FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

OCCUPY EVERYTHING

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

People Like State Treasurer Andy Dillon Get a Pass While Poor People Don't

CULTURAL HEGEMONY / CLASS WAR

Logo_home




People Like State Treasurer Andy Dillon Get a Pass While Poor People Don't

 

With the digital age affording so many reading options, it's sometime difficult to keep up with how various news outlets handle any given story. But as far as I can tell, one of the most compelling reports in recent days -- Steve Neavling's scoop on state treasurer Andy Dillon's five-day stay in an alcohol treatment center -- has largely been downplayed, if not outright overlooked, by much of the local media.

That hasn't stopped other outlets from raising some obvious concerns in the wake of revelations last week that Dillon spent part of last January battling what appears to be a long-time addiction to liquid courage.
To wit, Steve Dibert over at mfi-miami.com:

Dillon’s issues don’t just affect him and his family or friends, with the GOP dominated Michigan Legislature increasing the power of his office with the newly enacted Emergency Financial Manager laws, his actions while sober or intoxicated affect millions of people.
If it can be proven that Dillon was intoxicated at the time he signed any agreements or contracts on behalf of the state with any individuals or entities, a serious argument could be made that those contracts are not only voidable but even possibly void because he was not mentally competent to sign and understand what he was signing.
According to Neavling's report, Dillon's heavy drinking was a big open secret in metro Detroit, but perhaps not as well known in Lansing. Last week, Gov. Snyder's office acknowledged for the first time Dillon's battle with drink.

I don't care much for anybody who I believe has helped lead an effort to politically disenfranchise black voters from Detroit to Ecorse, and that includes Dillon. But I'm not interested in ridiculing the man either. Substance abuse is no joke, and he should be encouraged to continue to seek help.

Still, whether you like Dillon or not, Dibert raises a key point. And neither the media nor the public can afford to pretend as though it isn't important to consider whether, and how much, alcoholism affected Dillon's actions and job performance.

I mention this because not long ago, Republicans in Lansing introduced a bill that would require welfare recipients to take drug tests to receive benefits. The argument is that the public has an obligation to ensure that tax dollars meant for food and shelter aren't wasted on getting high.

But if welfare recipients have to piss in a cup, why isn't anybody demanding that guys like Dillon get tested for substance abuse? Why is it OK to make such extreme demands of poor people who receive a pittance every couple of weeks, while turning a blind eye to the folks who handle billions in tax dollars and are responsible for setting the policies that impact the lives of each and every Michigan resident?

If welfare recipients can be threatened with losing taxpayer-funded incomes, why can't the Andy Dillons of the world be held to the same standard? After all, what reason does anyone have to believe that there isn't the same proportion of drunks and drug users walking the corridors of the state capitol as there is strolling the corridors of Cass Avenue?

While Dillon has endured his fair share of media scrutiny over the years, this isn't the first time that he and his camp appear to have been given a pass by media. When his son, Matthew, was arrested in Sept. 2012 and charged with armed robbery, almost none of the local news outlets reported it.

Sure you're free to chalk it up to a "private family matter." You can say Dillon's then-20-year-old son isn't a public official, so his actions don't deserve to be reported.

Again, it's not about clowning Dillon or his son, but rather about pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards that are too often invoked when scrutinizing the powerful and connected.

We're more than willing to talk about heavy-handedly policing poor people who receive a state check. Would there was as much fretting about the rich and powerful men who cut them.

No comments:

Post a Comment