"I'm just saying what I'm not..."

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by AAP

Wis. candidate can't use controversial description

MADISON, Wis. — A legislative candidate from Wisconsin can't use a profane, racially charged phrase to describe herself on the ballot, an election oversight board decided Wednesday.

Ieshuh Griffin, an independent running for a downtown Milwaukee seat in the state Assembly, wants to use the phrase, "NOT the 'whiteman's b----.'"

But the state's Government Accountability Board voted to bar that wording, agreeing with a staff recommendation that it is pejorative and therefore not allowed.

State law allows independent candidates to have five words describing themselves placed after their names on the ballot as long as it's not pejorative, profane, discriminatory or includes an obscene word or phrase.

Griffin, who is black, argued her case to the five white, retired judges on the board that regulates elections. She said the phrase was protected free speech.

"It's a freedom of expression," she said. "It's not racial. It's not a slur."

She convinced three of the judges that the wording should be allowed, but two said it should not. One judge was absent, and Griffin needed four votes to succeed. Griffin said she intends to seek an injunction in federal court.

Board member Thomas Cane, a retired state appeals court judge, said he didn't find the wording to be "particularly offensive."

Fellow board member Thomas Barland, who spent 33 years as a circuit court judge in Eau Claire, agreed.

"She says a lot in five words," he said. "It wasn't pornographic, it wasn't obscene and I didn't interpret it as racial."

Judge Gordon Myse, the board chairman, cast the third vote in favor of Griffin.

"Isn't she saying, 'I'm not under the white man's direction? I'm independent of that.' Isn't that what she's saying?" Myse said.

Roxanne Dunlap, a white woman from Sussex, felt compelled to speak up in the middle of the meeting, saying she was offended by the statement. She said if a white candidate wanted to have the statement "not the black man's b----" put on the ballot, it would be soundly rejected.

Griffin said her statement wasn't directed at any one individual but the government as a whole. The b-word was referring to a female dog that rolls over, she said.

"I'm not making a derogatory statement to a group of people or an ethnic group," she told the board. "I'm saying what I am not. Everyone I spoke with, elderly and young, understand my point of view."

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...cdB6QD9H3LVEG0

I heard this story on the radio the other day. Now this isn't about the politics, but rather about whether its acceptable to advertise yourself on the basis of a seemingly racially charged expression. What was interesting about the story is that she was able to convince 3 out of 5 retired judges that the phrase was acceptable (but needed 4 out of 5 to agree).

She is now seeking an injunction to prevent her from being stopped from using the expression as part of her campaign.

So what do you think. Acceptable turn of phrase or not?

[Stanley Design]

How is that NOT a slur or racial driven statement?

Tell her to stop wasting everyone's time and to shut up.

[Jim Nazium]

"State law allows five words ... as long as it's not pejorative, profane, discriminatory or includes an obscene word or phrase."
Sorry, but her choice of words is all of those things: pejorative, profane, discriminatory and obscene. FAIL.

[jp58]

The problem is that it DOES contain an obscene word or phrase (no matter what she says, its obvious sh isn't using it in the sense of "dog"). Even so, the b word is taboo and falls under profanity in most of the country. I don't know about Wisconsin, but it isn't allowed in schools/church/court here. Its also a racially driven/loaded comment, whether it is intended that way or not.

[FL Knifemaker]

No a well played race card. Then again, are they ever well plaid??

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by FL Knifemaker

No a well played race card. Then again, are they ever well plaid??

I dunno, here's some racially diverse people looking rather well in plaid.

[MEKer]

I think everyone except 3-trying-to-be-politically-correct judges knows EXACTLY who and what this person is.

[Relic]

There's really a lot of anger and hostility contained within that "slogan" IMHO.
I'm appalled that anyone would even consider allowing that.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by MEKer

I think everyone except 3-trying-to-be-politically-correct judges knows EXACTLY who and what this person is.

I wondered about this myself. I mean, what would the judges really stand to gain (or lose) by saying that this was acceptable. I genuinely wonder if she was really, really convincing with her argument before them as it seems a very odd result on the face of it that she could convince 3 out of 4 judges (one was absent) that it was okay to use that. Perhaps there is another side to her argument that we arn't hearing. That's the really interesting part of this whole matter (to me) - the judges' decision.

[FL Knifemaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

I dunno, here's some racially diverse people looking rather well in plaid.

yikes!! I'm switching off my auto type/spell check/word suggest thingies

[Thunderscreech]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

I dunno, here's some racially diverse people looking rather well in plaid.

Someone call the Plaid Police, and take these men to jail for crimes against the plaid.

[L-A]

"Bitches and Plaid" would be a pretty good band name.

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

I wondered about this myself. I mean, what would the judges really stand to gain (or lose) by saying that this was acceptable. I genuinely wonder if she was really, really convincing with her argument before them as it seems a very odd result on the face of it that she could convince 3 out of 4 judges (one was absent) that it was okay to use that. Perhaps there is another side to her argument that we arn't hearing. That's the really interesting part of this whole matter (to me) - the judges' decision.

I suspect it's a calculated political move.

Some judicial posts are elected positions, or perhaps the judges in question have aspirations for an elected position. They are also likely to know that the slogan and candidate in this case are popular with the masses in their district. They probably also knew how the how the dissenting two judges would vote and were aware of the absence of the sixth. Therefore, they knew they could vote in favor of the candidate/slogan without fear of the offensive wording actually finding it's way onto the ballot.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by PSPookie

I suspect it's a calculated political move.

