http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=155339
Simply bizarre... >:(
The disrespect towards Ahmed and all Muslims by this controversy is shameful.
When I heard about this on the news last night I was speechless. But if you really want to be speechless read some of the comments at the firstcoast news site....
He is an embarrasment to the city of Jacksonville and the state of Florida.
I-D-I-O-T. How on earth did this man get on the Council?
Quote from: avonjax on April 28, 2010, 07:21:38 AM
When I heard about this on the news last night I was speechless. But if you really want to be speechless read some of the comments at the firstcoast news site....
Not surprising. There is this pathetic sect of people that lurk on the websites for FCN, WJXT and the T-U and post the most vile things about people different than them.
Quote from: grimss on April 28, 2010, 08:01:52 AM
I-D-I-O-T. How on earth did this man get on the Council?
easy answer...he had a bunch of votes from his church.
Some may say he disrespected Muslums, but there is another group of Christians that think he disrespected Christianity by his actions.
The amazing thing is this was over an appointment to the Human Rights Commission. They do what?
Quote from: Overstreet on April 28, 2010, 08:34:57 AM
Some may say he disrespected Muslums, but there is another group of Christians that think he disrespected Christianity by his actions.
The amazing thing is this was over an appointment to the Human Rights Commission. They do what?
Good point. I'm among that crowd.
QuoteAs discussion on the nomination began, Redman called Ahmed, who is Muslim, to the podium and asked him to “say a prayer to your God.â€
The comment elicited an audible, negative reaction from the audience and Ahmed refused to comply, saying it had no relevance to his nomination to the commission. At the same time, Chief Deputy General Counsel Cindy Laquidara rushed to the podium to reign in Redman, asking to speak with him privately before he continued.
Instead, Redman changed his approach, asking Ahmed if he was offended by Redman’s opening prayer, in which he referenced Jesus. Ahmed again questioned the relevance of the question, but he said Christian prayers did not bother him.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-04-27/story/council-approves-ahmed-nomination-human-rights-commission
The actions last night by Redman will be picked up by the national media and will paint Jacksonville in a negative light.
^If so, it serves us right.
I wish people would keep their religion to themselves. It's a private issue. I don't care who you pray to and I don't want to hear about how great it is. Nine times out of ten those people say one thing, then act completely contrary to the tenets of their purported religion. That guy flipping you the bird on the freeway for following to close...wonder what church he goes to.... Gimme a break. And the girl who offers me to have a blessed day at the Wendy's drive-thru? It would be blessed if it didn't look like you sat on my cheeseburger. Awesome.
It the name of Tequila, Salt and Lime
Have a drunkish day.
LOL
~j.
Amen, RockStar.
Is this guy an elected or appointed official?
If he's elected, I hope his constituents don't make that mistake ever again. If he's appointed, he needs to be thrown out on his ear toot-sweet.
What a douche.
I'm just glad the fool didn't say something stupid about Allah and have us all running for the hills.
Oh I forgot ... what hills?
Cedar Hills?
Councilman Redman can be reached at (904) 630-1394 or Redman@coj.net.
I believe his district is St. Nicholas and south down Phillips. Might head as far east as University/Spring Glen.
I don't think this guy is an idiot. He knows full well what he's doing. He's just a total jackass. "Embarrassment" is a perfect word for him. If, for argument's sake, the man standing before him WERE a known associate of terrorists, what the heck would be the point of asking him to say a prayer to his God? It's only done in an attempt to belittle and embarrass him. Mind-numbingly jackassish.
his district includes most of downtown and east to Tinseltown, SJTC, and UNF
Redman's district is also a good portion of DT. Its unfortunate that our DT is a smoldering failure and its representative is more worried about a guy's religious convictions instead of fixing the district he represents.
Wasn't Redman the one that wanted to ban outside drinking downtown? He sounds like he is just a mouthpiece for the powers that be at FBC.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2010, 02:12:05 PM
Redman's district is also a good portion of DT. Its unfortunate that our DT is a smoldering failure and its representative is more worried about a guy's religious convictions instead of fixing the district he represents.
Hear hear.
