“I needed the money.”
Correction: An article Wednesday and an editorial Thursday on Milwaukee’s rising poverty rate included quotes and a picture of Johnniemae Ashford, a woman trying to raise five grandchildren while earning $187 every two weeks as a patient care worker. The newspaper was not aware that Ashford was convicted last year in federal court for receiving more than $15,000 in illegal Supplemental Security Income payments. While the newspaper routinely checks whether potential story subjects have state criminal records, the paper does not typically check for much rarer federal convictions. Contacted Thursday, Ashford said she was not ashamed of her conviction: “I needed the money.”
All guilt and social responsibility is washed away because she “needed the money.” What a pathetic human being.
Where is Charlie when the rich folks are stealing? We could use some watch-dogging there, too. But that doesn’t fit as neatly in the narrative that would have us believe that the poor, and the social programs that serve them, are the reason we middle-class folks don’t have bass boats.
Posted by scott on September 03, 2007 at 2020 hrs
Where is Scott when the poor folks are stealing? We could use some watch-dogging there, too. But that doesn’t fit as neatly in the narrative that would have us believe that the rich, and the corporate welfare that serves them, are the reason we middle-class folks don’t have bass boats.
Posted by Owen on September 03, 2007 at 2029 hrs
Where is Scott when anyone is stealing? I don’t tend to blog these kinds of things as oblique evidence of such a skewed worldview. You do.
Posted by scott on September 03, 2007 at 2128 hrs
I believe that my comments were restricted to the individual involved. Any inference that you took from this post as to “evidence” of a wider societal trend was solely your own.
Posted by Owen on September 03, 2007 at 2136 hrs
It’s for you to say what you meant, I guess. But I find this typical of right wing blogs: insinuate…and then retreat into “but I didn’t actually say that!”
Posted by scott on September 03, 2007 at 2202 hrs
Then may I suggest that you are reading “right-wing blogs” through the prism of your own biases?
Posted by Owen on September 03, 2007 at 2203 hrs
My “biases” aren’t made from nothing, Owen. Let’s cut the bullshit for a second. It’s been a favorite topic for conservatives since Regan to demonize the poor and the government programs that serve them. “Welfare queens” ring a bell? it’s also been my observation that the same invective is rarely leveled at corporate evil-doers or wealthy cheats. It’s an observation and I’ll stick by it. If you would like to pronounce yourself among those who do not engage in this kind of bias, that’s fine by me; I’m not accusing you of anything. But that tendency does exist among the right. There’s no use denying it.
Posted by scott on September 03, 2007 at 2216 hrs
I think the phrase “human being” is generous. She’s a piece of human debris,
Posted by Peter on September 03, 2007 at 2219 hrs
How can she raise 5 kids on $187 a week? With rent , utilities, food etc., I find it impossible, unless she has other income coming in including food stamps, welfare or help with utilities. If this is correct, then her income is more than $187 every 2 weeks.
I dare say, if it is the only income, I’d raise the issue whether the kids are being neglected.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2007 at 2239 hrs
Wasn’t this Ken Lay’s reason, too?
Charlie missed that one. :^)
MpPosted by Mpeterson on September 03, 2007 at 2325 hrs
When I read the title of this post in my RSS reader, I immediately thought of that old Andrew Dice Clay joke about Little Boy Blue. :D
Posted by Fuzz on September 04, 2007 at 0547 hrs
Yeah, Peter. People who steal because they “needed the money” are beneath contempt.
By the way, who did your taxes this year?
Posted by scott on September 04, 2007 at 0630 hrs
So Scott, what does that say about Socialistic government? The government “needs our money”, so that makes it okay for them to just steal it from our paychecks?
Posted by Shana on September 04, 2007 at 0701 hrs
It is regrettable when poor people behave this way. They are vast number of poor people who soldier on, despite the disadvantages in life created by the power system in this country. I will sit back and watch this last statement get misread.
In the great scheme of things while that woman’s life style (to be kind) helps neither her or us, it has a far less effect on our lives than that of the avarice that is taking place at the top. That is having a worse effect on our society.
Guess what. Positive programs—not giveaways—could help maybe not this women but many like her. It is sad though that we can’t get to those remedies because people like Cheap Shot Chuck have their piddly “50 Rules” designed to make people feel bad about themselves and focuses the attention of a large part of the voters on what the poor are doing while it is the rich—yeah the rich—that are screwing us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 0708 hrs
Selectivity is what makes any blog interesting. Pick a topic and write well about it, find relevant news items about it, and the world will visit and read.
