Channel Seven Does Okay
I should mention that Channel Seven's news story last night about the hearing in Rockville was fine. Reporter Greta Kreuz has been known to be a little biased in her coverage of things having to do with gay and transgender people, so when I saw her at the courthouse yesterday I did not expect the best, you might say. I also overheard part of an interview where she was talking to somebody about men going into the ladies room, and expected that to be part of the story. But it wasn't. Well, only a little teentsy bit near the end.
Here's how it starts on the Channel Seven web site:
There's more, it's a pretty good story.
Again, there's that thing at the end: "the group contends." C'mon, everybody saw the documents projected on a big screen, there was stuff missing, there was incomplete stuff, there is no "contention" here ... This is my newest thing to hate in the news, attributing observations to somebody when the reporter himself or herself actually saw the event with their own eyes. This technique allows liars to have equal time with truth-tellers, which has turned out to be a serious problem for our country in recent years.
Anyway <takes_deep_breath>, the story is unbiased and informative, and I give Ms. Kreuz and her crew credit for that. We know she has an opinion about the subject, and to her credit that opinion was kept to herself. I don't know if someone at Channel Seven had a talk with her, or if she thought this through a little bit, but let's give Greta Kreuz a nice round of applause for covering the story well.
There is also video at that web site, the TV version is different from the text. They're both okay.
By the way, if you look at the picture on the right you'll see the petition where there is just a squiggle, no name, no address, nothing, with an "OK" next to it. Nobody has to "allege" or "contend" that the Board of Elections screwed up when they approved that "signature," you can see it with your own eyes.
Here's how it starts on the Channel Seven web site:
Supporters and opponents of Montgomery County's new law designed to protect transgendered people met in a Montgomery County court room Wednesday in a dispute over plans to put a referendum aimed at overturning the law on the November ballot.
At issue are the nearly 27,000 petition signatures gathered by opponents of the law, who say voters would overturn the council-passed measure if given a choice. The lawsuit seeks to have 12,000 of those signatures thrown out.
"There are very specific requirements in the election code. They weren't followed, and the board of elections has taken the position that they don't have to check," said Jonathan Shurberg, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "There are a lot of problems. There are a lot of signatures with problems."
The plaintiffs claim many of the signatures appear to be in the same handwriting, or that spouses wrongfully signed for each other. Many signatures were incomplete, missing, or otherwise questionable, the group contends. Transgender Law Controversy Heads to Court
There's more, it's a pretty good story.
Again, there's that thing at the end: "the group contends." C'mon, everybody saw the documents projected on a big screen, there was stuff missing, there was incomplete stuff, there is no "contention" here ... This is my newest thing to hate in the news, attributing observations to somebody when the reporter himself or herself actually saw the event with their own eyes. This technique allows liars to have equal time with truth-tellers, which has turned out to be a serious problem for our country in recent years.
Anyway <takes_deep_breath>, the story is unbiased and informative, and I give Ms. Kreuz and her crew credit for that. We know she has an opinion about the subject, and to her credit that opinion was kept to herself. I don't know if someone at Channel Seven had a talk with her, or if she thought this through a little bit, but let's give Greta Kreuz a nice round of applause for covering the story well.
There is also video at that web site, the TV version is different from the text. They're both okay.
By the way, if you look at the picture on the right you'll see the petition where there is just a squiggle, no name, no address, nothing, with an "OK" next to it. Nobody has to "allege" or "contend" that the Board of Elections screwed up when they approved that "signature," you can see it with your own eyes.
posted by JimK at 1:57 PM
50 Comments:
"Reporter Greta Kreuz has been known to be a little biased in her coverage of things having to do with gay and transgender people"
Your accounts might be called biased as well, Jim, but let's just face facts: you're a liar.
What a profound and interesting comment, Anon. How long did it take you to come up with such sound reasoning?
How is Jim lying, AnonBigot?
He just states the FACTS, not lies of his imagination, like yourself. Another "copy-and-paste" from you... not surprising.
You and your RED NECK agenda...sad.
Afraid you're wrong, Derrick.
