Cupid’s arrow lands where it will, but many of the couples say that Mr. Schumer, a New York Democrat, has an unusual knack for guiding its journey. He keeps close track of office romances, quotes marriage-friendly Scripture (“God to man: be fruitful and multiply”), and is known to cajole, nag, and outright pester his staff (at least those he perceives as receptive to such pestering) toward connubial bliss.Religion too! He sounds like the Steve Carrell character in "The Office" — the inappropriate boss, who doesn't know the normal boundaries.
Forget Master of the Senate. This is the Yenta of the Senate.The NYT thinks this is cute, but you know damned well that if a conservative politician were doing this he would be accused of making the workplace a hostile environment.
“What’s the holdup?” the senator asks couples who are dillydallying on an engagement. “Did you get a ring yet?” Other could-be-marrieds receive a simple instruction: “Get moving!”
[H]is focus, like many a politician’s, never strays far from his legacy: first comes Schumer Marriage, then come Schumer Babies.Jeez, he's appropriating their marriages and their babies.
“Have kids; have a lot of kids,” Mr. Schumer, who has two daughters, is known to intone. “Start early and keep having them.”
Sometimes, Mr. Schumer greets a former staff member, “So, is your wife pregnant again?” Other times, he does not even bother with the question. One former aide, who asked not to be named, recalled seeing the senator bump into a recently married couple, both Schumer alumni. “He just stared down at her midsection and said, ‘Well?’ ”Staring at a woman's belly as a way to convey the desire that she get pregnant? War-on-women warriors would be calling for his head if he were a Republican.
“Our staff is a family,” Mr. Schumer said, his voice often taking a paternal tone. “I want them to be happy. I get worried that they’ll be lonely. So I encourage them. If I think it’s a good match, I try to gently — as gently as I can — nudge it.”Picture Steve Carrell saying that directly into the camera.
“It brings him joy,” said Risa Heller, a former communications director, one of more than a dozen former aides who recounted his sayings, often while imitating his voice. “He picks good people to work for him, and when they pick each other, it’s even better.”You want to get ahead in the Democratic Party power structure? Submit to the matchmaking... and make some babies. I'd like to know more about how this picking of "good people" is carried out. Are good looking women chosen to provide wives for the men? Do the women continue climbing in the party hierarchy or do they retreat into babymaking and husband supporting?
I'd like 10 years of data.
पोस्ट्स
१६८ टिप्पण्या:
And what does Schumer tell them privately about abortions?
That's creepy as hell.
He sounds completely psychotic!
Chuck said...
And what does Schumer tell them privately about abortions?
I wonder if any staffers have ever told him, "No, we aborted ours! Thanks for standing up for our rights!"
Amazing what people will submit to from the powerful.
I'm left wondering what he says to the gay staff that he employs. He does employ gays, right?
Eves of the thousand-year Reich.
"For his part in their union, Elizabeth and Farrell Sklerov honored Mr. Schumer by naming their dog after him."
Sit, asshole, sit!"
I definitely think people should be encouraged to marry and have children and devote their lives to their well-being--I'm not a fan of the Find Yourself, Forever if Necessary! approach to life--but yeah, that's just creepy. And I agree that it would be presented as a Chain Women to the Nursery tale if we were talking about a Republican senator.
Typical NYT story.
He probably thinks it's cute and avuncular. The indulgent family man tending to the happy futures of his little family. He'd be surprised to find out anyone thought any differently. It's sort of sweet and out-of-touch.
I'm left wondering what he says to the gay staff that he employs. He does employ gays, right?
Dunno what he says, but he is a strong supporter of gay rights.
What did Dan Cathy say this time? Eat mor baby mommas?
Schumer has a faith filled and hopeful attitude. Ergo: it is a religious thought about the goodness in new men and women appearing in the Tribe.
The idea is the same one behind Hebrew and Mormon social rules encouraging more babies be had for the small group headed into a desert wilderness.
Cathy needs to claim the same right to speak out about the goodness of married people having babies. It ain't hate speech.
Why is anyone surprised?
He thinks he's the one to run the lives of everybody else, why should his staff be any different?
Besides, he doesn't want any zipper malfunctions that can embarrass him.
Yet another thread devoted to a bullshit story from the crony-capitalist, power-worshiping lewinsky press.
The question is then, why? And then, why now?
What? Is there some rumor going around that the thuggish senator schmuck is light in the loafers?
He sounds like a horrible boss. Bosses do not belong in your personal life.
Haven't most employers been trained not to discuss pregnancy/marriage issues with their employees, because it is a sure-fire sexual discrimination claim?
He is in fierce competition for "Largest Asshole in Washington", with ol' Joe and DWS.
The NYT thinks this is cute, but you know damned well that if a conservative politician were doing this he would be accused of making the workplace a hostile environment.
The MSM runs a double standard? When did you first work that out, madam?
Good question back at 9:02, Chuck.
@ Rusty 9:18
Yes. It is.
They live in a parallel universe.
(Did Schumer have a problem with Sandra Fluke's plea for all to pay for her contraception?)
Baaaad Schumer, promoting family values.
Allie,
What's your point? Are you OK with this behavior in the workplace? Is this proper in a boss/subordinate relationship?
What? Is there some rumor going around that the thuggish senator schmuck is light in the loafers?
The article did say he really likes the song "It's Raining Men".
Liberals think they know best and accordingly they tell you how to run your life.
Of course, not all of us want to grow up to be a shameless Democratic party hack.
By the way, since gay couples can't "have babies" this is a hostile work environment, right?
It's intrusive, awkward, but it doesn't rise to the level of harrasment. He means well. If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too, maybe we should all get a grip and no jump on every silly human thing our elected officials say and do. That's my point.
It's silly season.
AllieOop said...
Baaaad Schumer, promoting family values.
Your "family values" aren't mine.
And I love watching you cheer on a silly Democratic Senator defining "family values" for his subordinates.
I'm quite certain if he were a Republican preaching against say skipping church, abortion, or something of the like, you'd say the same thing.
Really. You would.
CWJ said...
Allie,
What's your point? Are you OK with this behavior in the workplace? Is this proper in a boss/subordinate relationship?
It's just another intentional misunderstanding in order to slime conservatives. I mean, plea to all come together.
"AllieOop said...
Baaaad Schumer, promoting family values."
Allie's attempt at being a smart ass. As usual, she forgot the smart.
He has two children and tells people that they should have lots of children?
Haven't most employers been trained not to discuss pregnancy/marriage issues with their employees.
Congress exempted itself from that EEOC guideline, too, I'm sure.
It's intrusive, awkward, but it doesn't rise to the level of harrasment.
Imagine what would happen to one of those staffers if they politely informed their don't-get-between-him-and-a-microphone boss that his intrusion into their private life is inappropriate. I seem to remember a corporate training video on that one.