On the other hand, I agree with Scott. Perhaps Scott and I are here because this blog is an intersection of Wisconsin and hypocrisy, and it’s fun to point it out.
“I needed the money” is a universal excuse for any thief, isn’t it, no matter whether they live in the projects or on a cul-de-sac? But don’t worry your pretty little heads, those poor people have microwaves and DVD players, so their life can’t be all bad.
Hey Peter Poker! Fix your URL, it has an extraneous ‘http:’ in it. Am I still banned from your ranch? “Human debris.” Who would Jesus landfill?
Posted by John Foust on September 04, 2007 at 0804 hrs
I doubt whether Pete will be commenting in this thread anymore. I’m sure he understood my above point quite well.
Posted by scott on September 04, 2007 at 0810 hrs
You liberals are a bizzare bunch. Not one liberal condemed this lady for putting her grandchildren in this prediment, the closest being her actions were regrettable. But they equate this stealing with the rich. Folks, stealing is stealing, no matter who does it. This lady put her grandchildren in this a sorry mess because of her actions. She was wrong. When the rich steal, they usually do it for greed and they also hurt people. Both are evil. I wonder why liberals can’t see why that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 0823 hrs
When the rich steal, they usually do it for greed and they also hurt people. Both are evil. I wonder why liberals can’t see why that?
A better question is why conservative bloggers don’t blog it.
Posted by scott on September 04, 2007 at 0831 hrs
Dan, I called her a thief. I think it comes down to orders of magnitude. If a businessman defrauded the government stole ten or a hundred times as much as this welfare fraud, Owen wouldn’t blog about it.
Unless of course I’ve missed all those indignant posts about war profiteering.
Posted by John Foust on September 04, 2007 at 0836 hrs
JF, Scott, your point is fine and valid on its own, just irrelevant. Is this considered a conservative blog or not? The rich guy who got caught is for your blog…unless he was a Democrat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 0915 hrs
Keyword in this article = GRANDMOTHER.
Where is the mother and father???
Posted by KT on September 04, 2007 at 0921 hrs
TUERQ, of course this is a conservative blog. So why would it be more interesting to the conservative readership to focus on $15,000 welfare fraud than any $150,000 or $1,500,000 or $15 billion fraud within government?
Posted by John Foust on September 04, 2007 at 0923 hrs
We liberals are indeed a bizarre bunch. We tend to draw a distinction between a thief who steals millions, even though he or she already has enough money to keep the next several generations of their family living in luxury, and a thief who stole just enough money to feed her family. We liberals are bizarre about nuance and shades of gray and looking at all sides of something before passing judgment, and oddly enough, we don’t always find poor people to be human debris.
Is this woman a thief? Yes, she is. Let’s hope she receives the same sympathetic hearing that someone like say, oh, Scooter Libby would receive in a court of law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 0927 hrs
What, is there segregation going on here?
.The point is there is corruption going on that’s much greater at the top. This is being worried about the fungus on the toes while the hair is on fire.
And yes there is wrong-doing in the upper reaches but it is also the inordinant excersize of power that is harmful to our democracy.
As for not condeming what this woman is doing, go back and read the lead on post #14. None of disagree about what she did is wrong, it’s that we recognize the diversion created by this story.
And it’s not like her color (real or imaginary) has anything to do with it now does it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 0933 hrs
We tend to call the billions stole “corruption” and that is a common thread on this blog. A conservative will tend to focus on the giver (read politician) if Democrat especially or the receiver if it is a union, while liberals tend to focus on the giver if Republican or receiver if a big business. Is either side wrong? I don’t think so, but you are wrong about this blog not addressing it. This post wouldn’t be such a big story if the media hadn’t just made a big story of it just recently about a poor Granny raising kids on $93.50 a week.
I agree with KT that ‘Grandma’ is the biggest part of the story, but my slant is the (unpopular among liberals) break up of the family unit as being a huge part of Milwaukee poverty. I also agree with anyone condemning the human debris comment, pathetic. You know she has other income, however. It would have been a better piece in the first place if the article had tracked the Aid she is receiving in the first place, saying that she needs more. Of course, then they would have found out about the illegal money as well and never wrote it…is this post about condemning a poor lady for theft or about poor journalism again?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1015 hrs
To dovetail on what KT wrote: the most shocking part of the article (the original one) was that this woman is a five-time grandmother, at forty-one years old!!
