Update: Maybe I am being a little combative and sanctimonious about the comments left by rogue supporters of Major Slocum. It is important to recognize these comments may have been left by people on the fringes. They are a part of nearly every heated campaign, and I recognize their statements do not necessarily reflect the views held by Slocum. However, I hope he will distance himself from those comments, and I hope that he will finally, once and for all, set the record straight about his education. By now, he must realize these allegations have been made repeatedly and publicly, and unfortunately, a mere speech act is not an adequate substitute for written, official documentation.
Although I do not contribute to The Town Talk‘s woefully unmoderated forums, I have been reading them throughout the past few days, primarily because of the threads concerning the sheriff’s race (which have garnered literally tens of thousands of views). Yesterday, I saw candidate Mike Slocum’s most recent television commercial (which is quite good), and I noticed that the commercial included a physically-disabled deputy. Several contributors to The Town Talk forums have implied that this deputy may be engaging in campaigning activities while on-duty, which is both unethical and potentially illegal, and others have suggested this person is being targeted in a request, which apparently seeks to uncover the public records of a handful of individuals accused of politicking on duty.
As a disclaimer, I do not know the deputy in question. However, considering these accusations have publicly surfaced on The Town Talk‘s forums, I believe it is prudent to uncover and clarify the facts, because, regardless of which candidate one supports, we all deserve to know whether or not our tax dollars are paying for people to campaign on behalf of a particular candidate. I completely agree with the right of any deputy to support the candidate in whom they believe, as long as they do so on their own time. When I write on this website, I am always deliberatively writing on my own time from my own personal computer on my own personal Internet account. I recognize the ethical responsibility of separating the work I do on behalf of the City and my avocation as a blogger. My job is completely apolitical, but fortunately, I am allowed to publicly express my own political opinions, as long as my opinions are expressed when I am “not on the clock.” (Similar to deputies, my job is not beholden to civil service regulations). Moreover, I wholeheartedly believe that citizens have the right to know if their tax dollars are being spent toward political campaigning, especially when such campaigning relies on the use of public property.
As many of you know, like the deputy in question, I am also physically disabled. I was born with cerebral palsy. I understand why a handful of Slocum supporters have felt the need to defend the accusations against this deputy, but the ways in which they have defended this man are actually counter-productive, disparaging, and insulting to all physically-disabled Americans. The tactics of online Slocum supporters reveal an underlying arrogance and a propensity to objectify disabled Americans (which is ironic considering the wheelchair-bound deputy’s commercialized public support of Slocum).
An online Slocum supporter named “RobBobb,” who has been vocalizing his support for several weeks now, recently wrote:
That would make a perfect commercial.
An actor in a wheelchair, with the narrator talking about the 4 page letter (the records’ request), “then he turns around and investigates a handicapped deputy.” Then have “family” members walk in, and wrap their arms around the actor while he wipes tears away.
“On election day, tell Wagner, that’s not the way we want our sheriff to do business in Rapides Parish.”
I know one thing, a lot of handicap people vote.
RobBobb’s statement reveals his own ignorant presuppositions about the physically disabled. Perhaps he and others may find such a statement to be humorous, but it is actually insulting, arrogant, and exploitative.
The statement underscores a willingness to use an individual’s physical disability to garner unwarranted sympathy and political support. It relies on the exploitation of the disabled– as people who are automatically worthy of overt sympathy by virtue of their physical condition– and it implies that the physically disabled should not be held accountable for their own actions (“wipes tears away”), which, in my opinion, is a subtle way of stating that the physically disabled are inferior, child-like, and less than human. Although I do not know the physically disabled deputy in question, I sincerely worry that those around him are using his condition to justify their own assumed moral and physical superiority.
Another Slocum supporter named “doubter” responded by saying:
That’s pretty good. Are you in media production?
First, you want the media do the interview, to put a real face to the isssue (sp). Then follow up with the commercial the week of the election
Welcome to the world in which people encourage one another to exploit another man’s physical disability in order to deflect serious questions about ethical and potentially illegal behavior, a world in which the physically disabled are exploited, emasculated, and dehumanized simply to prove something to a television audience. “Doubter” later expanded his response:
In your commercial, flash these words from Wagner’s letter on the screen, with the narrator, in very sarcastic tones:
“As your next sheriff, I want to assure you that I will neither practice nor condone vindictive and spiteful behavior, and I would not terminate anyone because of their support of another candidate.”
That’s when the “family” could walk in and hug the guy in the wheelchair. He would be toast, if he’s not already.