Look at last night's post by Jim at 6:16. Riddled with lies.
According to an item in today's Post (Montgomery section) the Election Board is now embroiled in a dispute about paying election poll workers (p.18 - "Slow Pay Irks Poll Workers") According to Marjorie Roher, "While the Board of Elections certainly sympathizes with the frustration, it is really important for people to remember that we had three extra elections...We have done the absolute best we could do within our limitations." Hmmmmm..."within our limitations"?
Sounds like the Board of Elections is inept in handling the job it is assigned to do...perhaps there needs to be an investigation of their incompetence. It is definitely reflected in the cavalier manner in which they treated the tainted CRG petitions. The court ought to take their failure to adequately and legally do their tasks into consideration instead of listening to the feeble excuses proffered by their attorney.
RT
Also in today's Op Ed page in the Washington Post (p.A15): "Worse Than Mud" by author Danielle Allen seems to eerily expose the tactics used by the so-called "Anonymous" troll who ceaselessly writes his/her Mud (the author identifies this as "calumny")on the TTF Blog site.
She says: "A right to free speech is no excuse for lying. While strongly protected rights of free speech are critical to a healthy democracy, rights bring responsibilities. Citizens should, as a standard practice, take responsibility for their views--the matters of fact and principle that they wish to put before the public for consideration--by appending their full legal names to their expressions, even in blog posts. While there are times and places for anonymity, it should be the exception. Unfortunately, the Internet has brought us to a point where anonymity is the rule, not the exeption. Rather than facilitating free speech, this is corrosive to democratic discourse. It's time to rebuild a responsible culture in which people speak in their full, legal names and honor the truth. Mud we can laugh about. Calumny we can't."
She adds: "When lies work, why not lie? Yet when a culture ceases to honor the truth, it loses its ability to preserve law, justice and fairness."
Take note, "Anonymous"!
RT
Danielle Allen is an expert on ancient and modern Democracy, and I believe was recently named to the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton. A great American.
rrjr
So, I get it now...
Has anyone seen Jesus Camp?
I think I understand just how INSANE AnonBigot is now.
I just saw the documentary... very good. Here is a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tROHCyN4QOg
www.exgaywatch.com found the "Gay Agenda" in America! It's even the original:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Andrea- not anon
OH, gosh, MN anon called Jim a liar. As if MN anon has any idea what the truth is.
MN- have you agreed to go away- far away- when Obama becomes the president? I will chip in $5 for your bus fare.
Look at last night's post by Jim at 6:16. Riddled with lies.
Anon, I sat through about six hours of mind-numbing testimony yesterday so I could report here what had happened. You could read it in The Post or other newspapers, if you'd prefer, but I write it the way I see it. I report what I think is important, and that might be different from what The Post decides is important. And I might even get some things wrong -- like yesterday I wasn't sure if they were saying "obstruction" or "construction" at one point. And were they saying "Green Party?" It sounded like it.
You will not like the way I report the facts, because I see it differently from you. The Board of Elections' attorney really didn't want to have to defend the actions of the CRW, and he made that explicitly clear, several times. You won't like that. To you that may be the same as if I had told a lie. Most of us define the word a little differently.
I think my summary of what happened is accurate, I think I reported the important points, I may have a word wrong in a quote but I took lots of notes and am pretty sure I got them right.
You can call me a liar if you want, and you see how that works: it just makes you look even stupider. I have been writing here for more than three years, and have established that I am an honorable source of information. I'm a blogger, an amateur, I inject my personality into my reports because I can, nobody's paying me to be impersonal. But if I sat here and lied people wouldn't click on the link and read this blog every day, and actually we have a lot of readers. Our readers know they will get the facts as soon as they happen, and they can expect a little humor, a few surprises in the prose, maybe a fact or idea they had never thought of. And they know that if I get something wrong it will have been an honest mistake, not a lie.
... That was more of a response than you deserved ...
JimK
If Equality MD had wanted to accuse CRG of fraud, they shouldn't have had CRG's attorney kicked out of the case claiming they weren't going to accuse CRW of fraud because "that wasn't relevant to the case."
