Using Taxpayers’ Resources to Protest Taxpayers
A reader was browsing the internet and found this interesting tidbit. Here’s the AFSCME Council 24’s website. On it, they are promoting their counter-rally to the AFP rally from yesterday. If you scroll down, you see the contact list. Here’s a screen shot for you.
Anything jump out at you? How about the next-to-last contact email?
Why is Patti Olbert using her taxpayer-funded email account to organize political events? I could have sworn that there were some rules against that.
It seems like a case for the Most Worshipful Grand Master J.B. Van Hollen, who used his government email to conduct Masonic business.
Posted by xoff on October 18, 2007 at 1812 hrs
We should all be so sick of underwriting these crybabies and their childish antics. To think that many of them consider themselves “professionals”.
Professionals certainly don’t conduct themselves in the manner many of you witnessed yesterday. We pay their salaries, but these people have no respect for us. And after yesterday, no personal dignity, either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 1813 hrs
xoff, there’s absolutely nothing you can do, print, or say that in these circumstances will explain away the shamefulness of the way those people conducted themselves yesterday… this collective “thumbing of noses” against the taxpayers of this state, by those who claim to be our “civil servants”.
This will not be soon forgotten. You’d do best to just leave it alone and move on.
I long for the day that a rally for some lefty cause du jour can be suppressed the way those crybabies attempted yesterday, so we can throw this back in your faces and laugh our asses off. Your side will silence us no more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 1818 hrs
Relevant policies could include this:
Commercial, Political and Non-University Activities -
Persons may not use University IT resources to sell or solicit sales for any goods, services or contributions unless such use conforms to UW-Madison rules and regulations governing the use of University resources. University employees may not use these resources to support the nomination of any person for political office or to influence a vote in any election or referendum. No one may use University IT resources to represent the interests of any non-University group or organization unless authorized by an appropriate University department.De Minimis Usage - In the interest of making the use of IT resources a natural part of the day-to-day learning and work of all members of the University community, incidental personal use is tolerated. However, one should use non-University sources of e-mail, Internet access, and other IT services for activities of an extensive nature that are not related to University purposes.
And I imagine you could search Wis. Stat. Chapter 11 and find a few clauses. On the other hand, I imagine you’ll need to ask yourself if she indeed was conducting any activity of an extensive nature, or if she was lobbying for particular legislation, or for a particular candidate.
I mean, it’s not like she was found guilty of violating election rules like AFP rally speaker Mark Block, was she?
Posted by John Foust on October 18, 2007 at 1818 hrs
Sure, something else jumps out at me. The mailto: link on the web is incorrect. It says “uw.super.edu” which is incorrect, while the visible text says “uwsuper.edu” which is correct. So the average Joe clicking on the link wouldn’t have reached her that way.
Posted by John Foust on October 18, 2007 at 1826 hrs
Isn’t that just like xoff. When you side is filthy simply point out that there’s some dirt on the other side.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 1830 hrs
Interesting, Bruce, how my comment about the use of email was twisted into a blanket defense of everyone’s conduct at the rally. Can you say straw man?
Posted by xoff on October 18, 2007 at 1832 hrs
Bruce, I daresay you are so angry you have become irrational. You are advocating that the right wing use the same tactics that you found so shameful and reprehensible when used by the left.
To quote: I long for the day that a rally for some lefty cause du jour can be suppressed the way those crybabies attempted yesterday…
Posted by xoff on October 18, 2007 at 1842 hrs
I await Xoff’s rebuke of Hillary Clinton’s hiring of Sandy Berger…
Posted by Fred on October 18, 2007 at 1906 hrs
No one is ever going to accuse xoff of deep-thinking.
His arguments/points amount to nothing more than gotcha, have little to add to the substance of a policy debate, and come across as rather sophomoric.
The sun is setting on the man who wrote about the man from Clear Lake.
How’s retirement?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 1934 hrs
Xoff knows that there are significant differences between JB’s use of his state account for fraternal purposes and a UW employee using theirs to stir up union thuggery against taxpayers.
However, xoff’s modus operandi doesn’t doesn’t allow him to make that distinction. It would require a certain level of intellectual honesty - something he doesn’t list on his resume.
Unlike the majority of liberal bloggers in Wisconsin who actually engage in honest debate (although many may ultimately disagree on policy) with those they disagree with, xoff (and his ilk like Foust) would rather tyr to quip and dismiss without actually understanding the fundamental differences between men and their belief structures.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 1941 hrs
Illum - All hail Eris. Tubal-cain! Unlike some, I provided useful info and quotes from UW policy. Not being in the UW, I don’t know how finely they interpret those rules. Maybe someone else can chime in.
On one hand, I’d definitely agree they don’t want people using their UW email address for political purposes. On the other, we have been presented with no evidence so far that Olbert was engaging in anything a reasonable person would call “extensive” as opposed to the de minimus allowance I showed.
Real debate and discussion? Dive in. Maybe we can even talk about the private sector. Does your company have a policy about non-essential Internet use? Anyone brave and honest enough to admit they’re breaking the rules?
I also showed that the mailto: link on the page Owen’s “Reader” (probably not the same as the potentially LGBT-friendly Reader) was what I’d call “not working”, which may have prevented much communication.
Please, google ‘xoff foust’ and tell me if you think Xoff thinks highly of me, if he even thinks of me at all.
Posted by John Foust on October 18, 2007 at 2017 hrs
Actually, if Patti Olbert is part of the union as an officer or other ranking member, like steward, the use of the IT system is perfectly allowable. Especially as it seemed to be for informational purposes. That’s called freedom. The other side would be why unions were created in the first place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 2044 hrs
That’s interesting. However, my point wasn’t what kind of relationship you have with xoff. The point was, I’ve seen your quips and in many cases they are neither engaging or substantive.
