Jarrod Martin is a favorite of the NRA in the Buckeye State. He's a state representative in Ohio whose two major political statces are gunloonery and the sanctity of life.Seems Jarrod likes to have few as well.
About a week ago, NRA lifemember Jarrod Martin was stopped and cited for an OVI:
On the side of the roadway, Martin refused to submit to field sobriety tests and a “chemical” test of his blood, breath or urine, Ralston said. As a result, he will automatically lose his driver’s license for one year. He was released at the scene with one of the adult passengers behind the wheel.
As two children were passengers in the vehicle, Martin also earned a child endangerment charge.Of course, this isn't NRA lifemember Martin's first dance with the bottle:
State Rep. Jerrod Martin was passed out drunk on then-GOP Minority Leader's William G. Batchelder's Chevy Suburban when Martin was discovered by Riffe Center security last year.
Update: There's more:
On May 16, 2010, the night manager at the Residence Inn in Beavercreek called police about guests yelling and fighting on the fifth floor at 4:30 a.m. Officers found Martin and six other men “highly intoxicated” at a bachelor party. The men said they weren’t fighting; just having a “friendly wrestling match in their hotel room,” a Beavercreek police report said.
Update: There's more:
On May 16, 2010, the night manager at the Residence Inn in Beavercreek called police about guests yelling and fighting on the fifth floor at 4:30 a.m. Officers found Martin and six other men “highly intoxicated” at a bachelor party. The men said they weren’t fighting; just having a “friendly wrestling match in their hotel room,” a Beavercreek police report said.
Fascinating. We await your expose’ on David Wu in your series entitled “elected officials gone bad”.
ReplyDeleteTS: I realize this embarrassing to you and your masters at the NRA. But surely you see the difference.
ReplyDeleteLet's say this was a parenting blog. And that we championed David Wu as a great candidate and leader for those parenting issues we support. It would then be highly embarrassing for us when the recent revelations about Wu surfaced.
With Martin--you have a guy whom the NRA and other gunloon groups championed. And The NRA and other gunloon groups constantly tell us how its membership is made up of nothing but law-abiding citizens who always act and behave responsibly.
Of course it is relevant. I am sure Wu prefers his young women disarmed before he sexually assaults them.
ReplyDeleteYour point is to engage in character attacks, and then claim it is indicative of the entire movement. I actually don’t hold that to be true, but to you on the other hand:
David Wu is the Brady Campaign.
TS: Are you seriously claiming the unwanted sexual advance would not have occured if she was armed? And are you saying children should be armed?
ReplyDelete"Your point is to engage in character attacks, and then claim it is indicative of the entire movement."
ReplyDeleteCharacter attacks? Really?
Here is a guy who happens to be a big gunloon and champion of the right to life---who seems to have quite the problem with booze. Within the past 18 months, this guy has 3 booze-related incidents.
It's bad enough for the average Joe Blow to engage in such behavior--but this is a public figure, an elected official.
Obviously there is only one reason this dickhead refused the tests. The real question is why the preferential treatment from the cops? It's not like he's LBJ. Refusing the test isn't a "get out of jail free" card. At least they're not just completely letting him off the hook, but still, man!
ReplyDeleteJade: “Are you seriously claiming the unwanted sexual advance would not have occured if she was armed?”
ReplyDeleteUh, yeah.
Jade: “It's bad enough for the average Joe Blow to engage in such behavior--but this is a public figure, an elected official.”
Exactly. Don’t be so dismissive of sexual assault, Jade. It is a very serious problem. David Wu advocates that people not be able to protect themselves with the best means possible. For him to turn out to also be a sexual predator… wow.
There are bad people out there. Some of them happen to be on your side of the debate, some of them mine. The sooner you accept that, you can evolve beyond these types of posts.
TS said to Jadegold: "Your point is to engage in character attacks, and then claim it is indicative of the entire movement."
ReplyDeleteAlready answered has been the point of "character attacks." I'd like to say something about the rest. I don't claim these incidents are "indicative of the entire movement." I say they are indicative of too many of you. Exactly what that percentage is we've been debating since I wrote the Famous 10%. But the point is it's TOO HIGH.
