We bitch and moan about V. Gray, K. Brown, M. Barry, H. Thomas...

[Anonymous]

and rightfully so.

But, not one peep about the recent Jack Evans dust-up. Really? Things that make you say, hmm?

[jsteele]

I have peeped about him in some of my blog articles.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I have peeped about him in some of my blog articles.

Re. Jack's recent issue? And, I am referring to posts on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Well this is DCUM and OP you know darn well why Jack gets a pass and the others do not. Post-racial my arse.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I have peeped about him in some of my blog articles.

Re. Jack's recent issue? And, I am referring to posts on this forum.

Are you referring to the use of his constituent services fund to purchase tickets? If so, no. I haven't written a blog article since that came out.

But, if you want to discuss Jack Evans' ethical issues on DCUM, a good approach might be to start a thread about Jack Evans' ethical issues rather than a thread about why nobody is discussing Jack Evans' ethical issues.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I have peeped about him in some of my blog articles.

Re. Jack's recent issue? And, I am referring to posts on this forum.

Are you referring to the use of his constituent services fund to purchase tickets? If so, no. I haven't written a blog article since that came out.

But, if you want to discuss Jack Evans' ethical issues on DCUM, a good approach might be to start a thread about Jack Evans' ethical issues rather than a thread about why nobody is discussing Jack Evans' ethical issues.

I am quite comfortable with my current approach, Jeff. Thanks.

I am referring to the constituent services fund issue that Jack's facing. I really wasn't looking to you, specifically, for comments on the issue. Just interested in the views of fellow forum users.

[Anonymous]

I am quite comfortable with my current approach, Jeff. Thanks.

I am referring to the constituent services fund issue that Jack's facing. I really wasn't looking to you, specifically, for comments on the issue. Just interested in the views of fellow forum users.

Check your original post, OP. You never asked any questions about that issue - you never even identified or mentioned it. All you talk about is what you perceive to be a double standard.

I think Jeff's point is that if you'd like to discuss the issue, go ahead and do it, rather than complain that no one is discussing an issue that you yourself never discuss.

And . . . Arsenio Hall references? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am quite comfortable with my current approach, Jeff. Thanks.

I am referring to the constituent services fund issue that Jack's facing. I really wasn't looking to you, specifically, for comments on the issue. Just interested in the views of fellow forum users.

Check your original post, OP. You never asked any questions about that issue - you never even identified or mentioned it. All you talk about is what you perceive to be a double standard.

I think Jeff's point is that if you'd like to discuss the issue, go ahead and do it, rather than complain that no one is discussing an issue that you yourself never discuss.

And . . . Arsenio Hall references? Really?

My point (not "complaint") is to question whether there is a double standard. You obviously got it. You will also note that I never asked about Jack's specific issue -- becasue that isn't the basis of my post.

I don't have an inkling to your Arsenio Hall reference. Please explain?

[Anonymous]

No, there isn't a double standard.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
My point (not "complaint") is to question whether there is a double standard. You obviously got it. You will also note that I never asked about Jack's specific issue -- becasue that isn't the basis of my post.

I realize that you don't care about my opinions but you are totally going about this in the wrong manner and provoking only counter-productive responses.

The absence of complaints does not automatically mean there is no concern about something. Frankly, since you didn't specify the issue that we were supposed to be discussing, I was confused about which issue you meant. It's possible that many posters here are not even aware of the details of Evans' constituent fund.

Moreover, Gray has been criticized for illegal hiring practices, particularly S. Brown. Kwame Brown has been criticized for spending tax-payers' money on two luxury SUVs. Barry has been arrested, failed to pay his taxes, used tax-payer money to pay his girlfriend and taken some of that money from her to use for his own purposes. Thomas stole public money to buy a luxury SUV and go to Vegas. Evans' used private money donated to his constituent services fund to buy sports tickets. That is not comparable in any sense to the other cases. It most resembles the controversy involving Yvette Alexander who you didn't mention and who also doesn't get discussed her very often.

So, I do not think you apparent point that there is a double standard holds much water. That it separate from the fact that I believe Evans to be ethically compromised. I believe his ethics issues go far beyond the manner in which he spent the privately-donated money in his constituent services account.

[Anonymous]

Maybe we should change the party labels...instead of "R" and "D" maybe "E" and "U": ethical and unethical. Still seem like a problem that no one cares about b/c they will all be elected again! Great system!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My point (not "complaint") is to question whether there is a double standard. You obviously got it. You will also note that I never asked about Jack's specific issue -- becasue that isn't the basis of my post.

I realize that you don't care about my opinions but you are totally going about this in the wrong manner and provoking only counter-productive responses.

The absence of complaints does not automatically mean there is no concern about something. Frankly, since you didn't specify the issue that we were supposed to be discussing, I was confused about which issue you meant. It's possible that many posters here are not even aware of the details of Evans' constituent fund.

Moreover, Gray has been criticized for illegal hiring practices, particularly S. Brown. Kwame Brown has been criticized for spending tax-payers' money on two luxury SUVs. Barry has been arrested, failed to pay his taxes, used tax-payer money to pay his girlfriend and taken some of that money from her to use for his own purposes. Thomas stole public money to buy a luxury SUV and go to Vegas. Evans' used private money donated to his constituent services fund to buy sports tickets. That is not comparable in any sense to the other cases. It most resembles the controversy involving Yvette Alexander who you didn't mention and who also doesn't get discussed her very often.

So, I do not think you apparent point that there is a double standard holds much water. That it separate from the fact that I believe Evans to be ethically compromised. I believe his ethics issues go far beyond the manner in which he spent the privately-donated money in his constituent services account.

I visit the forum because I am interested in your, and others, opinions. And I posted my question (about double standards) in the manner I wished. As I noted in my original post, I think Gray and others deserve the public raking they've received. I still find it interesting that no words were mentioned about Evans' recent issue -- as opposed to the press (and DCUM posts) others on the council receive almost instantly. Again, my question is not about the acts -- impropriety is what it is, no matter the extent. You don't need to recount those for me or for the readers, I suppose. Rather, I have been focused on the double standard issue. Which, to me, seems to be the case.

[takoma]

I'm another white who has does not distinguish among CMs by race. I am more bothered by Evans voting on issues affecting his legal clients than I am by his ticket-buying, although I dislike the general use of "constituent services" as a code name for slush funds.

Anyway, to reiterate, I don't think there is a racial double standard here. Not every issue worth discussing catches our eyes. Picking one and ascribing sinister reasons for its absence is not a good idea.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Again, my question is not about the acts -- impropriety is what it is, no matter the extent. You don't need to recount those for me or for the readers, I suppose. Rather, I have been focused on the double standard issue. Which, to me, seems to be the case.

Can you please offer more evidence of a double standard then the fact that Evans' use of his constituent fund has not been discussed? That seems like a very flimsy basis for your argument. You could be correct that people have ignored Evans' problems because there is a double standard. But, there could also be alternative explanations. For instance, I have suggested that you are not comparing apples to apples. The ethical transgressions are not equal. Rather, you have asked why an orange is not being discussed in the same manner as several apples. Obviously, treating oranges (maybe a bad choice of fruit in this case) different than apples is not a double standard. Again, the most similar situation is Alexander's. How much has that been discussed here?

[Anonymous]

I visit the forum because I am interested in your, and others, opinions. And I posted my question (about double standards) in the manner I wished. As I noted in my original post, I think Gray and others deserve the public raking they've received. I still find it interesting that no words were mentioned about Evans' recent issue -- as opposed to the press (and DCUM posts) others on the council receive almost instantly. Again, my question is not about the acts -- impropriety is what it is, no matter the extent. You don't need to recount those for me or for the readers, I suppose. Rather, I have been focused on the double standard issue. Which, to me, seems to be the case.

But you can't ignore the predicate acts. Double standards involve unequal reactions or treatment as to roughly equivalent offenses. You're assuming that people view the ethical "failings" here as equal or even comparable. That's not the case. While I think Evans' actions are kinda silly, they're not illegal, or even unethical, as it appears that he didn't use taxpayer funds. That's a far different situation than some of the things other council members have done. I expect that if Evans had stolen money to take his family on vacation, for example, the outcry would have been just as loud as the one against Thomas.

In other words, you appear to be pointing out that people didn't have the same strong reaction to Evans's legal, apparently ethical use of constituent service funds as they did to Thomas's embezzlement, Gray's manipulation of the electoral process and improper hiring practices, and Barry's tax evasion and use of tax money to subsidize one of his girlfriends. To which I reply - yep.