Sunday Morning Fever
This might not be as long as some Sunday-morning ruminations. I woke up this morning with a temperature of 102.9. Yesterday it bounced back and forth between about 99.5 and 101.6 or so. You should see me sitting here shivering, with the thermostat set to nearly eighty degrees!
There don't seem to be any real symptoms with this, I have a dull headache off and on but basically I just feel crummy. And man, this is rotten, getting sick on the weekend! What a dirty deal.
The final hearings on the gender-identity nondiscrimination referendum were held this week in the old courthouse in Rockville. I described the testimony as "mind-numbing" at one point, but mostly it was fascinating. Yes, there was a part where they had to show one page of petitions after the other where somebody had printed one name and signed a different one or something, but generally the two lawyers were well informed and argued well on their feet, and it's fun to watch them work the issues, each side telling the story so their protagonist is the good guy. This was complicated by the fact that the Board of Elections' lawyer needed to make it clear that he was not representing the bigots who ran the petition drive, but the Board who verified the signatures.
The law is clear, and a lot of signatures did not meet the requirements -- I think the lawyer said forty percent didn't. Of course the judge will decide how to interpret the law, and nobody has any idea how the ruling will go. He doesn't feel good about rejecting signatures because somebody left out their middle initial, but that is what the law says. Some of the things were bizarre, whole pages filled out with the same signature, lines without any name or signature at all verified as registered voters, some were relatively petty but still in violation of the regulations.
There was also the new thing, the number of signatures required. The Board of Elections told the CRW they needed so-many, and they really needed quite a few more than that. Turns out the Board had derived the target number from "active" voters and not "registered" voters as required by law. I sympathize if they complain that the Board told them the wrong thing, but the law doesn't say "get however many signatures the board says," it says "get five percent of registered voters." Ironically, the Board's lawyer tried to say that the plaintiffs had missed a deadline for complaining about this, by saying that the actual numbers were available on the Maryland State Board's web site. But that means their side should have known too, funny how that works out. There's probably a Latin term that you learn in law school that means "argument that backfires on you."
The judge will rule soon, maybe this week but there's no guessing. Two things might happen. He might rule that the signatures are valid and there were enough of them, and the referendum will go on the ballot in November. Or he might decide that one or many screw-ups justifies calling it off.
The shower-nuts want us to believe it is somehow more "democratic" to have the citizens of the county vote on the bill. The problem here is that the average citizen doesn't know anything about gender identity, or care. It is estimated that about one tenth of one percent of people are transgender, and that's not very many people. For most folks it's not worth putting a lot of energy into learning about it. You can be sure, if it does go to a referendum, that they'll try to twist the issue around to predators and pedophiles in the ladies locker-room, like they did when they were gathering petition signatures. And what that means is that somebody is going to have to spend a lot of money and a lot of effort to educate the public. People will need to learn what the law is really about, which is discrimination. The public will learn about the kinds of discrimination that people with unusual gender identities deal with, and why there is a need for such a law. But the hard part will be educating the public about gender identity, about transgender people as people. The sad thing is that this is a lot of work, and the County Council already did this, they studied the issue, got the facts, and made a well-informed decision.
There don't seem to be any real symptoms with this, I have a dull headache off and on but basically I just feel crummy. And man, this is rotten, getting sick on the weekend! What a dirty deal.
The final hearings on the gender-identity nondiscrimination referendum were held this week in the old courthouse in Rockville. I described the testimony as "mind-numbing" at one point, but mostly it was fascinating. Yes, there was a part where they had to show one page of petitions after the other where somebody had printed one name and signed a different one or something, but generally the two lawyers were well informed and argued well on their feet, and it's fun to watch them work the issues, each side telling the story so their protagonist is the good guy. This was complicated by the fact that the Board of Elections' lawyer needed to make it clear that he was not representing the bigots who ran the petition drive, but the Board who verified the signatures.
The law is clear, and a lot of signatures did not meet the requirements -- I think the lawyer said forty percent didn't. Of course the judge will decide how to interpret the law, and nobody has any idea how the ruling will go. He doesn't feel good about rejecting signatures because somebody left out their middle initial, but that is what the law says. Some of the things were bizarre, whole pages filled out with the same signature, lines without any name or signature at all verified as registered voters, some were relatively petty but still in violation of the regulations.