Quote from: copperfiend on April 28, 2010, 02:14:53 PM
Wasn't Redman the one that wanted to ban outside drinking downtown? He sounds like he is just a mouthpiece for the powers that be at FBC.
This... for real.. this.
I am sure he is on the Vines family Christmas card list.
You make a great point Stephen. Imagine his asking a Catholic candidate if he supports molesting adolescent boys and then requesting that he recite 5 Hail Marys during the Council hearing. Astonishing.
Quote
What Mr. Pervez should have done was written his prayer down in english and asked Mr. Redman to read it out loud.
Brilliant. That would have been illuminating, regardless of the outcome.
He needs to go on record, immediately, with a loud and sincere apology. Not only for his sake, for the sake of the council, but (Dear God and I am praying here) for Jacksonville, before it is picked up, nationally.
Dr. Ahmed should've asked Redman if he's protested any military funerals or local art schools recently.
I think that this really brings out the true color or lack there of in our leadership. Very embarrassing! Learn tolerance, end hate.
Quote from: stephendare on April 28, 2010, 02:43:46 PM
There is a long standing rumor that the councilman is functionally illiterate
His COJ webpage bio gives credence to this rumor:
Don Redman
District 4
Don Redman is a successful business man, operating a small business for over 40 years. He and his wife, Debbie, have two daughters, three sons and 11 grandchildren. Each of their children attended local public schools and graduated from Englewood High School. Don has been an active member of First Baptist Church Jacksonville for 32 years, serving as an usher for 27 years.
Don is a race director in his spare time, involved in producing a number of local triathlons, (races involving biking, running, and swimming).
Active in Little League, River City Swimming, Master Swimming, Biking and running events, Don has entered and finished every Jacksonville River Run.
Member of Mayor's Council on Fitness & Well-Being, since appointment by Former Mayor John Delaney, including 3-years as Chairman.Kinda sounds like the dumb jock type.
QuoteDon has been an active member of First Baptist Church Jacksonville for 32 years, serving as an usher for 27 years.
I would say this excerpt is a little more telling.
^Certainly not; however, he should be publicly asked to apologize.
Is the problem with Redman and Co or do we have a bigger problem with the people of this city? The council is suppose to represent the citizens of this city. If Redman is just a fringe person who is accidentally voted into council, that's one thing. However if Redman truly represents the voters of his district and acts exactly the way those voters want, why are people here blaming him instead of focusing on a much bigger issue - the people of his district?
Looking at the comments at FirstCoastNews.com, Jacksonville.com, News4jax.com, and the Jaxobserver.com - I'm not so sure Redman is the real cause of this problem.
Ouch! That's too close to the truth to be comfortable, but even people who don't want a Muslim in any city position would find his behavior rude and inexcusable even if they voted for him.
Don Redman's comments are inexcusable regardless of who he represents and his thoughts are not the majority.
Quote from: cityimrov on April 28, 2010, 03:51:16 PM
Is the problem with Redman and Co or do we have a bigger problem with the people of this city? The council is suppose to represent the citizens of this city. If Redman is just a fringe person who is accidentally voted into council, that's one thing. However if Redman truly represents the voters of his district and acts exactly the way those voters want, why are people here blaming him instead of focusing on a much bigger issue - the people of his district?
Looking at the comments at FirstCoastNews.com, Jacksonville.com, News4jax.com, and the Jaxobserver.com - I'm not so sure Redman is the real cause of this problem.
I think often times Councilmen are elected just because "He seems like a good guy." People don't treat that position seriously. They don't treat it like a congressman. It's further illustration of the lingering "small-town" mentality in Jacksonville. You don't know anything about your council candidates, somebody who has done little league with him says "Don's a good fella, seems like a nice guy and seems pretty smart" so you decide to vote for him. That kind of stuff gets you elected in non-sensational city council elections.
I am disappointed by Glorious Johnson. You would think she would fight the good fight. If people didn't take a position just because it caused drama then we would never have change. Did Glorious forget Rosa Parks??
Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 28, 2010, 04:01:57 PM
I think often times Councilmen are elected just because "He seems like a good guy."