Curious George, trying to be a smartass. As usual he didn't forget to be the ass.
He allows office romances? For SHAME!!
NYT has no self-awareness, does it?
t-man: Of course they have. But Schumer is a Congresscritter.
Boss, in front of witnesses: When are those babies comin'?
Subordinate, choking back tears: We miscarried a month ago.
Seen it happen. I know that boss "meant well", too.
Yes, more government! Let's regulate office speech, no awkward intrusive comments allowed, to be regulated by a brand spanking new agency created to muzzle all those intrusive, awkward bosses, who mean well.
I don't think anyone here really wants that, do they?
He's doing them a favor. Popping the DC bubble all of them are probably in that encourages over commitment to career. It's an explicit, "This is what's important."
But yeah, it's a favor that the NYT would call a curse if a Republican did it.
@t-man,
Haven't most employers been trained not to discuss pregnancy/marriage issues with their employees, because it is a sure-fire sexual discrimination claim?
That might be an issue if goddamn Congress didn't exempt itself from having to live by the same laws that they shove down the throat of every business in America.
Believe me, by the standards of Congressional abuse of staffers, this is mild. Mostly, it's just dealing with egoistical assholes who have no external limits placed what abuse they can dish out. The staffer basically has one recourse: Quit. At that point, that's the end of his or her congressional/political career. Most of the staffers see the political world as not just their ticket to ride, but they REALLY LOVE this governing stuff!
The poor, sick, bastards
It's invasive of boundaries. OK, it's not an impeachable offense, but neither is it considerate nor discreet.....He should not mistake being a boss with being a patron. He's taking too much authority on himself. The underlying assumption seems to be that if I'm benign and wise, I get to define the limits of my authority (and, also, I get to say whether I'm benign and wise). Republicans, almost be definition, are not benign and wise so they're not allowed to say shit like that.
Schumer's promoting Traditional Marriage?
HATER.
;>0
The offense is much simpler: claiming that one's co-workers are FAMILY has got to be the biggest load of crap to come from the mouth of a manager. I have heard it over the years...much to my chagrin.
Family is about unconditional love and acceptance. Families don't lay off redundant family members for the good of the whole. There is nothing "unconditional" about the workplace...far from it! It is a transparent sleight of hand that attempts to hide the fact your workplace is so poorly run that you will be there 60-80 hrs a week - unable to see your REAL family.
AllieOop:
I'm a private employer, subject to all the usual laws that apply; and I can tell you from years of hiring and supervising--and relying on the advice of lawyers and human resource folks--that this is the kind of stuff that gets you sued.
I don't know you; I don't know if you are familiar with employment law or how things are for employers, but under the laws Mr. Schumer imposes on the rest of us, we don't get cutesie NYTimes profiles for stuff like this; we get the hammer from Mr. Schumer's minions.
As Glenn Reynolds says, "laws are for little people."
AllieOop:
Yes, more government! Let's regulate office speech, no awkward intrusive comments allowed, to be regulated by a brand spanking new agency created to muzzle all those intrusive, awkward bosses, who mean well.
I don't think anyone here really wants that, do they?
Um...that ship sailed...about 50 years ago. Back when principled figures like Barry Goldwater opposed sections of federal laws aimed at discrimination (of various sorts), precisely because they would infringe on free speech, freedom of association, freedom of contract, etc.
Are you really unaware of the legal working-out of all those laws and regulations for ordinary folks in this country? How does this happen?
No, Fr.Fox not unaware of employment laws at all, as a matter of fact my daughter is an employment lawyer, that does not make me an expert by any means. She chose this area of law because of something that happened to me as a nurse, when involved in a retaliatory discharge because of whistle blowing, in regard to an instance of abuse of a patient.
You are elevating Schumer's speech to the level of harrasment and a hostile work environment, you are wrong, sorry, it isn't. Would not get beyond an initial complaint to EEOC.
Absolutely ridiculous. This blog is trying way, way too hard. A shell of what it used to be.
Harassment, two s's, not two r's. Fitting, when the situation fits.
AllieOop:
Thanks for the reassurance. I'll be sure and cite your daughter when I explain it to the human-resources folks and lawyers, the next time we have this conversation.
He means well.
Ah, well then, it's OK. Because you can tell that he means well. Perfect.
"He has two children and tells people that they should have lots of children?"
Liberal politicians are the masters of do as I say, not as I do.
Anyway, he is just doing his duty: trying to counteract the trend of blue America non-breeding itself out of existence.
NYTs "Our Dear Leader" puff piece.
Fr. Fox, do you know how many sexual harassment claims are filed annually with the EEOC, do you know how many make it to court, do you know how many actually win? I think you will be surprised. It behooves lawyers to keep employers hyper vigilant, lol. It's their bread and butter.
AllieOop:
I'm simply sustaining my point.
Real employers in the private sector are told -- by people whose job it is to keep them out of court -- not to do these things. You laughed it off, seemingly not aware there already is a bureaucracy that polices workplace chatter exactly like this.
By the way, the plaintiff doesn't have to prevail to make life miserable for the employer--you know that, too, right?
So my point stands: Mr. Schumer passes laws that punish people for doing what he did, what you laugh off, and the NYTimes deems cute.
Senator Schumer has not helped pass any law
that would punish him for what he engaged in in his office, you are soooo stretching here. It is not sexual harassment, nor hostile work environment, sorry, just isn't. Go to the EEOC site and read up on sexual harassment.
AllieOop:
Let me get this straight:
1. You know Schumer's every vote, so you know he's never voted for anything that would make this conduct illegal? (I admit I don't know his actual voting record--but I know the sorts of laws he endorses regarding sexual harassment.)
2. You really think that's how it works in this country? All a citizen has to do is go to a website, and read the laws, and they have nothing to worry about? So all those folks who pay all that money to all those experts in these matters are chumps? Gosh, you need to get the word out--a lot of money is being wasted!
3. It's very tempting to cast aside all my own experience, and all the expensive advice I've been given, and instead take your assurances...but silly me, something keeps me from doing it!
To apply a term to Mr. Schumer that he will surely understand: he's a putz.
Fr.Fox, you are free to take the advice of your lawyers, or reject it, your choice. I respect lawyers and their knowledge. I am not trying to reassure you in any way. I am saying that being intrusive and awkward does not rise to the level of sexual harrasment, why don't you ask one of your attorneys about Schumer's conduct and see what he/ she says, I bet your attorney agrees that this does not rise to the level of breaking an employment law.
Allie Oop said:
"It's intrusive, awkward, but it doesn't rise to the level of harrasment. He means well."