Anyone in Slocum’s camp reading this, you need to get Rob’s idea to Mike’s media people. LOL
For many weeks, I have patiently read “doubter”‘s ridiculous and, frankly, stupid comments, and I have never responded. However, as a physically disabled American, I feel this last comment warrants a response:
“Doubter,” physically disabled Americans are real human beings. We are not objects merely meant for commercial exploitation. As real human beings, we can and should be subjected to the same type of scrutiny we apply to able-bodied people. I personally find your statements to be hateful, discriminatory, and dismissive. You are not funny or witty; neither is RobBobb. You are not a friend of the physically disabled. You have proven you only want to use us for your own selfish, political agenda in order to justify your support of Mike Slocum.
Major Slocum, once again, I feel it is important for you to recognize how your online supporters continue to be shameless, dismissive, and hateful. Although your online supporters continually attempt to shift their guilt onto Chuck Wagner, they have constantly proven themselves to be egregious and defamatory.
I have met Major Slocum, and I believe he is a nice man. But many of his online supporters have proven to be terrible human beings.
By the way, it has been over a week since “Nora” claimed to have documented evidence that Slocum graduated high school. She even asked me to “apologize” for reiterating the claims published in the newspaper.
“Nora,” you claimed to have documentation of Mike Slocum’s degree, yet you still have not been able to produce anything. I have e-mailed you and requested this information. You publicly claimed I could call the Louisiana Department of Education and request to find out whether or not Mike Slocum has a high school diploma. Well, guess what? I called them.
And guess what they told me?
They said I had to have written permission from Slocum himself in order to gain information. “Nora,” either the Department of Education lied to me (which I seriously doubt) or you lied.
We need to be honest. Slocum says he has a high school diploma, but those close to him say he dropped out of school during the second semester of his senior year (because his “girlfriend” was pregnant), and as a result, he received a G.E.D.. I have waited for over a week for documentation. I have been asked to apologize for these claims based on unfounded rebuttals. Slocum has told the newspaper and the television media that he has a high school diploma, yet no one can produce any proof.
At this point, he is either lying about his education or he and his supporters are too lazy to put these claims to rest.
Nora, you claim you have documentation. With all due respect, you have 24 hours to produce this information. Who is lying? (All I am doing, by the way, is reporting the facts. Prove everything, and I WILL post it).
Nora, I graduated with a diploma from ASH and a bachelor’s degree from Rice. Do you realize how easy it is for me to prove this? I know Mike Slocum never went to college, but c’mon, as a candidate for sheriff, he should have been able to produce documentation immediately.
CenLamar 
(because his girlfriend/ first wife was pregnant),
Mike has only been married once, and is still married to that woman.
Better check all your facts before you start spreading rumors. You are as bad as the people you are complaining about. That statement was completely uncalled for and has nothing to do with what kind of sheriff he will make. If it is true, you only proved that he was mature enough to take responsibility for his actions and man enough to make sacrifies in order to do the right thing.
At least he didn’t leave his wife to marry his best friend’s wife.
Thank you. I made the correction. Moreoever, if the rumor is true, it may be a testament to his maturity at the time; but c’mon, if it’s true, it also means he and his supporters have continuously spread bad information. I hope it’s not true, because the media/public reaction would not be good.
If he lied, it is fair game. Getting a GED is not a bad thing. And his wife should not be brought into it. Running for sheriff doesn’t mean that you or anybody else has the right to hurt his family. Just because you believe he will not be a good sheriff does not give you the right to go after his wife and children. How do think statements like that make his oldest daughter feel?
You can talk about his record, his ablility to run the office, his education and even his intelligence, but spreading rumors about his personal life is wrong. You are upset because people think you can’t do a job because you are disabled, but you can say Mike Slocum can’t do a good job as sheriff because you “heard” he got a girl pregnant 28 years ago, married her and remained married her, and raised three children with her.
That was a despicable thing to do. You should be ashamed Lamar. How would you feel if you had to read rumors about one of your parents on the internet? You owe the Slocum family an apology.
What are you talking about? You say that if he lied it is fair game, and then you accuse me of bringing his family into this? After you specifically talk about his family and their history? Seriously?
I am having a hard time understanding your logic. I have the utmost respect for Major Slocum and his family. Actually, because of my disability, I recently had a car out-fitted with hand controls at Louisiana Mobility, and they did a fantastic job.
By the way, maybe you’re new to blog world, but hearing rumors and vicious lies about my family on the Internet is actually something to which I have become accustomed.
