But 'The Impaler' says he respects all religions and if elected, will post "everything from the Ten Commandments to the Wicca Reed" in government buildings.
Mr Sharkey has also pledged to execute convicted murders and child molesters personally by impaling them on a wooden pole outside the state capitol.
He has told the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper he is a vampire "just like you see in the movies and TV".
"I sink my fangs into the neck of my donor... and drink their blood," he said, adding that his donor is his wife, Julie.
#1: Being religiously crazy is not something you can fire somebody over in the US, unless they're gay. #2: This coming, of course, from people who believe that Harry Potter books teach real magic. #3: Even if they *are* firing her because her husband is a loser, that's illegal, too. #4: They say they're firing her because she's a "witch". DINGDINGDINGDING we have discrimination!
#1: Maybe, but being just plain crazy is certainly reasonable grounds for being forbidden to work with children.
#2: What, you mean they don't (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/11/16)?
#3: If the husband was alone in his loserdom, I'd agree. But the fact that she is his willing "donor" - i.e. shares fully in the loser-ness - indicates she, also, may be a few marbles short of Chinese checkers.
#4: Actually, that's why *she* says they fired her. I note that the only direct quote from her employers in the article states that they feel they have the right to decide who does and does not get to work with children, for whatever reason.
Granted, there's problems with that statement, too, but my point is there's no indication that the official reason given for firing her was that she was a witch.
> #3: If the husband was alone in his loserdom, I'd agree. But the > fact that she is his willing "donor" - i.e. shares fully in the > loser-ness - indicates she, also, may be a few marbles short of > Chinese checkers.
I just had her down as GGG for that, to be honest.
Mind you, I think the decision to make such information was incredibly ill-advised.
Do they say that? All the article states with regard to the reason actually given for her firing is this:
The Princeton school district request that she have no contact with students, and says she is not a role model.
The district says it can legally request her removal. “We have the right, that if we feel if somebody is not what we want them to be with children, or any other reason, all we have to do is let them know.”
Of course, it doesn't give the name of whoever made that statement, and it's incredibly vague. And you're right that if they're firing her because her husband is a freaking loon, that's also questionable at the very least. The district's going to have to defend itself on the issue, either way.
However, right now we have only her word for it that she was fired because she's a witch. The district is grossly stupid if it explicitly stated that at any point.
> The district is grossly stupid if it explicitly stated that at any point.
I've fixed that for you.
(This is not to say that Sharkey and Ms Sharkey are *not* grossly stupid. I'm fairly certain they are. They're just being grossly stupid in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, whereas the district are being grossly stupid in a way that *does* hurt other people.)
(I assume that's crazy because of the former, not of the latter.)
> I think it's less about religious persecution and more about "they a > little bit crazy".
I took it less as "they a little bit crazy" and more "ew, she does icky things to humour her husband". If she's been driving for five years, doesn't play FTN with the kids, and hasn't caused problems before now... *shrug*
I dunno; I have to wonder about the mental competence of anyone who actually believes that vampirism is real.
And I'm sorry - I consider myself to be pretty far to the left on social issues, but even I have a problem with letting such an obviously delusional woman hang around with kids, even if she is harmless.
If she were driving a city bus, that'd be different. Those people are all insane to begin with.
Well, blood fetishists do exist. Definitely doesn't float my boat, but eh. (Also, ew.)
However, anyone who advertises this fact while running for public office AND calls it vampirism is either loony tunes or, well, insanely optimistic about the voters' capacity to tolerate weirdness. Even in Minnesota.
Oh, I know. I'm talking about believing that actual, undead, turning-into-bats/mist/whatever, cross-running-from, Buffyverse/Anne-Rician vampires exist.
I mean, you know, maybe she just thinks her husband has a blood fetish... but I'm going with a gut feeling that she's a little further over the edge than that.
Erm--I missed that? It's possible to let someone drink your blood without believing that they're a vampire. It's kind of like driving someone to church even though you're not a Christian.
However, assuming she did say she believed in vampirism:
I am guessing she does not think vampirism in the traditional sense of "undead corpses risen from the grave which explode upon contact with the sun" is real; if nothing else, I'd expect it to have been mentioned if her husband only gave press interviews at night.
But the term is also used to cover "individual who goes around drinking blood, and may even believe they need to do it, without claiming to be a risen corpse", and if that's the definition she's using I not only can't fault her for her belief but I share it. 'Cause there *are* people who do that.
I'm not saying there may not be a reason to fire her. I'm saying that based on the (skimpy) two articles I've seen to date, and discarding all the good things she had to say about herself, she seems to espouse an unusual religion and be married to someone who doesn't know how to keep his trap shut.
(Tangent one: god, I hope that whatever they're doing, it's sterile.)
(Tangent two: should people who stay in abusive relationships be fired? On that whole "setting a bad role model" thing?)
It's possible to let someone drink your blood without believing that they're a vampire.
Sure. But see my response to rimrunner - my feeling is they both go in for the whole shebang.
