Thursday, September 11, 2008

This One Might Take the Cake

Alvin down in South Carolina tipped us off to this one, writing on his site Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. He tracked the mistruths down to their source, and I recommend that you go read his account -- he is a tireless detective and strong-jawed bulldog when it comes to fighting the bigots.

He points us to a site called Culture Campaign which has a post with this headline:
Sexual Deviants Given Green Light in Maryland

Court decides 900,000 petition signers can't challenge the controversial "gender identity" law allowing any man to use the women's shower by just claiming he felt like a woman at the time.

Come on, let's see who can outdo that one!

In case you missed it, there were 26,813 valid petition signatures, which is somewhat less than 900,000. As a reality check, according to Wikipedia, as of the 2000 census, there were 873,341 people in the entire county. You might also be interested to know that the population of the state of Alaska is 683,478.

Oh, and the shower thing. A man can use the women's shower legally now without any excuse, if he obeys other laws regulating sexual behavior. He doesn't have to claim he feels like a woman, he can just walk in, at least there's no law against it. There's nothing in this new law about showers or bathrooms, it doesn't change anything.

But this is going to get good. Who's going to top this? A million -- do I hear a million petition signers? One point one million ...

58 Comments:

Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I ask Theresa or Ruth -- do you have anything to say about this? All these blogs and websites are either fed by you or pick up your material. Are you going to let such gross lies stand?

And even on your website you claim over 30,000 voters "disenfranchised." You did not make that claim in court -- you accepted Judge Greenburg's number of 26,813. So how did that suddenly morph into 30,000 again?

September 11, 2008 11:34 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Why bother with the boring facts and figures when you can make up stories that are SO much more interesting?

Where would we be if we hadn't invaded Iraq to take out their Weapons of Mass Destruction? They were on the verge of deploying them and invading the United States!!

It doesn't matter WHAT the means are as long as you wrap yourself in the flag and that good-ol' fashion religion.

Peace,

Cynthia

September 12, 2008 7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTFers have gotta be glum this week. The candidacy of their favorite friend in Washington in in free fall. A week after McCain took the lead, his gains have been solidified. Palin made Charles Gibson look silly in an interview last night; she can handle the press. In Fairfax, a Northern Virginia liberal bastion, the McCain/Palin rally had to be moved from a school gym to a large open field to accomodate the clamoring crowds. Looks like the Supreme Court will be a pro-family one for the next generation.

"The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.


It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.

Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.

Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.

His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.

The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.

Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.

From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.

The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.

One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.

But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts."

September 12, 2008 8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
BWHAHAHAHA- anon likes to change the subject because Showerheads took a hit and now their pathetic cronies around the net are adding to the lies and misinformation.

the Big Lie always works better than the truth among the unintelligent.

Anon- when Pres. Obama takes office (gives you a few extra months here in MC) how about $25 towards the bus fare and you move to Alaska or Montana and get off our blog? And I am willing to negotiate upwards on the bus fare but I have to see the lease on your new basement apt in Polson or Wasilla.

September 12, 2008 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BWHAHAHAHA

We're in the lead, dreary, and Obama doesn't have a clue what to do.

This is similar to his collapse in the late primaries where Hillary won every big state in the two months after the media had decided Obama had it all wrapped up. Oddly enough, there are two months until the Presidential election.

And so much fun to come. Just think of the debate between Mac and Barack. Not to mention the face-off between Biden and the Barracuda.

Joe, you're gonna need a wetsuit made of chain-mail.

I guess, dreary, you can console yourself with your Pyrrhic victory in MC.

Catch anybody discriminatin' against guys in dresses yet?

I didn't think so.

Now I feel bad.

Tell you what. I'll pick up a round of appletinis at the big party at the Eyebar tomorrow.

September 12, 2008 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous appears to have read the editorial page of today's post, without having looked at the front page: A Tangled Story of Addiction--Consequences of Cindy McCain's Drug Abuse Are More Complex Than She Has Portrayed

rrjr

September 12, 2008 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous appears to have read the editorial page of today's post, without having looked at the front page: A Tangled Story of Addiction--Consequences of Cindy McCain's Drug Abuse Are More Complex Than She Has Portrayed

rrjr

September 12, 2008 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Of course Anonhole doesn't care about the big lie claim that 900,000 signatures were collected when in fact fewer than 30,000 registered Montgomery County voters signed their petitions.

