I've been bored shitless with Fitchburg politics lately. There's only so much pointless bickering and vapid proclamations from people running for office that I can take before needing a break.But one thing seems to get me back in the mood to ramble, and that's Dean Tran's insane focus on sex offenders.
As I've blogged about before, Tran was instrumental in pushing the law that now says level 2 and 3 sex offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of things like schools and playgrounds. I criticized it at the time as being "nearly impossible to enforce", among other problems.
Guess what, seems like they're having trouble enforcing it! Go figure!
Per a recent Sentinel article:
Not one sex offender has paid a citation for living within 1,000 feet of a school, park or daycare center, more than eight months after city councilors unanimously passed the residency restriction ordinance, city officials said this week.
[...]
Some councilors suggested this week that the difficulty in moving forward with both of Tran’s proposals shows such legislation is easy to vote for, but too difficult to implement.
The other proposal of Tran's mentioned here is of course his brilliant idea to put the names of level 2 and 3 sex offenders on water bills, because there's nothing people enjoy more than paying their bills while thinking about sex crimes. It's two great tastes that go great together, as they say.
I think Tran has watched too much Fox 25 news or something, because he seems to have sex offenders on his mind far more than anyone really ought to. He did offer this lame defense of his bill:
Tran defended his petitions, saying that those who are against these ordinances offer nothing in their place.
“There’s no stakes higher than losing a child in the city, and I’d rather be proactive then reacting to a situation such as this,” Tran said.
Umm, Mr. Tran... call me crazy but I'm pretty sure this is reactive and not proactive. These are people who already committed a crime. You're just really keen on shouting their names around after the fact. Perhaps you've convinced yourself that putting names on water bills is the way to keep them from re-offending, but since there's a pretty low recidivism rate among sex offenders anyway maybe you could focus on preventing these crimes from happening in the first fucking place. You know, with things like treatment of those who are at risk but haven't committed a crime, or giving kids more safe havens and activities in the community. Just a thought.
Also, about not offering anything in their place... If I propose a bill to have skywriters decorate the sky above Leominster with insulting slogans (fuck those assholes and their fiscal solvency!) and everyone says "no, that's a dumb idea" they're not obligated to present something similar in its place.
Anyway, Tran's lost to the horrors of tabloid news, but at least mayoral candidate Thomas Donnelly has the right idea. Too bad he's only developed a spine recently:
Councilor at-large and mayoral candidate Thomas Donnelly slammed the ordinance as “feel-good legislation.”Okay, I agree it's feel-good legislation. I agree that tax money going to support these ideas is a bad idea. Like Donnelly, I've felt this way for quite awhile. But unlike Donnelly, I didn't vote in support of the very fucking thing I'm currently criticizing. Because I'm not a giant pussy.
Donnelly said even the smallest amount of effort or tax money to support these ordinances should be considered too much.
Donnelly said that he couldn’t have voted against the residency petition last September because, “I tried questioning it last time, and I was crucified.”
Maybe Donnelly would indeed have been crucified then, but at least he'd have shown some guts and taken a stand on something he believed. He should be crucified now for voting for his own political expediency rather than principle or for the good of the city.
Mr. Donnelly, if you get elected mayor you'll have to stand up to situations where you could get "crucified" if you do something unpopular. For Christ's sake I hope you have the balls to ignore that peril and do the right thing whether or not it's popular.
As always, Crazy Ted DeSalvatore got a few words in too. They're typical of him in that they're directly contradicted by fact.
Ward 4 Councilor and mayoral candidate Ted DeSalvatore said he thinks the laws have a big effect in the long term in persuading sex offenders to move somewhere else.What consequences would those be, Ted? Oh yeah, the unenforceable ones... Yeah, I'm sure those are super-effective.
[...]
“Does it stop child abuse? No,” DeSalvatore said. “Does it create a new atmosphere of consequences? I think so.”
Man am I glad we've got more mayoral candidates than just a giant pussy and a terminally-deluded fucktard. We've also got a mayor who doesn't seem to grasp basic math, a guy I don't know much about who probably won't win, and umm... an economist. Wong looks better all the time.
Incidentally, it's actually worth reading the Sentinel article in full here. It's much better reporting than you generally get from the Sentinel, and even presents the viewpoints of someone who actually knows what she's talking about!
