MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Monday, September 22, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 44.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

This Solomon situation

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby lukpac » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:26 pm

David Blaska wrote:lukpac, that is a complete falsehood.


Except it isn't. Prior to the details coming out recently, the only information was that he was being investigated because he was accused of sexual assault.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby David Blaska » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:41 pm

lukpac wrote:
David Blaska wrote:lukpac, that is a complete falsehood.


Except it isn't. Prior to the details coming out recently, the only information was that he was being investigated because he was accused of sexual assault.


And that wasn't enough! You needed more "details" of the sexual assault? WHAT!? What kind of prurient details were you awaiting?

In the Prosser-Bradley case, the original, one-sided Bill Lueders story came out June 25. The Milw Journal-Sentinel story that suggested that Prosser was defending himself against Bradley's attack came out June 26. Alds. Subeck and Bieder-Sielaff, The (Former) Kathleen, NARAL, etc. held a big noisy Prosser Must Go rally on July 12. The sheriff's investigation was underway at the time of that lynch rally. It's report came out August 23.

You Progs were willing to wait until all the facts came out in the Solomon case but not the Prosser case. The question remains, Mr. Fancy Dancer, WHY?
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby lukpac » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:51 pm

David Blaska wrote:Mr. Fancy Dancer


Who?
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby radboy » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:59 pm

Stop the fucking presses!

Dave Balaska has discovered that some small time local political hacks were engaged in political grandstanding! Unfucking believable!

Balaska, I am shocked that you are so surprised by this given that you are a small time local political hack who has made a sad small life out of political grandstanding.

Fool.
radboy
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:57 pm

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby jjoyce » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:58 pm

The last couple pages in this thread are a study in how to thoroughly derail and screw up a perfectly fine thread.

Why respond to Meade and Blaska at all? Do you think they're really interested in your answers? Do you think either one of them would ever concede a point? I guess there's a first time for everything.

Of course so-called "PROGS" are working on institutional remedies, because apparently none exist (read: previous members of the city council apparently never got around to it... conservatives AND liberals). Says so in the story linked at the very beginning of the thread. There are no conservatives currently on the city council (but there have been), so if anyone is handling the situation, it's the "PROGS." In fact, they have names: Shiva Bidar-Sielaff and Laren Cnare. Good luck finding any credit thrown their way from our conservative acquaintances. What fun would that be?

Are the political opportunists sitting it out? Don't they always? It's why neither of the conservatives in this thread have said a peep about the threatened and actual recall petition destruction. What fun would that be?

Come to think of it, where do our conservative acquaintances stand on the issue of ethics rules and consequences for city alders? And how would those rules be applied here? There have been no convictions or criminal charges, after all. I find that question interesting and so do several people I've spoken with about it personally. Apparently, it's not a job for new "meade-ia."

He'd rather poke radboy with a stick. Gotta spend the day somehow, I guess.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby radboy » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:13 pm

Thank you Joyce for getting us back on track.

I agree with you that Solomon was extremely foolish and reckless to boot. I suspect he missed what probably other alders picked up on that night-this woman was a Glenn Close wannabe who would be more than happy to boil Solomon's rabbit until it shriveled up and died. (Thank god he used his fingers.)
radboy
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:57 pm

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby snoqueen » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:33 pm

I'm going to ignore that last posting, and I don't know one thing about either party in this debacle so I'm not predisposed to like or dislike one or the other, let alone make disgusting inferences.

But I agree -- this has disintegrated into sheer nonsense in spite of several attempts to get it back on track. The original question concerned whether our elected officials are being a credit to the city and to themselves and setting a good example, and the answer is still no. That they're getting way too drunk to drive seems to be a consensus.

The question of whether their sexual behavior is a credit to anybody is also probably no, but we differ on a) whether any crimes were committed (and an investigation is still underway, so we can safely assume we don't have all the facts); and b) whether adults' sexual behavior has much of anything to do with their fitness for office or for public service.

As we know from recent history (Clinton, to be specific) the amount of blame heaped on people caught in sexually compromising situations tends to be related mostly to the political leanings of the blamers. We see the same thing right here and we'll see the same thing in the foreseeable future, and no conclusions are ever reached so it's barely worthwhile taking this point any further. Sometimes somebody crosses the line so repeatedly they lose public confidence (as with the French bank official caught in NYC, or probably Herman Cain) but it takes a lot. Wearing away public confidence is a process of attrition as much as anything else, given the range of public opinions about what's tolerable and what's not in sexual behavior.

There's also the question of he-said/she-said in the issue under discussion. Assistant DA Rusch said it very well:

A defense attorney, she maintained, would point to Berg's intoxication and her acceptance of a ride home from Solomon when another co-worker offered her a ride. The defense would point to the "consensual" back rub, the consensual kissing and the county employee who saw them being equally affectionate with each other. The defense also would stress that Berg invited Solomon to spend the night.
"And, while it is not a legal requirement that sexual assault victims resist their attackers or specifically shout out the word ‘no' before a crime occurs, Ms. Berg's acknowledged lack of any response to Solomon when she awoke to his conduct is a case weakness," Rusch wrote.
But she also made it clear that she believed Berg's allegations.


That's from Steven Elbow's article linked in the first post on page 1 of this topic, and that's what I'm using for a reference for now.

You can believe someone's story without being able to use it in a criminal case. Rusch makes a good and fair point there. If I was on the jury and the evidence was as presented in the article I'd probably vote for acquittal, but it wouldn't be a slam dunk case for either side.