At my job we've had to attend several meetings to discuss what is or is not appropriate workplace behavior and speech, and "harassment" is as much in the eye and hear of the person subject to the behavior as it is any sort of strictly codified language or actions. And good intentions don't count.
If Mr. Schumer's remarks to staff members about their fecundity--or lack of it--or encouragement of it--is continual, it certainly can be considered harassment. If the persons to whom he directs his remarks--or any others on staff who are within hearing--are made uncomfortable by the remarks, it can be considered harassment.
It is up to the persons on staff to respond, however. If they all accept these remarks in good humor and are not bothered by them, then no harm has been done. If they, or any one or several of them are unhappy with these remarks, and if they make their unhappiness known to Mr. Schumer, he is obliged to refrain from making these remarks. If he continues even after having been informed that some are unhappy with his remarks, it is absolutely harassment.
Robert:
Don't be silly. If you get sued, simply explain you read the EEOC website! And you talked to folks at the Althouse blog.
No reason to give any credence to any other information you may have received elsewhere.
All that talk of frivolous lawsuits costing a fortune is a scare tactic!
EEOC fact sheet/ harassment
EEOC enforces these laws, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it's criteria
Robert Cook said...
At my job we've had to attend several meetings to discuss what is or is not appropriate workplace behavior and speech, and "harassment" is as much in the eye and hear of the person subject to the behavior as it is any sort of strictly codified language or actions. And good intentions don't count.
Do my eyes deceive me or has Robert Cook posted something that is both true and that I agree with!?
Fr. Fox has brought us an Althouse miracle!!!
And again Fr.Fox,I did not at anytime say you should not heed your lawyers advice, but I do question your understanding of said advice. Perhaps you need to clarify some things with your in house council or the firm that you employ for such advice.
Aliie Oops: Fr.Fox... why don't you ask one of your attorneys about Schumer's conduct and see what he/ she says, I bet your attorney agrees that this does not rise to the level of breaking an employment law.
Fox, you would do well to remember that when debating sexual predation in the workplace, Democrats hold their own to a different and lower standard (Bill Clinton).
Otherwise you'll just waste your day with Allie's arguments.
How Cute.
Allie has the feminist knee-pads out because she just simply can not bring herself to criticize an elected Democrat.
Just like 1998...
Not all offensive conduct violates the law. Harassing conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination only when a reasonable person would regard it as hostile or abusive.
Yeah, no gray area there!
My Dear Lady this is so silly. You know the law.
If a Democrat (Bill Clinton) has sex with a subordinate in the Oval Office it is not sexual harassment.
If a Republican tries to have consensual sex in an airport restroom with a winsome young lad...he must be destroyed.
What is it that you teach in your little school?
First time I can ever recall agreeing with the clod.
However, as boss, it isn't really his business, never mind the vicious double standard that the news media jackals uphold for left vs. right.
Leave that stuff to the old biddies in the secretarial pool, Senator. They'll do a better job of it than you could hope to, and won't get you unwanted publicity.
That's creepy as hell.
Amazing what people will submit to from the powerful.
Eves of the thousand-year Reich.
For fuck's sake. He's encouraging people to get married and have babies. That's normal. It's the sex harassment police that is rigid, insane, and out of control.
You don't like what your boss says? Tell him. Speak up, serf. Or shut the fuck up. But do not whine to me of tort.
Allie Oop with the win.
Schumer looks like the kind of guy who thinks he's beloved by his subordinates. A lot of those subordinates are probably sharp enough to pick up on this vibe and offer up a convincing impersonation of love and admiration. It's also theoretically possible that there's someone in the world who actually likes Chuck Schumer and works for him. At any rate, it's a folie a deux. Schumer pretends to be a light unto his posse of grubby little brownnosers, and they, in turn, pretend that his intrusive fingers (metaphorically speaking) provide welcome direction to their crotches and reproductive lives. Is that too much to ask for a cool job with great benefits? Everybody gets along swell, and there are bigger jerks than Chuck Schumer in the world.
Harassing conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination only when a reasonable person would regard it as hostile or abusive.
You're confusing harassment and discrimination, most likely because the feminist movement died the day they prostituted their principles in exchange for a veto of a partial-birth abortion ban.
So its not like there were any feminists around to teach you the difference.
See if this helps:
Bill Clinton sexually discriminated against Paula Jones when she was denied promotion for refusing to suck his cock. Clinton sexually harassed her by proposing sex under the guise of business. Clinton sexually assaulted her like this: And he had his hand up, going up to my middle pelvic area, and he was kissing me on the neck, you know, and trying to kiss me on the lips and I wouldn't let him. And then I backed back. I said, "Stop it. You know. I'm not this kind of girl."put some ice on that" - Jones.
Bill Clinton sexually discriminated against all the female interns who refused to suck his cock. They did not get the same Vernon Jordon-sponsored job interviews (Revlon, United Nations) that were given to Monica Lewinsky.
Bill Clinton sexually harassed and sexually assaulted Kathleen Wiley by groping her breast at a job interview in the Oval Office.
No doubt you were one of the "just about sex, Moveon" feminists. So I tried to keep that titilating for you.
I don't even pressure my own children to have more of my grand children. I know it would make them uncomfortable. To have a superior do this in the workplace is quite over the top and would certainly qualify for an EEOC sanction. Of course, he's a Democrat (and the largest a**hole in Congress)so it's perfectly OK.
Allie Oop for the win? Oh please.
But Fen, what you are not grasping is this, REASONABLE PERSON. No jury would find you a reasonable person.
Your rant about Clinton in comparison to what Schumer engaged in is beyond weird.
I am afraid that young Miss Oop would never think anything a Democrat or liberal could do would ever be reason to find fault with any of their behavior.
They get a free pass at all times.
She is at least consistent.
And what does Schumer tell them privately about abortions?
He doesn't say anything. Nobody talks about abortions.
Except Michael Bloomberg, the New York Shit.
I swear, he would schedule abortions for his employees if he could.
Schumer is 1000 times nicer! Are you kidding? That's not even in the same ballpark.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for any victim of speech wounds. But telling your pregnant to employee to "kill it"? Oh man. Make up a lawsuit. I don't care. You win the lottery.
And for those people who can't tell the difference between saying, "hey, have a baby!" and "hey, kill your baby!", all I can say is, one's worse than the other.
HA, well let me start by saying thank you. Young Ms.Oop is 60 years old and. I have said numerous times here on this blog, that I will not vote for Obama,as no longer trust him.
Sorry to burst your bubble, I'm not a partisan, but I am left of center and I'm no feminist, they wouldn't have me.
Please my dear you should be true to who you are.
You know you could never criticize a Democrat or a liberal.
You are known to all here.
Hide not your true self behind a mask. Trust me I know of what I speak.
