CenLamar

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.