For EM to claim it wasn't going to be an issue, and have the judge dismiss CRW's attorneys, and then for that same judge to ask where the circulators were is a bit odd don't you think ?
If EM had wanted to talk about group that circulated the petition, they should not have sued to have the groups lawywer )ADF) dismissed as not a relevant party.
Essentially the judge dismissed the folks from the party and then asked why they weren't there !
Anon, maybe you can explain to the people how that makes me a liar.
JimK
Jim -- This is another anonymous, separate from the one who just brought up those points about CRG being blocked from defending itself because Equality Maryland had stated that they weren't planning to bring up any fraud on the part of CRG. All of those points that the other "anon" made were, indeed, brought up in court yesterday. Thus, to not mention ANY of them in your report was a lie of omission. They were important enough to the case to merit a mention, especially when you tried to use their omission to shed a bad light on CRG.
I can tell by the way you wrote this report that you were trying to be accurate. However, there were some glaring problems. I'll mention a few:
1. You said: "The Board of Elections lawyer, Kevin Karpinsky, TRIED to argue that the plaintiffs should not be able to bring up this subject, since it was not mentioned in their original complaint."
He DID argue that -- he didn't TRY to argue that. I bring this up because simply because you complained about EXACTLY this type of thing the other day -- you said that the media distorts their stories in EXACTLY this way.
2. You said" The Board's attorney TRIED to argue that there weren't very many bad petitions, but really, there are. I don't see it in my notes, but I think Shurberg said that about forty percent of them should be thrown out."
Again with the "TRIED" -- and you used that only when referring to the the Board's attorney, but not to Equality Maryland's attorney. Plus, you don't state something very important -- the majority of those "bad" signatures that you refer to are "bad" because the signers didn't include their middle initial. You tried to make it appear, from the examples you used above that statement, that there were fraudulent problems with 40% of the signatures -- which just isn't true. The judge mentioned several times that he had issues with the middle initial issue.
3. You said "He {the BOE's attorney} cannot be responsible for defending or rationalizing the behavior of the petition circulators, which as we have seen was ... irresponsible, to put it mildly. He was in court to defend the Board of Elections, which was accused of not scrutinizing the petitions that the CRW gathered, and didn't want to get backed into the corner, defending the unscrupulous behavior of the anti-transgender group."
If someone who had not attended court had read that they would think that you were paraphrasing the BOE attorney throughout that entire statement. You make it sound as though Karpinsky called the CRG's behavior "unscrupulous" and "irresponsible." Especially in the second sentence, you make it sound as if Karpinsky actually said those things about CRG. You worded it very cleverly, but it was deceitful nonetheless.
I could go on, but will stop here. I think you get the point. Oh, one more thing, you said in your last post: "I'm a blogger, an amateur, I inject my personality into my reports because I can, nobody's paying me to be impersonal."
Actually, you are a 501(c)3 organization, which means that the taxpayers are partially supporting you. You do have some responsibilities in that regard. At least, the heads of most 501(c)3 organizations feel that they do hold responsible positions, and they work to act in a professional manner. They understand that they are not simply "free agents" to do as they please when they're accepting taxpayer funding.
As I said, I can see why you think that your report was fair enough, and I think that you accurately reported large chunks of it.
Yes, and if you ask the taxpayers of Montgomery County who they would rather support, TTF of CRW, take a guess what they would say...
I am off to teach another day of summer school in inner-city DC Public Schools (but I, of course, teaching in Montgomery County PS during the school year). I thought teachers were supposed to get summers off?
Not the fact here- I care about people too much.
Anon, I'll try to address your points, since you were decent about it.
1. You said: "The Board of Elections lawyer, Kevin Karpinsky, TRIED to argue that the plaintiffs should not be able to bring up this subject, since it was not mentioned in their original complaint."
He DID argue that -- he didn't TRY to argue that. I bring this up because simply because you complained about EXACTLY this type of thing the other day -- you said that the media distorts their stories in EXACTLY this way.