“What, no one called anyone a hoor? And someone made Boots & Kittens (TM) buttons?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 2048 hrs
Mr./Mrs. Anonymous Illuminati, do you think it’s appropriate to call a Republican legislator a “whore” as Owen did? After the budget stalemate ends, do you think we should call all the pledge-breaking Republicans “whores” too? What about the ones who didn’t pledge?
Owen didn’t say what was on the B+S button he saw at the rally, so we do not know if it said “Boots and Kittens.” Meow!
As for my posts, I hope that many of them are like this one: where I provided some actual even-handed and relevant facts before anyone else. Well - Xoff did point out an interesting and relevant fact, too.
Posted by John Foust on October 18, 2007 at 2105 hrs
JF,
It did NOT say “Boots and Kittens.” I would have remembered that because it would have been more relevant and funny. It was something more vulgar, so don’t flatter yourself.
As for your comments, I agree with most of the other people who have decided to waste their time on you. Your comments are usually quite verbose, but filled with such pompous ignorance as to be ignored. But thank you for adding to our traffic.
As for the “whore” comment. I wrote it and I meant it. It appears to me that Davis traded his vote for (a) some “moderate” votes or (b) a soybean crusher. Either way, I think he whored himself out on that vote. I understand the political considerations involved, but I really don’t give a shit. My interest is in good public policy for my state and a BILLION dollar tax increase is not good public policy in the 8th highest taxed state in the nation.
Thanks for playing. See you around.
Posted by Owen on October 18, 2007 at 2114 hrs
Enough about the rally, no? Do you have any evidence that this UW employee overstepped her bounds, or is the entertainment all about the implication that she did?
Posted by John Foust on October 18, 2007 at 2123 hrs
Within established legal parameters, Owen enjoys every right to call anyone anything he so chooses. That latitude is even wider for elected officials.
It is for Owen’s readers - as individuals - to determine their level of discontent with his judgement of Davis.
Davis will ultimately get his 30 pieces of silver,,,
As for any potential pledgebreakers? If Owen wants to call them whores, prostitutes, Judas’, etc., it matters little. They are the ones who ultimately have to reconcile promises made to their constituents.
If they sell out for a specific price - like Davis has - Owen calling them a whore is the least of their worries.
If Davis being referred to as a whore is what you take away from Owen’s post on the matter, then I fear you’ve missed the point of it.
And my earlier point is made.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 2124 hrs
So what do we call the ones who give it away for free? Enthusiasts? Or bloggers?
Maybe I don’t get out much, but I can’t remember the last time I heard a politician call another politician a “whore.”
Posted by John Foust on October 18, 2007 at 2129 hrs
Do they call each other whores? Not in so blunt terms…
A sort of honor amongst thieves if you will.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 2144 hrs
xoff, have another Chardonnay, baby. Something’s not quite right upstairs tonight. Tomorrow’s another day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2007 at 2207 hrs
So Bruce, how exactly would you suppress a rally? “Your side will silence us no more.”
Posted by John Foust on October 18, 2007 at 2227 hrs
General observation - both the rally and counter-rally were no doubt much fun for participants, and a good example of getting involved, but the “results” had much more to do with self-satisfaction for the participants than affecting policy. You want people who aren’t already actively advocating one side or the other to get involved? Then get at least 10,000 people to show up for your rally or counter-rally. Anything less is a temporary blip on the nightly news between the weather and Brett Favre love-fest. That’s not a knock on organizers of either rally - more power to ya for trying - but rallies with a few hundred or even a few thousand folks have become kind of old news - here today, forgotten tomorrow.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2007 at 0958 hrs
“xoff, there’s absolutely nothing you can do, print, or say that in these circumstances will explain away the shamefulness of the way those people conducted themselves yesterday… this collective “thumbing of noses” against the taxpayers of this state, by those who claim to be our “civil servants”.”
Bruce, last time I checked, those very same civil servants who exercised their rights to assemble and to free speech were taxpayers of this state, just like everyone else. You seem to want to lump them together as if they’re somehow immune from paying taxes, as if that’s the reason they support the Governor’s budget. The fact is, civil servants pay taxes just like you folks on the right; the only difference is civil servants understand the absolutely vital role they play in keeping this state going on a day to day basis, and they take pride in knowing that the work they do benefits folks in this state each and every day.
Posted by Zachary on October 19, 2007 at 1832 hrs
Owen said,
“As for the “whore” comment. I wrote it and I mean it. It appears to me that Davis traded his vote for (a) some “moderate” votes or (b) a soybean crusher. Either way, I think he whored himself out on that vote.”
LOL.
A moderate in what is by all accounts a moderate district voting on a moderate budget proposal is whore. But, no doubt in Owen’s universe a good conservative voting on some conservative piece of legislation is “standing up for his principles”, never pandering to a base to pick up donations and support to keep his job.
I get it: when they do it, it’s “pandering” or “whoring out”; but when we do it it’s “standing up for principle”.
“My interest is in good public policy for my state and a BILLION dollar tax increase is not good public policy for the 8th highest taxed state in the nation.”
While I agree with you on the merits of a billion dollar tax increase, it’s entirely possible that the good Mr. Davis viewed the bill as good public policy.
But in today’s political culture, we don’t debate the merits of public policy. We label people if they disagree with us. Of course when they do the same, we complain about the low level they’ve gone to.
I have to ask, do political hacks actually admit the hypocrisy they’re forced to resort to, or is it actually cognitive dissonance?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2007 at 1908 hrs
Total Entries: 20002
Total Comments: 134060
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 06:18 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:48 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).