If we can agree each person's account in Elbow's story is accurate (and they don't really contradict one another so much as focus on different parts of the event) I think the most important part of this whole story is how much gray area exists. If you think a crime was committed, at what point did things move from drunken sex to crime? I can't find such a point at all, but some others here apparently do and I am sure you have your reasons.

This is important because if you believe Solomon is a criminal, you have to be able to say at what point the crime occurred. Otherwise, he's guilty of dumbness only.

And this is important because someone's reputation and career are on the line. Accusing someone of a serious crime requires the accuser to take responsibility for saying exactly what crime he believes occurred, whether or not it is prosecutable.

Otherwise, you're just being appalled. And there seems to be a generational split here on whether what happened is run-of-the-mill drunken sex, or something appalling. I find this interesting, because usually it's young people doing the dumb sex and old people being appalled.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11503
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby bdog » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:16 pm

snoqueen wrote:But I agree -- this has disintegrated into sheer nonsense in spite of several attempts to get it back on (Jason's) track.


Do you expect everyone to ignore Bruer's quote just because that's not what Jason wants to talk about?

Perhaps Meade should just start a new thread?
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby David Blaska » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:24 pm

Despite Jason Joyce's rather appalling attempt to provide cover for Prog hypocrisy, I still want to know why Progs demanded Prosser's head but not Solomon's. I think I know, the former was a conservative, the latter a Prog.

Never thought I'd say it, but at least a Capital Times reporter has not prostituted himself totally to PC thinking:

Quoting Ald. Tim Bruer wrote:"It's ironic that many of the progressives on the council and in the community who are fast to be calling for state officials to resign for inappropriate behavior have not come forth and applied the same principles to Ald. Solomon," referring to calls for conservative state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser to step down amid allegations that he put liberal colleague Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in a chokehold in June. "In fact, they have subtly rallied around Ald. Solomon."


The "systemic" changes that Jason Joyce refers to -- I presume the attempt to amend the ethics code -- in no way exonerates the the poor individual choices made.

Jason, you disappoint me. Yet again.
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby David Blaska » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:36 pm

And Snoqueen is doing more equivocating that Bill Clinton parsing the verb "is."

snoqueen wrote:this is important because someone's reputation and career are on the line.


But Prosser's reputation was not?

Oh, please, do not respond to that question. You now have Jason Joyce's imprimatur to pretend that such troublesome questions need not be answered. Talk amongst yourselves. No need to be trioubled by troublesome questions.
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby David Blaska » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:42 pm

Jason Joyce wrote:Where do our conservative acquaintances stand on the issue of ethics rules and consequences for city alders? And how would those rules be applied here? There have been no convictions or criminal charges, after all.


Highly in favor of personal ethics, Jason, to answer your question. I'll let my own 12 years in elective office speak to that. But the question is not how to check the locks after the cows get out. The issue is ethical behavior in the first place.

Now I am going to ask Jason Joyce a question: Where do you stand on the issue of demanding that a Supreme Court justice step down before the investigation is completed and before there have been, after all, no criminal charges.
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby jjoyce » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:26 pm

I know this is a popular game between you and the radboys/jonnypens of the world David, but this is another case of you not answering a legit question and then demanding answer for yours.

Where did I demand Prosser step down? Where did I excuse Solomon's behavior? What "PROG" box do I fit in?

Sorry to disappoint you. Ask me if I care.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby snoqueen » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:33 pm

And we were discussing the drinking and sexual behavior among city alders. What in the world Prosser has to do with this is beyond me. If you want to discuss his sexual behavior, you're going to have to give examples and probably do it in a new topic.

Let's discuss the lakeshore path and Prosser! Let's discuss Occupy Wall Street and Prosser! Jeez, it's like Old Ned and Clinton (the new Ned doesn't seem as interested).

And I just googled Prog and got pretty much zilch. Dictionary.com has this: "to search or prowl about, as for plunder or food; forage." What are you, teenagers trying to dream up new slang to confuse your parents? At least "Democrat legislators" has the Limbaugh seal of approval.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11503
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby David Blaska » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:49 pm

Jason Joyce wrote:Ask me if I care.

Then do you mind if I ask people who DO care? There was a big, noisy demonstration in front of the State Capitol by a wide phalanx of leading Prog political figures in Madison demanding that Prosser step down while the investigation was still on-going. You did not object to that. But no similar demonstration against a Madison alderman. (Sorry, snoqueen, if the charges are not photocopies of each other; the subject is official hanky panky and reaction thereto.)

Jason Joyce wrote:There are no conservatives currently on the city council ... so if anyone is handling the situation, it's the "PROGS." In fact, they have names: Shiva Bidar-Sielaff and Laren Cnare.


Odd, you should use those two examples of civic responsibility. B-S and Cnare were among the ringleaders of the July rally in front of the Capitol against Prosser!

So, you are welcome to weigh in or opt out, Jason. After all, "Why respond to Meade and Blaska at all?" But clearly, you DO care enough to trash those of us who point out the hypocrisy. That speaks volumes.

Not that you would ever concede a point.
Radboy "Thank god he used his fingers" wrote:Thank you, Joyce, for getting us back on track."


Take solace, Jason, that the Radboys are in your debt.
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: This Solomon situation

Postby David Blaska » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:09 pm

Jason Joyce wrote:Why respond to Meade and Blaska at all? Do you think they're really interested in your answers?

I dunno, Jason. We'll let you know when we actually receive some answers.
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: massimo and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar