Monday, November 13, 2006

Agenda Driven "Journalist"

">David Wedge is the Boston Herald's Chief Enterprise Reporter and also writes Sunday's "Pols & Politics" column. This past Sunday, November 12, Mr. Wedge wrote a piece about the Constitutional Convention that occured this past Thursday at the State House. Read Here for full article.

Here is the 'Letters To The Editor' response from State Rep. MARIE J. PARENTE even if the Herald does not publish it:
Naturally, I believe that David Wedge's 11-12-06 attack on my 26-year legislative career that ended recently and involuntarily was unwarranted. He never contacted me about my recent primary election, nor did he inquire why I sought to speak at the recent Constitutional Convention. I had asked the legislator at the microphone to yield for a question and when he did not, I asked for a point of personal privilege. The noise of many on going conversations in the House Chamber was deafening and I had to raise my voice to be heard.
David Wedge chose to ridicule me and ignored the real story i.e. that the hard work, time, effort and money put forth by one hundred and seventy thousand petitioners to place a question on the Massachusetts ballot was disregarded, disrespected and callously discarded. Many of the petitioners are Herald readers.
In addition, I have never won a contested primary election, as my support is broad based. After one primary loss, over six thousand, seven hundred voters wrote my name in. Why? Because I did what they sent me to Boston to do. Stand up, be counted, and speak up loudly above the crowd if necessary. That is how I got the first Vietnam Veteran out of prison. That is how I successfully authored over one hundred and fourteen laws for my district and co-authored one hundred laws that have improved the lives of families, children, foster children, laborers, elderly and veterans. I wrote dozens of reports on the Big Dig, Privatization, Foster Care, Cell Towers, Teen-age suicide, Fraud and Waste in Government Land helped craft the new School Building Reimbursement Program. Call me what you will, David, you can never diminish my sense of achievement and the thrill of helping people. Unlike your invectives, a young marine described me thus, "I would rather die standing tall than live on my knees."
I just got off the phone with Rep. Parente to thank her for her courages speech she did in the House Chambers Thursday regarding the work of those who collected the historical number of signatures for the marriage amendment to be voted on in 2008. Rep. Parente was sharp and to the point with her words and raised her voice only to be heard over the House Chamber's conversations. Rep. Parente is a dedicated, hard working and passionate legislator who will be greatly missed as of 12:01 a.m. of January 3rd 2007 when the changing of the guard occurs at the State House.
Also to go un-noticed are Rep. PAUL J.P. LOSCOCCO
and Rep. PHILIP TRAVIS who both worked very hard all day at the convention to push for a vote on the citizen initiated marriage amendment. To the three representatives already mentioned and all of those who voted down a recess to the convention: THANK YOU!
Yes, Mayor Menino “The American Revolution started here in Boston, and the (petition signer's)Revolution will continue..."

LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

We will have the last laugh on Parente when she is in a nursing home and is taken care of by gay nurses. Instead of giving her an eye for an eye they will likely take the higher road and treat her with dignity, though her actions against us do not deserve compassion. You were voted out of office because you disgrace your office with your own personal agenda of hatred. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so hateful, but you are too full of self importance to bother noticing. Good riddance!

2:25 PM, November 13, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

-anonymous

Why wish vengence on those you disagree with, then paint that vengence as a blessing citing that those who live a life without morals would take the moral high ground?

Bi. ZZare.

10:34 AM, November 14, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Hello Scia, how are you doing these days? Sorry I haven’t been back in a while but I’ve been busy elsewhere. I’m not here so much to debate but to ask a favor from you and your readers. I’m doing a survey about what makes marriage special, and I need volunteers. If you or any others reading this would like to be included please email me at kenflash@onmynetwork.com. I do however want to warn everyone that your answers will be posted on the livelovelearn blogsite. The identities of those who completed this survey will be granted anonymity if they request it. I’m looking for differing views and feel you and your readers would help to make it a better editorial. Please let me know if you would like to participate. I’m still working on the whole wording of the questionnaire, but that should be complete within a few days.

9:53 PM, November 14, 2006  
Anonymous Marie J. Parente said...

Hello Anonymous Parente hater: I am always impressed with vitriolic responses like yours, that is, the contradiction of people like you spitting out hatred as you accuse others of the same. How about you being in a nursing home and being lovingly cared for by a pro lifer who believes in the dignity of old age? The first person to approach me after my speech was an openly gay legislator who appreciated the absence of "meaness" in my presentation and understood my appreciation of history and non-delagation of powers to the courts. Redefining marriage through the courts is contra the constitution as certain appeals on marriage, custody etc. are to be decided by the Governor or Governor's Council unless provisions have been made by the legislature. Read the Mass. Constitution. Does it matter to you that this time over one hundred and seventy thousand petitioners were denied, another time it might be you on another matter? Or do you beleive in the tyranny of nursing homes? Just think the lives pro-lifers want to save may include yours and changing an institution (marriage) that has been time honored is an important matter. I don't want to be redefined. As for my second attempt to speak, I wanted to point out to the revisionists that in 1919, as a result of anti-irish catholic movements at the time, a section of the constitution was added that does patently discriminate against certain people to this day. Over my 26 years at the state house there have been many attempts to remove this hateful and discriminatory language and it is always defeated by some of the very legislators who stood up for your position. Know Thy Facts, Anonymous. Don't destroy Democracy. Let the people vote. They worked hard and followed the rules. You could have worked to defeat it on the ballot. Isn't that the American Way? "We know our facts and we are your neighbors. Sincerely and God Bless. Marie J. Parente

4:34 AM, November 15, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Good to here from you again. I think that my readers and I know from past experience that the blog you write on is a little hyperactive in terms of manipulating translations of words for the benefit of slandering those who disagree with your standpoints.