Many people have this attitude for anyone running for office, not just something as low on the totem pole as city councilperson. Remember hearing about people voting for a certain presidential candidate because they thought they'd "like to have a beer with him"?
Exactly. There is nothing so dangerous as an uninformed electorate. (well, very little)
Next election I'm going to enlist you guys in my "Don't Get Out The Vote" campaign.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 28, 2010, 04:18:26 PM
Next election I'm going to enlist you guys in my "Don't Get Out The Vote" campaign.
What's the slogan gonna be? "Rise up and do nothing!"
(http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/father-ted-careful-now-001.jpg)
Remember this incident involving Dr. Jerry Vines of FBC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Vines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Vines)
Vines sparked controversy in June 2002 for remarks he made at a Southern Baptist Convention conference that were critical of Islam. Referencing Ergun and Emir Caner's book Unveiling Islam, Vines said that "Allah is not Jehovah… Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people," and that "Christianity was founded by the virgin-born Jesus Christ" while "Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, and his last one was a 9-year-old girl."[1] This reference was to Aisha, who is said to have been about nine when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, according to several hadith, or stories of Muhammad.[2] The comments stirred a brief national debate on "Islamophobia" and the demonization of Islam in relation to the War on Terrorism. Vines initially defended his comments and invited "Muslim scholars to explain their own documents to us all."[3] He also refused to apologize for the statements or to meet with local Muslim leaders.[3] He was heavily criticized, but was defended by fellow Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell, who wrote a letter supporting him. Falwell was asked about the letter during a 60 Minutes interview in October, and sparked an even greater outrage by declaring that he considered Muhammad a terrorist.[4] He later apologized for his comments.[5] When the story was covered by NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on February 25, 2003, Vines finally broke his silence on the issue, claiming that his statements had been overemphasized in media reports, and that he had not intended to evoke hate.[6]
Thanks for posting that^
I was reminded of that today.
Now is the time for Jacksonville to act like the city it wants to become or it will remain the confused exclusive trailer park it often acts like.
Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they set up the separation of church and state.
After comments like Redman's, one can easily understand that another Hitler could some day come to power, elected by a dumbed-down, uncaring, cynical, superficial electorate falling for the latest slick political promise.
As for Suzanne Jenkins using the hiring of an aide as a litmus test for here support, that is exactly why the RIGHT thing for the community rarely gets done - it's all about personal agendas and what's in it for me.
Unfortunately, I think it is nigh impossible for a thinking, altruistic, honest, sincere, truly caring, less-than-charismatic citizen to get elected now a days. Abraham Lincoln couldn't win an election today for dog catcher. THIS is what will ultimately doom our country if it continues. Education is our only way out. Yet, these entrenched idiots continue to debase it which only insures their continued ability to stay in power. I am very concerned about our future.
stjr wrote "After comments like Redman's, one can easily understand that another Hitler could some day come to power, elected by a dumbed-down, uncaring, cynical, superficial electorate falling for the latest slick political promise."
Cynical? Sounds like you are very cynical about the character and intelligence of your fellow citizens. Or maybe I'm just naive. I think the average person is honest, caring and smart.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 28, 2010, 07:42:53 PM
I think the average person is honest, caring and smart.
I think that is naive.
Sadly, this isn't the first time Redman has made doufus comments. I was at the Greenwood bungalow hearing where he, quite sincerely, asked if perhaps the solution (that would solve the concerns of both the preservation community and the property owner) was to tear down the existing bungalow and build an exact replica. How . . . Disney.
The other day, I happened to be watching a Council hearing on the fee increases issue while I worked out. Redman was pretty much incoherent in his commentary. I can only hope the man is masquerading as a religious hick to disguise some brilliant master plan, but . . .
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 28, 2010, 07:42:53 PM
Cynical? Sounds like you are very cynical about the character and intelligence of your fellow citizens. Or maybe I'm just naive. I think the average person is honest, caring and smart.
Urban, I won't quarrel with "average" including being "honest", a trait not addressed by my comments. But, "cynical", "caring" and "smart", I beg to differ.
