You really are. No two ways about it. What’s that? Why are you a dick?
Well for one thing it is not because you were an eagle scout, or that the only things listed in your official biography are your college, religion, Republican State Committee and The Council on Hemispheric Affairs. (Whoa, where did that one come from? The NY Times calls this group a liberal think tank.) Not because you’re 26 or 27 and tout yourself as being a “public policy consultant and advisor” right out of undergrad. No sireee. You my friend are a dick because you ratted out your aide to the local paper. No need for me to link to it. Christ, I don’t even know the chick and I feel obligated to protect her. Unlike you she is not a public figure, nor did she put her name on the ballot, nor is her name in Wkipedia, nor is she a Congressman Weiner http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/P_A1 look alike. Nope, she is just a chick you hired. Is it true you asked for her resignation?
Rep. Weiner, rather Adams, is another one of these socially retarded, inflated ego, tea party, boy scout (in this case literally) new Republican types that filled the vacuum when normal people realized they couldn’t run and take advantage of the “throw the bum out” atmosphere because they had jobs and lives. These new Republican reps. are one by one alienating everyone in the House. Including Republicans. One newbie couldn’t wait to do his maiden speech and tell everyone how stupid they all are because he’s an accountant. And Fattman is so stupid that he does not understand that letting rapists etc. know that certain types of people are prevented from reporting crimes commit upon them encourages rapes and more violent crimes on innocent victims. And now we have this twerp named Weiner, I mean Adams.
One BMGer poster claims Adams is jealous of Cusack. Well this really causes me a problem with the movie budget. A love triangle. That means another supporting character. Who should play Weiner, I mean Adams? Let’s see, we have Rock Hudson playing Cusack, Doris Day playing the aide, Lionel Barrymore doing a bang up job as Bobby D. We sealed the deal with Walther Brennan so he’s in. At a price. Now who can we get to play Weiner. I mean Adams. Someone we can afford. Someone that will have the needed on-screen chemistry with the heavy hitters. Someone that can nail down the part of Weiner, I mean Adams, on such short notice
I got it. Wally Cox.
Note: I apologize that one has to be over the age of 60 to recognize these actors. All I can say is, “tough shit”.
———
Some of these e-mails I’m getting are suggesting Ron Mariano has once again giving up the dream. Who knows? But if true does this mean turtle neck Jay Kaufman. The man who nominated Sal DiMasi for Speaker. The man that defended to the press every move DiMasi made when he was speaker. Talk about a liberal tool enabling the corrupt DiMasi. Oh and also the man that wears turtlenecks?
Or will it be the current Ways and Means Chair. Do we really want a speaker with an OUI on his rap sheet? No big deal if it happened in another life years ago. But this happened when he was a rep. No indication now he is on the wagon. Haverhill is a long ride on state highways. He won’t always have a driver. Do we need to be worrying about our speaker getting pulled over some evening and then having to defend him from the indefensible? Who needs it? I don’t think 81 members do.
I’m not sure this was made in the other thread.
And this is gold.
Good one Ern.
That meme was started and spread by morons in the media, not Fattman.
There are so many ways that it is wrong to continue spreading this wrong idea. First of all, you have to be arrested to be put into the system, people who report crimes to the police are not turned over to ICE. Second, it is not just illegal immigrants who are afraid of dealing with the police, but drug users, people behind on child support payments, people who have warrants against them, etc. And finally, a significant percentage of illegal immigrants will be afraid of dealing with the police whether we have joined Secure Communities or not, as will rapists. Or finally, shouldn’t people who are considering leaving their home country and coming to America take into consideration that they are going to be screwed over and not even have the pleasure of secure protection from the police because they can be deported? It is wrong to spread the false sense of security that they will be allowed to stay and still get full protections and not be always on the verge of being deported. If it really does make society less safe because rapists can get away with rape by choosing vulnerable victims who are afraid to report their crimes is a problem, then shouldn’t we be changing the law so that rape victims are never arrested for any crimes or outstanding warrants? Why focus only on illegal immigrants? Especially when they, as victims, are not even subject to being deported, whereas the other vulnerable victims are certainly subject to being arrested.