You're right, he did argue it, and his argument failed. This is an imprecise but not incorrect use of language, the word "tried" means that he tried to win the argument with this, and he did not. And I have complained about news stories saying "opponents contend" to introduce some fact that is visible to all. I don't believe I have ever tried to split hairs over this use of the word "tried."
2. You said" The Board's attorney TRIED to argue that there weren't very many bad petitions, but really, there are. I don't see it in my notes, but I think Shurberg said that about forty percent of them should be thrown out."
Again with the "TRIED" -- and you used that only when referring to the the Board's attorney, but not to Equality Maryland's attorney. Plus, you don't state something very important -- the majority of those "bad" signatures that you refer to are "bad" because the signers didn't include their middle initial. You tried to make it appear, from the examples you used above that statement, that there were fraudulent problems with 40% of the signatures -- which just isn't true. The judge mentioned several times that he had issues with the middle initial issue.
I didn't ever hear anyone say this about the "majority of those 'bad' signatures." Again, "tried" is used in the same way, he tried to win the argument but didn't. This isn't really wrong, but you can make a point that he did not literally "try" to argue -- he "tried" to win the argument. I could say the quarterback tried to pass, and it was incomplete -- you could argue he did in fact pass, but native English speakers would be comfortable saying he tried. I wouldn't say this is wrong, it's just an imprecision in our idiomatic language, and I think even you would have to agree it's something you would accept in normal conversation.
BTW, you will notice that I myself said "it does seem bad to throw out a signature because the guy didn't include his middle initial..." I agree it's petty, but it is the law, just like the 10-day filing deadline with no defined start is the law. Sometimes it works for you, sometimes it works against you.
3. You said "He {the BOE's attorney} cannot be responsible for defending or rationalizing the behavior of the petition circulators, which as we have seen was ... irresponsible, to put it mildly. He was in court to defend the Board of Elections, which was accused of not scrutinizing the petitions that the CRW gathered, and didn't want to get backed into the corner, defending the unscrupulous behavior of the anti-transgender group."
If someone who had not attended court had read that they would think that you were paraphrasing the BOE attorney throughout that entire statement. You make it sound as though Karpinsky called the CRG's behavior "unscrupulous" and "irresponsible." Especially in the second sentence, you make it sound as if Karpinsky actually said those things about CRG. You worded it very cleverly, but it was deceitful nonetheless.
That's not deceitful, I didn't pretend to quote them, as, say, CRW President Ruth Jacobs did when she pretended to be quoting someone in a recent letter to the editor of the Gazette when the person had not said the thing at all; she used quotation marks and said "She stated..." blah blah. I'm writing this, I have the right to interpret, and my readers know where I'm coming from. He was clearly afraid he'd be called on to defend the indefensible and wanted to make sure it didn't come down to that. Go sit down and have a beer with the guy and see if he doesn't tell you that.
... Oh, one more thing, you said in your last post: "I'm a blogger, an amateur, I inject my personality into my reports because I can, nobody's paying me to be impersonal."
Actually, you are a 501(c)3 organization, which means that the taxpayers are partially supporting you. You do have some responsibilities in that regard. At least, the heads of most 501(c)3 organizations feel that they do hold responsible positions, and they work to act in a professional manner. They understand that they are not simply "free agents" to do as they please when they're accepting taxpayer funding.
I don't have any responsibility to tailor my message to make it palatable to anyone. My responsibility to my organization is to properly represent the situation in a way that reflects and supports our goals, and one of our goals is to promote integrity and honesty in public discourse. Unfortunately, many liberals are uncomfortable taking a solid swing at someone, they think they have to consider all sides of an issue equally and give everybody equal time to talk, and while that's going on the less scrupulous ideologues are stealing the debate. I am not like that, I present a pretty assertive front here, I don't mind calling a nut a nut or calling a (real) liar a liar. I don't think bigots need to be taken seriously or given equal time to poison our discussion. You may find that position to be irresponsible, I don't, and the argument that I owe something different to the taxpayers is not a strong one.
As I said, I can see why you think that your report was fair enough, and I think that you accurately reported large chunks of it.