And even if they don't, or even if just she doesn't... I suppose it could be viewed as intolerant, but I still have a problem with letting someone who enables such a delusional worldview work with children. It's really the children factor here that's twanging my discomfort meter.
(Note that I would be about as uncomfortable letting, say, a hardcore Christian fundamentalist drive that bus as I would this woman. Delusion is delusion, whether you're out on the fringe or in, um, the White House. You know. Whatever.)
(Tangent one: god, I hope that whatever they're doing, it's sterile.)
*shudder*
(Tangent two: should people who stay in abusive relationships be fired? On that whole "setting a bad role model" thing?)
I guess it depends on whether you consider them crazy for doing so or not.
For the Americans out there: Is she employed in an "at will" state? If so, then her bosses can fire her for being creepy if they want, and they don't have to be coy about it. They *can't* fire her based on race, gender, religion, or I believe two or thre other specific criteria. However, they can fire her based on not liking her hairstyle, dialect, or choice in breakfast cereal as long as she can't prove that the above are dictated by her race, gender, religion, etc.
Actually, based on the brief Googling I just did, Minnesota seems to be one of the few states where you can challenge at-will employment. Granted, it seems to be only in the sense of having the right to promissory estoppel wage claims, but, well.
But in any case, you're right. It's the same principle as the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" thing. As long as you can't prove discriminatory criteria, uncontracted employment is at the whim of the employer.
Arizona, for example, is a Right to Work state. Basically my employer can let me go for whatever reason they want, and as long as I can't LEGALLY prove that it was racially/gender/etc motivated they're in the clear...
Don't you guys have employee protections, labour boards, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some sort of "Bill" of "Rights" that bars "arbitrary job loss" due to "discrimination"?
Sorry. I'm very tired and sleepy, and the sarcasm's seeping out.
Virginia is a Right to Work state. It has it's plusses and minuses. You can be let go at any time without notice, and no reason is required to be given, but at the same time, I can't be forced to join a union to get a job either, which makes me all warm and fuzzy as modern unions in America are more about lining the pockets of the union officers than anything else.
Discrimination is defined as being descriminated against on a small list of criteria (race, religion, gender, disability, possibly sexual preference in some states, etc). Any reason outside that list is not discrimination, which IMO is a good thing in theory. Not being able to fire someone for being a crappy employee because it would be discriminating against poorly motivated workers is crap. Same thing that you're allowed to not serve someone in your store for being an asshole or for being so poorly washed that he drives off your real paying customers or whatever. Just as long as you're not refusing to serve him because he's blind or Japanese or male.
That said, I like Ontario's system much better. Absent a contract with clauses that override the default, your boss has to give you a verbal warning of whatever is putting your employment at risk, a chance to remediate, and then a written warning, and a chance to remediate. Then he can fire your ass, and you have written documentation that you can complain about to the courts if you don't agree with his reason.
Why didn't they just see if she floats/weighs the same as a duck? Kidding aside, jerril brought up one of the scary things about our laws. There are a lot of jobs where they can fire you for any/no reason. We also have special laws that say it's ok if the government takes your property for no reason and gives it to a wealthy developer. There are even communities that still have laws on the books saying all the non-white people have to be out of town by sundown. Unfortunately, while you'd think being weird was protected by the constitution, it's not. *sigh* We aren't any different than any other society that stones people for being different.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 06:36 pm (UTC)I think it's less about religious persecution and more about "they a little bit crazy".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 06:52 pm (UTC)But 'The Impaler' says he respects all religions and if elected, will post "everything from the Ten Commandments to the Wicca Reed" in government buildings.
Mr Sharkey has also pledged to execute convicted murders and child molesters personally by impaling them on a wooden pole outside the state capitol.
He has told the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper he is a vampire "just like you see in the movies and TV".
"I sink my fangs into the neck of my donor... and drink their blood," he said, adding that his donor is his wife, Julie.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:26 pm (UTC)--well, read.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 03:23 am (UTC)I don't know. It's like people who think things are "seeped in mystery".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 07:42 am (UTC)Thee.
I need more sleep.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 12:05 pm (UTC)(The one that really gets up my nose is people who use "of" for "have", oddly enough.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 06:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:17 pm (UTC)#2: This coming, of course, from people who believe that Harry Potter books teach real magic.
#3: Even if they *are* firing her because her husband is a loser, that's illegal, too.
#4: They say they're firing her because she's a "witch". DINGDINGDINGDING we have discrimination!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:42 pm (UTC)#2: What, you mean they don't (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/11/16)?
#3: If the husband was alone in his loserdom, I'd agree. But the fact that she is his willing "donor" - i.e. shares fully in the loser-ness - indicates she, also, may be a few marbles short of Chinese checkers.
#4: Actually, that's why *she* says they fired her. I note that the only direct quote from her employers in the article states that they feel they have the right to decide who does and does not get to work with children, for whatever reason.
Granted, there's problems with that statement, too, but my point is there's no indication that the official reason given for firing her was that she was a witch.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:55 pm (UTC)> fact that she is his willing "donor" - i.e. shares fully in the
> loser-ness - indicates she, also, may be a few marbles short of
> Chinese checkers.