Doesn’t that strike anyone else as a little more telling about her character (and that of her family at-large) than the money scammed?
Posted by David on September 04, 2007 at 1027 hrs
The difference is you get to vote for whoever it is in office. I have yet to have a crack at who is running Wal-Mart or some hedge fund.
For all the carping about how socialistic we liberals are, the idea that so few people in this country has access to so much power is the core of our problems and to our future as a democracy. That is where we care about what’s happening to this country.
While that grandmother is also screwing the system and should face the music. her affect is minimal on our democracy other than the distraction it provides to those on the right. As a matter of course these people if guilty should face some kind of punishment, but this should be the standard order of business and not something that requires a large bit of our attention. On Cheap Shot Chuck’s program that is ONLY thing that gets attention to keep his patrons over at the Bradley Foundation happy and Cheap Shot in Mequon where he thinks he belongs.
But then again, if you want to commit a successful robbery, always use distraction tactics and haver accomplices.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1032 hrs
To John #22:
We ARE fighting the 15 billion dollar fraud within government. It’s more widely known as Universal Health Care.
LMAO!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1044 hrs
Talk about self-inflicted wounding.
Here you are getting porked to the tune of $2 billion a week in Iraq and you don’t even care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1104 hrs
Svendsen, I thought endless procreation was a traditional family value. Character? Do tell. What failing of character is it to have lots of babies, early and often? Is it only a failure of character when you can’t support them? What if you thought you could support them, but can’t? Is this character flaw related to the character flaw that led to her theft? Would contraception have improved her character or her children’s character? What else might’ve improved her character? Education? Religion? Money? Food?
Peter Poker’s blog says “liberal politicians depend on the votes of the Johnniemae Ashfords of the world to stay in office.”
Posted by John Foust on September 04, 2007 at 1107 hrs
kr, interesting how there is no condemnation of the ‘distraction’ when the original news story was a ‘distraction’ to liberals about how poor our Milwaukee is and we need more money give to these poor. It is not a distraction at all in any case, without a topic to be distracted from. Distraction from what Mrs. Malaprop?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1109 hrs
Really, the question here is not what we are distracting from. I have called for consequences in both cases, you seem concerned only for the one.
And yes, money is called for here. Money got our parents and grandparents out their holes and money such as the GI Bill, Federal Highway Building Programs and the HSA—wisely applied—needs to be used for the current underclass. We’ve tried it the radcon way for the last 25 years and it really hasn’t worked, maybe e made things worse and it is time to scuttle the help the rich so that it trickles down on us like piss running down a leg.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1117 hrs
Add JF to the self inflicting wound category. Even if ‘endless procreation’ was a family value, Svendsen questioning the character of a single grandparent and no Mommy or Daddy around for five kids would still be valid. The other end of endless procreation as a family value would be no children with no family wouldn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1117 hrs
She is human debris. Bury her in a landfill for all I care.
Posted by Peter on September 04, 2007 at 1118 hrs
And yes, she’s a damned thief. Not worthy of my empathy.
Posted by Peter on September 04, 2007 at 1120 hrs
Apologies to Owen and Jed in advance for the choice of language here ... but John, go play hide and go fuck yourself please.
Posted by Peter on September 04, 2007 at 1121 hrs
So Pete if someone defrauds the government they’re human debris, right? So how do you justify cheating on your taxes like you do? Are you ready to take your place in the landfil right next to this woman? I certainly hope so.
Posted by scott on September 04, 2007 at 1122 hrs
Excuse me. Sunlight on the screen. What I meant was “the question here is what we are being distracted from.”
Let me add, isn’t that what happens on blogs. An issue kicks it off and then we see where it goes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1124 hrs
“She is human debris. Bury her in a landfill for all I care.”