There was also the new thing, the number of signatures required. The Board of Elections told the CRW they needed so-many, and they really needed quite a few more than that. Turns out the Board had derived the target number from "active" voters and not "registered" voters as required by law. I sympathize if they complain that the Board told them the wrong thing, but the law doesn't say "get however many signatures the board says," it says "get five percent of registered voters." Ironically, the Board's lawyer tried to say that the plaintiffs had missed a deadline for complaining about this, by saying that the actual numbers were available on the Maryland State Board's web site. But that means their side should have known too, funny how that works out. There's probably a Latin term that you learn in law school that means "argument that backfires on you."
The judge will rule soon, maybe this week but there's no guessing. Two things might happen. He might rule that the signatures are valid and there were enough of them, and the referendum will go on the ballot in November. Or he might decide that one or many screw-ups justifies calling it off.
The shower-nuts want us to believe it is somehow more "democratic" to have the citizens of the county vote on the bill. The problem here is that the average citizen doesn't know anything about gender identity, or care. It is estimated that about one tenth of one percent of people are transgender, and that's not very many people. For most folks it's not worth putting a lot of energy into learning about it. You can be sure, if it does go to a referendum, that they'll try to twist the issue around to predators and pedophiles in the ladies locker-room, like they did when they were gathering petition signatures. And what that means is that somebody is going to have to spend a lot of money and a lot of effort to educate the public. People will need to learn what the law is really about, which is discrimination. The public will learn about the kinds of discrimination that people with unusual gender identities deal with, and why there is a need for such a law. But the hard part will be educating the public about gender identity, about transgender people as people. The sad thing is that this is a lot of work, and the County Council already did this, they studied the issue, got the facts, and made a well-informed decision.
posted by JimK at 1:40 PM
27 Comments:
Hi Jim,
I'm no infectious disease specialist, but I find that your fever getting worse from one day to the next a bit disconcerting. Perhaps you should visit a doctor. I hope you make a full recovery quickly.
Peace,
Cynthia
Thanks for the tip Cynthia. Around noon today it was down to 97.5! If this drags on, gets worse, if I get symptoms of some sort, or if the fever gets too high I will go see a doctor. In the meantime, I tend to prefer to let nature take its course.
PS Right now it's 100.0.
JimK
Great post, Jim.
Do feel better soon!!!
Knowledge can only come from truth and the citizens of MoCo know that.
Thank you for bringing truth to light every time you post something.
That fever's affecting your brain, Kennedy!
"The shower-nuts want us to believe it is somehow more "democratic" to have the citizens of the county vote on the bill."
Gee, somehow they think voting is democratic.
Go figure!
"The problem here is that the average citizen doesn't know anything about gender identity,"
That's what public debate is for! In a democracy, anyway.
"or care."
That's their perogative. This is a democracy.
"It is estimated that about one tenth of one percent of people are transgender, and that's not very many people."
Dubious statistic alert.
"For most folks it's not worth putting a lot of energy into learning about it."
That's their perogative. This is a democracy.
"You can be sure, if it does go to a referendum, that they'll try to twist the issue around to predators and pedophiles in the ladies locker-room, like they did when they were gathering petition signatures."
Gee, someone is going to discuss the possible effect of a bill.
What kind of twisted mind would actually do that!
That's what public debate is for! In a democracy, anyway.
"And what that means is that somebody is going to have to spend a lot of money and a lot of effort to educate the public."
On both sides.
That's what public debate is for! In a democracy, anyway.
"People will need to learn what the law is really about, which is discrimination."
Yes, everyone will need to "learn"
that TTF's opinion is the only "scientific" one.
"The public will learn about the kinds of discrimination that people with unusual gender identities deal with,"
They already know about that. The public is the one discriminating.
"and why there is a need for such a law."
"need"?
"But the hard part will be educating the public about gender identity,"
That's true. People generally find it hard to learn a bunch of crap.
"about transgender people as people. The sad thing is that this is a lot of work, and the County Council already did this, they studied the issue, got the facts, and made a well-informed decision."
Actually, not really. Dana and Duchy told them what to think and they bought because they wanted to be cool like the lunatic liberals in Hollywood, 'Cisco and Manhattan.
Wyatt,
I try my best to understand both sides, or, when necessary, all sides of an issue. In this case, I'm trying to understand your fears, what you think you stand to lose. How you're going to cope when you do "lose" in your mind. Those fears are palpable, and have been very visible over the past few months.