My larger point is that if David Wu was "A" rated by the NRA, Jadegold would be ALL OVER him.
ReplyDeleteTS is being disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Wu--who does support gun control--doesn't support banning all guns. Thus, TS's claim that he'd be disarming people is wrong.
Second, since Wu's alleged victim was a teenager, TS is advocating that teenagers need to carry guns to protect themselves. TS should urge his masters at the NRA to advocate this. Particularly effective would be an NRA campaign to arm choirboys so they aren't molested by priests. Failure by TS to promote this means he really isn't serious.
Third, Wu was recently rated by the Brady Campaign as a '75' which is a solid C+---not exactly a ringing endorsement. OTOH, Martin was an A+ by the NRA and often included NRA endorsements in his campaign literature.
He does not supprt CCW (that is the disarming part), and the rating I saw on his was an F.
ReplyDeleteI would also point out that while Wu's conduct is not acceptable, the young woman involved was not a minor, she was 18 years old. That makes her old enough to vote, sign contracts in most states, old enough to drink in a few places, and certainly old enough to marry or consent - or not - to sex.
ReplyDeleteThis was not a case of misconduct in the case of Wu with a child; it was a case of misconduct with an adult.
The case of Martin is an embarrassment, one that comes on the heels of another similar embarrassment, Mecklenborg.
These guys appear to have habitual problems with their behavior, including excessive alcohol use/ abuse and poor judgement, and quite possibly illegal conduct.
For those reasons, these men do not appear to me, on the face of this, to be men sufficiently responsible to use good judgment with firearms.
Wu was pressed to resign, and did so. Have either Martin or Mecklenborg resigned? No?
Wu is reported to be getting help for whatever problems he has experienced. Martin or Mecklenborg? No.
Wu is no longer a danger to anyone - himself or anyone else.
What about Martin or Mecklenborg? No, you really can't say that, can you?
But because the majority of the supporters for the two from Ohio are single issue fanatics, we see people like TS trying to defend the indefensible, by deflecting attention, by.......well, anything but owning up that these are two guys, who demonstrate gross misconduct, bad judgment and an apparent lack of adult impulse control, destructive behavior, and who appear to be criminals. They are GOOD poster boys for guns......how?
The gun guys are in a losing position on this.
I would also point out that while Wu's conduct is not acceptable, the young woman involved was not a minor, she was 18 years old.
ReplyDeleteSo in your eyes that makes rape OK..... Moral comparisons and all.....
First of all, Wu is not accused of rape, he is accused of making unwanted sexual advances. He apparently made an unwelcome pass at a woman; if that was criminal, half of the population of most establishments that serve alcohol would be beind bars.
ReplyDeleteIt is NOT rape, nor do I condone rape. Secondly, TS claimed an assault; that hasn't been established, nor is this person who received the unwanted attention a child, as has also been asserted.
Misconduct, including sexual misconduct, is not acceptable. Neither is making unfair, and inaccurate exaggerations, something which I believe I have called you on before, since you seem to have a chronic problem representing truth or facts, including about Islam.
Rape or other sexual misconduct is NOT 'ok', per their religious texts. But that is more of your Islamophobia and ignorance shining through.
Dog gone: "...we see people like TS trying to defend the indefensible,"
ReplyDeleteYou didn't see that. I never excused Martin's behavior.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWere you or were you not repeatedly exaggerating to the point of inaccurcy here?
ReplyDeleteAccusations that Wu:
1. raped/ committed sexual assault when what transpired was not rape,
2. child, when the woman was 18 years old, an adult legally and practically, albeit a younger adult
3. arguing that had the woman had a gun, IF rape / sexual assault had been attempted - which it was not - that an assault would not happen, when it is in fact more likely that in such instances a gun could and would be used against her rather than being an effective defense.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1992/04/dgu-00008.php
THIS: " Don’t be so dismissive of sexual assault, Jade. It is a very serious problem. David Wu advocates that people not be able to protect themselves with the best means possible." is in fact indefensible, yet you persist in asserting it and trying to defend it.
