First, there is so much he is wrong about, its hard to know where to begin. Second . . . check this out . . .
SEPTEMBER 8
Blaska comment: Now, it’s your turn. If the EOC did not vote unanimously against the cab driver protection act due to race, please to tell why? Religion? Gender? Family status? Explicate.
Because that runs counter to the record. The official record of the EOC indicates:
“The rationale was that they felt that the language, as presented, had a high potential for discrimination. In addition, they felt that some of the language was so ambiguous that it would be difficult to apply consistently,” reports Ariel Hicklin Ford, Equal Opportunities Division Manager in the Department of Civil Rights. In response to a direct question from yours truly, Hicklin Ford clarified that the discrimination worrying EOC was indeed that of race. I have the e-mail.
Konkel comment: p.s. if you have the email, then out with it. But I think its hard to know why various commissioners voted a certain way.
Blaska comment: Visitors to the Stately Manor already know about it because all this was reported in Blaska’s Blog, the thinking man’s blog. The EOC record keeper said race was the form of discrimination it feared, I took her at her word. I disagree that the ordinance is “ambiguous.” It lists 8 very specific circumstances:
snip
These are pretty bright letter, unambiguous, discrete circumstances. If the ordinance allows drivers to use some discretion, I think they can be trusted with it. Unless you think they are racists.
Konkel comment: This is exactly why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion with you.
1. The link I think you’re referring to is here http://www.isthmus.com/blaska/article.php?article=30248&sid=747f12cd1bd87ed51246c45ade426248 Or if it is not, let me know where to look. It’s usually best to provide links to make it clear to the reader.
2. The link provides no additional information about said email you claim to have. The link just repeats what you said here. Where does it say that it was based on race?
Non-response from Blaska on this matter.
Konkel presses on: You still haven’t given me the proof you claim to have that this is about race, you’re the only one throwing around the race card.
SEPTEMBER 9
Blaska retracts: I said the EOC must think Madison’s cabbies are racist. I need to make a small correction. On reviewing the e-mail sent to me from the EOC the entire panoply of discriminatory practices was cited.
Blaska, to further confuse the issue, writes a blog post saying I made this about race and am playing the race card, after I repeatedly asked him why he was making it about race and to show me how the EOC made it about race:
This is clear language to everyone but you know whom. Nor would Brenda be our Madame if she didn’t play the race card so promiscuously. (It really is kind of creepy.) She signals her disagreement with the Council’s 19-0 vote by positing seven different hair-splitting scenarios including these two:
What if it is someone from out of town who isn’t familiar with the area and they don’t know their exact destination, will they be charged in advance just like someone going to Allied Drive?
Will they only charge people going to the Town of Madison in advance, but not those going to Maple Bluff?
Get it, “Allied Drive”? “Town of Madison”? Madison’s Hard Left imagines hooded night riders in every automobile that isn’t a Prius. They concede good will and common human decency to no one but the party faithful. Brenda would not be satisfied until each and every cab driver was required to hire an ACLU lawyer to ride shotgun. And the Madame wonders why I say Progressive Dane is death to business.
SEPTEMBER 12
Konkel response: 5. All Blaska can see is race. Check out my other examples, he pulls out the few that might refer to race, (but could also refer to low-income people). Apparently he only sees people of color living in Allied Drive? Newsflash dude, white people live there too. You’re the one with the crreepy obsession.
Blaska in the comments of his post: 6. Of course this is about race. Don’t pretend to ignore the elephant in the room. The E.O.C. could have been worried about cabbies refusing to pick up Catholic priests or single mothers or military veterans. Doubt it. Using race as a means to differentiate service of a public carrier was, is, and should be illegal.
SEPTEMBER 13
Blaska in the comments of his post: 1. The August 9, 2010 e-mail from Ariel Ford said the unanimous E.O.C. decision vs. the taxicab ordinance was indeed about race as well as just about every other protected class under the sun.
I can’t even wrap my head around how:
1. “In response to a direct question from yours truly, Hicklin Ford clarified that the discrimination worrying EOC was indeed that of race. I have the e-mail.” +
2. “The EOC record keeper said race was the form of discrimination it feared, I took her at her word.” =
3. “I said the EOC must think Madison’s cabbies are racist. I need to make a small correction. On reviewing the e-mail sent to me from the EOC the entire panoply of discriminatory practices was cited.” =
4. Brenda was the one who made this about race. =
5. “Of course this is about race.” =
AND FINALLLY, back to the beginning . . .
6. “The August 9, 2010 e-mail from Ariel Ford said the unanimous E.O.C. decision vs. the taxicab ordinance was indeed about race as well as just about every other protected class under the sun.”
He argued this is about race, said he could prove it, got caught in the lie, was forced to retract the statement and then, in the end, argues this is about race even tho he can’t prove it.
And this is just one of the many issues . . . I’m not going to put that much time into arguing with a guy that uses these tactics . . . that’s just crazy . . . I’ll keep pointing out where he is wrong, but there isn’t enough time in the day, or enough meds to sustain arguing with his twisted logic and lies. And in the end, do you even remember what we were talking about in the first place . . . I know it sucks when you get caught in a lie, which is why you just shouldn’t do it . . . but when you do, own up to it. The EOC never said this was about race. He has the proof. And he’s slightly modified his claims, but still clings to the race issue.