But this comment makes it clear why you are outside the pale:
"People generally find it hard to learn a bunch of crap."
It is, unfortunately, indicative of those who have supported right-wing Republican policies the past three decades. Not simply an ignorance of science, but a complete and total disrespect for the hard work and expertise of hundreds of thousands that has changed our way of life. You ridicule scientific assemblies as well as scientific knowledge as being part of some "Hollywood conspiracy." And yet, I would bet, you drive a car, use a computer, visit your physician when necessary, and are completely oblivious of either your cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy. I would love to be there when your cardiologist tells you to start a statin because your arteries are getting blocked, and you reply, "That's just a bunch of crap. You must be a member of the AMA."
For some reason I don't that is going to happen.
I'm quite flattered that you spend so much time thinking about me. Who knew?
So,
Why is it that the CRW anonymii opponents can't come up with distinctive names? Why do several people hide behind the dull, boring name 'anonymous'?
At least I came up with a semi-cool pseudonym to use when posting against the conservative fundevangelist blogs railing against what they perceive to be the tip of the spear of the Great (Tyson) Homosexual Agenda trying to ram/cram/shove immoral/amoral values of predation/perversion down the throats of the 'vast majority' (however many that may be, even if it's less than 50% of the total) of MoralGodFearingRighteousUpstanding citizens, et cetera, et cetera.
'Wyatt', you called her, Dr. Beyer? One of the anonymii, my guess the king anonyma? Talking about 'democracy', another word which now has a contested definition.
The democracy I believe in, and that I believe is the 'Democracy' that is at work in the society that is the United States of America is the one where there is a mechanism -- the courts -- which are there to provide a redress to the tyranny of the majority. It is this 'Democracy' that eventually played a part in the ending of slavery, in the ending of segregation and Jim Crow, in the ending of discriminatory 'anti miscegenation' laws and their enforcement, and in the persecution of gay males via anti-sodomy laws which were enforced unequally against consenting gay males.
My 'Democracy' found in California that preventing consenting adults of the same sex from marrying was discrimination, and as discrimination should be struck down.
Wyatt, your 'democracy' will try to use the tyranny of the majority to re-establish discrimination against same sex marriage in California. Getting 50% of the vote +1 doesn't make discrimination right, it makes it an organized, genteel lynching of a minority group.
I think my 'Democracy' is better than your 'democracy'. A LOT better.
Ja, ne;
Hazumu
Hazumu,
The only member of CR? that has taken responsibility for herself has been Theresa, which elevates her in this dialogue and in my estimation. Analyzing language you can trace a number of her colleagues, one of the nastiest who is Wyatt the CPA. Jim banned someone else earlier who was nothing more than a schoolyard bully.
In my mind he essence of democracy, from the days of the town hall in New England and preceding that over two thousand years earlier in Athens, was debate and dialogue. It wasn't voting, because, as I said, voting wasn't even in the Constitution, and most people weren't allowed to vote. Believe it or not, most non-citizen (male) immigrants have been allowed to vote in most states and territories of this country at one time or another, with the right being rescinded by 1924 during the Red Scare.
On this blog we rarely find dialogue. CR? seems to find the willingness to discuss, let alone to compromise any principle, to be anathema. One would think they would have learned when their first attempt to overturn the school sex-ed curriculum led to an even more progressive one. Alas, not. As I've said, when legislation comes before the Council, interest groups lobby to be heard, and invariably they are heard. In this case, all they did was whine and present nasty, hateful materials. Not that they would have been able to influence with their nonsensical idea that this law forces people to sleep in the same bed as a transwoman, or that they would have carved out an exemption in the law for their religious beliefs (when none exists for any of the other categories), but you never know what will result when reasonable people reason together. The bill started out pretty conservatively, but with their extreme and rude behavior they had forced it to be more open-ended they they desired.
It may also be that they truly know they have nothing to fear in the end, and therefore can howl all they want because there is so little at stake here. But I have no doubt that they are experiencing a profound sense of loss of something much more fundamental in their lives, and this is simply their projection of that loss. Certainly the existence of hundreds of trans persons can't truly be viewed as a threat; something else is in play.
And for those just arrived, I will repeat that there is nothing in any Bible that deals with this issue, so hiding behind religion has no play here.
