Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And Kelly should have the right to choose his assistants based on skill and personal chemistry. Why don't we concentrate on their skills at what they do?
This reminds me of a loss, in New York City, of a talented hospital administrator who was appointed to head Woodhull Hospital where he said, "I bet I can find the "n" in the woodpile." Was there any evidence he was going to mistreat black patients?
I feel here we should concentrate on what these people do or will do in their appointed positions. Perhaps a public admonishment but not a resignation or not-running issue.
With your kind of thinking we'd be back in the days of jim crow.
How about we just make this simple to these men -- clean up your act or pay the consequences. What's do damn difficult about that?
People are supposed to, somehow, clean up their past acts? Come on now.
If the man had worked hard with mental health professionals to deal with his problem, including anger management sessions, and could have demonstrated that he had indeed stopped his abusive behavior instead of continuing it with his second wife and then at least one girlfriend after that, then public attitude about him now probably would have been different.
He is not a victim. He CHOSE to continue to be an abuser. Actions have consequences.
And Kelly should have the right to choose his assistants based on skill and personal chemistry. Why don't we concentrate on their skills at what they do?
This reminds me of a loss, in New York City, of a talented hospital administrator who was appointed to head Woodhull Hospital where he said, "I bet I can find the "n" in the woodpile." Was there any evidence he was going to mistreat black patients?
I feel here we should concentrate on what these people do or will do in their appointed positions. Perhaps a public admonishment but not a resignation or not-running issue.
Yes there is evidence. Ok, I'm an African American and you are telling me I'm supposed to be comfortable with the HEAD of a hospital using the N word?? Am I supposed to really believe he is going to give me the best care possible??
WORDS matter, they say about the person and how they deal professionally. No I would no hire an accountant who used the N word, who made racist or sexist jokes. I would NOT attend a church where the preacher was spouting hate against gays and lesbians.
Secondly, he's supposed to be a talented "administrator" so I'm going to assume he's in his 40's at least and he does not have the common sense to know using the N word is stupid to say the least? See to me that says gross incompetence or supreme arrogance. Neither of which are attractive qualities when working in a job supposedly supporting the general public.
Now supposed that was a teacher? do we allow teachers to use derogatory speech because there is no "evidence" they would hurt a black or hispanic student??
for me it's not either or. Yes I want you to have skills, lots of people have skills but if you are also an arrogant misogynistic jerk then your skills mean nothing.
let me ask, does your job not have "ethics" policies??? I would be surprised. You cannot on a job just say what you want just becasue you are talented.
We have gotten rid of PhD chemist because they are horrible to their technicians. treat them like dirt, nasty, don't get a long with others. why would we keep someone who is so toxic around? just because they do a good job?
lol, maybe that's the problem, these guys think they are so wonderful they are irreplaceable. lol, like Beyonce says "to the left, to the left"
Last edited by eliza61nyc; 02-12-2018 at 02:47 PM..
Yes there is evidence. Ok, I'm an African American and you are telling me I'm supposed to be comfortable with the HEAD of a hospital using the N word?? Am I supposed to really believe he is going to give me the best care possible??
WORDS matter, they say about the person and how they deal professionally. No I would no hire an accountant who used the N word, who made racist or sexist jokes. I would NOT attend a church where the preacher was spouting hate against gays and lesbians.
Secondly, he's supposed to be a talented "administrator" so I'm going to assume he's in his 40's at least and he does not have the common sense to know using the N word is stupid to say the least? See to me that says gross incompetence or supreme arrogance. Neither of which are attractive qualities when working in a job supposedly supporting the general public.
Now supposed that was a teacher? do we allow teachers to use derogatory speech because there is no "evidence" they would hurt a black or hispanic student??
for me it's not either or. Yes I want you to have skills, lots of people have skills but if you are also an arrogant misogynistic jerk then your skills mean nothing.
let me ask, does your job not have "ethics" policies??? I would be surprised. You cannot on a job just say what you want just becasue you are talented.
We have gotten rid of PhD chemist because they are horrible to their technicians. treat them like dirt, nasty, don't get a long with others. why would we keep someone who is so toxic around? just because they do a good job?
lol, maybe that's the problem, these guys think they are so wonderful they are irreplaceable. lol, like Beyonce says "to the left, to the left"
It's quite simple. People -- in the situation we're discussing -- men --- need to behave themselves. Yes, it really is that simple. And the other poster is taking the position that if they do their technical job, their behavior is irrelevant. Poppycock. This idea that a lot of men have that they can act like jerks and not be held responsible needs to end. Period.
OP, you are a Jewish man who has spoken a lot on this forum about issues that are relevant and important to your religion and background. So how would you like it if someone who holds a key position of power has a history of or continued to make Anti-Semitic comments?
It is not uncommon to be hired before your security clearance is adjudicated. They will issue an interim clearance while awaiting the clearance process, which can take a bit of time.
It is not uncommon to be hired before your security clearance is adjudicated. They will issue an interim clearance while awaiting the clearance process, which can take a bit of time.
It does not typically take a full year. And I would certainly think a White House investigation request would be expedited.
Quote:
The length of the security clearance process – from initial investigation to final adjudication – is highly subjective. End-to-end processing times vary by vast margins – with some secret investigations taking a matter of weeks and others, years. In 2016 processing delays are significant, due to the OPM hack and budget issues. As of today, initial Secret clearances are now taking 116 days, Top Secret clearances are taking 203 days, and Periodic Reinvestigations are taking 227 days to complete. And those are just the averages.
Porter resigned on Wednesday amid allegations of domestic abuse from two ex-wives after more than a year serving as the gatekeeper to the Oval Office, handling and vetting scores of presidential memos, nominations and other documents.
The FBI became aware of the accusations through correspondence with Porter’s former spouses, which resulted in him not receiving a full security clearance.
this certainly sounds as if OPM left the status as "Interim" expressly to avoid an outright denial.
If the allegations were false, why not insist upon a completed investigation/full adjudication instead of resigning? A White House assignment is a career making position. If one were confident in one's innocence, wouldn't it make sense to await exoneration?
Last edited by maciesmom; 02-12-2018 at 05:30 PM..
If the allegations were false, why not insist upon a completed investigation instead of resigning?
This goes along with the concern a few of these men have expressed about a lack of due process.
Okay, fine. If they really wanted due process, and aren't getting it otherwise, they could sue for slander/libel. But you notice, they don't. They don't want due process because they know what the outcome will be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