If people "cared", we would have a far better informed electorate and one that turned out in far greater numbers for all elections, not just presidential ones. No, sadly, most don't make the effort because they don't really care. Maybe they are lazy, maybe it's because they are "cynical" and don't think their voices are heard or the process is rigged by the GOB's, or a little of both.
If people were "smart", then 30 second political ads written to the level of a grade school education wouldn't determine the outcome of elections.* And raising big money to pay for such ads on television would not be a major factor in winning an election. Instead, people would visit a candidate's web site, watch "substantive debates" (not the sound bite ones we usually get) and other candidate and/or issue forums, and read pro and con articles in the press to make their "informed" decisions on the candidates. Not many of us doing that.
As to "cynical", well, yes, the pollsters tell us that many to most of us are cynical about government and many other institutions in our society. And, per above, voter turnout, or lack thereof, appears to back that up.
Where have you been, lately?
*Regardless of your political leanings, why should a photo of Charlie Crist greeting our President be a determinant of one's vote for him or others. Yet, Rubio runs this commercial relentlessly as shorthand for Crist = Obama. Fine, then, call him out on the specific issues. But, that would require too much thought from the electorate. Tell me voters aren't shallow. He wouldn't run it if his pollsters didn't tell him it was "persuasive".
People don't have the energy to deal with the complexities of politics -- they are too busy trying to keep or get a job, make dinner, do homework with the kids.
Too busy to care...unless it involves them personally.
I know...from personal experience.
Is Don Redman's comment/request an ethics violation?
Maybe, as a member of the Human Rights Commission, Dr. Ahmed can take action against Redman himself? ;D
Stephen has a saying for this type of Reversals of Fortune, but ... I can't repeat it.
Quote from: sheclown on April 28, 2010, 08:34:22 PM
People don't have the energy to deal with the complexities of politics -- they are too busy trying to keep or get a job, make dinner, do homework with the kids.
This is how the powers that be want it. That's why they endorse a system that forces people to constantly worry that they may lose their job, become bankrupt if they have medical issues, and fret over the mediocre education their children receive. And any free time is filled with "American Idol" and/or professional sporting matches.
Quote from: stjr on April 28, 2010, 07:30:47 PM
Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they set up the separation of church and state.
Supreme Court overturns objection to cross on public landBy Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 2010; A01
A splintered Supreme Court displayed its deep divisions over the separation of church and state Wednesday, with the court's prevailing conservatives signaling a broader openness to the idea that the Constitution does not require the removal of religious symbols from public land.
A 5 to 4 decision by the court overturns a federal judge's objection to a white cross erected more than 75 years ago on a stretch of the Mojave Desert to honor the dead of World War I.
Six justices explained their reasoning in writing, often using stirring rhetoric or emotional images of sacrifice and faith to describe how religion can both honor the nation's dead and divide a pluralistic nation.
The bottom line, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, is that "the Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society." Although joined in full only by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Kennedy's opinion will be closely parsed as courts across the country consider challenges to religious displays in public settings.
But it is a narrow ruling, offering less guidance for the future than a stark acknowledgment of the fundamental differences between the court's most consistent conservatives and its liberals in drawing the line between government accommodation of religion versus an endorsement of religion.
To Kennedy, the cross "is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs" but a symbol "often used to honor and respect" heroism.
He added: "Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."
Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens said: "The cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice. It is the symbol of one particular sacrifice, and that sacrifice carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith."
Still, despite strong language in Kennedy's opinion, the decision did little to clarify the court's murky jurisprudence about how government can accommodate religious symbols without violating the Constitution's prohibition on the endorsement of religion. It seems likely that once the legal battles are over, the 6 1/2 -foot cross standing atop an outcropping called Sunrise Rock will remain, although that was not settled by the decision.
The five most consistently conservative justices seem tolerant, based on Wednesday's decision and past rulings, of religious symbols on public land, but the court's four liberals seem deeply skeptical. The lineup does not bode well for other challenges to religious symbols, such as San Diego's 29-foot cross and war memorial on Mount Soledad.
But even the five who agreed Wednesday to return the case to lower courts split three ways in their reasoning.
"To date, the court's jurisprudence in this area has refrained from making sweeping pronouncements, and this case is ill suited for announcing categorical rules," Kennedy wrote.
