Spivak and Bice take a shot at the sheriff.

Two white journalists castigate a black man in a position of authority.

Is Eugene Kane going to jump to this man’s defense?

Considering the man is Sheriff David Clarke, viagra sale treat Jr., cialis buy cialis I sort of doubt it.

I have a feeling that the folks at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel consider David Clark to be one of those asterisk blacks.

Spivak & Bice criticize Clarke for correcting a 911 operator for her bad attitude when she answered his call to the Sheriff’s department.

Spivak & Bice’s description of the incident makes Clarke seem unreasonable and abusive.

Unfortunately for them, for sale the online version of their story actually links to the phone call in question so you can listen to it yourself.

The call starts with a bored-sounding operator picking up the phone.

Clarke criticizes her attitude and tries to correct her approach. He never raises his voice, yells, or swears.

He might have made her uncomfortable.

But she should have been uncomfortable. Her boss caught her doing a lousy job.

So, according to Spivak and Bice, I’m supposed to be upset that the Sheriff was trying to get his employee to have a better attitude when dealing with the public?

If you or I had been the one making that call instead of the Sheriff, do you think she would of snapped out of her bad attitude?

Spivak and Bice may have meant to criticize the Sheriff, but all they did was make me wish he’d won his race for Mayor of Milwaukee.

UPDATE: Xof linked to this post because he thought I was playing the race card.

I wasn’t.

I never said Spivak and Bice attacked Clarke because of his race.

What I did do was take a gratuitous (but highly enjoyable) shot at Eugene Kane.

Looking back on it, I see that just obscured my real point.

My point was (and remains) that Clarke was just doing his job when he reminded the operator that being polite and professional when answering the phone is her job.

1 comment March 5th, 2006