Thank you.
JimK
"Yes, and if you ask the taxpayers of Montgomery County who they would rather support, TTF of CRW, take a guess what they would say..."
I would guess CRW and here's why:
CRW wants to give voters a chance to speak and TTF wants to deny that. That indicates to me that both sides have a good idea that the voters will reject TTF.
Can you tell why that isn't the logical view?
CRW wants to give voters a chance to speak
That's what the Nazis said too. They easily passed the Nuremberg Race Laws against the Jews in the 1930s.
And if US voters had been given the chance to vote on the Civil Rights Acts back in the 1960s, we'd still have separate, unequal schools, Jim Crow laws on the books, and interracial marriage would still be a crime.
Putting minority groups' rights to the popular vote is the antithesis of democracy.
You tell 'em, Aunt Bea!
We are a representative democracy, not one that lets the majority bias everything in their favor. It's bizarre to suggest that a referendum is more "democratic" than following our established law-making process.
No problem with minority rights, Bea.
They just need to be structured so that they don't trump the privacy rights of others or religous rights of others.
Mentioning religious rights, do not churches have tax exempt status? My taxes support religious organizations which say all sorts of scurrilous things about my people, and they feel no responsibility at all to tailor what they say. The argument that Jim represents a 501(c)3 and thus yields some of his free speech rights is specious.
Jim, I appreciate the time you take in going to what must be very tedious court hearings.
rrjr
"We are a representative democracy, not one that lets the majority bias everything in their favor. It's bizarre to suggest that a referendum is more "democratic" than following our established law-making process."
You're an ass, Merle. Referendums are part of "our established law-making process". By structuring your sentence to imply otherwise, you've told a lie. This is similar to the deceit device regularly used by the dissenting Dim Kennedy.
"Putting minority groups' rights to the popular vote is the antithesis of democracy."
Discrimination laws aren't rights. They are special protection afforded to certain groups deemed worthy of such protection. There are generally appropriate as temporary measures. Sexual deviancy doesn't deserve this in the opinions of most.
Back to the original topic, if TTF thought Montgomery County supported them, they wouldn't hesitste to be 23-07 up for the voters approval.
Contrary to Derrick's suggestion, TTF knows Montgomery County voters don't support them.
"Mentioning religious rights, do not churches have tax exempt status? My taxes support religious organizations which say all sorts of scurrilous things about my people, and they feel no responsibility at all to tailor what they say."
Anyone who resists the gay agenda deserves the support and thanks of the taxpayers.
"We are a representative democracy, not one that lets the majority bias everything in their favor. It's bizarre to suggest that a referendum is more "democratic" than following our established law-making process."
You're an ass, Merle. Referendums are part of "our established law-making process". By structuring your sentence to imply otherwise, you've told a lie. This is similar to the deceit device regularly used by the dissenting Dim Kennedy.
"Putting minority groups' rights to the popular vote is the antithesis of democracy."
Discrimination laws aren't rights. They are special protection afforded to certain groups deemed worthy of such protection. They are generally appropriate as temporary measures. Sexual deviancy doesn't deserve this in the opinions of most.
Back to the original topic, if TTF thought Montgomery County supported them, they wouldn't hesitate to put 23-07 up for the voters approval.
Contrary to Derrick's suggestion, TTF knows Montgomery County voters don't support them.
Derrick got it exactly right.
Given the fact that there are currently no GOP office holders in Montgomery County Maryland, which is another point that was raised in the courtroom, I think it's safe to say that Anon's notions about the electorate here are wrong.
Montgomery County Maryland is one of the most liberal and progressive areas in the nation. Voters here do not tolerate intolerance, which is what the CRG is all about.
I wouldn't assume the Democratic Party is a big supporter of TTF!
They probably find you guys embarassing!
Have any local politicians been pounding on your door for an official endorsement?
The fact that TTF doesn't want the county voters to have any say on 23-08 is all the proof needed that they don't think county voters will support them!
And when I say TTF doesn't want that, I mean they REALLY don't want that!