The media, including bloggers here, need to stop spreading the false meme that rape victims would be deported if they report their rape. It is not true, even under SComm. But anyone reading the media would certainly think it was true. That’s not Fattman’s fault.
But Ernie’s point is sound. If predatory people are reminded that a certain section of the population is more vulnerable, they are more likely to act on that information.
If there are any predators who suddenly got the message that illegal immigrants are rapeable with impunity, they got it from the Telegram writer and the people who retweeted it. They came up with the irresponsible and incorrect notion out of thin air, and then broadcast it to the world. Fattman’s comments weren’t in themselves wrong or irresponsible, I don’t see where he said that rape victims would or should be deported if they went to the police, he was saying that it was a truism and to be expected and right and proper that illegal residents are afraid to come forward, and that it’s right and proper that illegal residents should be deported. But it’s an irresponsible stretch to amplify and twist that into headlines about illegal residents being deported if they report a rape. Portraying the story that way, rather than correctly pointing out that crime victims are NOT entered into the SComm system and would not be deported, is terrible and now we have to work to correct that misinformation with the facts: Victims of crime are not reported to SComm and reporting a crime against them will not result in deportation.
The media amplified what the rep said, but HE said it.
I fully doubt that he strode up to a microphone at a press conference with the intention of making a statement that rape victims should be scared of being deported if they go to the police. The reporter had to manipulate him and then mash-up his words to get that out of him, and I think the reporter and everyone that jumped on the non-story should be ashamed of themselves for spreading such a dangerous untruth that could lead to actual assaults.
and dumb indeed to be so horribly “manipulated” by an employee of the T&G.
He might have thought reporters were trying to report the news, not make the news, and that they had some semblance of responsibility.
..it’s clear that this isn’t what the reporter thought was the story. The rep is quoted midway through the article; it looks like he was the only rep of those listed the reporter got on the phone. He’s hardly the only quote, though, and this didn’t even rate the headline.
(This is my local paper and I had to go back and re-read the coverage once all this broke to confirm that it really came from central Mass.)
The reporter brings it up!! I looked at the original letter, and nowhere in it does it say that victims of crime would be deported or that women should be afraid to report a rape. The reporter puts that irresponsible untruth into the story. He tries to wave off such an irresponsible question with a form of “duh!” that implies “unask the question, it is a stupid question” but the reporter instead jumped on his reply to the irresponsible question as a gold nugget of controversy, even though it puts women at risk to promote such a falsehood.
Above:
The Palin
This reporter was irresponsible, and it is his fault if anyone gets the idea that undocumented women can be raped and won’t be able to report it or they’ll be deported.
(did my hack work?)
(speaking as someone who’s read his coverage for years and has even been quoted by him)
He’s not a “drop words” or “mash them up” reporter.
you atre trying to pretend that the guy he quoted didn’t mean what he said when he was quoted.
That T&G, such a liberal rag, mouthpiece for the Democrats.
A politician says something for which the most charitable possible explanation is that the politician is a galloping idiot.
Newspaper reports on idiotic statement, politician follows up with statements for which the most charitable explanation is that the politician is an arrogant moron. And this, irrespective of one’s opinion on the underlying issue of immigration.
Then the guy’s party advocates try to explain the whole thing away by saying it was just “stirred up by the media.” As a political move, this can be called “The Palin” (not to be confused with a direct attack on your opponent’s perceived strength, which is “The Rove”).
The problem is that all voters who aren’t galloping morons, or don’t watch Bill O’Reilly (probably near 100% overlap there) recognize this as the pure unadulterated cow manure that it is.
One has to question the ability of the Mass. GOP to stop stepping on their own pudenda, no matter how favorable the political wind at their back.
That’s par for the course, and not news at all. But I’d expect people who are supposedly all concerned about the vulnerability of illegal residents to be more concerned about the vulnerability of illegal residents. Instead they are doing way more damage than Rep. Fattman did. Again, I’d like to see his full quote in context, I think the reporter arranged his words to make it seem like was saying rape victims would and should be deported if they reported a rape, so as to make people think – falsely – that A) SComm would do that, and B) that Fattman thinks they should be reported to ICE if they report a rape.
Your description of The Palin and The Rove was equal parts amazing, astute, the truth and freaking hilarious. Possibly the best single sentence ever written on Blue Mass Group in the history of this site.
