Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

Steve DiNatale on Planned Parenthood coming to Fitchburg

Posted: February 3, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech, local stuff, opinion/news
Tags: , , ,

He was the first “citizen” speaker before the city counsel after the initial votes.

His arguments were pragmatic and exactly the type that will be most likely to make a difference when things come to a head.

And they will.

The “two” local papers cover the city counsel meeting…

Posted: February 3, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech, opinion/news
Tags: , , , , , ,

I put the “two” in quotes because the Telegram is out of Worcester. From their story:

Dianne Luby, executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said the grant her agency has received will allow it to “be part of the public health solution.” Though the teen birth rate in Fitchburg is 17 per 1,000 — lower than the state average of 49 per 1,000, she said — the city’s demographics make it ripe for a family planning program. The grant wouldn’t allow for abortions and the office wouldn’t have surgical equipment, she emphasized.

One thing that I found frustrating at the meeting is nobody on the counsel asked “what demographics”? What makes Fitchburg ripe for their services when the rate is way below the state avg and has been dropping?

The Sentinel’s coverage noted something else interesting:

Those who had originally wanted to draft a resolution against Planned Parenthood two weeks ago, but ultimately voted to take no action, cited legal advice by City Solicitor Michael Ciota, who said a resolution may be unconstitutional and could make the city vulnerable to legal recourse.

Ciota said the City Council must protect the constitution of the United States, which gives women the right to have an abortion.

“I am concerned finally that even if (a resolution) were not to open the door to liability in any immediate sense, the expressions of the individuals in this chamber which form the government of this city can,” Ciota said.

The counselors reaction to Mr. Ciota’s representations were the real story of the night and I’ll be discussing that in later posts on the subject.

Although it is not yet up FATV routinely puts up the city counsel meetings online. They will be broadcasting and re-broadcasting it on local TV as well.

How good was the reporting? There is a lot that was left out that I believe was significant but these were not meant to be essays, fact that the meetings ran so late might have been an issue since both papers run in the morning and deadlines looming.

As I continue to post on this I hope to add some insight that time and space might not have permitted for them.

Planned Parenthood and the City Counsel summary pt 1

Posted: February 3, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech, local stuff
Tags: , , , ,

I arrived at the City Hall at 5:30 p.m. one hour before the scheduled meeting.

Planned parenthood was there early too, these people were pros and had gone though this more than once before:

This not to say that Planned Parenthood didn’t have its supporters among the population. I spotted an old friend of mine with them and we chatted for a while. A local woman by the name of Sue Longey gave a strong defense of their position as well.

The Pro choice people came later and congregated between the inner and outer doors, they didn’t really want to talk as they were busy planning strategy.

The Chamber stood empty as the hour approached

Once the Planned Parenthood people saw I was a blogger everything became “no comment”, the city counselors didn’t want to say anything before the meetings either. Everyone was holding their cards very close to the vest. This is a close up of the Mayor’s spot it was empty and would stay empty as long as this subject was on the table.

The Mayor WAS in the building however and as this shot shows whatever our political disagreements, she has excellent taste in Pizza:

But the closest you would find her near this issue was her photo on the wall with the past mayors.

There was one slightly amusing false alarm when we were let into the room before they were ready, both sides filed in and were asked to file out.

One interesting addition was the police force, two uniformed officers were present. Nobody from the FATV people to anyone else ever remembered a meeting where police had to be present. I asked the officers if they ever remembered such a meeting but they declined comment, I then asked if they personally ever were assigned to a city counsel meeting but they declined comment again.

Both sides seemed a little worried hoping they would not be needed, but everyone forgot their worry once the meeting began.

(continued tomorrow when I’ve had some sleep.)

Crazy Uncle Syndrome strikes again

Posted: February 1, 2010 by datechguy in catholic, internet/free speech
Tags: , , , ,

A while back I talked about Crazy Uncles, the proposition that 1% of any given population is composed of “Crazy Uncles” people who might be normal in a bunch of ways but whose views are very out there.

In any crowd you are going to have some crazy uncles. At the Boston Tea Party there were a few Ron Paul guys, at least two LaRouche guys and one vulgar sign about Barney Frank that I think crossed the line.

It added up to 5-10 guys out of 1000. The Boston Globe would have surely highlighted it…if they bothered to cover the rally.

Highlighting the crazy uncles in a group is method that the media has used to discredit movements that don’t have their imprimatur. One of my early disputes with Charles Johnson on his blog that led to my eventual banning at LGF (I posted there under my name not DaTechGuy) was my critique of his use of the Crazy uncle method to go after the Tea Party rallies.

The danger comes when you use that 1% of “crazy uncles” to reinforce your view of a group you already hate. By painting with that broad brush you don’t have to engage, your own bigotries and prejudices of the other 99%. Thus can a person sit back in the comfortable chair of affirmation. The certainty of their own moral superiority, unchallenged by the pesky facts around them…

…and that brings us to Joe My God’s post today. He has found a radio host who is a crazy uncle. A host I’ve never heard of or listened to. A host I’ll bet a lot of other Christians don’t know much about, and uses him to paint Christians with a broad brush:

Remember folks, the Christianist right is not about hatred and bigotry. It’s about the gentle redemptive love of Jesus, forced upon you at the barrel of a gun in prison as they beat the gay out of you.

According to this site 71% of Americans self identify themselves as Christians. 159 million adults (2001 figures). I have been a Catholic all my life and have spoken to Catholics and other Christians for all of my life concerning religion. I’ve heard ministers preach and been around their congregations. I’ve never heard any priest or minister advocate anything remotely like this. If I had to think of all the Christians I’ve known in my nearly 5 decades, maybe 2 might share this guys opinion and his twisting of scripture to his own ends. It is highlighted for the same reason why Chris Matthews goes after the birthers, it’s low hanging fruit and easier than going after Churches sending millions to Haiti; after all that doesn’t fit the template.

But such an acknowledgment wouldn’t support the “Christianist” template. So let’s play a game, let’s ask a few intelligent questions and invite our friends who use the term “Christianist” to enlighten us:

1. Define “Christianist”

2. Does belief in Roman Catholic Doctrine make one a “Christianist”

3. Name the protestant denominations that are by definition “Christianist”

4. If you are “bible believing” christian, does that make one a “Christianist”

5. Is the current Pope a “Christianist”, was the previous one a “Christianist”? If you answer yes to both, can you name one that wasn’t?

6. Can one by definition avoid the label “Christianist” without rejecting the Bible?

It will be interesting to hear the answer to these questions.

Older Entries
Newer Entries