Doesn't make any sense. If TTF is so sure the county agrees with them, they'd be chompin' at the bit to prove it!
Speaking of Democrats, Obama the Blur has been at it again this week.
After voting for three amendments to gut the foreign intelligence surveillance bill this week, he then voted to approve it without any changes.
You'll remember in the primaries he promised leftist lunatics he'd filibuster, if necessary, to stop this bill from becoming law.
This guy is basically trying to pull a John Kerry. (yeah, like, man, I voted against it before I voted for it.)
Let me just say, on behalf of all pro-family voters in America, a big thank you to the Democrats for nominating Obama the Blur.
Please do us one more favor: please...please nominate Hillary the Horrible for VP!
You're so ass-backwards AnonBigot, you don't know your face from your bum.
Well, gee, Derrick, at least I know an "established law-making process" when I see one.
Your friend, Merle, thinks referendums aren't legal.
Nearly every candidate for Montgomery County Board of Education, County Council, and County Executive showed up at the TTF/EQMC candidate forum in 2006. CRWhatever didn't even host any candidate forums because they knew no one would show up.
In 2005, several candidates and elected officials attended TTF's educational forum. Ana Sol Gutierrez, Montgomery County District 18 Delegate and former President of the Board of Education, was one of TTF's speakers.
The only elected official in the state of Maryland who showed up at any CRWhatever event was Anne Arundel County Delegate Don Dwyer. That homophobe was their keynote speaker and he spewed so much hate they decided not to post his speech on their website. They did like Anon does, launched a bomb on the public and then hid their heads in the sand.
TTF represents Montgomery County. CRWhatever does not.
"TTF represents Montgomery County."
Really? Then why not let them vote for your proposed bill. That'll shut CRG up!
FACT is that 5% of voters have taken the trouble to sign a petition to get that vote in the face of intimidation by an aide to the author of the bill and other TTFers.
What are you scared of? Are you just too embarassed to let everyone know how well-liked you are?
And why are your events generally attended by fewer numbers than CRC's were?
Andrea not anon
Did MN Anon take my offer- it spouts so much junk, it is hard to wade through it. I put the $5 in an envelope- I bet I can get enough from the rest of our supporters for a 1 way ticket to Canada
Good attempt to divert attention from the embarassing fact that TTF is working against voting rights in Montgomery County.
Very gallant attempt to justify anti-democracy!
Napoleon would be proud!
Putting minority groups' rights to the popular vote is the antithesis of democracy.
Discrimination laws aren't rights. They are special protection afforded to certain groups deemed worthy of such protection. They are generally appropriate as temporary measures. Sexual deviancy doesn't deserve this in the opinions of most.
Last anonymous:
Good lord, you are full of shit. "Discrimination laws aren't rights"? Many but not all laws create rights, moron. If the law is designed to protect a certain class, then those within the class have the "right" to enforce the law. I know all those big words must make you dizzy, but if you're going to spout off, at least know what the hell you're spouting about.
And transgenders aren't entitled to rights, "according to most"? According to most who? Most wingnut paranoid freaks? You got some polling data to go with that nonsense, or are you pulling it out of your ass?
I am going to allow this one, but please watch your language here.
Thank you
JimK
"Anonymous" - do you really believe that 5% of the registered voters who allegedly signed your petitions are the voice of the other 95% of the citizens of this county? That's not only wishful thinking, but sadly out of touch with the reality of the political scene here in M.C. How many of your members, adherents, cronies have you offered up to the electorate in, let's say, the past 4 elections in this county? None? Hmmmm...I wonder why. Even an idiot could figure out that you wouldn't dare do that because you probably wouldn't even get 5% of the votes in an election. What makes you think you could even double that number of votes in any kind of referendum election?
You and your bogus group represent exactly nothing... except ignorant, fear-filled bigotry - you live in "Cloud Cuckoo Land". The tragedy and pity of all of this is that you actually believe that you represent the citizens of Montgomery County.