And you keep asserting other statements about Wu which are inaccurat, and persisting in repeating them. Those are indefensible as well, since you cannot wave a magic wand and change the facts to suit your accusations.
Defending the indefensible, pertains to your own statements TS, about Wu, not to any position you take aobut Martin. You don't seem to be taking much of any position against Martin, btw. Your response to a post about Martin is to try to introduce Wu into the discussion, at best an apples and axles discussion of two dissimilar things (in key respects).
I'm waiting for you to 1. correct your misstatements about Wu (to give you more credibility than you have in this discussion so far) and 2. to condemn Jared Martin, if you object to his conduct (as I would expect you do).
I have a problem with respecting the judgment of anyone who acts as Martin has apparently done. I don't think they belong in government, passing legislation that orders other people's lives when their own path is so self-destructive. For that same reason, it is appropriate that Wu resigned - which it seems Jarrod Martin has not, unless there is an update. Wu seems likewise on a self-destructiv course, although differing in the details.
So.........what is the hold up TS with you calling for Jarrod Martin to resign? Or don't you think he should? If not, then you would seem to again be defending the indefensible; for the second time in comments.
Jarrod Martin (R-Ohio) is a good old boy, Like the current speaker of the Ohio House, they love wrestling at Hotel room.
ReplyDeletePS - I love it that his parents had to go and collect him!
http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/osp-released-video-of-martin-arrest
Yeah, I bet his parents are SO proud....and his constitutents too.
ReplyDeleteAnyone want to take bets that his good ole boy's political career days are numbered?
His parents can't really disown him; but the voters can.
Dog gone, sorry for the delay in response. Maybe you never read this, but I can’t let your comments slide.
ReplyDeleteI never said “rape” and I never said “child” and then you claim that I was exaggerating for using those words? Jadegold has taught you well…
Dog gone: “…when it is in fact more likely that in such instances a gun could and would be used against her rather than being an effective defense.”
Come on now. Didn’t YOU get a handgun for self-protection? I don’t believe that you have bought into the blatantly sexist meme that women shouldn’t get a gun because the big bad man will just take it away from the helpless damsel and use it against them. Aside from that, you sited the extremely biased Tim Lambert who simply said a survey that showed the effectiveness of guns didn’t have a large enough sample size. He is probably right on that account, but that is hardly what you said.
Dog gone: “I'm waiting for you to 1. correct your misstatements about Wu (to give you more credibility than you have in this discussion so far) and 2. to condemn Jared Martin, if you object to his conduct (as I would expect you do).”
Yet a third Jadegoldism that you imparted on my words is that I demanded Wu to step down or defended Martin. I don’t have tolerance of either of their actions and they won’t receive my vote if I were in a position to vote for them. In cases of “he said-she said” I side with the woman for my personal opinions. As a matter of law- I follow due process. My vote follows the former, demanding that someone be relieved of their post follows the latter. So to answer your questions: 1) I did no such thing; 2) I herby condemn Jerrod Martin.
Dog gone: “First of all, Wu is not accused of rape, he is accused of making unwanted sexual advances. He apparently made an unwelcome pass at a woman… Secondly, TS claimed an assault; that hasn't been established…”
The accusations are that it was sexual assault which means there was some sexual contact. This is not just “making a pass”. It is criminal.
Wu’s allegations stem from the teenage daughter of a campaign donor, who left an angry voicemail on his district office phone accusing him of sexually assaulting her.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/175403-wu-resigns-from-the-house
You forget that the main point of my bringing up Wu was to point out Jadegold’s hypocrisy. What do you think Jade would be saying about Wu if he were an NRA A-rated republican? Be honest. I am not the type of person to use Wu’s actions to smear either the gun control movement, or the democrats. As I said, I side with the woman, so I do use his actions to smear him as an individual. I think he is a sleaze ball, and I am glad he stepped down, though I wasn’t calling for it.
To respond to TS, who while I may disagree with him, to his credit, provides sources and argues honestly here. It is aplesaure to respond TS, and if I find I was wrong, I will apologize to you.
ReplyDeleteTS wrote:
"I never said “rape” and I never said “child” and then you claim that I was exaggerating for using those words? Jadegold has taught you well…"
Jadegold hasn't taught me at all.