…rape victims here illegally should be afraid to come forward. That is NOT the message we should be sending.
I have only seen mashups. I want to see the whole interview, to get the context. I don’t think he was saying that rape victims would or should be deported.
You are simply denying reality.
What possible context could come up with a plausible explanation for:
“My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward.”
And:
“But if you weren’t here, the crime wouldn’t happen.”
Again, what possible context could there be for these statements that is something other than repugnant?
Honestly, I have been itching to vote Republican for years, and yet they always reveal themselves to be the party of bigots and idiots, and I can’t.
___________________________________
Side not to eds: The search function is LOUSY. Far worse than soapblox, which was merely lower case lousy. It finds the posting (say, from last week with “Fattman”) but the link just takes you to the front page. Boo.
In the same vein, it might be useful to be able to navigate through “My Comments” in bigger chunks. For expample, I remember blasting someone who posted XYZ in 2007, and gee I’d like to find the comment, but the google function is either lousy or LOUSY, supra, so I have to click to it, from Comment 1 to Comment XYZ, one at a time, using a previous page link. Boo.
As a general point, those are more than reasonable statements. He’s saying that a country has a right to and should deport people who overstay their visas or enter a country illegally. He’s saying that if you live outside the law you have to worry about being held accountable for your crimes if you are discovered.
Tell me, do you think a guy with a warrant out for his arrest for beating his wife should be afraid to come forward to report being mugged? Its the same thing.
The context changes if he was asked specifically if an illegal immigrant who was raped should come forward and whether she should be deported, whether she would be entered into the SComm system. She wouldn’t be entered into the SComm system and local cops wouldn’t turn her over to ICE. So if he was asked specifically about that as a matter of fact about how the system works, then he made a mistake and was wrong to say imply that. But I think it was the reporter who implied that.
I think you just twisted yourself into a pretzel. This is what Fattman said. It’s pretty clear.
It’s not his legal advice to rape victims about deportation, he is not saying that victims of crimes should not report them or that they will be deported if they report crimes. He’s saying that criminals should know that there are downsides to being a criminal, including being afraid to go to the police. Coddling criminals, and saying that they have a right to live their lives free and protected by the police and never deported or put in jail, is bad for public safety.
going to apologize for his idiot response?
…is his work for MassResistance. Not sure what you have against Eagle Scouts, which technically he IS, not WAS.
I hadn’t heard about that
…I need to clarify. He was the southeast MA Director for Coalition for Marriage and Family, an organization of similar ideology. He was strongly endorsed by MassResistance and accepted money from Massachusetts Family Institute.
The difference between working on behalf of MFI and MassResistance is probably something like the difference between being bigoted with a capital B, and being bigoted with a capital B *and* unhinged. MFI at least tries to look respectable, even if it’s not. MassResistance stalks middle schoolers at their Gay Straight Alliance events to post photos of them without permission. That he didn’t send them money back and make it crystal clear that he doesn’t support what they do is almost as bad as supporting them.
*sent their money back, not “them money back.”
“My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward,” Mr. Fattman said. “If you do it the right way, you don’t have to be concerned about these things”
So if he was manipulated does that mean that he did not say what he said–this could be a good defense for anyone: you did not hear what you thought you heard–it was just me being manipulated.
Need those 6s back
It’s hard to know what that sentence was in answer to. Was it a general point he was making about why it is better to immigrate legally and why it is bad to over stay a visa or enter illegally, so that people don’t have to feel afraid to “come forward” and risk being deported, or was he asked specifically what an illegal resident who was raped should do? Maybe he tried to ignore the offensively manipulative question about rape by making a general statement, which he now probably knows is falling into a trap, because people portray it as an answer to the specific question. I’m not saying he handled it the best way, but it wasn’t his fault he was set up, and it certainly isn’t his fault if any harm comes from women thinking they should not report rapes or rapists thinking that illegal immigrants can be raped with impunity. That is entirely the reporter’s fault and everyone who perpetuates that falsehood.
Even though that is the opposite of what he said. Is English a second language for Fattman? Maybe he doesn’t understand context, grammar, idion, or vocabulary.
Or maybe he meant what he said, and then said again.
One of those, anyway.
