« Lessons for OC from Katrina? | Main | Not the Worst Idea You'll Hear Today »

August 31, 2005


attractive nuisance

You know, I've had just about enough of your unsophisticated, reflexively-Right rantings on the Rosh Hashana-Primary Election issue. The ACLU hasn't demanded anything of the County of Orange. The County has graciously offerred to accomodate people of faith in the 48th who are proscribed from workaday activity on 4 October as pennance for its eggregious mistake. Jewish leaders in Orange County understand that the election, barring passage and implementation of AB 1777 (Richman), is unmovable and so are working with the County to arrive at a workable resolution. The ACLU is concerned with the people's free and unfettered exercise of their civil rights. Among these rights are equally accessible voting and practicing the religion of one's choosing. City-sponsored nativity scenes are nothing more than government-sanctioned religion and are alienating to those who worship differently or who don't worship at all. Liken yourself, if you can for a moment, to a Sikh who has business at City Hall (say, for example, a parking ticket to fight), and she sees a nativity scene erected for all to see on the grounds of her City Hall. Imagine what it must feel like, the estrangement from one's own government. Yes, this nation was founded by Christians (really, they were mostly non-demoninational Deists) on so-called Christian principles, but these same founders had the wisdom strictly and explicitly to forbid the official establishment or promotion of any religion. Take off your Rush Limbaugh Dittohead hat for a minute and recognize that this is acutally an issue of consequence and not just the latest thing those whiney Jews at the ACLU are griping about.

Orange Squirt

Which Skinhead are you on the Irvine Co map?

Dude, OC is just for rich, white, republicans any more!


Have you actually read any of my posts on this topic?

Because of absentee balloting and early voting, the scheduling of this election would not deprive anyone of their "civil rights."

How likely is it that we will ever again have an election on Rosh Hashanah? I think it is preferable that folks like you calm down and realize you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

As for the ACLU, yes they are making demands:

To avoid litigation, the registrar must give written assurance that early voting will be made available, ACLU attorney Hector Villagra wrote.

Sounds like a demand to me.

And as for the lamentable Ramona Ripston, where did the "the right to vote at the polls on Election Day" come from? We have a right to vote -- which is being denied to no one in this case -- not a "right to vote at the polling place on Election Day."

attrative nuisance

If you can't recognize how closely your posts on this topic resemble the insidious doctrine of separate but equal, you, sir or madam, are beyond hope. You, no doubt, are among the people who, incredibly, refer to this nation as being Judeo-Christian (whatever that historically offensive contradiction might mean). How about some respect for the Judeo part, whether in this case it's 100,000 of them or only 1,000? Yes, everyone knows Easter falls on a Sunday and that we don't vote on Sundays, but this, for want of a more parallel example, is the same thing nonetheless. You're right, no one can reasonably assert a positive right to vote in person and at a polling place on Election Day, but why fight it? Why all the protestations? Can't you agree that this was ham-fisted at best and that the County ought to if not go out of its way then at least do something to remediate its misstep?

Orange Squirt

This isn't making a mountain out of a molehill - it's making sure everyone has their rights to vote. Election day is still the official day to vote. "Early voting" is still a recent invention and may not be legally required. The legal election day is just that, the day the required election must occur on. There is no legal requirement that anyone be allowed to vote early.

Also, many people are unaware of "early voting" or how to get an absentee ballot. The publicity on the matter will only improve the voting process for all involved.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the purpose of an election is to get as many people to vote as possible, not to reduce the number of people who can vote.


Hold on here, Attractive Nuisance. If you think my arguments bear any resemblance to separate-but-equal, you are not only beyond hope but beyond reason. Why do liberals so quickly resort to imputing their opponents are bigots?

It is not the same thing as scheduling an election on Christmas "for want of a more parallel example." Indeed, there are no parallel examples. This is a unique situation that doesn't necessitate over-heated rhetoric such as "this would never be done to Christians!"

Orange Squirt: My main objection throughout this whole brouhaha is how it is being treated like some sort of "back of the bus" civil rights drama -- and it just doesn't rise to that level.

This is a fluke occurence -- not a civil rights crisis.


Holy Christ (pun intended)! Are we going to PC ourselves into oblivion?????


Fact is, this is the best thing that could have happened to people like Attractive Nuisance. He/She is thrilled that there is something to complain about. How wonderful it is to see people make mistakes! It becomes a perfect opportunity to highlight the "obvious" cultural bias in absolutely everthing, everywhere, all the time. BullS%&t! Quit your belly aching and adapt to the situation. The County apologized and is making reasonable accomodations to rectify the situation. Enough! Lets move on and find some other horrible injustice to fire up about. I am sure that the oppressed people of Newport Beach have much to complain about. It seems to be pretty rough around those parts.

Let's put it in historical perspective:
There was a time in this country when people argued that the poll tax did not actually deprive anyone of their right to vote. That literacy tests did not deprive anyone of their right to vote. That the lack of ballots in voter's native languages did not deprive anyone of their right to vote.
I think the Voting Rights Acts have been pretty clear that any unnecessary obstacle to voting, does, by virtue of it's existence, deprive voters of fundamental rights.
OBSTACLES to voting do, in fact, deprive voters of their basic rights.
'nuff said.


You've got to be kidding me. Now your dragging out poll tax and literacy test analogies. What's next -- Plessy v. Ferguson? Dred Scott? Firehoses and attack dogs?

Gloriaski. Those analogies just doesn't bear up in terms of historical context or simple proportionality.

May your lame argument rest in peace.

The comments to this entry are closed.