For those of you seemingly confused about democracy, here's the definition:
"1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
While it's true that democracy doesn't always provide righteousness- in a fallen world, the majority can and will be mistaken- it is preferable to the alternative, which is solving all problems by force.
Lunatic fringe gay advocates would rather get rid of democracy and take their chances with the mob.
Short-sighted!
"Certainly the existence of hundreds of trans persons can't truly be viewed as a threat; something else is in play."
What's in play is an aggressive gay agenda. No one is threatened by "trans persons". The opposition is to special protection for this group and governmental endorsement of their normality.
Get the government out of it and no one has any problem.
"On this blog we rarely find dialogue."
That's true. It's mostly TTyeahright calling people names.
"CR? seems to find the willingness to discuss, let alone to compromise any principle, to be anathema."
When the curriculum controversy started CRC wanted the school board to resign and teaching sex ed left at home. In the end, they were merely arguing to, at least, give kids a realistic idea of the dangers being euphemized.
When did TTF ever compromise? This oft-repeated statement of the daft doctor is just a lie.
"One would think they would have learned when their first attempt to overturn the school sex-ed curriculum led to an even more progressive one."
It's actually a better result, sometimes, to allow the opposition to go all the way. Now, the curriculum is so far out that kids are more likely to reject it.
"Alas, not. As I've said, when legislation comes before the Council, interest groups lobby to be heard, and invariably they are heard. In this case, all they did was whine and present nasty, hateful materials."
Depends on the issue. This is not a zoning regulation but an attempt by government to rule on moral issues. "Whine", "nasty", "hateful"- all characterizations of those who are dissenting. The daft doctor would say the same about any opposition to this bill. It's not the manner of dissent that the doctor objects to but the possibility it might achieve its goals.
"Not that they would have been able to influence with their nonsensical idea that this law forces people to sleep in the same bed as a transwoman, or that they would have carved out an exemption in the law for their religious beliefs (when none exists for any of the other categories), but you never know what will result when reasonable people reason together."
The Council could have prevented what has happened by trying to forge a bill that took the interests of all their constituents into account. Instead they ignored that.
The opposition had to take it to a more reasonable court- the people.
Thank goodness we live in a democracy!
"The bill started out pretty conservatively, but with their extreme and rude behavior they had forced it to be more open-ended they they desired."
This says it all. The bill was designed more to personally attack some constituents than to help anybody. Transgenders in MC are doing just fine. The whole point was to attack social conservatives.
This county has some big problems. This bill was an unnecessary waste of time.
The sooner the voters can send Duchy and Dana back to private pursuits the better!
"And for those just arrived, I will repeat that there is nothing in any Bible that deals with this issue, so hiding behind religion has no play here."
Can you give us an example of someone doing that on the transgender issue, Daffy Duck?
"The democracy I believe in, and that I believe is the 'Democracy' that is at work in the society that is the United States of America is the one where there is a mechanism -- the courts -- which are there to provide a redress to the tyranny of the majority. It is this 'Democracy' that eventually played a part in the ending of slavery,"
I've got news for you, Hazumu:
Slavery didn't end because there was "redress to the tyranny of the majority".
It ended because we have freedom of religion and American Christians began to believe slavery was immoral and contradictory to God's will and they began a movement to end it.
No freedom of religion. No abolitionist movement.
That's the facts!
And we have laws that protect the equal civil rights of minorities because Congress voted to enact them, not the populace.
Sometimes our elected leaders have to lead. Just as our County Council did, unanimously.
Could someone here elucidate who this strange "anonymous" "WYATT" is? He seems to be a very sad, bitter, angry, threatened, neurotic individual who is desperately hanging on to outmoded thinking reflecting a deep-seated ignorance and hatred. Does he consider himself a Christian? (he seems to be the antithesis of what that religion preaches) Why does he not identify himself? Perhaps he suffers from a persecution complex? I don't know...but I do know that he too easily falls back on snide nastiness, ugly bitterness, and rude personal attacks far beyond what is generally expected and accepted for enlightened and mannerly discussion on this site.
RT
"And we have laws that protect the equal civil rights of minorities because Congress voted to enact them, not the populace.
Sometimes our elected leaders have to lead. Just as our County Council did, unanimously."
Such a misleading, mischaracterization of history. Civil rights laws weren't passed by a group of sage legislators who suddenly achieved enlightenment.