"Sorry to burst your bubble, I'm not a partisan"
Nor are MSLSD, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Candy Momma Cass" Crowley, Martha Radatz, Bob Scheifer, Jim Lehrer. Don't believe it? Just ask them. They will tell you they are non-partisan (gag).
Allie, you are very, very out of touch if you think this kind of stuff is not heavily policed in the real world. You have to understand that "reasonably likely to prevail in court" is not good enough to offer any kind of real-world assurance.
Ann, are you serious?
but you know damned well that if a conservative politician were doing this he would be accused of making the workplace a hostile environment.
Goodness, just move South if you really don't think it happens in non-democratic environs.
But, who cares?
Besides, how do you know it doesn't happen on the other side in DC? Do you? Of course not.
And in your repeated hypothetical of a Rep member of Congress saying that, well it would have to be a Democatic woman he was saying it too, in order to get worked up enough to get the word out, right? Because presumably (in your scenario) Republican women don't get bent out of shape about this. And I think you're trying to say that the outrage is just political point scoring anyway. So, what are you doing?
I'm all turned around.
Baron Zemo, why yessss, I will trust you, you know me, my heart of hearts, you seeeee my soul......Yes you, Baron Zemo has special powers! You will be with me in the voting booth, in spirit.
Yes, let's indict Schumer for his family values, because he is intrusive and awkward. Talk about living in the real world. What some of you conservatives won't waste your time on, when as St. Croix says you ignore guys like Bloomberg and the advice he gives to his employees.
Conservative disconnect at play once again.
"Yes, let's indict Schumer for his family values"
Yep, sticking your obnoxious nose into a family's sex life is a family value. Who knew?
My dear lady the problem is not our dear kind old Senator Putz. It is in you.
You are fooling yourself.
Everyone can see into your soul. You have bared it here these many months.
I had another Austrian friend who often fooled himself. Take heed to his example.
It's unlikely he'll ever be hit with any kind of harassment suit because his employees like him and decided to work for him specifically. If he were the marketing manager at Amazon and was making the exact same comments to underlings who weren't personally or politically invested in him, he'd be in hot water.
Schmuck Schumer is a plain and simple asshole. He an his leftie cohorts have tried, with some success, to make being a Schumer illegal.
At what cost?
Think of all the wasted hours and expense tied up in ridiculous workplace seminars, attorney's fees, internal "investigations", corporate ass covering, etc.
There was a day when an asshole like Schumer could have been handled with a simple "go fuck yourself."
Yes sure Baron, anything you say. Also, because I was born in Austria, does not make me an Austrian. I hold no Austrian citizenship, but if you knew me, you would've known that.
BTW are those special purple pants binding you in certain places? I'm not trying to be intrusive, just trying to understand YOU.
What some of you conservatives won't waste your time on, when as St. Croix says you ignore guys like Bloomberg and the advice he gives to his employees.
???? Conservatives don't criticize Bloomberg????? OMG that's ludicrous. Bloomberg is universally despised and denounced by conservatives.
St. Croix is an example of a conservative reviling Bloomberg.
Whatever "conservative disconnect" you presume to see here does not apply to the case of Bloomberg.
My dear little leibchen, please do not concern yourself with my pants. You will never get in them. I know you love to flirt and bring attention to yourself. To the point that your words have so often been stricken from the record. Young Chance is ever vigilant.
You remind me so much of my dear friend Effie. Heed her example as well.
Please restrict your efforts to some of the lonely men who frequent this abode. They would appreciate your attention so much more than I.
Yashu, yet the rant about Schumer continues. I guess if a Democrat extols the virtues of love, marriage and family, it is harrasment, worthy of an EEOC complaint, go figure.
Erika, Traditional Guy, Freeman Hunt and St.Croix , what do they all say about Schumer's penchant for pushing love, marriage and babies?
Baron, don't flatter yourself.
If our genial hostess posts an article about Mayor Bloomberg doing cretinous things, I'll be happy to pile on him, next. Pick any Republican, it's a target-rich environment.
But, regarding Bloomberg's misdeeds, (a) that wasn't the topic at hand, (b) I wasn't aware of the item, so that makes it hard to denounce it, and (c) after reading the article, I see Mr. Bloomberg denies the charges; while he may well be guilty, it isn't clear, from the article, of what he actually is guilty.
If he said and did what is alleged, I am happy to say I think that's loathesome--and worse than the misdeeds of Mr. Schumer. Not sure why my saying that was so terribly important, but I'm happy to oblige.
Erika, Traditional Guy, Freeman Hunt and St.Croix , what do they all say about Schumer's penchant for pushing love, marriage and babies?
As far as I can tell, they all to some extent side with you on this thread. Which goes to show that your generalization about a "conservative disconnect" on this topic isn't fair.
I myself find it creepy because I have a very private personality (and I've gotten all the pressure, guilt tripping, and prodding I could ever need on such intimate matters from my mom, I don't need it from my boss). So for me personally, I'd find that kind of thing hellish. But that has nothing to do with Schumer being a Democrat or Republican, nor does it necessarily make him a bad person. Just, for me, an extremely annoying one.
By the way, such remarks can also be hurtful and upsetting, even if no cruelty at all is intended, even if they're meant with goodwill. To presume to butt in like that, not knowing what might be going on in someone's life-- ugh. But that's just my own subjective take.
The "Michael Scott" analogy is right on.
Someone should point out to him that the worst thing you can do to the planet is have children.
Ahhh, Allie Ooop:
"It's intrusive, awkward, but it doesn't rise to the level of harrasment. He means well. If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too, maybe we should all get a grip and no jump on every silly human thing our elected officials say and do. That's my point.
It's silly season."
******
Yes; I agree with you. What Schumer was saying was by no means legal harassment. Not actionable, under any circumstances that I know of.
But yes... as I take it, you and I agree. That if a Republican had said exactly the same things, the New York Times would be excoriating him; not romanticizing him. Democrats would be condemning such a Republican in the press and on the floor of Congress. Public radio would do twelve programs on the "scandal." And we'd all be fighting about the newly-introduced "Congressional Staffers' Bill of Rights." Rep. John Conyers of Detroit, who impregnated one of his staffers (he married her, perhaps in honor of Schumer, but she's now in a federal prison) would be a co-sponsor of the legislation.
It IS silly season. It is always silly season in the left-leaning mainstream media. 24/7. 365 days a year. Every year.
But we're fighting back. And we're beginning to win. Fox News; the nation's number-one newspaper, the Wall Street Journal; conservative talk radio; the conservative blogs. Free and prosperous Americans, choosing what they want to choose.
You're so right, Allie Oop. This isn't even close to an employment discrimination case. Not even remotely.
This is a case study in the biases of the New York Times. Just as Professor Althouse pointed out, right from the beginning.
