In his first “Sunday Essay” on his Arch City Chronicle blog, Dave Drebes stands up for his erstwhile colleague, Ed Martin, who really stuck his foot in his mouth with his remarks on Hispanics employed by developers. (If you somehow missed what Martin said, he claimed that if there are a “bunch of Mexicans” at a site, some are probably illegal.) Drebes doesn’t really defend Martin’s remarks so much as his right to say them, characterizing them as a few poorly-chosen words in the service of making a broader policy point, and claims that Martin shouldn’t have to resign over this flap.
I tend to agree. If Matt Blunt believes that racial profiling is OK, whether while driving or at the workplace, then absolutely, he should continue to associate himself with Martin’s remarks by keeping Martin on as his chief of staff. And I expect that’s exactly what’s going to happen, because Blunt values revving up his conservative base by demonizing a minority group over civil rights. I don’t believe Martin’s words were poorly chosen at all – he was picking a fight on behalf of his boss.
I should add that I generally like what Dave has to say. I just disagree with him in this case.
It is unfortunate but Clark I think you are exactly right. This is part of team Blunt’s reelection plan. This isn’t the only issue that Martin has been over the top. He is so far out there at times I really doubt he is helping Blunt out.
I also like Drebes website and what he has to say. I just think sometimes he has a blind eye for people that he has a personal relationship with like Ed Martin or some of the legislators that he hangs with. Most people are like that. I think we all want to defend the people we are friends with. But you should try to give everyone a fair shake.
Keep up the good work.
that he shouldn’t be forced to resign over the remarks. First, it simply makes a martyr of him with the people who see nothing wrong with what he said. But second it gives a false sense of accomplishing something.
Our society often believes that by stopping speech they stop the accompanying actions. I’d rather focus on the actions of the Blunt administration and have Martin out there as the symbol and spokesperson of the actual actions that Blunt is taking (in public or in private). I fully believe that the answer to offensive speech is more speech.
but I don’t think what Martin said is newsworthy. Given what’s been happening in the construction industry, he’s probably correct that in a group of Mexican workers, some will be illegal. Now, I used a less demeaning word (“group”) than his word “bunch”. And maybe he should have said that the chances are high that some will be illegal. But I don’t understand why people think that his sentiments are so objectionable.
I want employers who give work to illegals prosecuted. Currently, they are not, and American workers are suffering.
Call his attitude profiling if you want to, but few of our illegal workers come from Ghana. They’re Latinos, so common sense says that you’re likely to find some in a group of Latino workers doing the sort of job where illegals have been gravitating. Why is that so heinous?
Political correctness be damned.
Since someone asked, here’s my take on this.
Arguing over language is always better than addressing the issues:
should it be possible to be an “illegal” alien?
should it be possible to be an undocumented worker?
should it be possible to be unprotected by law, due process, fair wage laws, unprotected by OSHA, etc?
should it be possible to blame victims under law?
should blackmail and intimidation be legally sanctioned, used?
So, let’s make “diction” and comments the point, instead of the issues involved. If we can, let’s contrive a way to muzzle free speech, that sounds “good.” Because if we are going to get off topic and violate basic rights, to justify it we have to do some slight of hand to make it “good.”
Way to go. Be Progressive. Progressively get further and further from the point: our need of additional labor, our greed for low prices, our disregard for human rights of any sub group we can label so they don’t “count” as humans deserving the protections of our laws and systems.
Then, argue about statements that could be verified or disproved by simply auditing and sampling, but certainly, don’t care if the statement is TRUE, just what words are used making it. Hmm. Our finest hours.