It was in response to a grass roots movement of a significant segment of our populace demanding an end to persecution. It had the support of the public and Congress responded so as not to be left behind. Politicians, as ever.
How does that correspond to the uncalled for attempt to correct a problem that doesn't exist? There was no outcry for laws giving special protection to transgenders. Transgenders exist in MC and everyone is perfectly willing to let them join in our eceonomic system by buying and trading their goods and services. No problem.
What we have is a group trying to get the government to endorse their reform of society and a bunch of legislators who have pretty much pushed liberalism to its reasonable end and are looking for some new horizon.
"very sad, bitter, angry, threatened, neurotic individual who is desperately hanging on to outmoded thinking reflecting a deep-seated ignorance and hatred"
I think your worry is that the thinking is not outmoded. Indeed, your worry is that the voters of MC don't want 23-07. That's why you don't want it voted on.
"he too easily falls back on snide nastiness, ugly bitterness, and rude personal attacks far beyond what is generally expected and accepted for enlightened and mannerly discussion on this site"
Could you give us a few examples from this morning's posts that were, apparently, the catalyst for your remarks?
Actually, one of the most significant moments of the civil rights movement was when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, outlawing school segregation. If you are suggesting that this decision was made possible by a "grass roots movement," you need to go back to school. It was a decade later before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and a year longer than that for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I am sure that you would have attacked the Brown decision as "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" and "undemocratic" and "attacking the cultural norms of the South" and other such nonsense.
And BTW, we don't live in a democracy, at least not in any normal definition of the word. We live in a republic, which has over time taken on greater democratic aspects. Sean Wilentz's book The Rise of American Democracy portrays the tension between rising democratic elements and the original republican vision of the authors of the Constitution very well for the period from 1790 to the Civil War.
But there are limits to the majoritarian democratic elements, mainly because the Constitution has certain decidedly anti-democratic provisions to it, which were designed to protect minorities (numerical here, not racial) from the worst aspects of a majority.
The referendum came about because of the frustrations of progressives in the face of entrenched corporate influence in the early 20th century. While that may or may not have been a good goal (probably not from your perspective, I'd guess), the referendum in more recent times has become a club for ill-informed majorities to strike out at discrete minority groups such as gays, transgenders and others. It also has become the vehicle for cranks like Robin Ficker (who I'm sure you agree with completely) to waste the time of County voters with ill-advised proposals that are only supported by the small know-nothing minority.
But back to the point: if you're going to use words like "democracy," learn what they mean and recognize that while there are democratic elements to our system of government, it is far more republican (small r) than democratic (small d).
"But back to the point: if you're going to use words like "democracy," learn what they mean"
Thanks for letting know what conditions you'll allow me to use terms that seem radical to you, like "democracy". I really appreciate your tolerance.
I used the term precisely as the dictionary defines it. It was your friends that confused concepts. I know you guys find the concept of democracy threatening.
There are rights recognized as belonging to everyone which cannot be taken away by the majority under our Constitution, thus tempering the democratic nature of our system.
The right to sexual deviance is not among them.
"and recognize that while there are democratic elements to our system of government, it is far more republican (small r) than democratic (small d)"
The republican element is for the sake of practicality. In the late 1700's it would not be feasible to have everyone vote on every law. It still isn't feasible but legislators are not chosen for wisdom beyond the ordinary citizen but as representatives of their constituents.
You're confusing legislative and judicial functions. The ideologically obese slobs on the County Council are not an elite who has a vision superior to the rest of us. They are subject to the judgment of voters.
Besides being an arrogant jerk (trust me, I know the difference between legislative and judicial functions, not to mention more about either one than you ever will), you are fixated on "rights." Our governmental system is anti-majoritarian and in fact anti-democratic in many respects that do not involve individual rights. For example, the filibuster in the Senate. For example, did you know that there is no federal constitutional right to vote for president? For example, that thing called checks and balances (y'know, three branches of government and all that)?
For yet another example, I defy you to find me a case or a statute that says that you have an unqualified "right" to have a referendum. Hint: you don't.
I do find it rather ironic and amusing that for someone who is so fixated on others' claims of "rights," that you claim entitlement to a right that doesn't actually exist.
And the idea that the you can idly wave away the actual form of our government with the notion that the "republican element [of the constitution] is for practicality" is laughable.
In a pure democracy, everything gets put to a vote. What we have is a primarily republican representative government, where you get to vote democratically for your representatives. If you don't like what they do, VOTE THEM OUT. That's your form of government. Don't like it? Too bad. But don't call it something it's not.