8 comments:
Well you certainly put me in my place!
Of course the noun "pussy" when used in this manner refers to a cowardly person of either sex, and "fucktard" has nothing at all to do with retarded individuals. In fact, neither women nor the mentally retarded ever entered my mind when choosing these words. I'm sorry to see they entered yours. In psychology this is known as "projection".
If it's indeed the case that "true progressives" don't swear, then true progressives need to lighten up and stop being a bunch of pusillanimous little pussytards.
For me, a woman with a severely mentally disabled brother, the problem is exactly that we "never entered your mind."
Perhaps, if we had--or if we did often--you would have chosen different words to support your points. Other words, including swear words, that have not historically and presently employed gender or (dis)ability as a weapon, would be MORE powerful in pursuing your objectives here. If marginalized groups factor into your analysis, I think you would be much more effective as a blogger. We would be able to read you and see ourselves well-represented rather than tossed aside and denegrated by terms that hurt US--regardless of the manner in which you intend to use them.
Oh Megan,
While you're far more eloquent and sympathetic than Mark, you're still misguided.
I too have a brother who has more disabilities (both mental and physical) than you can shake a stick at. Yet somehow I can still use words like "fucktard". Amazing, no?
I also have a wife who uses the word "pussy" more than I do. Shockingly, it's not sexist coming from her!
This may come as a shock, but when I call someone a "pussy" I'm not actually calling them a vagina! Like it or not, the term has a colloquial definition that equates to "coward".
As for "fucktard"... give me a break. I took two words and smashed them together. Because one of them was "retard" that's somehow offensive? Since when have retarded people been offensive?
They're just words, people. They're not weapons. Get over it.
I always thought that use of "pussy" was more akin to "fraidy cat" than to a woman. but the beauty of this semantic discussion is that it distracts from the issue at hand. now I am not saying that the commenters ARE right wing or conservative...but that is a typical tactic of the right.
Well said, Brian. I had the same thought.
Virtually every comment I've gotten from conservatives on here has taken exactly the same approach of "how dare you use that tone!" instead of a reasoned argument against the substance of the post.
My belief is that the comments on this particular post are not in fact from conservatives, but come from that troublesome part of the left that thinks telling people they can't use certain words is somehow a "progressive" value. My bet is they saw my headline use of the word "pussy" linked from leftyblogs.com and just felt compelled to come scold me.
On the plus side, it did give me an excuse to use the phrase "pusillanimous little pussytards", which may be my favorite thing I've ever written.
I'm sorry but I have to agree with everyone else.
While your points are valid, I was a bit taken aback by your vocabulary. It appears that your last few posts have been loaded with swears. You seem rather intelligent, but if you can't get your point across without the vulgarity your message is overlooked. Perhaps that is why people missed your so called "reasoned argument". They may be just words to you, but how you use them reflects on you poorly.
So why don't you throw some more big words at us (like eloquently and pusillanimous) and try to redeem yourself?
Dear anonymous,
Call me crazy, but I don't think I'll take writing advice from anybody who thinks the word "eloquently" is a "big word".
By all means please keep telling other people how to express themselves though. It reflects very well on you.
Thanks for reading!
Argue all you want, calling a man a pussy refers to his lack of balls and or the fact that he posesses a vagina. It is like calling him a twat, box, snatch, girly-man, or bitch, among other things.
I myself like to swear and love the provocative aspects of calling a man female bad words. Too much fun for all involved! But I think perhaps the unicow is the one being the pussy by not standing behind the words he used.
If you don't think that Donelly was acting like a chick by not standing up for his beliefs, then don't call him a pussy. Call him something else. Like a mama's boy, for instance. Or even a eunuch, if that's how you spell it. Or any number of invertebrates. God, my spelling sucks.
I personally think Donelly was not acting like a woman. He was acting like every other male politician in the 'burg. They really do give pussies a bad name, don't they?
And this whole fucktard thing. Anything that refers to the mentally retarded is just in poor taste, particularly in writing. There are some words that say more about the person using them than the person they are aimed at. I can come up with a whole list, but anything having to do with mental and physical disabilities is pretty much on it.
Not that you shouldn't use it. Just be aware that it says a lot about you when you choose to. And using it in writing doubles that effect.
Post a Comment