Jul. 12, 2008 at 10:36pmWow, just, wow.
Bad enough American Idol gets more press than pride week here, our county council can't even pass a resolution in support of a very tame gathering in a park. A simple proclamation supporting Out in the Park failed this week, by a 4 to 3 vote.
I had to search for "out in the park tacoma news tribune" to even find the Trib's coverage of the event, and this is what turned up. Sad. Diversity, or at a bare minimum, tolerance, is essential to any world-class city, and we've obviously got a very long way to go.
comments  | posted under GLBT, pathetic, politics, pride, sad, TacomaComments
by Ann on 7/13/2008 @ 7:50am
|As an older (and hopefully wiser) female of mixed nationality, who had a career for many years in a male dominated industry I've experienced firsthand that prejudice, intolerance, and stereotypes are always out there. The only way to help diminish its presence, and perhaps even change people's point of view is to maintain your own dignity, and teach by example. Continue to talk to and teach our children not only about tolerance, but about understanding and acceptance of other cultures, religions, and sexual orientation.
Also, may I offer this correction? I think it was county council, not city. And how do we change the council? Same as always: study the candidates positions, consider their political affiliation (I mean is it really a surprise that the democrats voted yes, and the republicans voted no?), and vote, vote, vote.
Thanks for letting me rant.
by jenyum on 7/13/2008 @ 8:17am
|Sorry, yes it was the county council. Late night posting. The "bastion of intolerance" quote came from the article. I do think it is surprising despite the political affiliations of those voting. It isn't necessarily typical to see politicians stick to the intransigent national dialog on these issues on a local level, particularly in urban areas.
by fredo on 7/13/2008 @ 10:21am
|Politicians have moved the gay agenda about as far as they can. Most don't want to stick their neck out any further.|
by Mofo from the Hood on 7/13/2008 @ 2:26pm
|Seeking acceptance for an agenda is different from seeking endorsement for an agenda.
Building or inventing numbers of supporters to form a statistical morality as a basis for acceptance and living is different from building support for a transcendant ethic or ethos founded on principles.
Ethics is a foundation of reasoned principles concerned with right and wrong, oughtness, norms, standards---Imperatives.
Morals is concerned with day to day behavior, what's happening now based on empirical evidence---Indicatives.
Seeking endorsement for a morality based on statistics is an agenda seeking to cut away the normative basis for ethics.
All things are not equal. There are right and wrong ideas, good and bad ideas, true and false ideas. One cannot be tolerant of all things. To attempt to do so is an attempt to supplant the practice of discernment. The logical conclusion is confusion, frustration, and conflict.
An agenda that seeks endorsement of feelings or expediency over principle is an agenda that seeks endorsement for barbarism---decision making by "Might Makes Right."
by Mofo from the Hood on 7/13/2008 @ 4:56pm
|Revision Line 1: Seeking tolerance for an agenda is different from seeking endorsement for an agenda.
(Sign of the times typo---constructing confusing sentences.)
by chrism39 on 7/13/2008 @ 8:54pm
|That is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe they would not approve that.|
by escaping slave on 7/13/2008 @ 9:33pm
|Don't they have real issues to decide? Like how to figure out budget shortfalls and still get the roads fixed? They should have more important things to deal with than this sort of filibuster. I'd like a refund of my tax dollars that supported that meeting, please.
What good is voting unless you're on the majority's side? That's how democracy works: mob rule.
Even if 4 people voted in favor and 3 people opposed it, that's still a democracy, so democracy wins. Just like people think if their side doesn't win, then democracy isn't taking place. Well, it probably is taking place, that's why people don't like it. Democracy is simple majority rule and that's it. Right or wrong, good or bad, legal or not, it's just the majority that matters and nothing else.
If the vote was flipped, and it was 4 in favor, 3 against, does that make it any more right than the current results? Not to me. Either way, democracy is mob rule and takes away from the other 49%. Just think of that if you're a smoker and don't like stepping outside to light up now - the majority vote won whether it was legal/good/right or not. So, democracy is intact whether you believe it or not, It just depends which side you're on, the majority or minority.
by ensie on 7/14/2008 @ 6:32pm
|Actually ES, we live in a REPUBLIC as well as a DEMOCRACY. So ideally the Councilmembers should be voting strictly along the lines of what their constituents would like them to (but we know that's not how politics works). And in this day and age, more and more people are finding that acceptance is the rule, not the exception.
Making the statement that voting on this isn't a "real issue" is telling every GLBT person that they don't really matter to their County Council. Which I doubt is really true.
Political statements happen everyday, in meetings, on blogs, in people's everyday lives. By showing their true colors, the Councilmembers have shown me their prejudices, and I know where my vote will go in the future.
That, my friend, is democracy for you.