Yashu, I usually try to say "some conservatives", if I said "conservatives", then I did indeed make an unfair generalization. Not all conservatives, nor all liberals engage in intellectual dishonesty.
Chuck:
It's one thing to say that what he did should not be deemed harassment or discrimination. It may be, as Ms. AllieOop argues, outside the letter of the law.
It's another thing to argue--as I have--that in the legal climate created around these issues, this sort of behavior in the workplace generates legal trouble for mere mortals.
Maybe it shouldn't; but my point was that it does...and it's noble crusaders such as Mr. Schumer who helped create the environment that Congress carefully exempts itself from.
Ms. AllieOop may be correct that Mr. Schumer deserves no credit for any part of the swamp of harassment and discrimination laws, but I think he'd be hurt to have that accolade denied him.
I see Mr. Bloomberg denies the charges
Mr. Innocent paid her off in an out of court settlement.
See this for more.
Saint Croix:
I have little sympathy for Mr. Bloomberg, but I try to be careful and fair.
The mayor may be guilty as sin, but a settlement, with a payment, doesn't make him guilty. Such is our legal system.
My point in highlighting his denial was to illustrate how the one situation is not the same as the other.
This is the nicest thing I have ever heard about Chuck Schumer. The Democratic Party is relentlessly anti-natal and that Chuck Schumer at least privately is not is a good thing about him. Its also good advice as far as a happy life goes.
You know if that same behavior was coming from someone whose political philosophy didn't entail controlling every single second of every single person's life through the use of force and coercion then it wouldn't be half as creepy.
But knowing what a tyrannical little sleazeball this guy is you would never feel clean again if he played any hand in your marriage or the birth of your child. You would feel icky just knowing he took an interest.
The Democratic Party is relentlessly anti-natal and that Chuck Schumer at least privately is not is a good thing about him. Its also good advice as far as a happy life goes.
Feminists hate patriarchs. It sets off all their warning bells.
But there are worse things than being a patriarch. Way worse.
And liberals can be so relentlessly egalitarian that they can miss out on important biological differences.
For instance, men can have babies anytime. But biology is brutal on women and childbirth.
90% of your eggs are dead at age 30. Another 1% die every year after that. Getting pregnant after 35 is hard for a lot of women. After 40 it's nearly impossible.
Feminism and liberalism usually push women into careers and making money. I'm afraid a lot of women miss out on something they really want to do, which is have kids.
So it's nice that Schumer is gently nudging people to think about family.
The issue is Schumer's inappropriately personal and condescending comments to subordinates, and the cheerleading of those comments by self-proclaimed watchdog media solely because the source is an approved leftist. The issue of whether his comments do or do not meet the legal definition of harassment is Allie's attempt at distration to protect a fellow leftist. And recall her slimy conflation of inappropriate behavior with "family values".
Yeah, she's a healer.
@ AllieOops
"Harassment, two s's, not two r's. Fitting, when the situation fits. "
When someone has to rely on correcting spelling errors to be snarky. Well that tells me that they're full of shit.
@ AllieOop
"Senator Schumer has not helped pass any law
that would punish him for what he engaged in in his office, you are soooo stretching here. ..."
What part of "Congress exempted itself" don't you quite understand?
Marshall, you totally ignore what St. Croix, Erika, Freeman Hunt and Traditionalguy have to say? They are conservatives, are they not? I don't recall them saying his comments were inappropriate, did I miss that?
Edutcher, I was correcting MY OWN spelling error. I guess I was being snarky to myself.
The last thing an over-populated world needs at this point is more babies. Well at least Schumer isn't offering prospective mothers cash incentives and maternity homes as they did in Aryan Germany.
@ Saint Croix
"For fuck's sake. He's encouraging people to get married and have babies. That's normal. It's the sex harassment police that is rigid, insane, and out of control."
He's not "encouraging" people to get married and have babies.
Encouraging would be something along the lines of "the primary key to long term health, wealth and happiness is getting married, staying married and having children early enough in life to really enjoy it.". Something that I personally agree with.
On the other hand keeping track of who staffers are dating, how often they date, how long they have been dating. Asking about marriage proposals and when they're going to have kids and to get on with it.
That absolutely steps over the bounds. Work life is work, personal life is personal. Any employer who thinks that they have a right to interfere in an employee's personal life has stepped over that line in a big way.
Edutcher, cite the law in which Congress has exempted itself from sexual harassment laws.
Now look up Public Law 104-1, Section 201.
Ed, not Edutcher. Cite please.
AllyOop said...
Marshall, you totally ignore what St. Croix, Erika, Freeman Hunt and Traditionalguy have to say? They are conservatives, are they not? I don't recall them saying his comments were inappropriate, did I miss that?
Another distraction. We're talking about you. And you characterized his comments as intrusive and awkward at 11:11.
And I note you're dropping the defense of your conflating his intrusive comments with "family values". It's hard to keep that hatefulness bottled up all the time isn't it? Do you just think it's better to move on and pretend it didn't hapen whenever the mask slips?
@ AllieOop
"Ed, not Edutcher. Cite please."
You want a cite??
ROFLMAO!
youtube.com: Bugs Bunny quote "What a maroon!"
1. Do your own googling.
2. Don't waste my time with your ignorance.
3. Congress. Legislative branch.
4. President. Executive branch.
5. EEOC. Executive branch.
6. EEOC does not have the authority to oversee Congress. Because Congress is in the Legislative branch.
7. Any complaints have to go through the House or Senate Ethics Committees. In this case the Senate Ethics Committee.
I invite you to make the argument that the Senate Ethics Committee, controlled by Democrats, would censure Senator Chuck. Go ahead.
make that argument.
Marshal, no I'm not dropping my assertion that his attempts at extolling family values are intrusive and awkward, I said he meant well though, did I not?
So you don't want to address the fact that four conservatives here on this thread think he is engaging in something positive? Hmmm I wonder why?
@ AlliOop
"So you don't want to address the fact that four conservatives here on this thread think he is engaging in something positive? Hmmm I wonder why?"
Four conservatives. Forty conservatives. Four hundred thousan conservatives. The number is utterly irrelevant.
That you are trying to fall back on this frankly amuses me. What? You now need conservatives to stick up for you? Can't do so on your own?
meh.
My dear sir. You should know.
It is always about Miss Oop.
She is always the abused party.
She has made a career out of it at this site.
Please do not feed the ego.
EEOC, Office of Compliance
Congressional Accountability Act
@ AllieOop
Yes I know that. And then they make a recommendation to the appropriate Ethics Committee which has final say.
AllieOop said...
Marshal, no I'm not dropping my assertion that his attempts at extolling family values are intrusive and awkward, I said he meant well though, did I not?
So you don't want to address the fact that four conservatives here on this thread think he is engaging in something positive? Hmmm I wonder why?