I just had her down as GGG for that, to be honest.
Mind you, I think the decision to make such information was incredibly ill-advised.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:43 pm (UTC)The Princeton school district request that she have no contact with students, and says she is not a role model.
The district says it can legally request her removal. “We have the right, that if we feel if somebody is not what we want them to be with children, or any other reason, all we have to do is let them know.”
Of course, it doesn't give the name of whoever made that statement, and it's incredibly vague. And you're right that if they're firing her because her husband is a freaking loon, that's also questionable at the very least. The district's going to have to defend itself on the issue, either way.
However, right now we have only her word for it that she was fired because she's a witch. The district is grossly stupid if it explicitly stated that at any point.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:02 pm (UTC)if it explicitly stated that at any point.I've fixed that for you.
(This is not to say that Sharkey and Ms Sharkey are *not* grossly stupid. I'm fairly certain they are. They're just being grossly stupid in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, whereas the district are being grossly stupid in a way that *does* hurt other people.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:45 pm (UTC)> I think it's less about religious persecution and more about "they a
> little bit crazy".
I took it less as "they a little bit crazy" and more "ew, she does icky things to humour her husband". If she's been driving for five years, doesn't play FTN with the kids, and hasn't caused problems before now... *shrug*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 07:52 pm (UTC)And I'm sorry - I consider myself to be pretty far to the left on social issues, but even I have a problem with letting such an obviously delusional woman hang around with kids, even if she is harmless.
If she were driving a city bus, that'd be different. Those people are all insane to begin with.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:00 pm (UTC)However, anyone who advertises this fact while running for public office AND calls it vampirism is either loony tunes or, well, insanely optimistic about the voters' capacity to tolerate weirdness. Even in Minnesota.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:13 pm (UTC)Oh, I know. I'm talking about believing that actual, undead, turning-into-bats/mist/whatever, cross-running-from, Buffyverse/Anne-Rician vampires exist.
I mean, you know, maybe she just thinks her husband has a blood fetish... but I'm going with a gut feeling that she's a little further over the edge than that.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:07 pm (UTC)However, assuming she did say she believed in vampirism:
I am guessing she does not think vampirism in the traditional sense of "undead corpses risen from the grave which explode upon contact with the sun" is real; if nothing else, I'd expect it to have been mentioned if her husband only gave press interviews at night.
But the term is also used to cover "individual who goes around drinking blood, and may even believe they need to do it, without claiming to be a risen corpse", and if that's the definition she's using I not only can't fault her for her belief but I share it. 'Cause there *are* people who do that.
I'm not saying there may not be a reason to fire her. I'm saying that based on the (skimpy) two articles I've seen to date, and discarding all the good things she had to say about herself, she seems to espouse an unusual religion and be married to someone who doesn't know how to keep his trap shut.
(Tangent one: god, I hope that whatever they're doing, it's sterile.)
(Tangent two: should people who stay in abusive relationships be fired? On that whole "setting a bad role model" thing?)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:23 pm (UTC)Sure. But see my response to
And even if they don't, or even if just she doesn't... I suppose it could be viewed as intolerant, but I still have a problem with letting someone who enables such a delusional worldview work with children. It's really the children factor here that's twanging my discomfort meter.
(Note that I would be about as uncomfortable letting, say, a hardcore Christian fundamentalist drive that bus as I would this woman. Delusion is delusion, whether you're out on the fringe or in, um, the White House. You know. Whatever.)
(Tangent one: god, I hope that whatever they're doing, it's sterile.)
*shudder*
(Tangent two: should people who stay in abusive relationships be fired? On that whole "setting a bad role model" thing?)
I guess it depends on whether you consider them crazy for doing so or not.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 08:37 pm (UTC)But in any case, you're right. It's the same principle as the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" thing. As long as you can't prove discriminatory criteria, uncontracted employment is at the whim of the employer.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 03:26 am (UTC)There are actually places with some kind of "we can fire you if we like" labour laws?
Explain, please.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 06:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 07:47 am (UTC)Don't you guys have employee protections, labour boards, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some sort of "Bill" of "Rights" that bars "arbitrary job loss" due to "discrimination"?
Sorry. I'm very tired and sleepy, and the sarcasm's seeping out.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 12:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 04:09 pm (UTC)Not being able to fire someone for being a crappy employee because it would be discriminating against poorly motivated workers is crap. Same thing that you're allowed to not serve someone in your store for being an asshole or for being so poorly washed that he drives off your real paying customers or whatever. Just as long as you're not refusing to serve him because he's blind or Japanese or male.
That said, I like Ontario's system much better. Absent a contract with clauses that override the default, your boss has to give you a verbal warning of whatever is putting your employment at risk, a chance to remediate, and then a written warning, and a chance to remediate. Then he can fire your ass, and you have written documentation that you can complain about to the courts if you don't agree with his reason.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 04:35 pm (UTC)It's just that as long as you're not committing a crime and you *are* doing your job, he's got to follow the procedure.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-19 01:57 am (UTC)