TS wrote:"I am sure Wu prefers his young women disarmed before he sexually assaults them.
Using the dictionary.com definition of sexual assault:
Medical Dictionary
"sexual as·sault definition
Pronunciation: /-ə-ˈsȯlt/
Function: n
: illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (as a family friend) in a position of trust or authority"
and rape, also from the medical dictionary entry on dictionary.com:
"3 rape definition
Function: n
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent compare sexual assault statutory rape"
I used the terms interchangably as unlawful and coercive sexual activity. While they can be used separately, as having different meanings, the correct meangings do overlap and have interchangeable usage.
On that basis, I don't beleive I owe you an apology for point 1. While Wu appears to have approached the daughter of his campaign donor, and requested sex, there is no evidence that he used coercion or force or even a postion of relative authority to do so, as he had no authority over her in any demonstrable way. Therefore TS, your statement was inaccurate. Wu's actions appear to be unsuitable, inappropriate, but not criminal, and not requiring force or threat of force to take no for an answer.
TS has better grounds to challenge me over the use of the word child. TS used the imprecise term young women, not distinguishing between minors and adults. What I specifically responded to was the implication that this woman was more vulnerable because of her youth and probable relative inexperience in contrast to Wu than an older woman would be.
Going back again to dictionary.com, the definition for child, which most applies to my use of the word in responding to TS:
4.One who is childish or immature.
In so far as TS was using the word young woman to convey immaturity, or inexperience, I believe I used the word child interchangeably with young woman correctly. A fifteen year old, or any female past puberty, could also properly be called a young woman.
However other definitions define child as it pertains to a stage of life for we female human beings as between birth and puberty. Child is an imprecise term, without a clear single definition, as is young woman.
My point to TS was that Wu's actions were not a sexual assualt OR rape according to the dictionary definition I used. And the woman in question was not THAT young, she was an adult responding to another adult, an age distinction that I emphasized with the word child, as I used it.
Then TS wrote:" Didn’t YOU get a handgun for self-protection? I don’t believe that you have bought into the blatantly sexist meme that women shouldn’t get a gun because the big bad man will just take it away from the helpless damsel and use it against them."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I acquired a gun to defend myself from a specific woman, not from men - a woman who was not likely to be able to take it away from me, had she gotten close enough to try. This was in conjunction with a crminal court restraining order against the woman which specified, in court by the judge to her, that violation of the court order in approaching me, was now formally sufficient grounds for me to fire on her in self defense as a sufficient threat to justify me shooting her without penalty to myself. No one who knew either of us doubted that if she were to show up on my front lawn again at 3 a.m. to attempt to harrass and intimidate me, that I
would shoot her long before she could get any closer, taking advantage of the ranged aspect of the firearm. So, your comment as it relates to my personal history doesnt apply. Beyond that, every self-defense course, including presentatons from active duty police officers, stresses that use of any weapon should be evaluated in the context of relative strength, and the risks (or lack thereof) that a weapon could be used against you. If I compare your statement with those of law enforcement professionals, citing specific examples from their personal experiences as police officers, I have to reasonably give weight to the position of LEOs over yours.
Secondly, the best advantage to using a firearm versus another weapon is that it is a ranged weapon. To the extent that someone is close enought to grapple with you for it, you HAVE lost an important advantage inherent in that kind of weapon. I don't want to get into a fight over a gun; that would be stupid. If someone is a threat and I feel deadly force is appropriate, I will shoot them well before they get that close. That threat however has to be clearly obvious before I would take such drastic action. Wu did not meat that threshold.
BTW, describing a sexual encounter as a sexual assault when it was not any kidn of assault, I believe justifies my statement TS, of exaggeration, previously clraified. So, no apology there; rather it should be the other way round, for equating Wu to Martin. Their conduct was not similar, it did not equate, and it was contorted reasoning that relied on factual inaccuracy to try do so.
ReplyDeleteTS then wrote:
"Yet a third Jadegoldism that you imparted on my words is that I demanded Wu to step down or defended Martin. I don’t have tolerance of either of their actions and they won’t receive my vote if I were in a position to vote for them."