Some judicial posts are elected positions, or perhaps the judges in question have aspirations for an elected position. They are also likely to know that the slogan and candidate in this case are popular with the masses in their district. They probably also knew how the how the dissenting two judges would vote and were aware of the absence of the sixth. Therefore, they knew they could vote in favor of the candidate/slogan without fear of the offensive wording actually finding it's way onto the ballot.

Excellent point.

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Originally Posted by Jim Nazium

"State law allows five words ... as long as it's not pejorative, profane, discriminatory or includes an obscene word or phrase."
Sorry, but her choice of words is all of those things: pejorative, profane, discriminatory and obscene. FAIL.

Yes (except obscene, IMHO).

[bongomania]

Yeah, even as someone who normally defends a bit of outre speech, I have to say that slogan was a poorly-played move. Even though this bit of publicity may secure her a few race-based votes, I'd be willing to bet there are also plenty of blacks who will be bothered by it (for a variety of reasons), probably enough to cancel out the votes she gained from it.

Plus it's so obviously intended as a racial slur that I can't believe anyone would not see that, or say otherwise. Now, that has nothing to do with whether the "whiteman" really does control most of the "b's", because of course he does, and has done for over two centuries. But just because she has a point, doesn't mean she gets a special pass permitting hate speech.

A better play would have been "NOT bowing to establishment bosses", or "NOT owned by The Man". Something along those lines would convey the essence of the message without a blatant slur.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by bongomania

Yeah, even as someone who normally defends a bit of outre speech, I have to say that slogan was a poorly-played move. Even though this bit of publicity may secure her a few race-based votes, I'd be willing to bet there are also plenty of blacks who will be bothered by it (for a variety of reasons), probably enough to cancel out the votes she gained from it.

Plus it's so obviously intended as a racial slur that I can't believe anyone would not see that, or say otherwise. Now, that has nothing to do with whether the "whiteman" really does control most of the "b's", because of course he does, and has done for over two centuries. But just because she has a point, doesn't mean she gets a special pass permitting hate speech.

A better play would have been "NOT bowing to establishment bosses", or "NOT owned by The Man". Something along those lines would convey the essence of the message without a blatant slur.

Am I really really reading that bolded part correctly?
Please tell me that I'm not..? Even if it's well-intended statement that would imply that there's still a disparity in racial make-up and representation, I'd agree, but to be honest, I'm fining that statement more than a little offensive on several levels.

[bongomania]

Originally Posted by Relic

Am I really really reading that bolded part correctly?
Please tell me that I'm not..? Even if it's well-intended statement that would imply that there's still a disparity in racial make-up and representation, I'd agree, but to be honest, I'm fining that statement more than a little offensive on several levels.

It's underselling the situation to say there's "still a disparity". It is obvious when looking at the statistics that white men make up the vast majority of CEO's, lobbyists, power brokers, and high-ranking politicians. It's also the case that everyone knows what you mean if you refer to the "good ol' boys club". It doesn't even need explanation. Also well-known is that people in power tend to cling to that power, and will manipulate the people beneath them toward that end. And taking it one last step, people coming from "the outside" (women, minorities, gays, etc.) often find they have to kowtow to the people in power in order to get or keep a job, at any level. They have to mold their words and actions to garner the approval (or at least avoid the disapproval) of the people in power. That's why the woman in the OP story felt it necessary to refer to the "b's" of The Man.

FTR, I'm a white man, but I can see clearly enough.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by bongomania

It's underselling the situation to say there's "still a disparity". It is obvious when looking at the statistics that white men make up the vast majority of CEO's, lobbyists, power brokers, and high-ranking politicians.

You mean like the president of the US?

It's also the case that everyone knows what you mean if you refer to the "good ol' boys club". It doesn't even need explanation.

I'm slow, you'll need to educate me. You mean there's a vast conspiracy of white folks who hold onto power to rule over black folks, or do you simply mean that there are greedy CEO's who tend to work together to hold onto power in general? I kind of thought that was a trait of capitalism in general but maybe that's just me..
Wait - are they evil because they're white, or because they have the power?

Also well-known is that people in power tend to cling to that power, and will manipulate the people beneath them toward that end.

uh, yeah welcome to Basic Human Nature 101.

And taking it one last step, people coming from "the outside" (women, minorities, gays, etc.) often find they have to kowtow to the people in power in order to get or keep a job, at any level. They have to mold their words and actions to garner the approval (or at least avoid the disapproval) of the people in power.

Yeah, there's racial disparity. Also cultural, ethnic, economic, linguistic, sexual orientation, handicapped vs non-handicapped, and ___insert something here___, disparities as you say.
That doesn't mean there's a vast conspiracy of old white men who wring their hands in glee at the thought of holding these folks back. A black, Asian or Hispanic CEO can discriminate just as easily. We have programs for this, maybe we need some more though.

That's why the woman in the OP story felt it necessary to refer to the "b's" of The Man.

No, the woman in the article is trying to play on racial hatred to get elected.

FTR, I'm a white man, but I can see clearly enough.

Fair enough you are welcome to your viewpoint. What do you think we should do to fix all of this?

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...cdB6QD9H3LVEG0

I heard this story on the radio the other day. Now this isn't about the politics, but rather about whether its acceptable to advertise yourself on the basis of a seemingly racially charged expression. What was interesting about the story is that she was able to convince 3 out of 5 retired judges that the phrase was acceptable (but needed 4 out of 5 to agree).

She is now seeking an injunction to prevent her from being stopped from using the expression as part of her campaign.

So what do you think. Acceptable turn of phrase or not?

i'd say let her out herself.....that kind of thing would be raw meat for her opponents