And of course AH would change the subject to the election because in fact, the McCain/Palin ticket loves to tell whoppers as much as AH does. The GOP pair sets the bar on truthfulness quite low. Here's a lie that came out in Palin's first nationwide interview last night:

Alaska -Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's assertion that she believes humans play a role in climate change — made in her first major interview since joining the Republican ticket — is at odds with her previous statements. Palin said she didn't disagree with scientists that the problem can be attributed to "man's activities."
"Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," Palin told ABC News in an interview broadcast Thursday and Friday.

However, in the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. ... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."


It fits right in with her first nationwide lies told in her acceptance speech. Fact Check reports:

Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.

Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.

The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.

September 12, 2008 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And lets not forget that the One News Not page states that it was Baltimore residents that had their petition rights besmerched.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=245326

Not being form MAryland, I had to do a quick map check but it confirmed what I thought about Baltimore not being in Montgomery Co.

I think these clowns hit the Palin-esque, non-truthiness trifecta.

September 12, 2008 12:11 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Amazing

how anonymous tries to detract attention away from the post at hand, which is his side continues to lie about the referendum.

And anonymous, if you are going to copy a right wing post, columnist, etc. at least have the good taste to cite the source.

September 12, 2008 12:57 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Jim,

You really should be more up-to-date. The county population has probably already exceeded one million, so it would be true that only nine out of ten county residents, including infants and children, signed the petition.

September 12, 2008 1:32 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

See, that's why you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia.

JimK

September 12, 2008 1:44 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anon-freak, bad news for you, the lead Mccain had after the convention has evaporated and the latest polls show the two tied again.


http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/792858.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-12-voa19.cfm

"Bounces up in polls immediately following conventions are no guarantee of victory in November. Candidates who got higher post-convention poll bounces than their opponents and went on to lose include Barry Goldwater in 1964, Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988, according to a study by Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington."


The 10 percentage point lead you were bragging about was obviously an outlier and it won't be long until Obama is back in the lead he's consistently enjoyed.

The latest polls also show Obama is leading in the key battleground states that will decide the election:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778796&page=1

September 12, 2008 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see you've moved on a Kansas City paper to look for what you want to hear. I guess if you scour far and wide, eventually you'll find something encouraging.

Last week you were talking about how the Palin selection had "backfired". As proof, you cited Gallup and Ramussen, which both use a rolling three day averages. At that time, they still showed a small lead for Obama.

Monday, Gallup put McCain at 3 up and Ramussen had the race tied. Today, both polls have McCain up 3 so I don't see any significant change.

It's true that post-convention bounces generally fade. That's why the rather superficial Greek god show that amused Americans only gave Obama a temporary surge.

The Republican convention was not the conventional boost. What McCain did by picking Palin was energize the pro-family movement which had been discouraged because no major candidates, on either side, seem strongly committed to their issues.

Many had thought these voters had faded away. Turns out they were waiting for the right individual. And, again this election, they appear to be the difference between winning and losing for the Republicans.

As for the battleground states, when I plug the numbers into one of those interactive maps, I get McCain 274, Obama 264. And that's giving Obama Michigan, which I believe he will ultimately lose.

September 12, 2008 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Of course Anonhole doesn't care about the big lie"

This from the crowd that calls me uncivil.

At least they don't have the hypocritical hubris to call me crass.

September 12, 2008 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon

Baltimore?? I knew MC was growing- we are taking over the state. The numbers- well, inflating the numbers and denying the truth is standard for the showerfolk.

September 12, 2008 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least they don't have the hypocritical hubris to call me crass.

That's right. All the hypocritical hubris belongs to the shower nuts.

A different Anon

September 12, 2008 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

diff-anon

saying I'm uncivil and then calling me "anon-hole" is hypocritical

September 12, 2008 3:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonfreak, other polls have the two even. In any event even 3% is a far cry from the 10% you were bragging about a couple of days ago. Mccain is sagging as was inevitable. The experts are still calling it for Obama based on who's leading in which state. You plugging in your biases into an interactive map isn't going to change that.

