Exactly. Which is why he should have used better judgement.Kizzy said:
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
FromTexas said:
How does him being a judge in Louisiana automatically make him a racist? Are you saying that, had he been, say, a judge in Ohio, it would've been okay? :shrug:I've heard far more use of the "N" word in the north (and especially DC) than I ever heard its use anywhere else.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
crabcake said:I wasn't offended by "White Chicks" either ... but I'm not looking for a quick lawsuit settlement over some PC. I see this just like I see the whole 'race' issue ... so long as individual races or whatever continue to segregate themselves (UNCF, Asian this, Latin that ...) there shouldn't be any "I'm offended" crap.
One's a movie and one is a person who decides legal outcomes for the people (of all races) who appear before him. He has demonstrated his view of a criminal is a black person in cuffs. Whether it really is or not, that is what he is demonstrated. When you take public office, your private life is one and the same as your public... you know that going in. You should avoid even the perception of impropriety.
He is in the wrong. If he views that as a criminal image, is that how he sees all blacks who appear before him? That is an appropriate action from his questions.
If a black judge was talking stereotypes about white/asian/hispanic traits/criminal tendencies and how he viewed them, he should be in the same trouble.
You can not confuse media with the life of a judge... In fact, you can't confuse media/movies with real life, period.
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
FromTexas said:Where did I say it was illegal? I guess ethics and the appearance of propriety matter legal for judges... If legality is the only guide you have in your life to teach you right from wrong, then I feel sorry for you.
I am not the person who is saying "he is in the wrong" and deserved to lose his job.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
crabcake said:
Where did I say he deserved to lose his job? He might, and that is the decision of the system of judges in Louisiana... not ours, and it is well within their right based on his actions.
What you did say is you want to argue legality and feel he is right in this passing over (without any reprecussion) because he was just dressing up for Halloween... because its okay since black people make honkey jokes.
I guess that screwed logic gets you a pass...
We just should overlook his position of authority over the property and legal rights over a state culture that is predominantly black, since he didn't represent any vision of what a criminal is. His current suspension is fine. If they choose to get rid of him, that is fine, too. He is a public official who gets his power from the people... remember, it all stops at who you represent, even for judges.
If he was an actor or comedian, it wouldn't be an issue. He is a judge!
So, keep spinning your wheels... You can't argue that point.
And, in case you missed it, it doesn't have to be illegal to lose a job... people can lose jobs for poor ethics. Maybe you have heard of this thing called ethics? Oh wait.. Maybe not.
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
Why do you want to make this personal and insinuate I have no ethics or morals -- especially when you've never met me? Shall I retaliate and say, "Well, you sure don't look like a steer to me ..." What next, yo momma jokes? Grow up.FromTexas said:
My point (which flew right over your head) was that a precedent was set in this country a couple years back by a person who committed a moral infraction, yet he remained in office. I said then, and I stand by it now, that when this country (the same people who are the ones pitching the fit about this judge's actions, mind you) allowed THAT person to stay in office, they cleared the way for things like this to also be considered "okay" by setting that precedent.
In addition, it is MY opinion that what a person does in their off-duty, private time is their business so long as it's not illegal. He didn't go out in town square dressed like Uncle Tom and mock black folks and he didn't don a white shroud and carry a burning cross. He went to a private FAMILY party -- a HALLOWEEN party ... wearing a costume. Certain sex acts are illegal in certain states. Do you wanna go patrol the bedrooms of congressmen, senators and governors to see if they're hitting the 'no-no' hole too? :shrug: Does this mean that an elected official can't tell a blonde joke at a family gathering without losing his job? :shrug:
This is just one more example of the PC movement pointing its hypocritical finger at America, IMO.
carolinagirl
What's it 2 U
What makes this offensive to me is that he felt the need to paint his face black. Surely, he has come across white convicts in his days on the bench. Why not just skip the paint, where the cuffs and so forth and go as a white convict.
I agree with the suspension and the class.
I agree with the suspension and the class.
Are you really this dense? Don't you have some Wal-Mart swimsuits to try on or something?crabcake said:
Admit you laughed.crabcake said:great argument
It pains me to have to point this out to you but...HE IS WHITE! Why would he paint himself up to be a black person if he wasn't trying to play into a racial stereotype? Why not just go as himself, dressed in a convict suit?
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
I see what you're saying. My point (being the devil's advocate I am) is that someone who is caucasion could take offense to a white person being portrayed as a convict as easily as a black person taking offense (paint or no paint). In fact, (and no, i don't have sources ... just going on bits and pieces I've read here and there) statisically, there are more blacks criminals than whites. Perhaps he was going with the majority by painting his face vs it being an issue of him being a bigot. :shrug: But in the grand scheme of things, it was a costume for a private halloween party in his family's home. It's not some billboard that is on display around town or as some media campaign. So unless we're gonna start policing what elected officials do in the privacy of their own homes, I don't see how he should be fined or lose his job for it.vraiblonde said:
my other point ... liberals made this type of "behavior" status quo during the Clinton administration ... I fail to see how what this judge did is any worse than that ... it comes down to morals in both cases. :shrug: Clinton didn't lost his job; why should this judge? Either people want their elected officials to have morals or they don't ... can't have it both ways.
No! You?crabcake said:
Do you really think that?
Are we liberals?
We already do. Ever hear of a guy named Marion Berry? How about a guy named Trent Lott? What about Jim McGreevey - ever hear of him?
We, as the employers of these people, do in fact police their behavior. If they can't be held up to public scrutiny, they should never have applied for the job. White people wearing blackface is racist, especially in this instance where the judge wore the blackface to turn himself into a more convincing criminal. And blatant racists have no business sitting on a bench.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
crabcake said:Why do you want to make this personal and insinuate I have no ethics or morals -- especially when you've never met me? Shall I retaliate and say, "Well, you sure don't look like a steer to me ..." What next, yo momma jokes? Grow up.
Don't have a breakdown now. I notice you continue your trend of being able to dish it out but not take it very well when someone banters back with you.
My insinuation was simple to understand. You avoided the ethics argument and countered with red herrings... thus, I question whether you have heard of them.... tongue in cheek. You still have avoided the question of ethics on the bench and whether it is relevant to being a presiding judge. Which still says to me you don't think it matters much and once again we are back to .... ethics, heard of them?
Your Clinton argument doesn't really touch on them.. it just says, "hey! you can so I can" which just begets, "Just because they jump off the bridge, do we have to?"