The issue is not supporting family values, but setting up an employment structure where employees could believe their family choices will effect their future advancement. I have yet to see Freeman et al specifically comment on that, but if they support that I'll be sure to note an objection. But I understand why you want to pretend one is equivalent to the other, because that's the only protection you can come up with for Schumer.
@ AllieOop
Oh and btw. Even though that title says "Equal Opportunity" it doesn't make the Office of Compliance a subagency of the EEOC. The EEOC is a separate agency. So is the Office of Compliance.
Your putting the two together in a link description only makes it laughable.
Oh and who was it that brought the Office of Compliance into being? Party name starts with an "R", ends with an "n" and involves the words "Contract" and "America".
No. Not Democrat.
Thanks for playing.
Marshal and you call me hateful, what a hypocrite you are, you prove it every time. You hate Schumer that much? Weird.
In my view, this is small potatoes compared to Bill Clinton. Let's see. The man had a pattern of sexual harassment. He is an alleged rapist, by Juanita Broderick. Compare the press reporting on that to the press reporting on purported unwelcome mating rituals by Clarance Thomas.
Yes, I know, Bill Clinton ruled in a golden era in which the internet economy lifted all boats until the effects of some unscrupulous people put a big pause to it. How they could trot out an ex head of NOW to defend the man is beyond me. But, you have so many leftists and independents still lavishing praise on this woman hating man.
People wonder about the divisiveness in today's politics. You have only to look to the press and leftists in their celebration and protection of Clinton to see it. Until every leftist out there who put an "I Believe you Anita" bumper sticker puts an "I Believe you Juanita" bumper sticker on their current favored leftist vehicle, the country is not dealing fairly. The press is not dealing fairly.
It's no different today. The reason the country is so split is the manipulation of the press for their guy, before Clinton, and now the Obamao. The healing we need is to get rid of the biased press, reject it at every turn. Unfortunately, the dialogue has been so trashed, and what has become acceptable for leftist causes, means the whole system is going to be dragged down, and down, with increasingly disgusting tactics.
It's the demeaning of the US character by leftists so certain of their positions that anything goes, including supporting an alleged rapist whose purported values align with the leftist cause. For shame.
@Allie Oop
From the EEOC Compliance Manual,
Prohibited Practices:
"Although the law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal if it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment ...."
Rick, yes that's right. Would a reasonable person consider that it created a hostile work environment?
AllieOop said...
Marshal and you call me hateful, what a hypocrite you are, you prove it every time.
Every time? Why don't you point to the evidence of hate in my last comment? Or do you want to admit this is just more distraction? Really, I expected better. Let me clarify though. Not more honest, just better distraction.
@Ms Oop. You tell the a**hole just once to mind his own business. The second time, you call the EEOC. That's how it works in the real world. Just not in Congress.
Hostile work environment? Yep. Especially if the perp is a male and recipient is a Ms.
Marshal, you have not argued in good faith, both times I've interacted with you now. You come into the debate with guns blazing, make accusations of hatefulness on my part, why? Because of what? Then when I point out that you are engaging in the very same action you accuse me of, because of your overreaction to something Schumer did out of good intentions, you act all injured, makes you a hypocrite and not worth my attention.
Allie,
To summarize your arguments, I'm not arguing in good faith because my guns are blazing. Then you assert that I acted hatefully, but when asked yo point it out you simply reassert it ocurred. This makes sense to nobody but you, and is another in a long list of your distractions. My reaction isn't to Schumer, but rather to someone defending Schumer and the NYT using dishonest arguments. If pointing out your dishonesty is "guns blazing" all I can say is that guns blazing doesn't sound so bad.
Still waiting for any evidence to support your assertions. Also still waiting for your explanation of why you conflate family values and intrusive employer comments.
Gene:
On the contrary, what the world needs desperately is more babies--at least, a good chunk of the world.
Most of Europe, Russia, Japan and China are on a path of demographic decline. China will get old before it gets rich. The population implosion in Russia will create huge problems in years to come; same in Europe.
We are barely replacing ourselves, but our population is getting older; why do you think Medicare, Social Security and pension plans are in so much trouble?
Our schools aren't suffering from too many children, but too few.
Demographic winter is coming.
Sen. Schumer is right to promote marriage and family; but he's doing it the wrong way--and, then, of course, there's his fervent promotion of abortion on demand and contraception.
Father Fox, could you explain why the Catholic Church believes contraception is wrong? Are Protestants misguided on this issue? Would it not be better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy so as to avoid an abortion altogether?
I've had four pregnancies and four children if my own BTW.
Allie Oops, Again
Why do you think you are being reasonable? Did you read the NYT article?
Are representatives subject to the same laws as private employers by the EEOC? I doubt it. But who cares. That's not the point:
"conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too,
The point is, Allie, liberals are NOT criticizing Schumer, at least not the NYT. Instead, they are lauding the senator.
Unless you believe the moon is made of green cheese (perhaps you do, or maybe it falls within your same standard of likelihood), the NYT article would have been very different. Oh, perhaps the same "facts" would be reported, but the image it would portray would be of some bible thumping madman trying to derail the life of Julia.
Did you have an "I Believe you Anita" bumper sticker on your car? Be honest. Did you have a "I believe you Juanita" bumper sticker on your car?
Can you see the hypocrisy? Ann's post here is NOT about what's OK in the workplace. It's about hypocritical biased reporting.
I'll extend that to you, by your attempt to make it into something it isn't: a point of law.
By the way Allie, I'm wondering if you agree with the ex-head of Now who defended Bill Clinton's alleged groping of Kathleen Willey's breast, by stating "Women are not helpless, they can handle a little groping."
Tell us all, please do.
AllieOop:
Sure, but briefly, given the setting.
Sex by its nature is procreative and unifying. Indeed, humans are, by nature, creative. It is our vocation--to be lifegivers.
Sex has its place in marriage; I needn't advert to Scripture to show the harms of sex outside of marriage. Sex by it's nature is procreative, and the rupture of the design is both a rejection of God's design, but also an invitation to many troubles. In all this, I am summarizing Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, and if you take a look, you'll see that Pope Paul predicted many harms would result from social acceptance of contraception. They have come to pass.
It makes no sense to me to object to God governing our sexual behavior; I mean, I understand folks who don't believe in God, objecting to God giving commands in this area; but I don't understand how anyone who believes in God being surprised by this.
We have a tremendous capacity for causing suffering when we misuse sex--for others and ourselves; so if God really didn't have anything to say about it, that is a reason to disbelieve in God.
So, yes, with all courtesy, our Protestant brothers and sisters are largely misguided here. Until 1930, all Christians had the same view (Catholic teaching has been constant from the beginning; technology changes, but the desire to have sterile sex has not).