The court battle began when Frank Buono, a former employee in the 1.6 million-acre Mojave National Preserve, objected to the cross being on a plot of public land. Federal courts in California agreed the display was unconstitutional. But after an outcry from veterans groups, Congress forbade removal of the cross. It declared the site a national monument and engineered a plan to swap the land on which the cross was bolted for a piece of private land nearby so that the cross was no longer on public property.
The courts objected to that as well. But it was a mistake, Kennedy wrote, to dismiss Congress's intent in the land swap as "illicit." His opinion returns the case to the lower court, with a strong nudge to approve it.
"The land-transfer statute embodies Congress's legislative judgment that this dispute is best resolved through a framework and policy of accommodation for a symbol that, while challenged under the Establishment Clause, has complex meaning beyond the expression of religious views," he wrote.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have gone further than Kennedy and Roberts and held that the land swap was lawful and that there is no need to send the case back to the lower court.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas went along with only the outcome of the case. They said they thought that Buono should not have been allowed to challenge the congressional action and did not endorse Kennedy's reasoning.
The court's liberal wing dissented.
"I certainly agree that the nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message," wrote Stevens, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented for other reasons.
The cross was originally erected at Sunrise Rock by a group of World War I veterans who used to gather at the spot socially. It has been replaced several times, most recently in 1998 by Henry Sandoz, who with his wife, Wanda, maintains what is now a 6 1/2 -foot cross built of metal pipes.
As a result of the court battles, the cross is covered with a plywood box.
Both sides of the dispute noted the inconclusiveness of the decision. "It's a win, but it's a win in a battle, not the decisive victory we might have hoped for," said Hiram Sasser, a lawyer at the Liberty Institute, which represented the Sandozes. "I told Henry that the plywood will eventually come down, but it's going to take a while."
Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which represented Buono, said that the fight will be uphill but that it is not over.
"We will continue to argue that the land transfer did not remedy the violation of the establishment clause," Eliasberg said. "The cross is unquestionably a sectarian symbol, and it is wrong for the government to make such a deliberate effort to maintain it as a national memorial."
The case is Salazar v. Buono.
Quote from: finehoe on April 29, 2010, 07:49:18 AM
Quote from: sheclown on April 28, 2010, 08:34:22 PM
People don't have the energy to deal with the complexities of politics -- they are too busy trying to keep or get a job, make dinner, do homework with the kids.
This is how the powers that be want it. That's why they endorse a system that forces people to constantly worry that they may lose their job, become bankrupt if they have medical issues, and fret over the mediocre education their children receive. And any free time is filled with "American Idol" and/or professional sporting matches.
Indeed. Keep us afraid and we will turn numb and dumb.
Ohh...I see. It's a conspiracy. Really? IMO we have relatively free and fair elections and we're just getting the kind of government we deserve.
What's with the boundaries of district 4?
http://www.coj.net/City+Council/District+4/D04DistrictMap.htm (http://www.coj.net/City+Council/District+4/D04DistrictMap.htm)
Why is the area shaped like this? When was it drawn. Seems weird.
They're all pretty weird.
http://www.coj.net/NR/rdonlyres/eo4q5mnhpsw6fvaunxrglspblpnub2dagqmthpskpqrg7i54uye4dxwlgq3gabi7euqm4q2arc4hgvsai3afv4lve3h/2007DistrictMap.pdf
anyone with a history on this?
Well, one absolute criterion used in 2000 (or 2001 or whenever it was done) was to make sure the they did not put 2 (or more) incumbents in the same new districts.
District 4 isn't the only gerrymandered district in town. Check out 14 that includes my n'hood of Riverside. Take a look at it and ask yourself "what does Riverside & Avondale have in common with Argyle?". The answer- absolutely nothing. At least Corrigan has the sense to vote for Dr. Ahmed's appointment at the full council vote as well as in committee.
A real eye opener was which district Yarborough represents. I wrongfully assumed that he represented a northside or westside district, but it is actually Arlington, Ft. Caroline & Mt. Pleasant area. Kind of scary that this relatively well-off (parts of it) and middle to upper-middle class area of town would vote for someone of this ilk. As a native of Jax that grew up in this area, all I can say is WOW!