September 12, 2008 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The doctor who wrote Cindy McCain her pill prescriptions loses his license and can't practice any more. The guy in whose name those prescriptions were written, not to his knowledge, loses his job and is intimidated into silence. The non-profit that supposedly distributed the pills in the third world shuts down.

What happens to Cindy? Maybe a week in rehab? We're not sure even that.

Why was she an addict? Maybe from carrying a baby before it was born. Maybe from the stress from John's being investigated in the Keating 5 scandal.

Where was John McCain in all this?


rrjr

September 12, 2008 6:17 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Very clever said...

“At least they don't have the hypocritical hubris to call me crass.”

What blog have you been reading?

Crass: barbarian, barbaric, boorish, churlish, coarse, crude, gross, ill-bred, indelicate, insensitive, philistine, raw, rough, rude, stupid, tactless, tasteless, thoughtless, uncivilized, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unpolished, unrefined, vulgar

September 12, 2008 8:21 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

All you guys do is WHINE, WHINE, WHINE, AnonBigots.

Stop lying and GROW UP!!!

Truth always winds. Put up with it.

September 12, 2008 10:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonfreak, other polls have the two even. In any event even 3% is a far cry from the 10% you were bragging about a couple of days ago."

I mentioned the 10% number. It was by USA Today. All the other polls have stayed fairly consistent. McCain leads right now. There has been no dimunition in his support.

It really strains credibility to believe the American people would elect a first-term Senator who has no accomplishments and no executive experience and a knack for bad decisions and an association with radical types to be President.

They never have before in the modern era.

"Mccain is sagging as was inevitable."

No evidence of that.

"The experts are still calling it for Obama based on who's leading in which state."

That's funny. The Democratic leadership must not be experts because they are mighty worried.

"You plugging in your biases into an interactive map isn't going to change that."

Yes, but plugging in the current polling margins in the states gives McCain a 274-264 victory.

It's all unpredictable. But there are some things that are pretty far out there.

Like your mind and location.

September 13, 2008 1:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The doctor who wrote Cindy McCain her pill prescriptions loses his license and can't practice any more. The guy in whose name those prescriptions were written, not to his knowledge, loses his job and is intimidated into silence. The non-profit that supposedly distributed the pills in the third world shuts down.

What happens to Cindy? Maybe a week in rehab? We're not sure even that.

Why was she an addict? Maybe from carrying a baby before it was born. Maybe from the stress from John's being investigated in the Keating 5 scandal.

Where was John McCain in all this?"

Hate to have to tell you this, rj, but no one really cares.

September 13, 2008 1:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What blog have you been reading?

Crass: barbarian, barbaric, boorish, churlish, coarse, crude, gross, ill-bred, indelicate, insensitive, philistine, raw, rough, rude, stupid, tactless, tasteless, thoughtless, uncivilized, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unpolished, unrefined, vulgar"

Sounds like someone who calls another "anon-hole".

TTF are a charming bunch, one must admit.

September 13, 2008 1:21 AM  
Anonymous Stephanie Stevens said...

WorldNetDaily back in July was also having problems with math.

At that time, WND accused homosexual activists of challenging "the right of 900,000 Montgomery County voters to determine the future of the law."

According to the U.S. Census Bureau the total population of Montgomery County in 2007 was 930,000.

September 13, 2008 7:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health plan.)

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Those attacks followed weeks in which Mr. McCain repeatedly, and incorrectly, asserted that Mr. Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, even though analysts say he would cut taxes on the middle class more than Mr. McCain would, and misrepresented Mr. Obama’s positions on energy and health care.

A McCain advertisement called “Fact Check” was itself found to be “less than honest” by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group. The group complained that the McCain campaign had cited its work debunking various Internet rumors about Ms. Palin and implied in the advertisement that the rumors had originated with Mr. Obama.

In an interview Friday on the NY1 cable news channel, a McCain supporter, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, called “ridiculous” the implication that Mr. Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment was a reference to Ms. Palin, whom he also defended as coming under unfair attack.

“The last month, for sure,” said Don Sipple, a Republican advertising strategist, “I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama.”

Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.

A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. “We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,” Mr. Rogers said, “and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.”