Onward Christian Soldiers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1126 hrs
See kr, make your point in the first place. It is a good one. The trick is to make entreprenuerialship inviting enough that people will still risk wealth in the first place. The biggest problem has been the rise of the MNCs who can just scoot over any border to increase profit. These are the beyond super rich and I agree with that. But how that is tied to this story was ever tenuous at best. How does that tie in to the lower, middle, and upper middle class paying for more hand outs to the poor? Because if Granny gets more aid, the bulk ain’t coming from those super rich any way you slice it today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1126 hrs
My point is people get way too wound up about what these people do. Let the process take care of her, urge the justice system to do its job and leave it at that. it is no accident that the corporate funded echo chamber loves it when working and middle class people get riled up about the petty crooks, where there is major larceny and abuse of power going on.
That is Sykes’ job. For your own good simply recognize that this level of chiseling which is literally peanuts goes on. You gotta look at the real damage that is being done to government and our capitalistic system, which I dearly love and hate to see abused.
Sadly, for many of the people who are wound up over this they are also in their minds getting steamed up over her race. Sure as shit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1133 hrs
Is Peter another name for Mickey? I was glad when he left. Peter, you remind me of a Billy Connolly line though a different context: “Go away, itchy ass!”
kr, ah…and you are correct, that is what happens on blogs. I just thought your point was better when made directly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1136 hrs
I brought up the point about her being 41 years old and raising five grandkids because that really is the larger issue. Her scamming money from the government is something that transcends from much more profound problems in that family.
John wrote: I thought endless procreation was a traditional family value. Character? Do tell.
You’ve lost me on that one. What do you mean by “a traditional family value”? And how does that apply to anything I wrote?
Posted by David on September 04, 2007 at 1137 hrs
Insert joke here about how when you look up “misanthrope” in the dictionary, there’s a little picture of Peter Poker. But Charlie and Jessica like him! So let’s all give him a hat tip and some encouragement!
And Scott, come now. Cheating on your taxes is patriotic civil disobedience, like burning the flag. He’s lashing out against the Man! I mean, against powerful lobbyists like Johnniemae, to whom the liberal politicians cater.
Svendsen, Johnniemae may be a crook, but maybe she’s got enough character left to care for five kids. I’m trying to understand your fine points of when procreation is good and when it’s bad. But let’s all jump to conclusions about the undoubtably messy arrangements within her family and presume the worst. Aww, heck, let’s just be like Peter and euthanize Johnniemae, because all life is sacred, except for the poor.
Know any middle-class folks who are caring for their unwed grandkids?
Posted by John Foust on September 04, 2007 at 1153 hrs
When Peter cheats on his taxes, he’s stealing money out of my pocket - and yours. His excuse that he “needed the money” just doesn’t work. And by Peter’s own yardstick o’ justice he himself should be relegated to the landfill as human debris. Right Pete?
Posted by scott on September 04, 2007 at 1200 hrs
Careful, Scott, you’re dangerously close to exposing the secret that those who scream their desire for lower taxes might not be doing so well. Surely they could cut back on a few latte, a few games of golf, a few DVDs, a few less pay-per-view, a few extra children, and they’d be able to pay their taxes.
How else can we pay for a new war? I mean, the Bush has thought of a new exit strategy to get us out of Iraq! Through Iran! It’s brilliant!
Posted by John Foust on September 04, 2007 at 1205 hrs
Peter, as a human being, you make me ill. Your complete disregard for anyone who disagrees with you, or has done something wrong, or anything, leads me to wonder how you can sleep at night. To regard anyone with a different way of life as “human debris”, is just downright sickening.
As for this woman’s choices, what she has done is wrong. She knows she’s done wrong, and yet doesn’t seem to care that it’s affecting her grandchildren negatively. That doesn’t make her life forfeit. Hopefully some day she will realize her mistakes.
As for her being a grandmother at 41, my mother is 46 and is a 5 (almost 6) time grandmother. She was young when she had me, and I was young when I had my first child. I’ve been married 8 years, and by the time I hit 9 years, I’ll have had my 6th child. It’s not entirely uncommon, especially if there are twins involved. Whatever that reflects upon this woman, who knows. We don’t know the whole story, so there are some things that cannot be judged about that, besides that it’s irrelevant to the case. Her age and number of grandchildren don’t change the fact that she stole a considerable sum of money.
