On Foxworth & O'Reilly
Just because this is the "anti-Reinhard" blog doesn't mean I need to necessarily disagree with ol' Dave on each point for every column. Yes, I agree that Chief Derrick Foxworth should resign over the scandal involving salacious emails sent to a police bureau employee under his command that he carried an affair with. Being said, I don't agree with the high-minded morally self-righteousness inherent in Dave's column. I mean, the "facts" (as so far the events being described in the local Portland media can only be described as alleged) sound incredibly similar to the civil case brought against Bill O'Reilly in 2004. (Remember the "falafel" ol' Bill wanted to use to scrub down his producer in a shower?) Dave never wrote a column describing O'Reilly's actions as being "abusive" and "degrading" and demand that O'Reilly step down from his spot on FOX News's "O'Reilly Factor."
So, Dave feels some actions are inappropriate for some, but is silent when those actions are committed by someone who Dave shares a similar ideological viewpoint (and who, I imagine, Dave holds in high esteem). I would call that a text-book example of a 'double standard.' Some may argue that, as Dave points out, Foxworth is a public employee, hired by the city of Portland to oversee it's police department. He has a position of power, and if these allegations turn out to be correct, abused this power for the short-term gain of an illicit affair. Considering, again if these allegations are true, that Chief Foxworth could be in a position to make judgements in a domestic violence situation, his judgement could no longer be trusted. I agree with Dave on these issues, and I feel that any man with integrity, which I believe Chief Foxworth has regardless of this scandal, should step aside. Quietly.
But because of these issues- public employee, position of power, inability to trust to do the job- why do I make the comparison between Foxworth and O'Reilly? I mean, wouldn't O'Reilly's producer be in a position of power over O'Reilly?
The same standards should be expected from all in the public eye. Some may argue that Foxworth's position is more important than O'Reilly's, and thus demands different expectations. Some would argue (as I'm sure Bill himself would) that he carries just as equal position in society as a chief of police. He probably would view himelf as a member of the "fourth branch of government"- the media- and as such is providing a service to the public by demanding accountability and providing oversight in the public forum of the other three government branches. Considering the colossal breakdown of the duty that's supposed to be carried out by the national media, is it of no surprise that O'Reilly, who has made a career of being a bullying mis-informer, was 'outed' as a perverse degenerate who abused and degraded a female employee? Even an employee that was supposed to be his superior?
Simply put, for Dave to speak poorly of Foxworth- in effect trying him in public by means of his column- while not doing so for Bill O'Reilly smacks of duplicitousness.
Luckily for Dave this scandal erupted this past week. Otherwise, he might have to waste space in the Daily O writing columns defending the Homeland Security official caught online sending salicious and pornographic emails to an undercover cop posing as a 14-year old girl. Or, even worse, Dave might have to defend President Bush, who was outed this past week by former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby as the "Leaker-in-Chief".
Thankfully, the ridiculous and flat-out stupid actions taken by our police chief provided ol' Dave with the ability to ignore matters of consequence. Foxworth's scandal carries all the markings of a small-town scandal it's almost a cliche: misuse of public equipment, sexually provacative emails, a waffling and seemingly ineffective mayor, etc. A small-town scandal, perfect for a small-town hack of an opinion columnist....
So, Dave feels some actions are inappropriate for some, but is silent when those actions are committed by someone who Dave shares a similar ideological viewpoint (and who, I imagine, Dave holds in high esteem). I would call that a text-book example of a 'double standard.' Some may argue that, as Dave points out, Foxworth is a public employee, hired by the city of Portland to oversee it's police department. He has a position of power, and if these allegations turn out to be correct, abused this power for the short-term gain of an illicit affair. Considering, again if these allegations are true, that Chief Foxworth could be in a position to make judgements in a domestic violence situation, his judgement could no longer be trusted. I agree with Dave on these issues, and I feel that any man with integrity, which I believe Chief Foxworth has regardless of this scandal, should step aside. Quietly.
But because of these issues- public employee, position of power, inability to trust to do the job- why do I make the comparison between Foxworth and O'Reilly? I mean, wouldn't O'Reilly's producer be in a position of power over O'Reilly?