Mr. McCain came into the race promoting himself as a truth teller and has long publicly deplored the kinds of negative tactics that helped sink his candidacy in the Republican primaries in 2000. But his strategy now reflects a calculation advisers made this summer — over the strenuous objections of some longtime hands who helped him build his “Straight Talk” image — to shift the campaign more toward disqualifying Mr. Obama in the eyes of voters.

September 13, 2008 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Odd how significant you guys think this number is. The World Net Daily story was essentially correct. The citizens of Montgomery County have been denied the chance to vote on whether one of their most basic liberties should be taken away, the right to choose their own associates. Furthermore, a group of people distinguished by an ill-defined characteristic of dubious permanence have been given special protection not afforded to other citizens.

This despite the fact that a significant number of citizens indicated they wanted to vote on the issue and the fact that they complied with the requirements given them by the state agency charged with the oversight of elections. The BOE ruling should have been final. If pro-family groups didn't have adequate support, as anti-family groups like TTF maintain, the referendum would not have passed anyway.

Let's say you went to buy a fishing license and you were undercharged by $10. You couldn't then get a fine later that day by a park ranger that said you should have known how much the license was.

Same principle here. Citizens should be able to rely on the information given to them by an agency charged with enforcing a law. The ruling gives the government the power to eliminate any referendum they don't like by simply misinforming the citizens of the information.

Here's a question for you:

If we found out on Monday that the BOE published list of voters is wrong and that CRG had the right number of votes after all, should the referendum be put back on the ballot? Should CRG subpoena all voter registration records and make sure all the registations are signed and dotted?

September 13, 2008 9:51 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Not to mention the face-off between Biden and the Barracuda.”

Joe Biden will eat her alive.

And to be purposefully redundant,

Joe Biden will eat her alive.

Hmm, Now I just like the sound of it.

Joe Biden will eat her alive.
Joe Biden will eat her alive.
Joe Biden will eat her alive.
Joe Biden will eat her alive.
Joe Biden will eat her alive.
Joe Biden will eat her alive.
Joe Biden will eat her alive.
Joe Biden will eat her alive.

Might want to do a little more C-SPAN watching.

September 13, 2008 11:05 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Crassybil says...

“One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma...

Yup, we’re screwed - oh, and afraid. Did I mention that we're also very very afraid?

September 13, 2008 11:34 AM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Doublespeak, anonymous

How can an article be "essentially correct" when it gets the numbers wrong. And not just slightly - it got the number of petition signers wrong by a HUGE margin.

September 13, 2008 11:47 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Let's say you went to buy a fishing license and you were undercharged by $10. You couldn't then get a fine later that day by a park ranger that said you should have known how much the license was.

Same principle here.”


You could, but you shouldn’t, but I see your point and I agree with it. This case -- as far as I can see, so far -- has been won/lost on a third party technicality. Which, in principle, I don’t think is fair.

“Citizens should be able to rely on the information given to them by an agency charged with enforcing a law.”

Agreed.

“The ruling gives the government the power to eliminate any referendum they don't like by simply misinforming the citizens of the information.”

I got just the opposite impression, that the government needs to get its act together, and that’s what needs to be done next, so this never happens again.

The ruling doesn’t “give” the government power (to eliminate any referendum they don't like), it exposes an error that needs to be corrected.

“Here's a question for you:

If we found out on Monday that the BOE published list of voters is wrong and that CRG had the right number of votes after all, should the referendum be put back on the ballot? Should CRG subpoena all voter registration records and make sure all the registations are signed and dotted?”


If you informed every single signee that you lied to them to get their signature, and if after that, they felt that that was still acceptable, then yes, of course.

September 13, 2008 12:19 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

If you informed every single signee that you lied to them to get their signature, and if after that, they felt that that was still acceptable, then yes, of course.

Ouch! Good one!

JimK

September 13, 2008 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ATTENTION TTF'ERS!

I am seeting with anger..THEY ARE AT IT AGAIN!!