I didn't suggest YOU demanded Wu step down; I pointed out that the left had demanded he do so, and that he had, for far less egregiously bad actions than Jarrod Martin.
YOU TS, instead of agreeing that Martin's conduct was bad, and chronic over a demonstrable period of time, unlike Wu, and instead of calling for Martin to similarly step down the way the left did with Wu, made no criticism of Martin, but instead went after Jade, and Wu. I haven't found a similar response from the right, including TS, that held someone from their side of the political spectrum to account. Rather WITHOUT doing so, as was the case here, they exaggerate Wu's actions, which creates a very different contextual impression, one that paints Martin's activities as bad, but less bad because the left is bad too.
I was critical of both, up front, specific to the resepctive facts of their cases. I did not imply justification of one by the other.
You TS have only written critically of both when pushed back against. That may have been your position all along, but the appearance you presented was that you were using an exaggeration of Wu's conduct to justify Martin's.
I fault you for erroneoulsy equating behavior which was very different in kind AND in degree, and for falsely implying that the left was less critical in attacking Wu than the right was Jarrod, as exemplified by this post by Jadegold. I think Jade was correct that so long as Martin promotes the NRA agenda, the right will tolerate, and even support and fund, his political career - inclding the NRA.
Imho, that makes the NRA a corrupt entity.
Dog gone, I specifically said that he sexually assaulted a young woman. You spun that into me saying he raped a child, and now you are consulting the dictionary to show me how you weren’t exaggerating. That is a little silly, don’t you think? I specifically used the term “young woman” to denote that she is no longer a minor. I specifically used the term “sexual assault” which is not as severe a term as “rape”- and “sexual assault” has been used by the press to describe the allegations (as I showed you in the link I provided). The definition of rape that you showed says it usually involves intercourse which leaves the door open for pressing rape charges on severe cases of assault where no intercourse occurred. Yes, there is overlap, but the terms are not interchangeable and they carry different sentences. Groping or touching falls under sexual assault under the definition of contact that you will find in your dictionary references. This type of contact without consenting is illegal, and I am really surprised to see a liberal woman trying to defend this man’s actions as just being inappropriately hitting on a woman. I would expect that excuse from conservative good-ole-boys.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your second post, are you saying you would not have gotten a gun if it were a man stalking you?
I did a quick search on the actual allegations of sexual assault, TS, and did not find any indication other than distinctly right wing sources, which characterized Wu's conduct as sexual assault, nor was any police report filed or complaint other than an alleged phone call to Wu's office voice mail.
ReplyDeleteThe sites which I looked at initially incorrectly placed the age of the young woman as UNDER 18, and identified her as a minor or child, making the situation one of potential statutory sexual misconduct. But there is nothing I can find that confirms this young woman herslef used the words sexual assault. The larger emphasis was that this was a child, not an adult, in that coverage, which directly changes drastically the capacity for consent and the legal status of Wu's actions.
But the only thing I CAN verify is that there appears to be actions by WU that ARE described as unwanted sexual attention, and inappropriate activities - which is not AT ALL the same thing as a sexual ASSAULT.
Wu is a married man with children. That makes him coming on to the daughter of a donor inappropriate behavior, in this case behavior which appears to have been both unwelcome and not encouraged.
Wu resigned because he is married, and attempted to iniatiate a relationship outside that marriage; not because he goes around assaulting people, and not because of this woman's age, as suggested by the news item you quoted - that was incorrect information.
Dog gone: “describing a sexual encounter as a sexual assault when it was not any kidn of assault…”
ReplyDeleteDog gone, the accusations are not that he hit on her. That is NOT what has all his colleagues so troubled as to ask him to step down. That is NOT what Nancy Pelosi called “extremely troubling”. Do you think all this is over him saying “hey baby, wanna $#@&”? He himself calls it a very serious allegation:
“The time has come to hand on the privilege of high office,” Wu said in a statement. “I cannot care for my family the way I wish while serving in Congress and fighting these very serious allegations.”