The same standards should be expected from all in the public eye. Some may argue that Foxworth's position is more important than O'Reilly's, and thus demands different expectations. Some would argue (as I'm sure Bill himself would) that he carries just as equal position in society as a chief of police. He probably would view himelf as a member of the "fourth branch of government"- the media- and as such is providing a service to the public by demanding accountability and providing oversight in the public forum of the other three government branches. Considering the colossal breakdown of the duty that's supposed to be carried out by the national media, is it of no surprise that O'Reilly, who has made a career of being a bullying mis-informer, was 'outed' as a perverse degenerate who abused and degraded a female employee? Even an employee that was supposed to be his superior?
Simply put, for Dave to speak poorly of Foxworth- in effect trying him in public by means of his column- while not doing so for Bill O'Reilly smacks of duplicitousness.
Luckily for Dave this scandal erupted this past week. Otherwise, he might have to waste space in the Daily O writing columns defending the Homeland Security official caught online sending salicious and pornographic emails to an undercover cop posing as a 14-year old girl. Or, even worse, Dave might have to defend President Bush, who was outed this past week by former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby as the "Leaker-in-Chief".
Thankfully, the ridiculous and flat-out stupid actions taken by our police chief provided ol' Dave with the ability to ignore matters of consequence. Foxworth's scandal carries all the markings of a small-town scandal it's almost a cliche: misuse of public equipment, sexually provacative emails, a waffling and seemingly ineffective mayor, etc. A small-town scandal, perfect for a small-town hack of an opinion columnist....
posted by true_slicky at 3:14 PM
8 Comments:
Seemed like the Ellen Goodman column condemning rightwing blog false propaganda and the liars who spread it, once The O op-ed editor's headline writer got hold of it, came out aimed to discredit and dismiss ALL blogs, rightwing liars indistinguished from progressive discussions. 'Yeah, and bloggers are all involved and wrapped up in all this porno crime on the internet, we oughta just turn off the internet.'
Distorting the headline over Goodman sounds like Down With Reinhard, and all the other truth standers, is getting to them.
um, yes. this comment made my head hurt, but thank you nonetheless. I infer that you're calling Down WIth Reinhard a "truth stander" and that's always a good thing....
the Ellen Goodman column was a great read. it's always nice to hear about the sorry state of conservative blogs, and knowing the fact that they had to eat a big piece of "shut the f*ck up pie" will make me sleep better tonight....
So you and Reinhard agree that Foxworth is no longer reliable in domestic abuse cases -- because he likes to push his girlfriend up agains the wall while "kissing her passionately"? Have you ever seen an R-rated movie?
you're being selective in which portions of Foxworth's emails to make your nonsensical "point." what about him writing about "dominating submisssive women" or detailing his "naked choclate body?"
the emails show a collection of lurid fantasies that create a stew in the recesses of his mind. though you could argue that everyone might have these fantasies, we wouldn't know unless someone voiced these thoughts or, say, wrote them down in emails and sent them to the party that's the target of such lurid obsession.
the thing is, I'm pretty consistent in where I stand on this subject. I feel that individuals who share such fantasies in a work-place setting should step down, whether he's a chief of police or a FOX News anchor or a Supreme Court judge.
I like FOxworth, and I think he's been a decent chief. and I waringly view the case brought against him. being said, it is incredibly unlikely that he didn't write these emails, which has created himself the butt of many jokes around the PPD. how can he be an effective chief?
he can't. and thus, should quietly resign.
I don't think the chocolate body or the "submissive woman" comments make him unreliable to enforce domestic abuse cases, either. If liking blowjobs or having sexual fantasies makes men unworthy of working on the police force, then I guess it's time for us to have an all-female Bureau.
As for the separate issue of firing people who "share such fantasies in a work-place setting", I don't think an exchange of dirty emails between 2 people in a consensual relationship is equivalent to Bill O'Reilly nonconsensually regaling his assistant with felafel-related sex fantasies. And it's clear that Oswalt and Foxworth weren't hanging out at work.
Do you think that anyone who writes a sexy email from work should be fired? How about someone who makes a sexy phone call from work? What if they're on their lunch break?
Whether a person should get fired/demoted for having an in-house affair with a co-worker is another (and more valid) issue: does the PPD have a policy about that?
But that isn't the issue that you (or anyone else) is interested in. You all seem to think that he should be fired because, five years ago, he wrote his lover emails about his sexual fantasies.
You seem to not be aware of Foxworth's position. He's the chief of police, which involves both overseeing employees while being in a position of power and maintaining morale in the PPD.