This morning (9/13), when walking through the parking lot to the Giant in the Milestone Center in Germantown, I was approached by a woman who handed me this flier:

"MONTGOMERY COUNTY REGISTERED VOTERS: 25,000 Signatures Needed

Controversial Law on Gender Identity Tested.
(Text follows). A man dressed as a woman walked into the women's lockr room at the Rio Sport and Health Club in Gaithersbury Monday (sic), spawning concerns over a new controversial law designed to protect transgendered people.
Around 1 p.m. Monday, a man wearing a dress waled into the women's locker room surprising Mary Ann Ondray who was drying her hair. (Description of this occurance followed)...The incident tests Montgomery County's new and still controversial law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity."
(Text continues): Theresa Rickman says, "the problem is, the language is so vague that guys can still go in the ladies room."
(THIS IS IMPORTANT PART):
Opponents are hoping to gather 25,000 signatures to put the new law up for a public referendum in November. (This web link was included: http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0108/488213.html)

When I asked what the purpose of signing the petition was, the woman told me it was for the purpose of putting the law on the ballot in November "so that the majority of Montgomery County's citizens could show that they oppose the law." When I pointed out to her that it was determined that an earlier Referendum question was struck down by the Court of Appeals this week, so what was the purpose of seeking names for a petition to vote on a law when the issue was settled by the Court and also that the legal date for placing a referendum question had passed on Wednesday, she said (not an exact quote) "well, we just want to alert people about the dangers of the law." She also alluded to these "men who want to dress and act like women." My question was: why then, if it no longer an issue to place a referendum question on the ballot, are you collecting signatures on this peititon?" At that time she stopped talking to me (and, btw, I have strong suspicions that this woman was Theresa Rickman; my belief of that is based on her response to my pointing out that the flier was misleading if not an outright lie...the incident allegedly took place earlier this year, not on Monday of this week (notice...no date on the incident) and that it was my belief that the whole thing was made up for publicity. She denied that, saying "I know what happened; I am the one in charge."
There were about 6 CRGers confronting Giant customers with their clip boards and hand-outs...not at their table...but by chasing many of the customers down in front of the Giant. They were also handing out fliers about the "failures" (sic.) of similar laws in Portland and in Baltimore as evidence that the law here in M.C. would result in similar outcomes. When I again asked the woman why they were doing this, her response was, "We are doing this on the advice of our attorneys."
I confronted each and every one of them, asking what the purpose of the petition was and that they were lying to potential signers. Every one of them refused to answer my questions and ignored me...as if on cue. The "gentleman" who was with them resorted, very loudly, to accusing me of "just being a man who wants to dress like a woman so that I could go into women's facilities to molest them". Those were his exact, outrageous words! (Not that it should make a difference...I am not a transgender person but a man who supports equal rights and legal protections for all of our citizens...and I told him that).
I also spoke to the Manager of the Giant and asked him to restrict their "free speech" activities to the table and not to confront or harass his customers. He apparently called his superior to get advice and then, according to him, asked them to stop disturbing his customers. When I left, they were still roaming the parking lot and the area in front of the store, confronting other customers.

Will these sick people never cease to spread their immoral and unethical disease on our population?
American Citizen

September 13, 2008 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Joe Biden will eat her alive."

I've got news for you, emprobably s., people aren't as impressed by Biden as the media class is. In fact, they've made clear, on his several runs for President that they don't find him very persuasive. To "eat her alive", he'd actually have to have the ability to convince people.

Did you see Charles Gibson "eat her alive" the other night? Oh yeah, he asked her if she agreed with the "Bush Doctrine" and she asked what he meant. Then he perched his glasses on the end of his nose and condescendingly explained what the "Bush Doctrine" was.

Oh, the superficial pundits on the nerworks howled. She so misinformed. She doesn't know what he's talking about.

Then came the real experts that have now pointed out that the "Bush Doctrine" has been used in four ways over the last seven years. The way Gibson defined it actually the third emanation and not the current definition.

Sarah was completely correct to ask what he meant. He obviously didn't know hwat he was talking about.

September 13, 2008 1:37 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

American Citizen rhetorically asked:

“Will these sick people never cease to spread their immoral and unethical disease on our population?”

I didn’t think the CRG would stop their efforts when the results of the appeal were learned. A few days later their website posted “Challenge Planned.” Maybe this is the start of it.

Now that 23-07 is in effect though, I wonder if it can be used appropriately. Under 27-5 it has the following text:

“Duties generally
(a) The Commission must:

(6) Study and investigate, through public or private meetings, conferences, and public hearings, conditions that could result in discrimination, prejudice, intolerance, or bigotry because of race, color, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, *gender identity,* genetic status, presence of children, family responsibilities, or source of income.”