As for why she did it, she’s probably not been taught that there are ways to spend less money, or go without certain things, because you can’t always have what you want. I feel sorry for the woman in that sense, because if she’s never been given the tools to know how to live, then she will continue making those types of mistakes. When I lived on my own making next to nothing, I had to do without a lot of things. I didn’t have a tv, and I wouldn’t have had a phone if I didn’t need one at the time. I didn’t have a car, I barely made enough to eat, but I survived. I didn’t go blow my paycheck on things I didn’t need. I didn’t buy things I needed when I didn’t have the money to do it. I lived on what I had, which is something that many people, especially in inner city situations, are no longer taught.
Posted by Shana on September 04, 2007 at 1217 hrs
Thank you, Shana.
Posted by John Foust on September 04, 2007 at 1223 hrs
Hear, hear, Shana…(6 kids? Wow!) My wife and I have 0 kids, but a fifth horse is on the way. They are like kids without the tax break.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1402 hrs
Ah yes, and the cleanup is probably easier, though no less smelly
My mom has several horses as well, and I’m her only child. :DPosted by Shana on September 04, 2007 at 1415 hrs
John, I’m think I’m noticing a distinct prejudice against the ancient and honorable game of golf in your various posts on various topics. What’s up with that? There are quite a few of us poor folk who play the game; we simply play on public courses, and we just don’t get to play very often.
You should try it. You can be frustrated and miserable with it like the rest of us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1522 hrs
John, I’m think I’m noticing a distinct prejudice against the ancient and honorable game of golf in your various posts on various topics. What’s up with that? There are quite a few of us poor folk who play the game; we simply play on public courses, and we just don’t get to play very often.
Oh yea thats what John needs; another reason to be miserable and frustrated, I think he is doing JUST fine without playing golf!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on September 04, 2007 at 1619 hrs
The sad thing is that the children are the ones screwed by this woman and her family. The mother(s) and father(s) have abdanoned the kids. This lady is a thief and is not a good role model and is barely providing anythng useful to the kids(I still think she is getting additional “benefits” and income).
These kids are going to be screwed up and chances are, their kids are going to be the same way. This is the problem that is killing the northside of Milwaukee and and any other inner city in the U.S.
This isn’t a left or right issue when you get right down to it. These kids need to escape from that woman and hope like hell they can start a new life.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 04, 2007 at 1630 hrs
Not so. They can make choices, same as you and me. If they find themselves unemployed and undereducated and poor at the age of 25, who’s fault is it but their own? Just because I grew up in a suburb with two honest parents and a big house doesn’t mean jack. I could have chosen to become a crack dealer. The reason I didn’t is because I’m a morally superior person.
/sarcasm
Posted by scott on September 04, 2007 at 1635 hrs
Foust said: Svendsen, Johnniemae may be a crook, but maybe she’s got enough character left to care for five kids. I’m trying to understand your fine points of when procreation is good and when it’s bad.
First of all, what about the “family value” thing? Care to answer that ever? Or did you realize you’re putting words into my mouth and are now avoiding the question in lieu of admitting it?
But aside from your dodging of the family value question, let’s summarize your stance. You’re willing to say it’s just fine that a woman of the ripe old age of 41 has five grandchildren. I’m not. Not in in this day and age, and in what is admittedly the context of her being poverty-stricken. I’m not afraid to level a moral value judgment against her for choosing that kind of lifestyle. Apparently you are.
As I implied earlier, her scamming the system is less of a shock to me than her familial arrangements. I tend to agree with those in this thread who point out that middle-class (and up) white people are no strangers to fraud, and that there is far less emphasis placed on it in where news media sensationalism is concerned.
But that doesn’t mean Johnniemae gets off the hook. Depending on who you talk to, people are obsessed with either the fact that she scammed some money or that she has a rough time raising some kids. None of the reporters for the Journal even bothered to ask just how a person ends up with five grandchildren at the age of 41 - and to be the sole provider for all of them.
The absence of any explanation for that leads me to believe that the whole true story would cast a negative light on her and her family. Lest we’re to believe that all of her children and grandchildren were conceived and delivered with full planning, intent, and financial security in place - and that the parents all just happened to die in a big car accident one day - the day before the first installment check for the parents’ life insurance was received big the big evil insurance company - leaving grandma to care for them all with no money. But the Journal simply “forgot” to report that?
Yeah. Right.
People don’t just “wake up” one day in a situation like Johnniemae’s. It stems from many years (decades even) of lousy decision-making and prioritizing. Not all poor people are the same. I think the context by which they ended up in their situations should play a part in what level of sympathy or criticism they receive when they’re willing to take their sob stories public like she did.