With these revelations it has become quite clear that he abused his position of power to instigate an affair with an underlying and applied pressure to keep the affair 'quiet.' (Which makes sense as he's married and had anotehr mistress at the time. You gotta admit, Chief Foxworth fits the definition of a 'player' to a T.)
And how is he able to maintain morale with these revelations? Unless it's to lighten up the mood by allowing the rank-and-file mockingly read the emails aloud and make jokes at the lascivious fantasies of their superior.
The point couldn't be clearer: the man can no longer do his job. And, unfortunately, he only brought it upon himself.
Now, I'm a realist, and I realize that O'Reilly kept his job and Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court. There's a chance that any investigation will clear FOxworth of any wrong-doing and he may keep his job.
My opinion, however, is if that occurs he'll be a fairly ineffective chief and will be viewed as an embarrassment. That is the reason why I think he should quietly step aside, NOT because I don't think he's a good chief, lacks integrity, or because, like every man, he has sexual fantasies.
I mean, jesus christ, are you telling me that comapnies (especially public departments) don't have rules & regulations about this sort of thing? I doubt very much that the company you work for would approve if you sent sexy emails or went to sexy websites (excluding, of course, whether you work for suicidegirls.com). Any high-ranking executive in the public eye would have his name tarnished and more than lieky be forced from a position if such similar events transpired.
WHy should it be different at the PPD, which is, supposedly, employed by the citizens of Portland?
Your argument keeps shifting.
What originally inspired me to comment was your assertion that Foxworth would not be reliable in a domestic abuse case. (It's a good companion to the public employees' union's comment that he "is against the equality of women" or something like that.)
There's so much hyperbole/innuendo surrounding this case. It isn't a case of nonconsensual harassment of a subordinate (Clarence Thomas/Bill O'Reilly). I kind of doubt the PPD forbids inter-office dating (just because it seems like it would have been mentioned in the flurry of media coverage).
And those emails, if you ask me, sure aren't proof that Derrick Foxworth is some kind of sexist abuser who's unable to work with women.
You might be right about police morale (although if I were a police officer I would find the repeated allegations of brutality and racism more disheartening than smutty emails). You might also be right that a person could get drummed out of corporate America for similar behavior.
But I think that's kind of dumb/sad. I think our collective morality/value system is pretty distorted.
And I'm tired of seeing all sorts of character assassination fly at a man when the basic facts boil down to, like, "He said 'chocolate brown body'! Hee hee hee! He said 'ass'!"
I do not disagree that two consenting adults can engage in a relationship, whether at a workplace or not.
Being said, when one of these adults is in a position of power over the other, such a consenting relationship poses a number of sticky issues. Is there a threat of possibly losing a job? Was there any coercion at all in any regard? How would such a relationship appear to an outside observer?
Foxworth's relationship with Olson stinks to high heavan, and as Susan Nielesn pointed out, just like other men in similar positions, he committed some very stupid acts.
But, hey, 'love makes us crazy' right?
Although Foxworth's emails don't show that he's sexist and incapable of working with women, they DO show that he has incredibly poor judgement and could make irrational decisions.
Again, if this behavior was exhivited in arank-and-file, probably not as big a deal. But he's the leader. I'm sure if you asked Portland citizens a majority would probably tell you that they wanted a police chief that they could 'trust' not one who exhibits poor judgement and signs of irrationality. (Or not, I can't speak for people. I'm relying more on my common sense- maybe Portlanders want a 'loose cannon'-type who's prone to fly off the handle at a moment's notice and mixes in a little Bond-like action with the ladies?)
That's been my argument all along. I don't understand how it's been 'shifting.' In the end, the mayor has found enough to put the chief on temporary leave.
Now, I've said I liked the chief and argued that him stepping aside would be best for PPD and the city. I think he could save his job, if he so desired. I know he's not a politician and may not be well-versed on the issue of 'framing' but if he grabbed the bull by the horns here he may change the frame for positive public opinion.
First, I'd advise the chief to apologize to the city of Portland for any perceived wrong-doing. Second, I'd have the cheif apologize to Angela for any hurt or harm he caused her. Last, it appears to me that Foxowrth may have a touch of sexual addiction a la Billy Bob Thornton, so I'd have him enter a program for that.
If Foxworth takes the steps to accept responsibility and repair any harm that he has committed, it could go a long way towards repairing the public trust. I don't feel that any criminal acts have been committed, just inappropriate acts that can't be condoned fro ma chief of police....
Post a Comment
<< Home