Mr Redman actually represents half of the Linkside residents............Mr Graham represents the other half! But nothing is wrong with this picture right...............83 homes here! I would really like to find out just who decided this for me so that I may tell them just what an Idiot they are!
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 29, 2010, 05:21:25 PM
Ohh...I see. It's a conspiracy. Really?
Nobody said anything about a "conspiracy". However, one can note that 'the powers that be' is not a conspiracy in the formal sense of a membership which gathers like the Bohemian Club or even an informal assemblage such as the Bilderberg Group. "Membership" is granted solely by great wealth and control of productive assets; political influence flows from that. People who control, say, $100 million or more (via family ownership or managerial position) tend to meet one another socially or to do business, and while they jockey for advantage within a group like the rest of us, they form a small class of citizens possessing virtually unimpaired political influence. Thus in describing "the powers that be" I am not positing a semi-formal conspiracy but simply a financial elite which controls some 2/3 of the productive wealth of the U.S. This is simply a statement of fact. Their collective self-interest is in maintaining the conceptual, legal and financial systems which enable their continued dominance of wealth and influence. Thus when I speak of "the powers that be" I refer not to a formal conspiracy with meetings and officers but to a self-organized Elite based on protecting their ownership of 2/3 of the productive wealth of the nation. As each acts to protect his/her wealth at the highest reaches of influence (tax shelters, tax breaks, legislative exclusions, legal rulings, etc.) then they are also acting to defend their class.
The districts have crazy and nonsensical boundaries. Redman's is the most gerrymandered, but 14 is bad too. 1, 2, and 3 seem to be ok, but some of them are just absurd. They should really be redrawn, and reduced in size. I imagine when these districts were created the city population wasn't what it is now.
The districts were created after the 2000 census - they will be redrawn after the 2010 census. A problem with our spring 11 election (and the same in 01), was that is was so close to the release of the census data (maybe even before) so the first election - if I remember correctly - was with the old boundaries.
Regarding District 2 - it is fairly compact, except for the appendage going west to grab Clifton, the incumbent in District 2 lived in Clifton, so this piece, which should have been in 1 or 4 (or even 7, since it has western Arlington across the Xway) is in the "east Arlington" district.
http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/10363234001?isVid=1&videoId=81836113001&playerID=10363234001&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true
This is laughable in the embarrassingly painful way that Michael Scott is laughable on The Office. Too bad it's our City Government at work, which makes it far less laughable and far more distressing.
Watching the City Council video, then watching the "Don's Sportmans Barber SHop" video paints quite the biographical picture of this douche.
Small-towned, closed-minded, blinders-on, right-winged, bigoted, holier-than-thou pseudo Christian.
He believes what he believes, and fundamentally I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when he brings his religiosity to his government position, where supposedly there's separation of church and state. This is fallacy at best and I understand that; but this guy makes me ill.
If ever there was a stereotype for our City and its Leaders, this is it.
Color me embarrassed.
Quote from: Doctor_K on May 05, 2010, 10:28:57 AM
If ever there was a stereotype for our City and its Leaders, this is it.
Color me embarrassed.
Could not have said it better myself.
Quote from: floridaforester on April 30, 2010, 12:18:18 AM
District 4 isn't the only gerrymandered district in town. Check out 14 that includes my n'hood of Riverside. Take a look at it and ask yourself "what does Riverside & Avondale have in common with Argyle?". The answer- absolutely nothing. At least Corrigan has the sense to vote for Dr. Ahmed's appointment at the full council vote as well as in committee.
I agree. I'm in 14, Wesconnett, and we have nothing in common with Argyle either! Or for that matter, Riverside/Avondale... but I wish we did.
This must've been drawn back when that was merely rural and they felt they needed to include the folks somehow with the 'nearest' council zone.
Downtown needs to be its own Council district maybe lump Springfield and Riverside in there as well.
That's a thought.
Re-do the districts by a combination of historical and current 'neighborhood' boundaries?
This man has "hick" written all over him.