I think it would be a Giant case of Galactic Karma if the bill they fought so hard to destroy comes back and bites them in the…

Where do I send donations for this cause?

Peace,

Cynthia

September 13, 2008 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you informed every single signee that you lied to them to get their signature, and if after that, they felt that that was still acceptable, then yes, of course."

Ouch, you and Jim are again demonstrably ignorant. The issue of whether the petitioners lied to get people to sign was not part of the legal contest. Obviously, the anti-family groups knew no reasonable jurist would side with them. No one was "lied" to.

It is a conceit of TTF that all their opinions represent facts.

The anti-family forces contested the vaildity of the signatures. Yet, if the BOE didn't properly scrutinize those signatures, why should we assume they did so when people registered to vote? Those records, which provide the denominator of the equation for the referendum threshhold may be completely inaccurate, given that they were maintained by the same agency.

Given that fact, and that the law is vaguely written and ineptly executed, the judges should have defaulted to the stance that would least burden democracy. If the referendum were held, the public wishes could be ascertained. As it is, this is left open for debate.

The decision was based on faulty logic and has an anti-democratic effect.

The competence of these judges is in question and their records should be examined and options for their removal from office considered.

September 13, 2008 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Stephanie Stevens said...

"Essentially correct"? Well, I'd agree with what BlackTsunami said about that one.

"A group of people distinguished by an ill-defined characteristic of dubious permanence have been given special protection not afforded to other citizens."?

Special protection?

Okay, I understand ... you're feeling a bit left out.

Maybe you would feel better if the County Council in Montgomery passed a bill protecting you too from "discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service, and taxicab service"?

Is that it, hon?

Well, have no fear ... our benevolence is not ill-defined or dubious ...

When we're through with our "agenda," we can work on getting some of those same "special protections" for you.

September 13, 2008 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bad news for Preya the Grouchy Canadian

realpolitics, the site that averages all the polls and comes out with a composite, has bumped McCain number up a tenth of a percent from yesterday

granted not alot but still it shows you are wrong that McCain's lead is shrinking

ALL the polls they cite from yesterday have McCain in the lead

if you want to vote, start a movement to secede from the queen and join up with the states

then you could have constitutional rights too

September 13, 2008 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
I am bemused by your comments about the Court of Appeals decision this past week.
You asserted that: "The decision was based on faulty logic and has an anti-democratic effect."
For those of us not as deeply educated about issues of jurisprudence as you would have us believe you are, perhaps you could elucidate on what about the decision is based on "faulty logic". I think the Court read the law, looked at the facts of the case, applied the law, and determined that the law had not been adhered to. But maybe I missed something here.
Secondly, your usual right-wing dinbat screed said: "The competence of these judges is in question and their records should be examined and options for their removal from office considered."
Well, of course you would say that! That is the party-line of the losers who always talk about "activist" judges when those judges do not enunciate or advocate their particularly odious interpretation of what constitutes immoral laws and citizens. Perhaps you could further educate us as to what the procedures are in the state of Maryland for investigating the competency and records of those judges whose decisions you do not agree with?

You know what? You LOST this case. Instead of continuing the misrepresentation of facts related to the court decision, lying to more citizens about signing a new petition to allow a referendum question on the ballot in November, disguising your true feelings about giving and enforcing equal rights and protections for citizens - yes, even those who you do not like! - why not put some of your inestimable time and energies toward alleviating poverty, disease, and injustice in our society?
Diogenes
Oh, and enough of your Palin-like practice of changing the subject when the discussion doesn't go the way you want it to.

September 13, 2008 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, and enough of your Palin-like practice of changing the subject when the discussion doesn't go the way you want it to."

There's only so much to say about WDN's terrific piece.

Did you hear that Obama cancelled his appearance on SNL tonight because of Hurricane Ike?

Wonder where he got that idea.

Hahahahaha!
HOHOHO!
HEEHEEHAHEEHOHEEHAW!

September 13, 2008 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"NEW YORK (Sept. 12) - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Friday she thinks Barack Obama regrets not making Hillary Rodham Clinton his running mate."

Little hard to dispute that, eh?

