Hey, there! Log in / Register
Joe Kennedy claims threats from Brown supporters
By adamg on Thu, 01/14/2010 - 9:20am
Not-Related Kennedy mentions threats on his Facebook page, in reaction to a comment from a Brown supporter upset at being called a Brown Shirt:
Donna, With all do respect. Me and my family have been threatened with violence from Brown Supporters. I am not sure I would call that a little dissent. I have had to go to my local police department due to the nature of the interactions we are getting. So forgive me if I enlighten you to the facts. I live with a 10 year old little girl. If violence directed at us is a little dissent then I think that your campaign needs to redefine the word.
Via Mike Cann.
More links on the Senate race, from Bostonist (NOTE: page will open with that Cosmo spread; you know the one).
Ongoing coverage at KennedySeat.com.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What else should we expect...
From Republi-thugs like Brown and his supporters?
So some unsubstantiated
So some unsubstantiated threats makes you call Republicans thugs but the globe calls a Jokely aide that knocks down a reporter a 'stumble'? Priceless
Ah, can of worms
There seems to be a bit of disagreement as to whether he knocked the guy down (or knocked him down on purpose) or the guy fell. Note the guy had a similar issue with that Republican candidate in upstate New York.
I spent 12 years as a reporter at a daily newspaper. Granted, not some bigfoot paper like the Weekly Standard, but I occasionally had to try to talk to people who really didn't want to talk to me. Not once did I ever get knocked down or pushed (yelled at, sure). And now this guy has had it happen to him twice in a few months? Seems kind of odd.
Come on Adam. Were you
Come on Adam. Were you joking? As far as it happening twice there's another conclusion you may want to consider. And there is slightly more credibility here than in the Kennedy allegations. Thus I stand by my assertion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siQ-8il4Q2Y
BTW these math problems are killing me ;-)
Who's joking? I didn't see
Who's joking?
I didn't see anything worth complaining about in that youtube. No one on the ground either.
Wow, the Dem's are a little
Wow, the Dem's are a little pissy lately lol. wonder why?
BTW
How does this make Brown a thug? - see the original post. You can't argue that he appears to be a good family man and to call him a thug only serves to deafen the ears of the opponent.
Hmm...
How about his use of profanity in a high school classroom or maybe have a look at this comment from a few days ago on UHub? I would define proposing an amendment that denies emergency contraception to rape victims as thuggish, wrongheaded, negligent, and many other similar adjectives. This guy has created a total facade in terms of his character, and it's funny to me that so many people are buying into it. Hopefully they'll face a nice ego deflation next Tuesday :]
"State Sen. Scott Brown,
"State Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, made headlines all across the country last week when he used an appearance at a local high school to read back profanity-laced remarks aimed at him by students on a Web site." Reading back what the students wrote makes him a thug? Talk about delusional. Then you take some random post and attribute it to Scott? Is this the best you got lol? You guys can't touch him and it's pretty comical. As far as next Tuesday the dems have already lost. A republican took it to a dem in the lefty state of MA. Come November you guys are through. It took the Dem's one year to unravel. ONE YEAR lol.
It's better than what you've
It's better than what you've got :]
Blahblahrazzi
My guess is he's a former soccer player who has somehow trained himself not to grab his knee and grimace when he takes a dive.
Is there a word that's like paparazzi or stalker, but what they're harassing someone famous for is a wee soundbite to twisted for opinion journalism or a blog? How about blahblarazzi?
Not great publicity for a prospective senator...
...by either Brown or Kennedy. Kennedy writes "with all do respect" rather than "due respect" and "me and my family" rather than "my family and I." There are some punctuation issues, too. I think candidates for public office should review their written statements carefully, even if they are being posted on Facebook.
Even if they're threatened with violence?
I think people who have been threatened can be excused for forgetting grammar and usage rules-- and I think people who criticize them for doing so should shut up and piss off. Seriously, go volunteer your editing services for someone who wants and needs it-- I'm sure it'll be appreciated.
Hav 2 agree. Language is
Hav 2 agree. Language is always a changin'.
Grammar teachers are just the OCD compatriots of linguists.
Formal versus Informal Communication
The point of communication isn't to get style points for perfect form. The point of communication is to get a message across.
This isn't some prissy little skating competition for a gold medal. This is somebody making the point that he feels threatened by the behavior of certain individuals, and explaining how that colors his charactarization of such persons.
I take it that you could understand that much of what he had to say there Laura? Well, good. Communication complete. You have a problem with his inadequate attention to winning style points? Did that hurt your fancy little eyes and ears? Too bad. This wasn't about you.
Basic grammar
The mistakes Laura pointed out were a basic grammar mistake & the use of an incorrect word - not what I'd call "style points." They jumped out at me too and made me think that Mr. Kennedy is not as well-spoken as I had thought.
Grammar "jumped out at you"?
What about the threats of violence-- did they jump at you? More, less, the same, not at all? Do tell.
Also, please include some professional references so we know what your editing skill level is-- I'd bet you almost anything that I do more editing and know more about it than you. More to the point, I have a soul and shred of empathy, and agree with Swirrly that this ain't figure skating, so do like Laura and find someone who cares about your point of view.
What's with the ad hominems?
I've never commented on grammar/spelling issues here before. I certainly don't travel around the Internet looking for mistakes to point out. But I think it's relevant in the case of a candidate. I've never visited Kennedy's Facebook page before but did so just now, and I see that almost every post has a basic spelling or punctuation problem ("coming" spelled as "comming," "lets" instead of "let's", etc). So it's not as if the above post can be explained solely because he was agitated. Again, it's only relevant to me because he's in a public position.
