by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences. We can't claim to have a truly meritocratic system until the playing field is leveled somehow.

Tyee: However Lieberman and the administration don't believe it is unjustified and unnecessary. His opinion diverges from party thinking on that matter, on over 90% of issues he doesn't.

Apparently Ned Lamont scored higher than 90%. What exactly is the problem?
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 6:53:27 PM  
nikknaack1

Good point, you can't have underlings subverting (weakening ) the mission during a campaign. Now they have brought even more attention to some other issues that will need to be dealt with. But she did bring this on herself airing the the party laundry in public.
I don't think the fall out would have been that bad though.
 
Fart_Machine
2006-09-18 6:54:14 PM  
Apparently Ned Lamont scored higher than 90%. What exactly is the problem?

Because Lamont isn't supported by the GOP, Fox News, or the Wingnut blogs hence it's now a "diversity" issue.
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 7:01:12 PM  
Apparently Ned Lamont scored higher than 90%. What exactly is the problem?

No problem from the party aspect, except there is a real good chance that Lieberman will win and the party did support him.
Look at what happened in RI. The more conservative candidate wasn't supported b/c the Republicans didn't think he had as good a chance to win. I believe this to be equally bad for the party b/c they aren't being as true to their ideals.
However in both cases the incumbent stands the best shot at winning, ( I think Joe is still ahead in the polls in CT ) but the democrats lose an election.
 
nikknaack1
2006-09-18 7:03:04 PM  
Tyee
Good point, you can't have underlings subverting (weakening ) the mission during a campaign.

I am in no way saying that she didn't have a point, or it didn't deserve to be said. In fact she probably had every right to say it and be pissed. I was just making the point that if you are working on a campaign, it's increddibly stupid to post such information on a blog if you intend to keep your job. As far as the fallout issue, it's my experience that it's the stupid shait that shouldn't mean anything that causes the biggest fallout, while the meaningful stuff is usually dismissed.
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 7:06:00 PM  
hence it's now a "diversity" issue
except the GOP supported the more diverse candidate in RI, and wingnut blogs were against that support and I have no idea who FOX NEWS wanted to win so I won't speak to that. Do you have a valid point you could make?
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 7:08:29 PM  
nikknaack1

I agree.
 
Weaver95
2006-09-18 7:09:19 PM  
I think the criticism of affirmative action is well-deserved. It's one of those ideas that sort of look good on paper, but in practice creates a new set of problems.

I think it was a crappy idea even in theory. Think about it for a second - the plan was to defeat racial bias by using..wait for it...RACIAL BIAS!

It shouldn't have surprised anyone that the plan was a miserable failure.
 
nikknaack1
2006-09-18 7:12:56 PM  
Weaver95

Just out of curiosity, what would your position be on a similar program based on socio-economic status. I'm against affirmative action as it is now, but I think a program based on one's economic standing, and resources available maybe have a place.
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 7:14:05 PM  
Weaver95

I think it was a crappy idea even in theory
You're right, the problem being implementing the current laws regarding race gender etc...not being enforced.
 
Weaver95
2006-09-18 7:15:47 PM  
Just out of curiosity, what would your position be on a similar program based on socio-economic status.

How about we just hire the people who can do the damn job on time and under budget? They can have a third eye and yellow polkadots on their skin for all I care.
 
jarrett
2006-09-18 7:16:01 PM  
Weaver95: I think it was a crappy idea even in theory. Think about it for a second - the plan was to defeat racial bias by using..wait for it...RACIAL BIAS!

Think about how we bring peace to the middle east... wait for it... BY WAGING WAR!!

Think about how we prevent murders... wait for it... WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!!

Think about how we increase federal reciepts... wait for it... BY DECREASING TAXES!!!

Any issue can be reduced to a clever-sounding platitude. Sometimes things are a little more complex, don't you think?

What's your solution to the issue? I mean, sure, we're both wealthy hetero white guys... I guess it's not really our problem.
 
Weaver95
2006-09-18 7:17:50 PM  
Any issue can be reduced to a clever-sounding platitude. Sometimes things are a little more complex, don't you think?

In this situation, no - it's pretty cut and dried.

What's your solution to the issue?

Stop making laws telling businesses they have to hire and retain people based on arbitrary racial and gender standards. Let's just let them hire the people they feel are best for the job.
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 7:19:16 PM  
nikknaack1
You didn't ask me but before I break for dinner.
There are grants, scholarships and the like, why add any kind of government regulated discrimination or privilege into the mix?
 
jarrett
2006-09-18 7:21:39 PM  
Weaver95: Stop making laws telling businesses they have to hire and retain people based on arbitrary racial and gender standards. Let's just let them hire the people they feel are best for the job.

That's a great idea, except that it doesn't address the problem whatsoever.
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 7:25:15 PM  
Think about how we bring peace to the middle east... wait for it... BY WAGING WAR!!

There already is and was war in the M.E.

Think about how we prevent murders... wait for it... WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!!

Because it is punishment, and my even be a deterant.

Think about how we increase ... wait for it... BY DECREASING TAXES!!!

This is the easy one, because it increases revenue or "federal reciepts", I know it seems crazy but it does, it just doesn't sound as good as making the "rich" pay there share. That as far as I'll go on this b/c it would be a threadjack.
 
nikknaack1
2006-09-18 7:27:10 PM  
Well I guess I would see it this way. Either find a way to educate people on the resources available, or help them out through some sort of other program. Best option would be to just fix things so there isn't such a disparity, but I don't see that as likely. It just seems to me there are too many people who are behind from day 1 to just forget about them and say 'tough shiat.' If you don't have the resources available in the first place to get a good education, job etc., chances are you won't know about your opportunities to better your situation. I think it would be better for society as a whole to at some point give some a helping hand, and hopefully the problem will to an extent take care of itself (of course there will always be those who are in a position because of their own fault, those I'm not so sure can or should be helped on the taxpayers dime).
 
jarrett
2006-09-18 7:29:54 PM  
Tyee: That as far as I'll go on this b/c it would be a threadjack.