This is the post that took me a few minutes to find it was that jackass Adams and the article.
Cusack, not impressed.
Why doesn’t somebody moderate it?
Given that everybody in the State House knew who it was, the aide’s boss was identified, and, essentially, it’s a matter of public record, how should the Representative, the aide’s boss, have replied?
Final thought, I can’t say I know either the aide or the Reps. involved in the story, but I can’t imagine jealousy is at play here. If anything, perhaps anger, the young Rep is probably thinking “I’m a Republican in the State Legislature; I can’t screw anything up and expect to come back here.” The Rep. shouldn’t fire the aide; but the aide should resign for violating the simple rule of politics: “bringing unwanted attention to your boss”.
P.S. Good selection of actors; nice touch.
Since when does “everyone at work knows” become public record and/or legitimize it being in the paper? A government employee is not an elected official and has some privacy protections.
As for how he should have replied? Are you saying there was no other way to reply without naming her? Huh? Just how dumb is Adams?
Well, for one, it’s in the Mass. Political Almanac (page 86). (Any reporter will know new legislators, particularly (r)s only get one aide to start.) Two, various associations put a list of Senate and House staff on their websites, unprotected by passwords, etc., for their members or any other member to view. I’d list them, but it’s nice having that resource out there so I won’t list them so they don’t remove them (i.e. available on the internet is public domain). Three, the State House personnel and salaries ARE actually subject to the public record law. (i.e. see the Boston Herald’s list they update every year.). Their files, etc., are not public record, but the who and what are they paid is.
The second part of my post was a legitimate question as to how you would have handled it — knowing people already knew?
Realistically, I would hope the aide offered to resign and, if the Rep. was big enough for it, refused the offer.
would she offer to resign, especially now that DeLeo has concluded that nothing inappropriate happened?
A fair question. That said, regardless of whether or not Speaker DeLeo found “nothing wrong”; it brought her boss unnecessary attention. Sadly, perception means something in politics. This may seem archaic, but the point about being an aide is to represent the elected official. While I think aides are often the most effective person in certain offices, it isn’t about them. It’s about the elected official. While the elected owes some loyalty to the aide, the aide should recognize that it’s not about him/her; it’s about the elected official and, as absurd a situation it is, the aide should recognize his/her actions reflect on the elected.
(Note: I recognize it only extends so far; if the elected told the aide to commit a crime; no question, all bets are off.)
What about the unwanted attention he brought to her? Being able to look up someone’s name by putting pieces together is not the same as having it publicized. HE should resign for being unable to protect and advocate for his staff. How can anyone expect him to protect his constituents when he can’t even protect a woman going through a crisis on his team?
Still, I hope SHE does resign. It would be great to find how well HE does finding another person to come in and work for him now. Any State House staff want to volunteer? Isn’t this someone you would love to work for? What’s that?
You don’t want YOUR boss commenting on your after hours activities to the media?
She should come out with her story and announce her resignation at the same time: “I choose to quit ’cause I work for a ‘dick'”.
Then again, he is probably telling her she should be “afraid to come forward” as he is screwing her against her will.
She should NOT resign, she did nothing wrong. Neither should Mr. Cusack. If anybody should resign, it’s “Walter Brennan” — the right thing to do was close the door and walk away.
This entire episode is absurd. It is absurd that any man or woman should feel compelled to leave a position he or she wants to keep after a perfectly normal action like this. I really feel as though I’m in la-la-land.
I am addressing the point that she should have better options than to have to continue in her current position. In NO way should she feel as though she should “have” to quit.
Well, for one, it’s in the Mass. Political Almanac (page 86). (Any reporter will know new legislators, particularly (r)s only get one aide to start.) Two, various associations put a list of Senate and House staff on their websites, unprotected by passwords, etc., for their members or any other member to view. I’d list them, but it’s nice having that resource out there so I won’t list them so they don’t remove them (i.e. available on the internet is public domain). Three, the State House personnel and salaries ARE actually subject to the public record law. (i.e. see the Boston Herald’s list they update every year.). Their files, etc., are not public record, but the who and what are they paid is.
The second part of my post was a legitimate question as to how you would have handled it — knowing people already knew?
Realistically, I would hope the aide offered to resign and, if the Rep. was big enough for it, refused the offer.