Posted by David on September 04, 2007 at 1651 hrs
Svendsen, sure, I’ll respond. I don’t think the same judgments are passed on the poor that are passed on others - as with the recent Sykesian promotion of “gee, they have DVDs and microwaves, so this is evidence their life isn’t bad and that they make poor decisions.” Yes, Johnniemae’s predicament certainly looks like it took many years to assemble. We don’t know her context, but I’d say it’s a reasonable assumption. It might also involve illness, drug abuse, layoffs, accidents, who knows what. Yes, more poor decisions. I think there are many who promote copious procreation as Biblically ordained, who rail against sex ed and contraceptives, who think that merely saying “they” should keep their pants on is a solution to a problem or a way to prevent suffering. Maybe you don’t think this way, and I’m wrong to put words in your mouth.
But where’s the line drawn? Couldn’t two people think they were capable of supporting one kid, get married, then discover they weren’t as capable as they thought? Is a couple with six kids living a riskier life than a couple with two kids? Know any thirty-somethings who are still living with Mom and Dad? Is poor judgment damning when you’re poor but OK when you’re well-off?
Yes, APC, I think there are lots of people who waste lots of money on golf. Congrats on feeding your addiction on cheaper courses.
Posted by John Foust on September 05, 2007 at 0800 hrs
WOW!!! Is this the same John Foust who railed in “Wisconsin’s anti-business culture” 11 times out of 47 comments the same question or comment reference: Where’s the Facts?
Now you are willing to make a ‘reasonable assumption’ for a Grandmother of five that one of her children got married and just made a bad decision about how many kids to have? As long as this thread is okay to make assumptions on, I think the Grnadmother’s child was never married and probably had multiple fathers/mothers.
But wait, we can’t just make assumptions, there was not enough information, just like in the original sob story article where a grandma is pulling in a cool 93.50 a week and is getting no other monetary aid legal or otherwise because the original article didn’t say she was. Hypocrisy is a great thing, eh JF?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 05, 2007 at 0922 hrs
TUERQ, and here I thought I was being civil and even conciliatory with Svendsen. My ‘reasonable assumption’ was essentially agreeing with Svendsen’s assumption. I don’t think it’s important to delve into Johnniemae’s story, as I’m willing to assume it’s just sad.
The point of this thread was that she was a welfare cheat who continued to scam as often as she could, and she neglected to tell a reporter her past when she thought it might suit her. Makes you think she was telling them what they wanted to hear, doesn’t it? They wanted to flesh out a story behind the release of US Census figures on poverty.
The revelation of her crime was what attracted the attention of right-wing bloggers in Wisconsin. Am I eager and proud to proclaim her “pathetic human being” or “human debris” like other more famous bloggers who are regularly quoted in the MJS? No.
Am I still wading through reading all their Christian sympathy, their outpouring of compassion as a non-governmental private expression of charity and assistance to the poor? Of course not, because there was slim to none of that. “Get a better job” was the most common cry, when they weren’t grinding her up for the landfill.
If you want to dig into Johnniemae’s story, please do. Maybe you’ll have more luck than the reporters. In the other thread, I invited Carter to join in. He’s appeared. We’ll see what facts he brings and where that story will lead.
Posted by John Foust on September 05, 2007 at 1139 hrs
Who said anything about being uncivil? If you took my comment as a missile attack, I do apologize. My observation was aimed at paragraph 2 of comment 56 where your ‘what if’ story was significantly more victim oriented than David’s and you are/were unable to give an inch in the other post where there were no ‘facts’. If you think there is no hypocritical parallel, there then I believe your liberal double standard underwear is showing. Heaven knows you have metaphorically pulled my pants down before, I was just willing to admit it.
Constructively, in the future you may disagree with others, but recognizing another position has validity is not a blog crime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 05, 2007 at 1241 hrs
At least, I think it isn’t a crime. There are few enough of us that do it, that I am wrong. If I am, Owen could you send me a list of blogger crimes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 05, 2007 at 1244 hrs
The difference, TUERQ, is that in the MJS stories the reporters went for the who-what-where-when-why-how. They’ve been called on their error of not conducting a simple background check on one of their quotable subjects. Someone pointed out a demonstrable fact - her crime - that might cast doubt on her quotes. J-M’s family history and why she’s caring for five grandkids wasn’t the core of the story or the error. We don’t know the rest of her story. There might be another story there, but it’s not the core of the story about the prevalence of poverty in Milwaukee.