One can always attempt to justify a wrong by saying it might prevent a greater wrong. But that's poor moral reasoning. Isn't that how some justify torture? It might prevent something worse.
And in any case, as contraception has become widely available, we have hardly seen fewer abortions. We have far more. I would argue that the contraceptive mentality encourages abortion, because once one expects to have sex without a baby (!), then abortion becomes something one is entitled to, to "fix the mistake."
As you might have noticed, I have given the Natural Law argument; I could give Scriptural support as well, but I will save that for another time.
Can't you just see/hear the scolding tone of this article if it involved a Republican senator? I bet there are some in Schumer's office who don't like this, but they won't get a voice.
Dante, what I have reacted to here on this thread is not the article, of course I read it, nor do I disagree with Ann's observations, regarding this scenario should the Senator have been Republican. I agreed that liberals would make a stink too. Thats why I said it's silly season again.
My point is that it's silly to attempt to make Schumer's actions be more than what they are, which is an honest interest in his staff and sincere attempts to promote family values, which he seems to understand are more important than politics and career. Sheesh, I'm such a Feminazi.
And Dante, I don't give a damn about Clinton or NOW.
Thank you for answering my question Father Fox.
AllieOop:
My pleasure.
My point is that it's silly to attempt to make Schumer's actions be more than what they are, which is an honest interest in his staff and sincere attempts to promote family values,
Note the evolution of her position. At first she admitted Shumer was inappropriate, now she defends him as supporting family values (using that specific terminology both to change the subject and to defend him on terms most acceptable to conservatives). She's always pushing to achieve the leftmost supportable position. Not the actions of someone honestly describing their own opinion. Opinions don't normally change in the course of a few comments.
which he seems to understand are more important than politics and career. Sheesh, I'm such a Feminazi.
Then note the indirect characterization of her critics as both crassly politically motivated and extreme (a strawman position) while subtly positioning herself as a victim.
She's subtle if you aren't rigorous, but I think I had a few too many community organizers paid as professors not to notice the maipulations.
Marshal, twist, turn, bend, mangle, you try very hard to make my comments something they are not. I said numerous times now that his attempts at promoting family values are intrusive and awkward, but he meant well.
It's not a crime to be awkward and intrusive, most reasonable people can see beyond that to what his intentions are, which IS the promotion of family values for his staff, whom he genuinely cares about.
It's very simple. Schumer is a yenta.
AllieOop said...
Marshal, twist, turn, bend, mangle, you try very hard to make my comments something they are not.
Your comments are quite indecipherable, including where you've asserted every one of mine is hateful but could not identify the hateful content in the comment you responded to. I'm identifying, with support. You're accusing without support to deflect attention.
It's not a crime to be awkward and intrusive,
There's that hyperbolic distraction again. I'm not claiming it's a crime. I'm pointing out the NYT and your hypocrisy.
By the way, one of your tells is the continuous and unsupportable assertion that Schumer's intentions are honest and he "genuinely cares" for his staff. Your backstory belies any knowledge that such belief is factual, and there's no reason why it would matter even if it were.
Marshal, my "story" has been consistent and I have repeated my points ad nauseum. That you continue to try to manipulate my words is very telling of your attempts at deception here, not mine. As I said earlier, you debate in bad faith.
Gary Rosen, for the win!
As I said earlier, you debate in bad faith.
If only you knew what this accusation meant it would be so much more compelling. Maybe you could support it with a single piece of evidence to get it started.
On the other hand, I've provided evidence for each of my assertions, most of which you couldn't even plausibly deny. Is that why you chose to attack? What makes you so certain Schumer's intentions are honest and he genuinely cares for his staff? Would you make this assertion about John Boehner or Chet Burrell, the CEO of one of the largest medical insurance companies in the US?
Fr Martin Fox: Demographic winter is coming.
Well, it can't come soon enough. The LA Times just ran a five part series saying world population would hit 10.5 billion by 2100. I don't care if Russia, Italy and Japan are losing population. Africa and Central America are doing far more than their share in taking up the slack.
Allie, you realize "yenta" is not complimentary, right? And that the other posters are 100% correct that the NYT would not be treating identical behavior from a Republican so benignly?
I have agreed all along that the NYTs would be treating this differently if the senator would've been a Republican, and yes I know the meaning of Yemta. I said he was intrusive and awkward, but meant well. I've known a Yenta or two who has displayed the same characteristics.
Hmmm, how many times have I repeated the phrase "awkward, intrusive, but meant well" now? How many times have I said if he were to have been a a Republcan, that Democrats would've treated the story with the same negative twist, as you conservatives here have done, hence my saying it's silly season.
Yup, it sure IS silly season.
SOME of you conservatives here. Four conservatives on this thread seemed to display a reasonable attitude toward Senator Schumer's office antics.
Allie:
Maybe you are one step ahead of me. when you say "I agreed that liberals would make a stink too."
Are you trying to say conservatives are making a stink about Schumer? That would be off-topic for Ann's post which is about the "press" being biased and unfair.
So I take it when you say " I agreed that liberals would make a stink too," what you meant was that liberals (in the press) are making a stink about Schumer. You have provided ZERO evidence for that, as far as I can see.
The fact they covered for that sexually harassing, alleged rapist Bill Clinton, but tried to tear down Clarance Thomas like a pack of dogs on a sheep, shows me you either don't get the point of the article, want to try to excused the biased behavior of the press by PRETENDING they are making a stink about Schumer, or simply think bias in the press is the natural order of things, and it is OK to try to drive around the uncomfortable truth.
And the point isn't about Clinton or NOW either. It's about bias in the press. Even that erstwhile deceased real reporter Christopher Hitchens thought Clinton should be tried for war crimes for blowing up a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant that provided Malaria drugs to the region, and who knows what cost, to get Monica Lewinski off the front pages. Now that would be going after Clinton.
But it's the press. They simply needed a bone to stop the inquiries into alleged rapist Bill Clinton.
Take the beam out of your eye, Allie. This is about bias in the press. It's wrong, it steals from the electorate because it paints a false picture for them, and to the extent you are participating in this, is the extent you too lie to yourself and everyone around you.
Why is that?
No Dante I said that liberals would make a stink too, if he were to have been a Republican. How many times now can I repeat myself? Are you intentionally twisting my words to fit your narrative?
And Dante, why is that?
Maybe this is the problem.
Do you think liberals are making a stink about Schumer?
No they are not, nor would conservatives if Schumer were to have been a republican. YET. Four conservatives were capable of seeing Schumer's office antics as reasonable, why is that? Why is this so difficult for you Dante? Is it because I am not supplying you with the answer you would like me to?
Again, why is that?
Allie,
You aren't being self consistent. Let's look at your original point:
"Baaaad Schumer, promoting family values."