September 13, 2008 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what, "Anonymous"? You are so full of it! Quick, get up on the chair...it's getting deep in here. You TROLL

September 13, 2008 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Sarah Palin doesn't know what her own daughter is thinking much less Barack Obama.

September 13, 2008 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you don't seem to know what anyone's thinking, dreary

why aren't you in Texas, soaking up the rain?

September 13, 2008 7:41 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

It seems CRG has moved on from trying to overturn a law to actively raising fears in the county about transgender people in general. It has stopped being about politics for them, or religion, or opinion, and has become about aggressive fear-mongering against trans people.

I remember during the Anita Bryant times in Florida when our fears were raised about gay men molesting children.

This is scary. It might make sense for groups such as PFLAG or Equality Maryland to undertake public awareness efforts to teach people about lgbtq folks, and in this case about trans people in particular.

I have no stats, but it seems to me there is an increase in anti-gay violence in DC, and anti-trans violence in our national capital has always been an 'secret' scandal.

Scary.

rrjr

September 13, 2008 10:41 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Ouch, you and Jim are again demonstrably ignorant.”

Me and who? How do you even know that we’re not the same person?

Shouldn’t you be out scaring people with stories of aliens taking over people’s bodies so they’ll vote for McPalin?

September 14, 2008 2:18 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“The issue of whether the petitioners lied to get people to sign was not part of the legal contest”
~~~
The issue of whether the petitioners LIED to get people to sign was not part of the “legal contest?

CONTEST: agon, competition, contention, contest, controversy, dispute, dissension, emulation, grapple, lottery, match, race, rivalry, skirmish, sweepstakes, tournament, tourney, buck, challenge, dispute, oppose, resist, traverse, action, affray, altercation, argue, argument, battle, bee, bout, clash, combat, compete, competition, conflict, contend, debate, defend, dispute, duel, encounter, feud, fight, fray, game, match, meet, oppose, pitt, protest, question, race, resist, rivalry, skirmish, spar, strife, strive, struggle, tiff, tournament, trial, vie, warfare

So you really think that this is a GAME to be “Won”?

Do you really think God allows deceit into heaven?

If He can’t trust you on Earth, what makes you think He’ll trust you with the rest of what He owns?

September 14, 2008 2:30 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

I assume none of this means anything to you because it's coming from someone “like me.”

But you really have no idea how big It/He/She really is.

Obviously, none of us can, but we were designed to at least get an idea of what it all means. Right here, and right now - always - EVEN when you're in horrible pain.

We live in a universe where nothing bad can ever happen.

There's NO THING bigger than that. There's no god beyond that that's worth worshipping.

If God is truly Love, then this isn't a game, it’s a test. The test of eternity if you will.

We already "ate" of the knowledge of good and bad, and there's no going back (to the "garden" (technically we never left it)), but what could be better than the eternal gift of no fear?
--
The Bible says “ask and you shall receive.”

If you truly believe in the Bible, then ask to see God.

September 14, 2008 3:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have no stats, but it seems to me there is an increase in anti-gay violence in DC, and anti-trans violence in our national capital has always been an 'secret' scandal."

Yeah, like I have no facts but I think I'll just imply that my opponents are inciting violence so I can demonize them even though they've always been civil to me and have never once threatened me with violence.

Is that what you mean, Robert?

"Shouldn’t you be out scaring people with stories of aliens taking over people’s bodies so they’ll vote for McPalin?"

Let us know if you have any examples of anyone doing that, emprobable.

Remember, this is Teach the Facts.

Not, try to impress my fellow lunatics with my ability to lie.

"So you really think that this is a GAME to be “Won”?"

The lunatics contested the signatures not the content of the petition. They didn't make a legal contest because there was no deceit to contest.

And, no, it isn't a game. A bunch of lunatics have conspired with the Council to diminish the freedom of citizens in MC.

September 14, 2008 8:42 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Actually, Robert may not have the stats, but they do exist. Just because he doesn't have them does not mean they don't exist. And they have been presented to the appropriate authorities.

September 14, 2008 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Thanks Dana. This last post from Jim about the anti-lgbt people out in parking lots scaring residents about men in the ladies room, is real incitement to violence, at least for some people. I find it personally very alarming. I know for sure how much that violence and the threat of it harms lgbt youth in schools and in their neighborhoods, and impacts their school success.