You assert: "FACT is that 5% of voters have taken the trouble to sign a petition to get that vote in the face of intimidation by an aide to the author of the bill and other TTFers." That statement is pure, unadulterated horse pucky...a lie oft repeated in the hopes that somebody will eventually believe it. Time to change your tape.
BTW...we do not enact "discrimination" laws here in Montgomery County...we enact "anti-discrimination" laws, designed to give all of our citizens equal rights and protections under the law, a concept obviously alien to your world view.
RT
Wyatt,
Are you aware that the right to vote isn't in the Constitution?
Are you aware that in Maryland there are statutes which elucidate the process by which petitions must be gathered and processed?
Apparently not.
Ok,
One comment.
Collecting at groceries stores, probably 1/2 the people didn't stop at all on the way in, or read the signs. They were busy and didn't pay any attention. Of those that stopped, 90% signed. Of the 90% that signed, 1/2 signed immediately. 1/2 thought about it and then signed. I even had one lady who talked the whole time she was signing. What she said when something like this "I am the most liberal person in the world, really, but I can't believe that they didn't put an exemption in for the locker-rooms. Even Barney Frank had enough sense to make an exemption."
So the idea on plastering the fact that "even Barney Frank made an exemption" on the website came from "the most liberal person in the world".
It doesn't matter that MC is all democratic. This issue crosses party lines.
And again, no one has a problem with anti discrimination laws for transgenders. Our law, unlike most of the rest, has no exemptions that protect the privacy and religous rights of others.
For that reason, if put to a vote even in liberal MC, it will be voted down.
“No problem with minority rights, Bea.
They just need to be structured so that they don't trump the privacy rights of others or religous rights of others.”
The privacy concerns have been argued ad nauseam and have been found to be a distraction (red herring).
As far as religious rights go, minority rights do indeed trump religious rights when “religious rights” is nothing more than a euphemism for supremacism, as is the case.
You can call your superiority complex “Christianity” all you like, it doesn’t change the fact that you worship your own sense of superiority as “God.” You’re love of pride is the antithesis of Christian (unconditional) love. In Biblical terms, you are the idolaters who have exchanged truth for a lie, and you now wish to package and promote the worship of your own egos (aka ‘Satan’), as the worship of a god who is love itself.
You worship love of self, not love itself.
It is unfortunate that you are incapable of knowing the difference, but such are the wiles of human life - the ‘cross’ between spirit and matter.
Do you really think a god of love had to come here to teach you the easiest way out?
“If TTF is so sure the county agrees with them, they'd be chompin' at the bit to prove it!
Then why not let them vote for your proposed bill. That'll shut CRG up!”
Because it wouldn’t shut the CRG up, it would empower them toward the next phase of their / your dominionist designs. Inevitably would come Citizens for Responsible Religion. Any religion that didn’t bow to the supremacist-christian worldview would be seen as an attack and in need of censure.
The same arguments would be used. Compare:
“How Your Same-sex Family Will Harm My Family
If this were just about your family, there would be no real danger. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for [themselves] alone, but rather demanding me — and all of us — to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.”
With:
“How Your Religion Will Harm My Religion
If this were just about your religion, there would be no real danger. But religious “freedom” advocates are not seeking religion for themselves alone, but rather demanding me — and all of us — to radically change our understanding of religion. And that will do great damage.”
So no, a vote on the legitimacy of their supremacism would not shut the CRG up. Their efforts must be resisted for the express purpose of exposing their dominionist designs.
"Are you aware that in Maryland there are statutes which elucidate the process by which petitions must be gathered and processed?"
Indeed, there are. That's why Merle is an ass when he says referendums aren't part of our "established law-making process." CRG followed these rules.
Now, are you aware, Doctor, that County Code Chapter 19A-14(e) states, “A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person’s freedom to engage in political activity.”?
Are you also aware that County Code Chapter 19A-4(m) defines a “public employee” as including “the County Executive and each member of the County Council” along with “any person employed by a County agency, including the director of the agency.” and that no exemptions appear for council staff or any employees operating off-the-clock?
Apparently if an employee of the County Council tries to pressure stores into kicking a petitioner off their property, they are interferring with with the petitioner’s freedom to engage in political activity.