His defense was that it was consensual. Consensual making a pass on a women? What is that? This is an allegation of sexual assault, period. She is not going to press charges because it will put her through hell and it really hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. That is one of the unfortunate problems of these types of cases where there are almost always no witnesses. Unfortunately men will continue to get away with this. Women need to empower themselves by first avoiding compromising situations, and defending themselves by whatever means they feel are appropriate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019055/David-Wu-resigns-alleged-sex-scandal-Nancy-Pelosis-calls-investigation.html
Dog gone: “I didn't suggest YOU demanded Wu step down”
Ok, I’ll retract that.
Dog gone: “I haven't found a similar response from the right, including TS, that held someone from their side of the political spectrum to account.”
For one, I am not on “the right”. Also, an area where I will agree with you is the housekeeping response from the left. They acted quickly to get this sexual predator out of their midst, and I think they are better about that than the republicans. I don’t think the GOP’s response has a damn thing to do about guns either.
Dog gone: “YOU TS, instead of agreeing that Martin's conduct was bad, and chronic over a demonstrable period of time, unlike Wu…”
Hold on there, Wu’s history of attacking women goes back to college. I agreed that drunk driving is bad. Look at my first post.
Dog gone: “but the appearance you presented was that you were using an exaggeration of Wu's conduct to justify Martin's”
I don’t trust your appearances any more since your interpreted what I said to mean he raped a child, so I guess I am not surprised that you also see me as justifying Martin (that is despite me formally condemning him).
Dog gone: “Wu resigned because he is married, and attempted to iniatiate a relationship outside that marriage; not because he goes around assaulting people, and not because of this woman's age, as suggested by the news item you quoted - that was incorrect information.”
ReplyDeleteBaloney. The left wasn’t asking for Clinton to step down, they certainly wouldn’t make a big deal about a married man making a sexual proposition without it being much more serious than that.
Of the news links I sourced one said she was 18, the other a “teenager”. Both are correct.
Dog gone: “But the only thing I CAN verify is that there appears to be actions by WU that ARE described as unwanted sexual attention, and inappropriate activities - which is not AT ALL the same thing as a sexual ASSAULT.”
“Attention”? Can you show me the link that describes it as such? That word minimizes his behavior. Here is Huffington post (liberal enough for you?) calling it an “encounter”. An unwanted aggressive sexual encounter IS sexual assault. If she pressed charges, that is what the charge would be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/david-wu-resigns-sex-scandal_n_909734.html#s316271&title=David_Wus_Alleged
Again, why would he say it was “consensual”? What was consensual about it if he wasn’t doing something physical? Why would she make an angry call months later? Why would she be so traumatized from being hit on?
TS, the reports that this was a sexual assault versus an unwelcomed sexual proposition differ on partisan grounds, with at least some of the sources linking the term assault to an incorrect age for the young woman.
ReplyDeletePelosi has a record of being very factually accurate in her descriptioins of congressional misconduct, by either side.
Far more so than partisan sources in the media - from either side. Nor do I find it plausible that she would try to minimize Wu's conduct. As a woman I don't think she is sympathetic to Wu (nor am I) but more than that, minimizing his misconduct would be a definite liability to her. I didn't see
memebers of Congress from the right call it sexual assault either.
This young woman was NOT being terribly private in the way she made her complaint, nor am I persuaded she herself used the word assault in her own statement; that appears to be spin.
Pelosi called for an investigation; those can be ongoing in spite of resignations. If there IS something more than an inappropriate proposition, I'm sure we will hear about it.
Until then there is no evidence for assualt, that seems pure spin and exaggeration.
Dog gone: “the reports that this was a sexual assault versus an unwelcomed sexual proposition differ on partisan grounds,”
ReplyDeleteCan you show me a report that that describes it as only being a proposition?
Dog gone: “nor am I persuaded she herself used the word assault in her own statement”
Assault is a formal charge. If she pressed charges it would be for sexual assault. She doesn’t need to use formal lingo when leaving an angry rant on her attacker’s voicemail. Again, if her allegation is only that he made verbal propositions, and did not physically engage with her- why would Pelosi ask him to step down? Why would she make this call, if all he did was hit on her? Do you think this was politically motivated by the woman? It sure seems like you are sympathetic to the man and taking his side.