CRG appears to be claiming that sexual predators are entering women's restrooms now, at the current time, and wants people to be vigilant of that.

It's not name-calling, but I think it is the essence of hate speech.

Anonymous' claiming that I am demonizing CRG is just funny. It's the moral equivalent of someone who calls people, let's say, "sexual deviants," protesting that people are uncivil to him. Yeah right.

rrjr

September 14, 2008 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Actually, Robert may not have the stats, but they do exist. Just because he doesn't have them does not mean they don't exist. And they have been presented to the appropriate authorities."

Really?

You have stats showing that when people hear that allowing anyone who says he feels like a woman to go into a women's room would allow sexual predators to take advantage of the law causes these people to be violent?

Let's see them.

What is more likely to happen is more establishments will simply allow only one person at a time to use their restrooms. More establishments will decline to put in multi-user restrooms. Everyone will be inconvenienced for the sake of catering to a few lunatics but I don't think anyone will get violent about it.

23-07 is poorly written and will be subject to overturning on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech grounds now that we have a Supreme Court that endorses the Constitution.

This bias in favor of the Constitution is likely to be strengthened in the McCain/Palin administration.

September 14, 2008 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous is being facetious and simply difficult, as always. We can safely discount whatever he says.

But, I think, given this agressive fear-campaign by CRG in MoCo, it makes sense to me for lgbt-supportive groups, especially trans-supportive groups, to actively educate and inform the public in general, to counter-act this inimical smear campaign. I remember the effects of Anita Bryants' and her allies message about Gay men, and the damage that it did. CRG's actions have the same purpose, to drive queer people underground and out of sight.

It's uncivilized.

rrjr

September 14, 2008 7:25 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

The amusing thing about the comments on this post is that it is a microcosm (hush up, I know I am probably spelling it wrong) of the election. Someone on the CRG side knows his or her side lost badly and continues to lie about their loss but rather than own up, he or she is trying to hijack and distract this post. Much like McCain/Palin is trying to distract this election because they cannot run on issues.

September 14, 2008 7:28 PM  
Anonymous Maryanne A. Arnow said...

Milestone Giant.

Within 3 miles of where i live. I love that store.

I regularly shop there. I am friends with the Seafood manager - a great guy - civil, decent, open and of good humor always.

He treats me with total respect, accepts me as the human being, the woman, and the knowledgeable foodservice professional and educated critical consumer that i am.

I will continue to go there as often as i wish, and yes, that does include using the ladies room, should i actually need to do so, as human beings of either gender have been known to do from time to time.

Inciting mob behavior and furthering the social acceptability of demonizing and discriminating against any feloow human beings has always been, and is still now unacceptable by any social or civil basis that i am aware of.

I would strongly suggest to the CRG supporters that since there is no longer a valid referendum available to you as a means of recourse, it seems rather ill advised to be using that as a talking point to the residents of my home county.

Thanks,

Most Sincerely,


Maryanne

September 14, 2008 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Maryanne A. Arnow said...

Oh - and just for argument's sake -
has anyone noticed that there is never an opportunity to respond, comment, or blog, on any of the opposition sites ?

Interesting that so many unwitting OR intentioned supporters of lies, discrimination, and bigotry, often in the name of Christianity, social and moral ethics, never provide equal forums for public response by the self espoused highest of democratic principles.

Even such well-respected leaders as Reverend Lou Sheldon and Chuck Colson - both of whom i have met before, and who, in person, were gentlemanly and truly kind, yet interestingly enough, have never provided any fair forums for response from the general public on their sites.

Neither does the CRG. How convenient and effective when you continually lie about, provide innacurate stereotypical misinformation to, or blatantly distort the issues to the public in such a way that no one can respond directly to you, on your own sites.

Their supporters and allies always foist their totalitarian and horrendous distortions of religious or moral tenets on to open sites such as this, so I find that a bit odd that there is never an equal balance the other way.

That should tell people something in and of itself.

September 14, 2008 11:35 PM  
Blogger Lisa Harney said...

It seems obvious to me that CRG is inciting people to violence against trans people. Why deliberately make the connection between trans people and sexual predators in the first place?

September 19, 2008 4:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home