If he lied about his high school diploma, go after him about that. But don’t get on the internet and say he got married because his wife was pregnant. Even if it is true, it was 28 years ago. It has nothing to do with this election and the job he is capable of doing. Putting this out only hurts his wife and children. I have heard a lot of rumors about your family, but I would never repeat them, here or anywhere else, because I don’t know if they are true or false. Mainly because I have no reason to hurt you. I don’t agree with you on the sheriff’s race, but that is not a good reason to cause you pain. And it’s not a good reason to hurt Melody Slocum and her kids.
Sorry, that still does not make sense, Benji. I have NOT attacked anyone in his family. You are LYING about my intentions and my actions. I have repeatedly stated that I have respect for him and his family. You are misrepresenting my words and my intentions in a weak attempt to cast aspersions on me, instead of responding to the PUBLIC allegations written in the NEWSPAPER.
If the allegations turn out to be true, you better believe the Slocum camp will explain it all away by USING HIS FAMILY.
YOU ARE ALREADY DOING IT. So please, give it a rest, and be honest.
And while I appreciate your caution at repeating rumors about my family, three things: 1) I am not running for sheriff. 2) I have NOT dragged his family into this anymore than you have. And 3) The rumors are nothing I haven’t already heard and rebuked.
We need to be honest. Slocum says he has a high school diploma, but those close to him say he dropped out of school during the second semester of his senior year (because his “girlfriend” was pregnant), and as a result, he received a G.E.D.. I have waited for over a week for documentation. I have been asked to apologize for these claims based on unfounded rebuttals. Slocum has told the newspaper and the television media that he has a high school diploma, yet no one can produce any proof.
This came from YOU not the newspaper. You are the one not making sense. And I see no point in arguing with you any longer. You know you are wrong. Live with it.
Benji, the claim was made in The Town Talk’s sheriff’s race thread; I did not originate this accusation IN ANY WAY. No one can produce any proof, and even you were attempting to perform rhetorical acrobatics in order to jump over a direct response to this claim– accusing me of somehow “bringing his family into this” and only reiterating what has already been said and documented on this blog. Everyone knows this has been denied, but for over a week now, I have been told that official documentation was forthcoming from the Slocum camp (which I would then post in order to DENY the allegations)… yet I have received NOTHING except criticism and insults from you people. Prove it, and I will gladly post the documentation. But until then, the allegations continue to be compelling and relevant.
Please see my updated post by clicking on “Home” at the top of the page.
Thank you Lamar for trying to keep things straight. As you can see alot of Slocum supportors are very good at twisting the truth. BTW, this handicapped RPSO employee everyone seems to be defending has ALWAYS insisted on being treated “just like everyone else” he does not carry a flag for being handicapped and is usually very defensive about being labled as “hadicapped”. He does not even have a handicapped license plate. I have know this man for many years and am very surprised and disappointed that he has choosen to “play the handicap card” when he historically has been very defensive about this label. But, my personal feelings aside, he knew full well what he was/is doing was/is wrong, he is in a wheelchair not a psych ward.
Lamar welcome to Slocum Politics 101. When confronted with a difficult question, twist it, spin it and manipulate it until it is fits the good of the Slocum Goons.
trooperswife, like I said, I don’t know the physically disabled deputy, but I do not have the impression that he is, in any way, playing the handicapped card.
I am concerned with the comments left by two of the most prolific online Slocum supporters regarding the physically disabled.
The deputy in question has lent his support to Slocum, and just like other colleagues, he appeared in a commercial; however, his appearance is not evidence of him exploiting his own disability. My concern is the way online bloggers have written about this man.
I believe that the comments in reference to the phys. hadicapped individual were in defense of a deputy with the department who was allegedly physically assaulted by Bill Robinson a few years back. I do not think that they were intended to insult or attack anyone.
You also “believe” I am a civil service employee, and you have tried to spread this on the newspaper’s forum. On both counts, you are wrong.
These comments were offensive about the deputy, but they were not directed toward someone who was allegedly physically assaulted. Just look at the comments. They obviously have nothing to do with it.
And if they weren’t “intended to insult” anyone, they failed… because they were offensive.
Again, I think you may have misunderstood. I asked the question, and waited for a reply. I was tring to give you the benifit of the doubt. This question has come up on another issue, concerning another individual. I have my answer, and I stand corrected.
I promise I am not a bad person.
Okay, okay. I understand. No worries. We can all get along.
To add to my earlier post. There is MUCH mud-slinging going on on the Town Talk Forums, but it is by no means one-sided. The Wagner camp can dish with the best of them.
The facts are simple:
1. We are all passionate about our candidates
2. No one likes to loose
3. Politics gets dirty
All that being said, There is a small part of the department that supports Mr. Wagner, but the majority still supports Mike. They have worked with him and have come to know and respect the man he is.