Ut-oh!
Looks like trouble in Lunatic Land!
"(July 14) -- A new Newsweek poll shows that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama leads Republican rival John McCain by just 3 percentage points, a statistical dead heat -- and a sharp drop from the 15-point lead Obama held in June."
"What we have is a primarily republican representative government, where you get to vote democratically for your representatives. If you don't like what they do, VOTE THEM OUT."
Representative is correct. They are to represent their constituents. If they don't make the MAJORITY happy they are voted out.
Here in MC, however, on the local level, we are a little closer to pure democracy. We control the local legislature a lot more closely. A law here is not official until the citizens have a chance to set up a referendum on it. Only if the citizens acquiese is the law enacted. Basically, the citizens can watch each action of the Council and assure themselves that the Council followed the will of the majority. If not, the citizens won't allow the Council's vote to become law. That's what happened with 23-08.
You take your copies of the bill and throw them in the fireplace this fall.
Still, don't know if we're disagreeing or if you're simply trying to let everyone know you took a Government course in high school.
Original point remains: TTF opposes democracy.
The only rejoinder from you guys seems to be: democracy's not all that great anyway.
I assume then you agree with me on the original point.
Why tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth when you are an unaccountable cloaked coward? You left out these facts, Anon:
...Princeton Survey Research Associates, which conducted the poll for NEWSWEEK, says some of the discrepancy between the two most recent polls may be explained by sampling error.
...the poll suggests underlying strengths for the Dem. Concerns that he would be unable to unite the Democratic Party after the bruising fight against Clinton appear to be unfounded. Only 17 percent of former Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain in the general election, and 13 percent of undecided voters are former supporters of the New York senator. But 61 percent of registered voters who support Obama say they support him strongly, compared to just 39 percent who say they strongly support McCain. At a similar point in the 2004 presidential race, only 53 percent of supporters of Democratic nominee John Kerry said they supported him strongly.
The new poll suggests white voters continue to be a challenge for Obama, with McCain leading the Democrat in that category 48 to 36 percent. Some of Obama's lag in white support may be explained by continual confusion over his religious identity. Twelve percent of voters surveyed said that Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a Qur'an, while 26 percent believe the Democratic candidate was raised as a Muslim and 39 percent believe he attended an Islamic school as a child growing up in Indonesia. None of these things is true.
Thank you Anon, for demonstrating how the Rove-spun-GOP works -- DON'T TELL but if you do talk, just repeat the lie until people buy it.
You're a hoot, Bea!
I posted one sentence from the article.
Your response: he's hiding the truth and then you post up a bunch of out of context parts of the article, acting like everything's great.
How sad!
Here are the important parts of the article:
The race is a dead heat
McCain has the momentum
McCain leads among independets
Voters believe Obama is cynically changing positions for political advantage
Let me know if I got any of that wrong.
Believe me. At Obama HQ, they're in panic mode today!
Let's see,
Kerry
Gore
Dukakis
take me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind
down the foggy ruins of time
McBush has the soft support because of his long standing rift with the religious wrong.
61 percent of registered voters who support Obama say they support him strongly, compared to just 39 percent who say they strongly support McCain
And here's what Dobson said about McBush. He said if the race came down to McBush vs. Hillary or Obama, "I simply will not cast a ballot for President for the first time in my life.
big ole smile!
Here in MC, however, on the local level, we are a little closer to pure democracy. We control the local legislature a lot more closely. A law here is not official until the citizens have a chance to set up a referendum on it. Only if the citizens acquiese is the law enacted. Basically, the citizens can watch each action of the Council and assure themselves that the Council followed the will of the majority. If not, the citizens won't allow the Council's vote to become law. That's what happened with 23-08.
Not a word of this comports with the actual state of the law. Comfort yourself with BS if you like, but it's a pure fantasy.
you don't know what you're talking about
Sunday is not an ordinary day, it is universal holiday. I always enjoy the morning of this day. I think Sunday morning is like a fever for persons who are working 6 days in a week.
__________________
veny
Addiction Recovery Maine
Anon, another one like that and you may make history by being the second IP address banned here. Please stick to the topic, at least vaguely outlined, and attempt to simulate the appearance of adhering to conversational and logical conventions, as our other Anonymous bots do.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home