Do you know doing that is illegal?
Just thought you might not know.
That's great Anon. Tell us about the Jack Daniels inspired thrill you got at 1:17 am threatening Dana from under your hood.
typical TTF.
Engage in a personal attack and not try and refute the charges.
Because they can't be refuted !
What charges? Got a record of charges being pressed?
Typical CRC, lying about non-existent fictions, like the stunt in the locker room.
That's why Merle is an ass when he says referendums aren't part of our "established law-making process."
So I'm an ass, am I?
Montgomery County has an "established law-making process." We elect Council members and an Executive. Council members study proposed bills and vote on them. Bills that are passed and signed by the County Executive become law. There is a provision in the law for voters to override the Council's vote through referendum. This is not a part of the "established law-making process" but is a way for the public to overturn the "established law-making process." It is rarely necessary, as our "established law-making process" normally works well enough -- if we don't like the laws that our elected officials adopt, we elect different officials. Referendumas are legal, they are a process, but they are outside the "established law-making process." It's not really a hard concept, Anon, we don't pass laws by having the public vote on them, we elect officials who pass them.
A small group of county residents is opposed to gay and transgender people, they opposed teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in the schools and when this bill was passed they opposed giving equal rights to transgender people. It is exactly the same people involved in both controversies. It has nothing to do with men in the ladies rooms, and everything to do with prejudice and discrimination. They have attempted to go outside the "established law-making process" in order to impose their will on the majority. They cheated and lied to get the necessary numnber of signatures, and the Board of Elections failed to monitor the situation. Hopefully a judge will issue a ruling soon that stops them.
"That's great Anon. Tell us about the Jack Daniels inspired thrill you got at 1:17 am threatening Dana from under your hood."
Unfortunately, I didn't have anything to drink last night.
Could you show me when I threatened the Doctor?
I don't remember doing it.
"There is a provision in the law for voters to override the Council's vote through referendum. This is not a part of the "established law-making process" but is a way for the public to overturn the "established law-making process.""
Ridiculous attempt to cover your mistatement, Merle. You're an ass.
Referendums are not just legal, they are part of the process. It's not just that a law can be over-turned- a law is not official at all until it has cleared the time period giving an opportunity for the public to veto it.
You lose.
You will lose.
You are a vile, foul-mouthed, stupid, nobody "Anonymous"...get your own elitist, neo-fascist Republican, red-necked Blog if you want to bloviate your snarkiness. You are a cist on the hind-quarters of humanity!
A view from a witness to al of it.
Sad thing that the people with CRG/CRC feel so justifiably correct in the course of action they have taken on this, and claim to have done the ethically and morally correct things in order to preserve their own version(s)of what "normal" human society should be for all of us.
The reason i say that is not to deflect anyone's legislative rights on either side.
Having personally witnessed lies, and partial to outright distortions, as well as extrememly emotional bias against people like myself, on the part of their respresentatives, during the petitions gathering phase, i feel as though their supposed moral basis must be questioned if such behavior is an acceptable form of so-called spiritual "correctness" in any form or manner whatsoever..
As well, after having personally reviewed dozens upon dozens of obvious forgeries and falsifications during the reviews phase, in order to get the required numbers of signatures,
the supposed "ethic" and correctly "moral" basis that their entire action is based upon, should be thoroughly questioned by all county residents, if not everyone in the state and country as well, that has begun to watch this debacle unfold.
Those of you that engaged in such dishonest tactics, and then turn around to beg for understanding from eveeryone in the world that you are trying to protect your families and children from the horros of abnormality and deviance, all the while behaving in evey manner that should be morally, ethically, and spritually called into the highest level of question possible, is truly sad.
These people have been utterly hypocritcal, rude, abusive, and brutally judgemental, even when their own religious tenets forbid all such things, and many have been truly mean-hearted and disingenuous in every possible manner that can be imagined.
These things should be questioned before anything else in this life is to be questioned.
Sadly,
Most Sincerely and respectfully,
Maryanne
Post a Comment
<< Home