A City Council member from Jersey City was arrested over the weekend after patrons at a Northwest Washington nightclub complained that someone had urinated on them from the balcony, according to police and media reports.
A D.C. police spokesman said Steven Lipski was arrested about 9:50 p.m. and charged with simple assault. A police incident report, which did not name the suspect, gave his age as 44. Another police report listed Lipski as a resident of Jersey City. Public records for the Steven Lipski who sits on the Jersey City council list his age as 43 or 44.
Jennifer Morrill, a spokeswoman for Jersey City, said last night that she did not have all the details about what she termed a "private, personal matter." It would be "premature to make any kind of comment," she said.
Calls to the telephone number listed for Lipski in Jersey City were not returned yesterday. An e-mail also went unanswered. Irina Zaki, an aide to the Democratic councilman and educator, said she called him yesterday but received no answer.
The vast majority of Democratic politicians manage not to urinate on people. This can by no means be considered typical. My understanding is that the party frowns on it. They consider it shameful, reprehensible. It sends the wrong message.
"It's embarrassing for the city," said Jersey City Councilman Steven Fulop. "If you are invested in the city or are considering it, it sends the wrong message."
It sends the wrong message to investors.
Comments (10)
"Democratic councilman ..." "..and educator"
Posted by op | January 19, 2009 9:48 PM
Posted on January 19, 2009 21:48
In my search for the perfect morality play, I would feel churlish asking for more than this offers. The generosity is unstinting. Relentless.
Posted by Al Schumann | January 19, 2009 9:58 PM
Posted on January 19, 2009 21:58
So, what are you implying? That the DP are only concerned about investors not the general public? My God.
Posted by Peter Ward | January 19, 2009 9:59 PM
Posted on January 19, 2009 21:59
They're really not thinking outside the box. What about all those investors who WANT somebody to urinate on them?
Posted by LA Confidential Pantload | January 19, 2009 10:11 PM
Posted on January 19, 2009 22:11
Peter, there's that, of course, but so much more. As you observe, it's hardly a surprise that they couldn't care less about the general public. I'm not sure I know where to begin. I guess Fulop's utterly innocent frankness and Morrill's prim sense of propriety will do. They have no means of determining right and wrong. Ethical conduct, morality, simple decency are entirely alien to them. But they have to say something, and what they choose to say speaks volumes. For Morrill, Lipski is being victimized. It's private and personal. It would be wrong to, um, expose him to further opprobrium. For Fulop, the brand is damaged. There's no harm to investors in this. Indeed, some may see Lipski's actions as indicative of managerial savvy.
Posted by Al Schumann | January 19, 2009 10:17 PM
Posted on January 19, 2009 22:17
Hear, hear! They have money and it's perfectly good money too. All this hatred for potential prosperity is appalling.
Posted by Al Schumann | January 19, 2009 10:20 PM
Posted on January 19, 2009 22:20
Mr Lipski is just doing his job as an educator. We must all learn to be pissed on by Democrats -- for the next two years, anyway -- and like it.
Posted by MJS | January 20, 2009 12:46 PM
Posted on January 20, 2009 12:46
I protest ! My whiz is constantly, relentlessly vetted by the job "market" while this guy's whiz just gets swept away uninspected by the low-wage "techs" in flowered smocks. You call this "hope and change ?"
[sulk]
Posted by ms_xeno | January 20, 2009 1:28 PM
Posted on January 20, 2009 13:28
Ms. Xeno, as regards the hope and change, they're obliged to piss on us with the urine they have. It's not the urine they might want or wish to have at a later date.
Posted by Al Schumann | January 20, 2009 1:51 PM
Posted on January 20, 2009 13:51
To me the amazement/amusement factor is in the mindset of Fulop, a far too common type so steeped in the jargon-world of public relations (and probably blessed with a degree in communications from one of the greater NYC area's many knowledge factories) that he himself is unable to conceive (much less tell)
the difference between confected images and empirical realities. In fact to a chap like him it would be downright exotic to let one's consciousness begin to probe the distinction.
Demagoguery is not even a logical possibility with such inside-the-house-of-mirrors individuals.
Posted by gluelicker | January 20, 2009 6:45 PM
Posted on January 20, 2009 18:45