It's not an "ad hominem"
There was no attack on your character here-- just what you said. No one said, "You're an idiot, therefore anything that you type out is idiotic" or even "What you said is idiotic; therefore, you're an idiot." Nope, didn't happen. Some might find (as I did) that your criticism of Kennedy's grammar missed the point of the whole incident in a way that was troubling, but that's not an "ad hominem" attack. Nice try, though. (Do you even know what the term means?)
You said...
"I have a soul and shred of empathy," implying that those who criticized the grammar didn't. That seems personal to me.
I didn't say you had no soul
Just that _I_ do, and can suspend my criticisms of grammar to times when the speaker/writer is not facing threats of violence. Actually, I limit such criticisms to:
1. When I'm getting paid for it, and
2. When I feel that Adam or someone here is being attacked unfairly and/or inaccurately about their grammar.
"Seems personal"-- pfft. If you're going to come to a public forum and criticize someone for not using the King's English when they get threatened, then you should think about having a thicker skin. Where I come from on the Westside, if you open your mouth and say something dumb, you can expect to have it pointed out to you.
"Seems personal"
I only brought that up because you mocked me for using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly. I was pointing out that when you implied that those who disagree with you are soulless and have no empathy, you were making an ad hominem argument--in other words, one that seemed personal.
Well, you did use the term incorrectly
Because there was no attack. See? If you're going to pin a Grammar Sheriff badge on yourself, be prepared to be questioned. Your choice of inferring that there was an attack was your choice and yours alone. I did not say "I have a soul, empathy, good taste in shoes, etc., and you don't."
And thanks-- I know what "ad hominem" means. And doesn't mean.
So basically...
When you said, "I have a soul and a shred of empathy," you didn't mean to imply that those who disagreed with you didn't have those things? You just wanted those characteristics on the record?
I'm with Laura
<>
I think this would also be ad hominem, no? And thus part of what Laura's responding to. (And yes, I know that's a fragment with a split-infinitive to boot. Those are style issues in this milieu.)
Rightly or wrongly, I also find small slips to be jarring and make me question the writer's qualifications. It's not the only part of how I process written information but it's there. Politicians would be wise to be aware of that response in the voting populace and to self-edit accordingly.
"Rightly or wrongly"? I'd say "wrongly."
Two things I've learned in my career in communications:
1. The smartest, best people-- the ones who actually have things to say-- don't necessarily use proper grammar all the time, if at all.
2. Those who strive to use perfect grammar all the time don't necessarily have anything to say at all. In fact, many a budding writer thinks that following those rules is all there is to it-- they follow all the rules but never make a point. Fortunately, God created editors.
Your point about politicians is telling, and naive-- what, you think that tailoring every message to those who would analyze its grammar is necessarily the most direct route to success? Bush 43 is said to have intentionally dumbed down his speech-- adding an accent he didn't really have, and throwing in terms and constructions that he didn't previously-- in an effort to further his political career, and it seemed to have worked. Lots of politicians do this, tailoring their speech, and often their messages with it, based on who they're talking to. Granted, Mass. isn't Texas, and I don't mean to say that Kennedy was trying to dumb himself down-- not at all-- or that Bush 43's apparent/alleged dumbing-down was a huge stretch-- not at all-- but we're not looking to elect the chair of the English Department here.
I'm with Laura also
In elementary school we would ask "does spelling count on this essay?"
Yes, it does. I rarely choose to publicly correct someone else. Glass houses etc. I usually also notice when someone has great ideas despite poor presentation. Sometimes, I can't get past the mistakes. My loss possibly. When I am considering "hiring" someone for job where attention to detail and communication skills count, i.e. U.S. Senator, then it does matter. Having said that, it is sad that Mr. Kennedy feels threatened. I hope that this will be corrected.
Grammarian, who are you to set the terms of what areas of discussion are allowed on this site? I should only comment about grammar if I am solicited and paid to do so? Or only if I am an "expert" in that field? If that were the case, I would only solicit your opinion about nasty behavior. Please do not look for any paypal payment in your inbox.
-- John
Yikes
I was just agreeing with Laura because I notice bad grammar. I did notice the threats of violence, which is why I read the post. I even went to the Facebook page to see if there was more information about the threats. I didn't have any comment on the threats because I didn't find enough information on them to form an opinion.
No, I don't have professional editing references to list for you. I'm sure you know more about everything than I do. You seem to be implying I don't have a soul. Yikes.
Ditto. They were my very
Ditto. They were my very first impression of the message - my brain noticed them way before it took in any content.
Right...
I don't always use perfect grammar in Facebook and Internet postings that are being read only by friends and family. But if I were running for public office, I hope I would at least do basic proofreading. Has nothing to do with my "fancy little eyes and ears."
Who didn't notice them
I write a lot, work with editors, organize other people to write stuff, etc. for scientific and policymaking purposes. The grammar and usage in that message was noticeably poor.
All the same, his missive wasn't offered as a major review of literature with international consequences and a staff of people to make it pretty. I mispell, misuse, and otherwise torture the English language (sometimes on purpose) in my facebook entries and UHub posts. That's because it isn't important to polish things sent to such venues. I wear sweats to the grocery store, too.
Grammar
Did they not teach grammar at MIT? Or at least reinforce it?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist, all DUE respect.)
You play with Fire, you get
You play with Fire, you get burnt.
The teabag movement, and arguably the GOP is a proto-fascist movement. Not to Godwin the, since they aren’t there yet; but the similarities in their tactics and reasoning is very similar to what happened in fascist states in the 20’s and 30’s. The GOP took those lessons and used them as a short term, quick way to build their base.
Unfortunately for them, while they didn’t believe in the hooey one bit, the base did, and now they’re taking over the party.
It almost even rhymes with "naZI PARTY"
Step 1: Advocate smaller government
Step 2: Jews in ovens
It's so obvious. How come you and I are the only ones who can connect the dots?