Anyone who voted to raise garbage fees was and IS an embarrassment.
Quote from: fsujax on May 05, 2010, 11:21:25 AM
Downtown needs to be its own Council district maybe lump Springfield and Riverside in there as well.
absolutely.
I live off of Touchton Road and Redman is my council representative. The districts are definitely messed up. The only positive is that I can vote him out! LOL
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 05, 2010, 08:05:59 PM
Anyone who voted to raise garbage fees was and IS an embarrassment.
I wholly disagree with that statement...maybe you should check and see what cities in FL have garbage fees and what the average fee is....I think you'll find that our new rate of $12 per month is still pretty cheap.
I prefer user fees that cover the costs to increases in ad valorem taxes. Looks like we'll get both. :(
Quote from: TheProfessor on April 28, 2010, 04:03:49 PM
I am disappointed by Glorious Johnson. You would think she would fight the good fight. If people didn't take a position just because it caused drama then we would never have change. Did Glorious forget Rosa Parks??
Actually, I respect Glorious' approach and "no" vote on the nomination of Dr. Ahmed. Councilman Redman represents his district and did note his constituents response to the nomination.
What he did after that was asinine (which Glorious pointed out)
Glorious said she voted as she did because Dr Ahmed was too controversial. His association with
CAIR and that organizations support of American labeled terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah does lend credence to that. But, just as important, Glorious DOES represent the city as an at large councilwoman. When city constituents call her and voice their objections, she does have a responsibility to reflect their opinions. From one of the poster's comments concerning local response at local media websites , it seems plausible Glorious experienced this. I believe this is what she meant (a completely different rationale than Redmans) and i agree with her vote (not Redmans).
Quote from: hillary supporter on May 20, 2010, 11:47:12 PM
Glorious said she voted as she did because Dr Ahmed was too controversial. His association with
CAIR and that organizations support of American labeled terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah does lend credence to that. But, just as important, Glorious DOES represent the city as an at large councilwoman. When city constituents call her and voice their objections, she does have a responsibility to reflect their opinions. From one of the poster's comments concerning local response at local media websites , it seems plausible Glorious experienced this. I believe this is what she meant (a completely different rationale than Redmans) and i agree with her vote (not Redmans).
So, if Glorious represented a certain district, perhaps a vestige of the Old South, and the vocal "majority" pushed her to vote against a black candidate because they belonged to that "controversial black" NAACP organization, home to lightening rods and pot stirrers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and, thus, might also be "too controversial", you would support Glorious voting against that person? And, do you think, being a fellow black, she would have accepted and "honored" that position?
Leaders should consider "leading" their constituents at times, not always "following" them.
Quote from: hillary supporter on May 20, 2010, 11:47:12 PM
Actually, I respect Glorious' approach and "no" vote on the nomination of Dr. Ahmed. Councilman Redman represents his district and did note his constituents response to the nomination.
What he did after that was asinine (which Glorious pointed out)
Glorious said she voted as she did because Dr Ahmed was too controversial...
There was a time not too long ago when Glorious Johnson's presence on a leadership body would have been considered too controversial. And as an African-American woman she likely would have been part of some organization with ties to others that were highly controversial.
Her reasoning was cowardly and a sign of poor leadership on her part.
I agree Glorious was a coward. Sounds like she did it for political reasons instead of ethics. I would think she'd have much more of a backbone.
QuoteThere have been calls by council members to shutter the 15-employee agency, arguing that its $1 million budget would be better spent elsewhere.
That's will teach 'em for making this appointment -- nuke the agency. Subtle.
QuoteThat’s why the commission’s first task this summer will be reaching out to each council member individually â€" especially those who opposed Ahmed â€" with a unified message about why their work is necessary.
I guess the agency feels human rights ought to begin in council chambers. ;D
Unfortunately and sadly most of the council chambers is a reflection of the community. In my opinion the reason we have our own human rights commission is for "image." They serve as a way to downplay some of the city's extreme religious intolerance, ignorant views and lack of respect for anyone who is "different." Children often repeat the things they hear at home and you would be saddened by some of the things parents are telling their kids about other people. I wish the commission luck in their pursuit.