In Carter’s story, we got very little of the five Ws. I may have wondered aloud why a busy executive of a growing software company was purchasing a Texas gas-and-oil company, but I’ll hold that up as an example of a fact that’s less important to the core of his story - unless, of course, like J-M, it’ll prove to be a potentially interesting side-light in its own right. Again I ask for simple five Ws - where was he at City Hall, and why?
Posted by John Foust on September 05, 2007 at 1307 hrs
Foust wrote: ...I thought I was being civil and even conciliatory with Svendsen.
You were. And thank you
There might be another story there, but it’s not the core of the story about the prevalence of poverty in Milwaukee.
But isn’t it safe to postulate that the kinds of decisions that lead to a family where one is a five-time grandmother by the age of 41 might be the sort of thing that precedes the condition of poverty? It’s certainly easier to support only one person - yourself - on $187 every other week than it is to support your children and their kids as well.
Posted by David on September 05, 2007 at 1339 hrs
Careful, there - next thing you know you’ll be talking about reparations for slavery, or questioning the notion that anyone can pull themselves out of any misfortune through gumption and pluck, or whether we’re doomed to repeat the flaws of our parents.
Posted by John Foust on September 05, 2007 at 1426 hrs
So… it is ok to make up possible stories, or give possible excuses, or alternate possible reasons for lack of facts about an article as long as it is not the core of the originally intentioned article? (I word it that way because the causes for this woman’s actions and situation arguably should be the core of the story and, in my opinion, are the core of this post. It is at least as arguable as the necessity of facts being fully arrayed about why he was at city hall before a businessman can express his opinion/complaint about treatment from said office.)
AND…just so I am clear, there is no difference in applying the 5 Ws to any article, whether interview, the sports results, or an opinion piece?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 05, 2007 at 1503 hrs
What do you think, TUERQ? What would you like the rules to be?
Do you think it’s outrageous and hypocritical for me to extrapolate that Johnniemae’s family life must be darn colorful and/or really sad if she’s really raising five grandkids and, we might also presume, because the parents plural are somehow out of the picture? We know next to nothing because it wasn’t central to the MJS story.
But Carter’s point was that Texas was nice to him and Wisconsin wasn’t. We shouldn’t expect him to elaborate on his central thesis? He’ll get right back to us.
Posted by John Foust on September 05, 2007 at 1523 hrs
For me? I would just like the rules to be same for both of us. It seems, though that you think they already are. Your temporizing now infers that anyway, but as you yourself pointed out…
Exhibit A: comment 15 “On the other hand, I agree with Scott. Perhaps Scott and I are here because this blog is an intersection of Wisconsin and hypocrisy, and it’s fun to point it out.”
Exhibit B: Defending her character and attacking others for making negative assumptions. Comments 30 and 44.
Excerpt “But let’s all jump to conclusions about the undoubtably messy arrangements within her family and presume the worst. Aww, heck, let’s just be like Peter and euthanize Johnniemae, because all life is sacred, except for the poor.”Exhibit C: “But where’s the line drawn? Couldn’t two people think they were capable of supporting one kid, get married, then discover they weren’t as capable as they thought? Is a couple with six kids living a riskier life than a couple with two kids? Know any thirty-somethings who are still living with Mom and Dad? Is poor judgment damning when you’re poor but OK when you’re well-off?” This is a picture of a rosy faced couple who just couldn’t make it.
Hardly a likely scenario. I remember that you condemned my unlikely scenario of a good/smart businessman not naming names in a damning article first by misconstruing it and then ignoring it in favor of reiteration that I believe we had all conceded much earlier in the post.
I reiterate that the double standard is there(with a healthy portion of ‘dishes it out, but can’t take’ from Exh A), hopefully unconscious and not in all of your comments, but present here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 05, 2007 at 1602 hrs
Hardly a likely scenario. I remember that you condemned my unlikely scenario of a good/smart businessman not naming names in an article, damning me first by misconstruing what I wrote and then ignoring the clarification in favor of reiteration that I believe we had all conceded much earlier in the post.
Sorry, this is what I meant to say in the second to last paragragh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 05, 2007 at 1606 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 85
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:53 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).