I did not intend to start a debate on any of those topics, just to point out that the solution to a problem may sound counter-intuitive on its surface. You have to look a little deeper into the issue than just shouting "Affirmative action is racism!!!"

Yes, affirmative action is a racist policy. However, that begs the question. Can affirmative action help bring equal opporunity to all Americans? If not, what sort of policies can?
 
Descartes
2006-09-18 7:38:26 PM  
Campaign manager enters the office and says we have too much overhead, someone has to be fired.

Black woman says "If you fire me, I'll sue."
Handicapped man says "If you fire me, I'll sue."
Hispanic man says "If you fire me, I'll sue."
Asian woman says "If you fire me, I'll sue."

Everyone looks at the white male sitting quietly at his desk, who then says, "Ummm, I think I'm gay."
 
Tyee
2006-09-18 7:38:46 PM  
If not, what sort of policies can?

enforce current laws that stop dicriminization on race, creed gender etc... It may take a while but it isn't racist.
 
Weaver95
2006-09-18 7:39:08 PM  
That's a great idea, except that it doesn't address the problem whatsoever.

sure it does. You just don't like the answer.
 
jarrett
2006-09-18 7:44:50 PM  
Weaver95: sure it does. You just don't like the answer.

Way to support your assertion. Were you on the debate team, or what?

The "let them hire the people they feel are best for the job" has been tried. It didn't work. As it turns out, white people tend to hire more white people, and it created a huge inequality of opportunity. Giving business owners free-reign to be racist (or not) is probably the right thing to do. However, it does not address the issue at all.

Unless you care to explain how it does with a statement other than "yes huh!!"
 
jarrett
2006-09-18 7:48:53 PM  
Tyee: enforce current laws that stop dicriminization on race, creed gender etc... It may take a while but it isn't racist.

In a perfect world that would be a good solution. But I don't understand how the government can be expected to enforce those standards. How does law enforcement know if a hiring decision was made because of racial bias? Is there any way to judge without bringing in quotas?
 
Fart_Machine
2006-09-18 7:52:26 PM  
Tyee
except the GOP supported the more diverse candidate in RI, and wingnut blogs were against that support and I have no idea who FOX NEWS wanted to win so I won't speak to that. Do you have a valid point you could make?


We're still talking about Lieberman right? The GOP won't even support their own man in CT and have been backing him since the Primaries. He's a favorite guest on various Fox programs and gets constant verbal hand jobs from Right Wing Talk Shows and Blogs.

So did you have a point? Apart from trolling that is...
 
nikknaack1
2006-09-18 7:55:05 PM  
jarrett

I understand your point, but at some point doesn't committing one evil to stop another go too far? It seems too counter intuitive to promote fairness by being unfair, especially based on something such as race and gender.
 
jarrett
2006-09-18 8:00:33 PM  
nikknaack1: I understand your point, but at some point doesn't committing one evil to stop another go too far? It seems too counter intuitive to promote fairness by being unfair, especially based on something such as race and gender.

I'm not trying to advocate affirmative action. I don't think it works. But rather than simply arguing against AA, I'm honestly trying to figure out what a practical solution might look like. Obviously there are no easy answers.
 
Korovyov
2006-09-18 9:10:38 PM  
jarrett --
That's what civil suits are useful for. It's a judgment call -- NOT a statistical check against "you should hire x% of this arbitrary group A because they make up x% of the population", especially when you don't know that there are equal levels of qualification and interest (*).


That said, the best way to counter discrimination at, say, the level of universities or the job market is to ensure similar levels of qualification and interest. The former can be affected by public policy decisions, such as the allocation of resources among school districts, and assuring equitable application of laws and so forth. If, for instance, police only enter safe, middle-class neighborhoods and let impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhooods -stay- crime-ridden, it's not particularly fair to the residents of the latter areas. If wealthy families send their children to private schools, while the impoverished are stuck in public schools that are left with incompetent administrations and faculty, the latter are screwed. And so forth.



(*) See Title IX. If memory serves, the law permits more resources in, say, mens' sports than womens', IF it's due to a difference in interest. That is, if there's disproportionately less demand among women to participate in collegiate athletics, it's OK for the resources to reflect this. However, this is fairly nebulous, so it's considered safer to demonstrate compliance by cutting mens' teams, or having a women's crew team based in the desert.
 
kmill25
2006-09-18 9:21:15 PM  
LocalCynic

I hate to break it to you, but companies put up with incompetent people who they should get rid of ALL the time, and they're not minorities.

So true. But if you let some people tell the story it's only incompetent black people that are keeping their jobs.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-09-18 11:42:19 PM  
Dinki: Lieberman wasn't displying diversity. He was supporting the administration in it's unjustified and unnecessary war.

God forbid anyone disagree with you on that.
 
pvd021
2006-09-19 12:12:06 AM  
This is SOOOOOO.... True.. But not just in government, in ALL sectors of work. And sometimes its not the race card, sometimes its the female card too.
 
Aexia
2006-09-19 10:26:33 AM  
God forbid anyone disagree with you on that.

The facts in Iraq have an anti-Lieberman bias?
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come check out what's behind the curtain.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.