Ann's point was the behavior was being tolerated, even lauded, by the NYT, yet it would not have been if Schumer were a conservative. It's called bias. While she may view the behavior as bad, it's really inconsequential to the broader point. If Schumer were a conservative, he would have been crucified by the NYT.
Followed by:
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too,"
You see, you have completely missed the point of Ann's post. The NYTs is liberal. They are NOT criticizing Schumer in any meaningful way.
So if a conservative Senator did the same as Schumer, it's not that they MIGHT criticize him, they most certainly would AND try to get maximum advantage out of it.
Let me rewrite your note above so that it makes sense and is Germain to Ann's post:
"While the liberal NYT gave Schumer a pass on his improper behavior, we all know DAMN WELL if Schumer were a conservative, they would have crucified the man."
See the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote?
Your most recent claims that some conservatives supported Schumer is irrelevant to your comment. In that case, you should have written:
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might support him too."
If you had said that, I would simply have ignored your comment as being irrelevant to the point Ann was making about bias in the press. Of course there are liberals with integrity out there.
Whether you have the integrity to admit your comment makes no sense remains to be seen.
Dante, Ann has numerous tags on this post, or did you not notice, what does that mean?
Also Dante, you are engaging in obfuscation, why is that?
Is it because you want so desperately to negate my point, which is that Schumer was intrusively and awkwardly trying to push family values on those he cared about, his office staff, again with good intentions. And that this does not rise to the level of hostile work environment of harassment.
I adressed the NYTs and how they handled this story as opposed to how they would've handled it if he were a conservative. You want to rewrite my words , again to fit YOUR narrative, that is Intellectually dishonest.
Again notice the tags Ann placed on this post, you dear Dante do not dictate what gets discussed in Ann's blog posts. The conversation takes twists and turns as it progresses, you are quite rigid, not a good trait.
Allie,
I'm not trying to obfuscate, despite your desire to make it seem as if I am.
Your comment makes ZERO sense to me (Please, does this comment make sense to ANYONE other than Allie?):
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too,"
Of COURSE liberals would criticize a conservative who did this. What LIBERAL is criticizing Schumer? The article is about the NYT NOT criticizing Schumer.
I give up. You are making no sense, not addressing the points I'm making. Say something meaningful, and stop beating around the bush.
You can admit "Gee, this is what I was trying to convey," by getting rid of the obvious contradictions in your WORDS (they do matter, you know), or you can continue to try to pretend you didn't say or do anything wrong, thereby demonstrating to me you are lacking integrity, by MY assessment.
I'm willing to be educated, Allie, but simply saying "That's what I said," isn't helping. In the scenarios you have brought out, it doesn't make sense.
WHAT are you trying to say?
I don't care if you think Schumer isn't over the line or not. Frankly, there was a woman at work (married) who had decided to not have kids. I talked with her, explained why I thought having kids was important, and six months later she was pregnant, came up to me and thanked me for helping her to understand, and now she is a happy mom.
I tell you half of what I said. I told her that a person has not experienced all of what it means to be a human if one has no kids. It's like going through puberty, when suddenly the world changes, and understandings happen you do not have otherwise.
OMG! Dante I KNOW the NYTs is NOT criticizing Schumer! I am NOT disagreeing with you on that point. Honestly does your brain run in only one gear?
I really am at a loss for words, a rare event.
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too,"
What does this MEAN, Allie?
Please explain what this MEANS.
Dante, seriously? How can you not understand this simple sentence? Unbelievable. It would be difficult ONLY if you were desperate to project your own meaning into it.
It means exactly what it says, good lord man I cannot do your thinking for you, nor do I want to.
Actually, Allie, your sentence means nothing, as I think about it. I hope others aren't fooled by it. Let's do a small bit of thinking.
Chopping it up a bit:
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him"
Well, I think we all can agree to that. Except "Might" is a bit on the understatement side. It's the "too" as in "also" part. But you are making an argumentative point here, to try to persuade people of your point of view.
Now we come to the "too" part of it. We are talking about criticizing here. So let me give you some options to your "too" part, since you won't tell us, other than it's not liberals:
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too, like a mother who might criticize her ten year old kid for taking a shit in public."
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too, like a liberal might criticize Schumer for having bad behavior."
[which isn't happening, so we can let that go]
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too, like a conservative might criticize Schumer for having bad behavior."
We know that's not the case either.
So let me tell you, Allie. I'm sorry, I'm not a mind reader. You made a statement whose most logical completion would be that the criticism of Schumer from liberals is on par with what they would do to a conservative, and it's simply not true.
But perhaps we should try some more fun games with your incomplete thought you are using to try to persuade:
"If a conservative Senator did the same, liberals might criticize him too, like I might be criticized for writing incomplete gibberish and then trying to make it seem like others are stupid and not getting my obvious point."
I think I'll stick with that one.
Oy. Dante once again you have assigned a meaning to my simple sentence that is not true. It once again fits YOUR narrative, not mine.
Don't you ever get dizzy twisting and turning?
Blast. My long comment got eaten, so here's just the conclusion:
Allie, I think you must be completely unaware of the attitudes expressed in contemporary corporate training programs in the area of discrimination and harassment.
Schumer is a creep. Some people like that in a man.
office antics.
What you do in an office, or wherever you work, should never be described as antics unless you work as a writer for a comedy show.
Do your work, be pleasant around your co-workers, bring treats in every now and then.
Save the antics, and the lectures, and the cookie-selling, and the proseltyzing for time that is actually your own.
Allie Oop,
you are a ditz.
Dante, you're a jerk.
For fuck's sake. He's encouraging people to get married and have babies.
No. It's intrusive to the nth degree and anyone with any self awareness would realize that.
Yeah, Gary. A yenta who's a congressman. Anybody whos had to deal with a yenta knows they're annoying as hell. In a male political figure it's just creepy.
Allie,
As a supervisor for my company, I have the privilege of taking an online course every couple of years on workplace sexual harassment, and to test us on our understanding they give a number of scenarios that we are to asked to rate as acceptable or unacceptable. If they gave a scenario where the supervisor encouraged his subordinates to have romantic relationships, encouraged them to marry, encouraged them to be fruitful and multiply, and commented on their apparent pregnancy or lack thereof, and I didn't answer that this was totally unacceptable, then I would fail miserably. If your daugher, the alleged employment attorney, gave her client advice that this was acceptable, her understanding of what contitutes a hostile workplace environment is as Neanderthalish as your screen name, and she is clearly incompetent to offer advice. As for your assertion that this would be ok because it is unlikely that the supervisor would be found guilty of creating a hostile workplace, any employer who didn't fire a supervisor for engaging in these activities or failing to stop and punish a subordinate for engaging in them would be a fool.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा