Politics
Skolnik: Move Ward 4 forward by preparing for the best
My name is Max Skolnik and I am Erica's husband and Julian's father. As the Founder of Kid Power, Inc., I am an educator for hundreds of young people throughout the District. And, I'm a Democrat running for the Ward 4 seat on the DC Council.
Max Skolnik and family. Image from Max Skolnik.
In conversations with the residents and business owners of my Ward, it is clear that our community is in crisis. Unemployment has soared. Small businesses are struggling. Our streets are not safe. Public corruption flourishes. Education reform has stalled.
As a youth advocate, I am especially concerned that we are losing a generation of our future leaders. A few weeks ago, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson revealed that nearly 400 eighth graders, or 10% of the grade, have attempted suicide. That number reflects a deep hopelessness and despair.
Our young people are traumatized by violence so regular that it elicits collective shrugs from the public. I have heard 9-year old girls bear witness to murder and seen schoolchildren run from a hail of bullets. I have watched teenagers go off to funerals with the nonchalance of a trip to the store.
But, I have also seen hardened young people reignite their imagination and joy of play, as they rolled out cookies, spread paint on canvas, pulled carrots out of dirt. I have seen them give so much of themselves in service to the city, cleaning up its parks, wiping away the tears of its seniors, and feeding its hungry.
When we lament the truant, we neglect the artist. When we fixate on the curfew, we lose the physician. When we cast a fearful eye at the group of boys, we overlook the humanitarians, preachers, and presidents. For too long, we have expected the worst instead of preparing for the best.
So, what do we do now? I believe that the answers lie in our community, not in the flawed leadership of the DC Council. I believe that true progressive change is only possible when everyone has a seat at the table. Haven't we had enough of the backroom dealings, corporate dollars, and leadership vacuum? In a city striving for statehood, why do we settle for such limited local democracy? If elected, I will serve as an advocate for community solutions rather than a gatekeeper for the privileged.
Let's develop an economic plan for Ward 4 that includes support for small businesses, incentives for real job growth, increased vocational training opportunities, and strong community benefit agreements with the large developers seeking business in the Ward.
Let's push for a Ward 4 educational initiative with high-quality, universal afterschool programs; credit-recovery options that put our high school students on the path to graduation; a DC Dream Act that inspires the children of immigrants to plan for college; collaborative structures like Promise Neighborhoods that marshal the resources of government, business, and the non-profit and faith communities; and teacher, parent, and youth-driven school reform.
Let's promote more citizen participation in the budget and lawmaking process, and let's finally enact meaningful ethics reform that removes unregulated money from the political system.
I'm running for the young people who are yearning for hope and opportunity. I'm running for the seniors who have built this great city and deserve better from our leadership. I'm running for the hard-working families that need stable jobs, safe neighborhoods, and great schools. I'm running to renew an honest compact between our city's government and its citizens. And, I'm running for my one-year old son Julian, so that he can grow up to be a proud citizen of the District.
I ask for your input, your support, and your vote. Let's get to work and change this city.
Communicate at info@voteformax.com and 202-695-3444
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Join the conversation at our upcoming Small Business & Jobs Summit:
Peoples Congregational UCC
4704 13th Street NW
Wednesday, December 7, 6-7:30 pm
RSVP at kim@voteformax.com
Max Skolnik is a candidate for the DC Council from Ward 4. The views in this article are his and do not necessarily represent those of Greater Greater Washington. We invite all candidates running for the DC Council to share their views with our community, but reserve the right to edit posts to fit our content and format rules. If you are a candidate and would like to submit an article, please contact elections@ggwash.org.
 | Max Skolnik is a candidate for DC Council in Ward 4. He lives in Petworth with his wife Erica and their 1-year-old son Julian. After graduating from George Washington University with a Master’s Degree in Latin American Studies, he founded Kid Power, Inc. in 2002. He championed support for local schools, affordable housing, community-based development, and public safety as a 2-term ANC commissioner in Southwest Waterfront from 2004 to 2008.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
Moving forward by preparing for the best! While it may be to long for a "Yes We Can" type slogan it sounds great.
I especially like your credit recovery idea. I can't tell you the number of young black male students who drop out (or at least tune out) after the 10th grade and then can't take the steps to get back on track because of the lost time. Never thought about such a program...but great idea.
by HogWash on Nov 15, 2011 12:23 pm • link • report
by The Brightwoodian on Nov 15, 2011 12:33 pm • link • report
I kinda hope the bio is right because we definitely need someone to step up in next year's sure-to-be-recall vote in Ward 5.
by Devoe on Nov 15, 2011 12:34 pm • link • report
Honestly, this article shows the proficiency of Herman Cain: None.
Next, please.
by Jasper on Nov 15, 2011 12:48 pm • link • report
by Robin Minter on Nov 15, 2011 12:51 pm • link • report
2)In order to gain entrance to the political stage, you must define what you're running against. Here, brotha Skolink is running against what many here have often described as a shady system. I imagine it would be hard to run against an "ethically upright" and "extremely effective" political establishment.
3) This is a GGW intro piece. Why are you expecting a 10point plan to be laid out here. He's planting the idea of where he would like to see the city go. Not sure it's time for the white papers yet. It's November of 2011. We have almost a whole year before th election. At this point, a finalized plan would be way to premature.
by HogWash on Nov 15, 2011 1:12 pm • link • report
Are you implying single people can not be good leaders? My country currently has a single prime minister. I have not noticed it going to downhill there. Why is the (peaceful) family situation of a politician relevant?
Being in a mixed-raced marriage surely doesn't hurt him.
While perhaps practically true, that is a racist statement.
In order to gain entrance to the political stage, you must define what you're running against.
How about you run on actual proposals for which you seek affirmation by your community? Why run against something? Isn't running for more relevant? You vote for a candidate, not against another.
it would be hard to run against an "ethically upright" and "extremely effective" political establishment.
This shows how bad DC (and American?) politics is. You can only imagine running against corruption. The origin of running for office was that you think your ideas are better than those of the sitting politicians. It was never intended only to remove corrupt folks from office. It is a sad state of affairs that you can only imagine that.
Why are you expecting a 10point plan to be laid out here.
Yeah, stupid me. Why expect plans from politicians running for office?
He's planting the idea of where he would like to see the city go.
Really? Where is that? In the direction of plans that need to be developed? Or towards banalities of school kids not running for cover?
We have almost a whole year before th election.
Silly me. Here I am thinking that aspiring politicians need experience and substance. I guess I should excuse Herman Cain as well for not being aware of current affairs. Clearly, politicians can be steamed ready for the job in the last year before they run.
by Jasper on Nov 15, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report
The US suicide rate, for those age 10-24, is 7.32 per 100,000. (See MMWR study). The claim of one out of ten DC 8th graders strikes me as "crying wolf".
by goldfish on Nov 15, 2011 1:58 pm • link • report
I want to see the citation for this. Wow.
by Ward 1 Guy on Nov 15, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report
I didn't imply anything. I plainly stated that the most important thing in a pols life should be his/her family and most people, whether single or not, have families. The "peaceful" family situation of anyone is important because it says something about the person in office. It's why serial marriagers and spousal abusers usually don't make it.
While perhaps practically true, that is a racist statement.
Really? So that means stating that being a "mom" wouldn't hurt would actually be equally as misandrist and anti-single people as that right?
How about you run on actual proposals for which you seek affirmation by your community? Why run against something? Isn't running for more relevant? You vote for a candidate, not against another.
Did you read the article? The part about creating economic partnerships and educational initiatives. Those were proposals. And people do vote "against" candidates as much as they are for the other. That's nothing new.
You can only imagine running against corruption. The origin of running for office was that...your ideas are better.... It was never intended only to remove corrupt folks from office
Did you catch the "effective" part? Wouldn't having "better" ideas mean that your ideas will make you more effective? Not sure what the disagreement is here.
Yeah, stupid me. Why expect plans from politicians running for office?
Stupid? Well those are your words. Did you take note of my use of "here." Meaning, why do you expect a 10pt plan to go along with his official GGW announcement? You already know that GGW does a candidate Q&A. If there was a history of candidates releasing their final plans upon their announcements, I could agree with you.
Really? Where is that? In the direction of plans that need to be developed? Or towards banalities of school kids not running for cover?
Planting the idea? Hmmm, to me that means planting the seed of interest for those most amenable to his basic platform. I didn't read this as nothing more than a "hey folks, this is me and what my focus will be on...I do have a history of working with our city's youth you know" Don't see the problem here.
Silly me. Here I am thinking that aspiring politicians need experience and substance.
Experience in what? He's already an entreprenuer/former ANC Commissioner and while that doesn't magically qualify you for office, what skill set do you expect a novice politician to have?
Me thinks you are going through whatever Freely was on y'day.
by HogWash on Nov 15, 2011 2:30 pm • link • report
Isn't DC's homicide rate at a 40 year low?
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,561242,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C.asp
http://www.tbd.com/articles/2011/10/d-c-murder-rate-on-pace-to-be-lowest-since-the-1960s-67382.html
(and I can't easily find ward by ward stats, but I suspect wards 4&5 are near the middle if each ward is ranked by violent murder rate)
by Kolohe on Nov 15, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report
Not substance, ideas and integrity?
So that means stating that being a "mom" wouldn't hurt would actually be equally as misandrist and anti-single people as that right?
Again, I don't know why being a mom would make someone more or less qualified as a politician, just as having a mixed-raced marriage does not make someone better or worse.
Those were proposals.
No. Those are hollow meaningless phrases that virtually any politicians, corrupt or not, promises.
Meaning, why do you expect a 10pt plan to go along with his official GGW announcement?
Any plan would be nice. In stead what we got was a bunch of platitudes about getting rid of corruption, and protecting children. Those are promises of any politician.
and what my focus will be on
And what is that? He did not say beyond boilerplate stuff (key words: strengthening communities, protecting children, fighting corruption). That is my point.
what skill set do you expect a novice politician to have?
Skill set? I'm know sure about skills. I would want someone with substance. Someone who has a vision, a plan and explains how he is going to make that happen.
I trust that Skolnik knows about youth problems. But that is just a small part of what a CM needs to have ideas about. It only related to the real issue of education. But what about unemployment? What about economy? What about transportation? DC voting rights? City planning? Environment? Gun laws?
And by the way, you call him a novice. Are novices what Washingtonians want in their City Council?
by Jasper on Nov 15, 2011 3:34 pm • link • report
http://crimemap.dc.gov/presentation/query.asp (comparing Nov 2009 to Nov 2010 with Nov 2010 to Nov 2011)
Ward 4 violent crime is down 15% year over year. (homicide is up 17% - but the #'s went from 12 to 14.) Ward 5 total violent crime is down 2% with homicides up from 20 to 25.
(it looks like DC has done a very good job cutting the murder rate in Ward 8, it's down by half year over year, and now Ward's 5, 6, and 8 all have about 25 homicides apiece over the last year).
fwiw
by Kolohe on Nov 15, 2011 3:34 pm • link • report
by Kolohe on Nov 15, 2011 3:37 pm • link • report
I'm glad he mentions this, because DC delivers mental health treatment to kids at lower rates than other jurisdictions, and it's a critical need to ensuring child well-being.
There are obvious problems with self-reported surveys. For me, the huge limitation is DC's truancy rate of 40%+. Because kids with unmet mental health needs are up to 5 times more likely to skip school, this suggests that the real problem is worse than the data describes.
Anyway, here's the Washington Post article mentioning the stat he cites: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-schools-insider/post/middle-school-survey-sex-fear-and-suicide-attempts/2011/09/27/gIQAKwz92K_blog.html?hpid=z3
by VS on Nov 15, 2011 4:30 pm • link • report
Who said that being mixed race means you are better? I said that it couldn't hurt and you repeated that exact phrase. Now you're saying I suggested that someone was "better" when I never did. Yes, I do think that politicians like women and minorities (blacks, homosexuals, hispanic) prove to be valuable assets to the country if for no other reason than the insight they could bring to the table. You don't think there's a benefit to having a woman on the USSC? I do. And it doesn't mean that they are "better" than we men.
Skill set? I'm know sure about skills. I would want someone with substance. Someone who has a vision, a plan and explains how he is going to make that happen
I would argue that a former ANC Commissioner and current entrepreneur actually has substance. Maybe his GGW campaign announcement doesn't provide enough substance for you. But if I were a resident of [insert Ward] and after reading this, I would certainly be interested in what the guy has to say. To me, he's achieved his purpose and I don't see the need to criticize him campaign announcement. Why rain on the man's parade when he hasn't said anything remotely controversial or deserving of your criticism.
By the way, is he running in Ward 4 or 5?
by HogWash on Nov 15, 2011 4:54 pm • link • report
The only one that grates on me more is opening with how many generations your family has lived in Washington. That's not actually a qualification for public office.
And for me it was short on substance, proposals, and details and way long on feel good platitudes and long on details about things I consider irrelvant.
People campaign to different groups, but knowing that a certain style of campaigning makes some groups of voters want to roll their eyes and look for the next guy is important information. Maybe a candidate doesn't care about the group that their PR turns off, but if they do knowing how other groups read their PR materials is useful information.
by Kate W on Nov 15, 2011 6:10 pm • link • report
Max should move to another Ward so we can spread out the good politicians across the city. Why don't we have a Ward auction - whomever likes him the most (and pays for the move) can have him run in their Ward.
by Wayan on Nov 15, 2011 7:53 pm • link • report
It's a shame he's not running for Ward 5 member since that ward is suffering from a lack of real and effective leadership.
by Fritz on Nov 15, 2011 8:01 pm • link • report
Dunno what freely was doing yesterday, but as I can't remember agreeing with him/her a lot, so it would seem unlikely. My point simply is that his announcement is emtpy, without substance.
Who said that being mixed race means you are better?
You said it would not hurt him. That means that some will see his mixed-race marriage as a benefit. I just called that a racist statement. I stand by that. It is.
Yes, I do think that politicians like women and minorities (blacks, homosexuals, hispanic) prove to be valuable assets to the country if for no other reason than the insight they could bring to the table.
Sure. Ideally, politicians reflect their constituents. In Congress that shamefully is not the case. But I don't see it as an issue in the DC City Council. Well, except that the number of honest hard-working folks seems low. So, again, I do not see why the mixed-race marriage of a politicians would not be relevant.
a former ANC Commissioner and current entrepreneur actually has substance
That may be. But he ain't showing it. He's giving us banalities. And, sorry, but when a politician introduced himself with platitudes about protecting children and working with communities, my bullshit detector goes off.
Why rain on the man's parade when he hasn't said anything remotely controversial or deserving of your criticism.
I am raining on his parade exactly because he is not saying anything of substance. To me, the article above can be bluntly summarized as: "Hi, I'm running for city council, I'm new and I speak hollow phrases. Vote for me!". That is a waste of everybody's time.
By the way, is he running in Ward 4 or 5?
For the residents of both as well as the rest of the city, I hope in neither. They deserve better. DC deserves so much better.
Next!
by Jasper on Nov 16, 2011 7:02 am • link • report
What's wrong with talking about how long a person has been in DC. Maybe that doesn't mean much to this newer breed of residents but people in cities all across the country have ALWAYS appreciated rooting for the hometeam. For some reason, that is frowned upon here in DC. People have this notion that there must be something wrong/ontoward about being a long-time proud DC resident. And to me, that's really, really odd. I'm not a DC native but I certainly love to see native/long-time residents stepping up.
Personally, I don't know what there to "roll your eyes" about this announcement. I really don't. If there was a single/memorable instance of a campaign for DC City Council (or any other jurisdiction in the country) producing white papers a year ahead of the election, I would believe you to be sincere in what you write. But it just doesn't seem that way. Even presidential elections don't do what you are expecting this dude to do.
So I do question whether you dislike this announcement because you "always" expect a candidate to produce what you're asking 1-yr before the election. I think you have "created" a standard for Max that hasn't been followed by any other person seeking political office. That's not to say that there should never been a 10-pt proposal. But it does say something when we expect it w/in a candidates initial BLOG announcement. In that case, I can see why more people don't run - unreal expectations.
by HogWash on Nov 16, 2011 9:51 am • link • report
It is important for people to understand their communities and the issues. But they can learn about that by living here a while, or by getting extra active in local affairs. There are a lot of lifelong residents who pay no attention to issue and some really new ones who know almost everything about issues.
In England, for centuries, someone with an inherited title of nobility was considered inherently superior to someone without. This country explicitly rejected that idea in our founding, and has a constitutional ban on titles of nobility.
"Native Washingtonian" seems to be the equivalent here. It's dividing people into superior and inferior on no criteria other than the circumstances of their birth.
I know that most of the time people who say that aren't really trying to demean non-native Washingtonians, or are using it as shorthand for "I have some experiences that might be worth listening to because I was around during the events we're discussing." But the phrase has been tarnished by all those who use it not just to say something positive about themselves but something negative about others.
by David Alpert on Nov 16, 2011 10:21 am • link • report
Let's do this. Give us an exmaple of a substantive campaign announcement (given this time frame) that hits all the targets you mention. Since this is the internet, that should not be too hard for you to find. If you're suggesting that something "should" be done, then please give us that example where it similarly has. Gracias!
- Ok ok, you got me. I make racist statements against persons of nonmixed marriages. I shouldn't believe that there's a "benefit" to local leaders being partners in mixed-raced marriages, same sex marriages or the like (even though it clearly reflects this city). United Colors of Benneton? Nah not here.
Sure. Ideally, politicians reflect their constituents.
I'm not referring to their particular constituents. There is insight that women bring to the table beyond just being a woman. Similarly there's insight a person of mixed-raced marraiges/ethnicity brings to the table beyond being mixed race or married. Ironically, that was one of the things people found "acceptable" about Obama. But alas, maybe it's not PC to admit that.
sorry, but when a politician introduced himself with platitudes about protecting children and working with communities, my bullshit detector goes off.
I don't have a child and I'm not married. So while Max was pandering to families with kids (or kid friendly), I appreciate a politician having a background working with them, since they (not us) are the future of DC. IMO, it's a welcomed addition to a council full of former and current business execs, lawyers and the like. Also, I'm totally lost as to why someone would have a problem with a politican talking about working with the "community." Would you rather them work with big business and out of state residents? This is an odd one for sure.
I am raining on his parade exactly because he is not saying anything of substance...the article above can be bluntly summarized as: "Hi, I'm running for city council, I'm new and I speak hollow phrases. Vote for me!".
No! You're raining on his parade either because you dislike Max or me. And yes, that is a somewhat accurate summation. The good thing is that based on my inquiry above, you are going to follow-up with that example of that BLOG campaign announcement which shows us how to do it right. You asked for concrete solutions and proposals. Well it ain't here. So now your turn. Show us those examples.
Gracias x's 2! :)
by HogWash on Nov 16, 2011 10:23 am • link • report
You keep saying the election is a year away. It is not. The primary date is April 3, 2012.
http://www.dcboee.org/election_info/election_year2012/
We are five and a half months away.
by Alex B. on Nov 16, 2011 10:29 am • link • report
I got you. I've lived in DC now 11 years so I get the whole "you ain't from here" thing. But, as I have learned, at some point it's up to us mature adults to stop being offended or feel "slighted" when someone pulls their DC bonafides. As I have thought it about, I don't see that any different from what we do here when we talk about those who don't see smart growth in the way we do. We often portray ourselves as the transit "know-it-alls" and at times when that happens, we do give the impression that our opinions are more bonafide than those "not in the know." Now, this isn't something that is purposely done. We aren't doing it to talk down or make ourselves "better" than those who might not be where we are on this. But the "impression" is still there and for some, it sticks.
So what do we do? Let's take a chill pill. Relax. Stop thinking that each time someone says something they are attempting to offend us. There should be no real reason for us to be bothered by the fact that people pull their DC card. If most of you are still here within the next decade, I can't imagine that you wouldn't be sitting around talking about "I was here when Cabi kicked off, bike lanes became in vogue etc.," showing your DC bonafides. It's relevant, and while you might turn off "newer" residents, it's still true and will appeal to those been here just as long and longer.
Again, our sensitivity meter needs some serious recalibration. Let's stop giving voice to this type of stuff. US citizens have every right (if you will) to pull their US Citizen card, especially if they're having a discussion with a VISA. That might sound kinda harsh, but come on...this stuff happens all the time and we're never offended by it until...we're offended by it.
:)
by HogWash on Nov 16, 2011 10:46 am • link • report
Time frame still applies though. :)
by HogWash on Nov 16, 2011 10:49 am • link • report
DC has always known this, that's why the DC primary date was usually so late in the year and close to the general election. Supreme Court decisions have forced DC and other jurisdictions to move that date up to the spring.
by Alex B. on Nov 16, 2011 10:54 am • link • report
Even though you've clarified that the primary is in April, I am still asking Kate, Jasper or even yourself to show me an example of a candidate's blog campaign announcement hitting all the targets they suggest he should. So while the time frame of Novemeber is way off, they should still be able to find an example where a candidate has done it produced white papers in Novemeber for a local primary scheduled for August. I would imagine that they can go back to any of the previous CM election cycles and find 10pt proposals by candidates (upon their initial announcement) who fit the bill.
So the time frame still applies. :)
by HogWash on Nov 16, 2011 11:08 am • link • report
Who's running for office here? Me or Skolnik? I'd be happy to refer you to many Dutch election sites, but as you can't read Dutch, that won't behelpful. The only one I'm aware of having an English site is the (laughable) Party for Animals, who have two seats in parliament. http://www.partyfortheanimals.info/content/view/304
And here's the Party program of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party of the UK: http://www.loonyparty.com/loony-archive/2010-general-election-manifesto/
Yes, they have a more detailed program that Skolnik.
Ideally, politicians reflect their constituents.
Let me rephrase. A political body should reflect its constituents. I.e. the make up of the DC council should not be solely Asian mothers, because DC does not only consist of Asian mothers. However, as DC law even outlaws discrimination based on genetic information, we can not discriminate political candidates on such grounds. It may happen, but is in fact illegal.
Ironically, that was one of the things people found "acceptable" about Obama.
And I have been staggered by the lack of recognition of racism and sexism (Hillary) shown in the last presidential campaign.
So while Max was pandering to families with kids (or kid friendly), I appreciate a politician having a background working with them, since they (not us) are the future of DC.
I see political candidates are applicants for a job. I find it odd that while it is illegal to ask job candidates about their personal background because that is not relevant for their functioning on the job, politicians often start with that information. Somehow, they assume that this information benefits them. That is weird because it is illegal in every other interview.
You're raining on his parade either because you dislike Max or me.
I don't know either of you, so that's a presumptuous statement. Plus, David/GGW does not allow personal attacks. You may not know, but I do know that I have been censored plenty. Though that usually starts through posts of the former campaign manager of another Ward's candidate...
Well it ain't here.
Which explains why American politics is in such a bad shape. On a small local level that would not be so bad, but it's staggering to see the lack on substance of the clown race to the presidency. You would also think that for a capital city, I'd expect some professionalism. And as seen from the comments of others, I am not alone.
by Jasper on Nov 16, 2011 11:12 am • link • report
You think that people didn't talk about the sexism against Hillary? even though I don't think there was much sexism (and certainly not racism) against her, I'd like to hear your opinion on what you considered sexist/racist acts against her.
I don't think it's odd for a candidate to tout themselves as a family man/woman. I also think it's reasonable for a company not to consider a person's familial status in hiring in the same way they can't re: race, gender, class etc. But for the actual candidate? Not odd. A candidate who touts himself as a christian is far more likely to receive support than one who's an atheist. The candidate is appealing to an electorate that votes them in. An employer has a far greater responsibility in ensuring fairness in hiring. Not so for a person's individual vote as we vote based on a host of issues.
I never said you personally attacked me. I used the term "dislike" to describe my confusion why you have such a hard stance on something that (at least with your last post) is standard political practice. So yes, the question is, why hold Max to a standard that no one else has followed?
Max is no Ron Moten and I think his announcement was as professional as any other and provided enough detail to spark a positive conversation about his candidacy.
You're being a scrooge and it's not even Thanksgiving. Bahumbug(sp)!
by HogWash on Nov 16, 2011 1:46 pm • link • report
The infinite chatter about the possibility of having a black of female president. And worse, all the debates on whether that would be great or not.
Look, I understand there is some excitement about having the first not white male president. And while my country has had a female head of state since the late 1890, we haven't had a non white male prime minster.
But other than that, there is no reason to be excited. And any company handbook, and many laws simply prohibit the consideration of race, gender and even genetic make up in the consideration of a candidate for a job. If any interviewer would say "Oh, it is so exciting to have a black or female applicant", they would be in big trouble for racism or sexism.
I don't think it's odd for a candidate to tout themselves as a family man/woman.
It is. It is illegal for any other job.
I also think it's reasonable for a company not to consider a person's familial status in hiring in the same way they can't re: race, gender, class etc.
It's not only reasonable. It's the law.
A candidate who touts himself as a christian is far more likely to receive support than one who's an atheist.
Which is discrimination based on religion. Also illegal.
An employer has a far greater responsibility in ensuring fairness in hiring.
Really? You think the interests of some country are larger than those of "We the people"?
why hold Max to a standard that no one else has followed?
Because not following that standard has led to a bunch of corrupt self-serving incompetent clowns. Time to try something new and force a politician to actually have substance. You only get politicians as good as you vote for.
You're being a scrooge
I am Dutch and that is a prejudice against us :-) But that cheapskating has kept Holland pretty ok in these tough economic tides. A budget deficit of around 4% (US 9.2%), unemployment at 5.6% (US 9%) and health care for all. So, yes I am a scrooge. Is that a problem? :-P
by Jasper on Nov 16, 2011 3:10 pm • link • report
I don't particularly see how it's racist/sexist to talk about how good it would be to have a black or female president. That's an acknowledgement of diversity's progress.
In my previous post, I made the effort to draw distinctions between an employer and an individual voter. You seem to agree with me that employers have a responsibility to be fair in their hiring practices.
Where we disagree, and you seem all too willing to ignore, is the fact that voters are not bound by the same fidicuary obligation. Yes, voters do have way more leverage in determining for whom we will cast out vote. It is not the same sort of responsiblity that voters have. In fact, our responsiblity is to vote for whomever and for whatever reason. It's an individual choice that doesn't affect any other person or organization.
There are all sorts of built-in bias regarding most decisions that we make. Blacks aren't NOT moving to Fairfax/Loudon/MoCo/HowCo because we're bigoted or encourage discrimination. Whites aren't NOT moving to PGCo because they're bigoted or discourage discrimination. But, using your logic, we would.
It's an individuals choice to determine in what way they relate to a candidate best. If people prefer to vote for married politicians, or christians, or muslims, or women, there doesn't have to be any sort of implied bias there. It's a preference. Dupont Circle is place where lots of homosexual live and play. Their choice to live/play in homofriendly areas does not mean they are anti-heterosexual or anti-restofdc. They simply made a choice based on what they view as important characteristics of a n'hood in which they choose to live/play.
Because not following that standard has led to a bunch of corrupt self-serving incompetent clowns. Time to try something new and force a politician to actually have substance.
Now I simply must address this little sugar plum. You blasted Max and cautioned against the idea of running "against" something, suggesting that is the problem with america. Then w/in the same string of consonants, you suggest that what we now have are an icompetent bunch of clowns.
Soooo, Max shouldn't run against the clowns. Should he run for Jesus? OkeyDoke. You win here too.
And give me a break, not producing white papers to go along with a campaign blog announcement (my original point that you can't seem to refute) is why we have clowns in politics?
Anyhoo, Congrats on your announcement Max and I hope to hear more about your candidacy (and plan) in the future. Let not your heart not be discouraged by our silliness here. It's all in fun and as you can see, there isn't a substantive argument (more irony) against what you have presented here. Go Max Skolnik!!!!
by HogWash on Nov 16, 2011 4:22 pm • link • report
I do think people should know their communities, but I find the sentiment behind the I am an X generation Washingtonian annoying. I'm supposed to care where your great-grandparents lived?
You seem want to like your public servants. I want them to be good at the job and qualified for it. Many excellent leaders were bad spouses and bad parents. I think Bill Clinton was a good president, but a bad husband.
I have not said that Max Skolnik is not qualified for the Council. What I've said, is that his announcement here, does not appeal to me and has not demonstrated that he is qualified.
You seem to want to like your candidates and think they are nice guys. I want to know a candidate has a grasp of basic policy issues and leadership skills. I view it as hiring someone to work for me. I want professionalism. You seem to take a different view. Most people in DC seem to agree with you, but that doesn't mean I have to. Or that I'm being mean when I say an announcement is not convincing to me.
by Kate W. on Nov 17, 2011 12:45 am • link • report
People can vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they like. That does not exclude discriminatory reasons. But it is worth pointing out discriminatory reasons, especially when discrimination is outlawed. For very good reasons.
You blasted Max and cautioned against the idea of running "against" something, suggesting that is the problem with america. Then w/in the same string of consonants, you suggest that what we now have are an icompetent bunch of clowns.
My point was that just running against the clowns is not an argument. Running against the clowns because you are not a clown is a reason. But Skolnik does not make that point.
and as you can see, there isn't a substantive argument (more irony) against what you have presented here.
That would be impossible, as there is not substantive argument to discuss. All there is is: "Hi, I'm Max. I am married and have a kid. I am not like the clowns out there not. Buzzwords.".
Speaking about the marriage thing. Marion Barry is a married man. Does that make him a good husband or politician? Dunno. I guess he must be because he's in his fourth marriage. Not sure his campaign ever focuses on that. Bill Clinton never campaigned on his cheating behavior. He was a good president. Michelle Bachmann is a mother of many and stepmother of many more. Does that make her a great family person? Not if you're gay. Then you need to be treated as if you were ill. She also campaign as a devout christian(ist). Does that make her a better person? No, because she vows to protect banks against the Occupy people. Not something Jesus did. M
This whole identity politics is a distraction from the issues. Issues that are not being solved.
by Jasper on Nov 17, 2011 10:47 am • link • report
And I would suggest to you that those prefer candidates NOT talk about their family are narrow-minded themselves. So On any given day, I'll take my narrow set of people who don't have a problem with a candidate talking about their family vs. your crew who take offense to it
I am an X generation Washingtonian annoying. I'm supposed to care where your great-grandparents lived?
Therein lies the problem. You "should" care. Why? Because in the reverse, you are plainly and clearly attempting to diminish those with established roots here. So how much worse is it for someone to claim their "DC bonafides" and you take offense, than you "not caring" or being "annoyed" by someone who does. Why is it ok for you to feel or state that you hate to hear about a Washingtonians time in office but Washingtonians shouldn't brag about the fact that they are who they are. This is what I mentioned to DAl on yesterday. We're only offended when we're offended and it tends not to matter if we are offending someone else because (obviously) that's never our intent.
Personally, I think the ire against those who pull the DC card is veru much related to the idea of what we've debated as the "old guard" DC. That is, many newer residents have a negative impression of "old guard" DC. So hearing similar statements from those who've been here a while grates their nerves because they are likely saying, "oh please, you being from DC hasn't helped too much because it's still a circus run my too many clowns."
I have no doubts that if a carpetbagger moved to DC in 2013 and began a mayoral run, the OVERWHELMING majority of DC residents would have a series of "WTF" moments. And guess what? Even though the candidate wouldn't stand a chance at winning, his local opponent would litter the airwaves touting his DCbonafides. Take this one, imagine if a carpetbagger moved to DC and decided to make a run for Tommy Wells' seat. Do you not think that Tommy (as he should) would tout his DCnafides? And be honest, you wouldn't care?
Ya'll need to lighten up. Like really, really lighten up. I'm from the south and although I haven't lived there for yeaaaars, I am the first to pull my "card" when having discussions with people who have either never lived there or recently transplated. But that happens everywhere in world. Maybe it's time for all of us to rethink what may be offensive to someone else and act upon it, rather than only complaining when we're offended. The sword cuts both ways - intentional or not.
And yes, I (like the majority of people in the entire world) want to like my public servants. I don't have a problem with that. I would not vote for a serial cheater in the same way I wouldn't for a child molester.
BTW, I've yet to find a manager who hired someone they just didn't personally like. Never.
by HogWash on Nov 17, 2011 11:50 am • link • report
Now that I think about it, I can't even honestly state that identity politics even destracted you. You destracted yourself by expecting Max to be/do something that even you can't find by example. Our back and forth didn't distract me from talking about how I liked what he said and it apparently didn't do that for you either. You read the issues and didn't think they were susbstantive. So what's the real source of your distraction?
I'll say this much, some of you are a very interesting bunch.
1)You don't like to hear about a persons DCfides.
2)You don't like to hear about a persons family.
IMO, something is seriously wrong with that. Like in a real mean and nasty way.
by HogWash on Nov 17, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report
The same can be said for putting the number of generations your family has lived in DC in your opening statement. Your roots are not suffient qualifications for getting a job. Are you really saying that voters should be thinking "Wow, candidate X is from a 3 generation DC family, but candidate y is from a 5 generation DC family. Clearly, candidate y is the way to go." That seems to be the argument you were making.
BTW, in the rest of the world, someone is a carpetbagger if they don't have a connection and understanding of the community. They are not required to have a multi-generation connection to the community to not be a carpetbagger. You don't seem to get that nuance.
You also can't seem to distinguish between "stuff I use to determine if someone is qualified to do a job" and "stuff I want to know about people I have a personal relationship with."
I care about my friends and my neighbors families and generally what makes them tick. I try to celebrate their joys and support them in their sorrows. I'm happy for people I work with to share that kind of information to the extent they want to, but I have no right to know about their private lives. I believe that people who run for public office are also entitled to some degree of a private life.
I never said that I don't care about people's family or background. What I've said is that I find that information of extremely limited importance in deciding if they are qualified public servants. It's also not the information that I want first, in a short form piece.
Where I work, deciding to hirer someone or promote someone because I *like* him or her is not considered an appropriate business practice. There are fairly elaborate procedures to avoid that. I think that merit meaning ability to do the job, and ability to get along with your coworkers are the only things that should matter. Grown-ups can get along with people they don't like. Just because some people hire people because they like them, doesn't make it the right thing to do.
There are no requirements that determine how someone decides to vote. You seem to view it more like picking a friend. I view it like selecting an employee. I have friends that I wouldn't want to work with. I work with people who are good at their jobs, but don't feel the need to see outside of work.
I've been very careful to try and keep this from being personal. You however, seem to have no problem calling me mean and nasty because I don't value the same things you do in a public servant. So I'm done on this topic.
by Kate W on Nov 17, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report
But who said time in DC was sufficient? Max surely didn’t and I have never argued otherwise. This is where that sensitivity meter needs serious recalibration. If there are (and I'm sure there are lots) people who like to hear a candidate tout his DCfides, as a fellow resident, why on earth would that bother you. It’s who he is. IMO, it seems as if you’re saying, “when people say that, what they really mean is that they think there time here makes them “better” than the rest of us. And the problem with that logic is that you end up making an assumption about someone else’s motivations from an emotional place not on facts. You “feel” that a person is implying xyz.
I don’t mind (and much prefer) you ask me my views than assuming. So it shouldn’t seem as if I’m implying that voters “should” do anything because I never said such. However, I did talk about what they “do.” And voters “do” consider a candidates personal live when deciding for whom to cast their vote. Not that they should..but that they do.
By all accounts, Sandusky seemed great as his job. You don’t think people would consider his “personal life” if he decided to run? Maybe they shouldn’t but again...they will.
No, I’m not confused by what we use to gauge a politician’s fitness for office vs. gauging for personal relationship. I have never been one who really cares about someone’s personal life..friend or not. But, I would not vote for Sandusky. In this case, It’s odd you think people
shouldn’twouldn't consider his penchant for showering with 10-yr old boys.What I've said is that I find that information of extremely limited importance in deciding if they are qualified public servants
I’m really glad you said this. You (Kate W) find it of little importance and there’s nothing wrong with that. The problem is that you think you are “right” to criticize those who do when no one is criticizing you for how you arrive at your decision. Again, this takes us back to the “only offended where we’re offended thing.” You likely don’t even think you are being offensive by suggesting how “wrong” it is to vote (in part) based on persons family life. Yet, there isn’t a valid reason to criticize you on that because you don’t consider it. Its not important to you and that’s ok. But it’s not your place nor is it fair to decide that for someone else .
I’ve never worked at a place where someone said, “I thought his entire demeanor during the interview was off-putting, but he’s smart so I’ll hire him anyway and pray he gets along with our tightly-knitted staff.”
Come on Kate, wassup with the sensimeter? Technically, I wrote that in response to Jasper. So I never personally said you were mean and nasty. However, I do think there is something mean and nasty about your feelings toward 1(Those who put family first in an announcement. 2)Those who tout their DCfides. It wasn't intended as a personal attack.
by HogWash on Nov 17, 2011 2:28 pm • link • report
To be honest, I have heard absolutely nothing about Sandusky's personal life. I would not know whether he has a wife and kids. What you are referring to is his alleged criminal behavior. Crimes (allegedly) committed in his workplace. Those are relevant. His marital state does not change the crimes he committed (or not).
by Jasper on Nov 17, 2011 4:08 pm • link • report
I don't consider someone's personal life as that which only deals with their family.
You do agree with me that most people wouldn't even entertain the thought of voting for a person similarly accused right? I mean he did admit to enjoying showering with 10yr olds.
by HogWash on Nov 17, 2011 5:52 pm • link • report
No. It has nothing to do with his personal life. He did it (allegedly) in the Penn State showers, in the role of his Penn State job, with kids in some Penn State program.
And to digress. I don't think his wife was very aware of this. Neither would he put it on the first line of his political or sports resume.
Nor is anything known about him abusing his own children. That would be personal. But those are the things even politicians put in their campaign fodder. Bill Clinton never campaigned on his cheating. Marion Barry never touts that he is in his fourth marriage. Newt Gingrich does not proudly display his previous marriages that he ended cheating. David Vitter does not list his prostitution visits in his personal activities. Arnold Schwarzenegger never told anyone about his extramarital child. In fact, his official gubernatorial website barely even managed his film carreer!
All these people portray themselves as fantastic family people. So, even when irrelevant, you can't trust this info. Nobody comes out about their private problems. Why? Because it's private, personal and irrelevant. In that sense, Bill Clinton was the worst sinner, because he soiled the oval office. And that is disgusting.
So, and now I am going on vacation. See Read you after Thanksgiving.
by Jasper on Nov 17, 2011 9:44 pm • link • report
SeeRead you after Thanksgiving.by Jasper on Nov 17, 2011 9:44 pm • link • report
Add a Comment