If my readers wish to engage in this survey so be it. I must warn them however that the livelovelearn blog will act in the same manner Know Thy Neighbor.org does. Words and truths will be manipulated and twisted to fit an agenda never mind the fact names will be published for whatever reason. For "dialog" purposes, I am doubtful of.

This is not to say, on the other hand, that those of Know Thy Neighbors or livelovelearn can not engage in some sort of civil discourse but I think that dialog on this sensitive topic of marriage should be just that...dialog and not published in surveys.

One mans opinion.

Thanks for stopping by Ken, hope everything is well with you.

Sincerely,

Scia

7:05 AM, November 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Marie,

You don't fool me. Your hatred of gay people shows right through your lies to cover it. I saw how you averted your eyes coming into the State House when you walked by us. I see how you lie about having 170,000 signatures when you only had 123,000 accepted. This is said in order to make it seem like this petition is the will of the people. But we both know how this petition came to be, don't we? It was out of state money collected by a hate group under the guise of defending family values. Gays threat to family values is not what you really believe though, be honest. What this really is about is one group's disgust for another group, and their willingness to make their lives miserable because of it. You know that gay marriage has not brought trouble to the community, anybody that cares to look can see that.

People don't want to admit they are abusers, and when they are confronted with that accusation, they deny it and get mad as an instinctual reaction. You're angry because you are accused of hating gays, but it also happens to be the truth. You want to be able to keep gays from marrying because the idea disgusts you, not because you feel threatened. Don't insult the itelligence of the people reading this by trying to say you think gay people are encrouching on your priviledges. I challenge you to say how you have had to change your life in any way in order to accomodate the 9,000 gay couples now married. It's over Marie, people don't want to follow you anymore. You lost your objectivity and sense of justice. That's why you were voted out of office by your constituents. I don't expect to change you mind about gays, but at least be honest with yourself about what you're doing. I don't need your approval in order to have the equality promised to me by the Constitution. Soon this will all be over and you can think about what a sad note you left office on for the rest of your days. How dissappointing.

3:15 PM, November 15, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Hello again Scia, I’m sorry you are not willing to participate, but even more sorry that you think I would deliberately twist you and your readers words to fit an agenda. I was hoping I had earned a little more trust from you. Maybe someday we can learn to believe in each other a little more.

Sincerely

Ken Weaver

10:26 PM, November 15, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Anonymous, you have conveniently left out the reason why only 143,000 signatures were accepted. The rules on an initiative petition prohibit more than 25% of signatures coming from any single county in Massachusetts, and since there were so many signatures in the Boston area (Suffolk county), those over the 25% threshold had to be thrown out.

As for the rest of your argument, your initial lack of facts leaves everything that follows up to question, as your obvious intent is to mislead people as to the reality that 170,000 people in Massachusetts (as well as the rest of them!) have been denied justice.

It's a severe blow to democracy, and a stain on those that seek to promote the homosexual agenda (yes, there is one - I have proof!).

10:15 AM, November 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler your ability to hide from the truth does not make it go away. You should not bother to speak because you make any cause you associate yourself with look worse. The exact number of signatures that were validated has been reduced by several thousand complaints directly from citizens calling in and reporting fraud. If you are going to correct people, at least make sure your facts are straight.

What's really a severe blow to democracy is when people are so arrogant about their religious beliefs that they convince themselves that forcing others to abide by them is somehow ok. Your contempt for freedom is legendary.

1:51 PM, November 17, 2006  
Blogger Lynne said...

The Herald is not the paper it used to be, but then neither is the Globe. One wonders why people bother buying either of them anymore.

Also, it is sad that someone doesn't understand the democratic process, even something as simple as counting signatures on a ballot.

To reiterate, the rules on an initiative petition prohibit more than 25% of signatures coming from any single county in Massachusetts, and since there were so many signatures in the Boston area (Suffolk county), those over the 25% threshold had to be thrown out.

Although, Middlesex, the other large county, could also have had some signatures thrown out that way. You don't see us complaining about that, do you? It's the process. It was documented for us before we began and no one changed the rules afterwards.

Anonymous, stop whining.

5:21 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll stop standing against discrimination when you stop trying to rationalize it. Equality is not conditional and is not to be voted away because of your bigotry. There was fraud committed, otherwise there would be no criminal investigation. To try and imply otherwise by shifting the attention onto signatures that were thrown out for other reasons is equal to lying.

11:58 AM, November 21, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

To All,

Sorry I have not been posting or responding to any comments or questions. It has been a very busy month at school with exams and all.

Nonetheless, with the holiday break upon us I am back to engage in some finger licken good civil discourse!! Well, that is what I wish for.

Anonymous,

You said:

"I'll stop standing against discrimination when you stop trying to rationalize it."

How in any way possible is Lynn, or the others rationalizing discrimination?

I would like to argu that my most simple civil right to practice my democratic right to vote is being taken away from me as is the case for all residents of the Commonwealth. Never mind how you feel about the marriage amendment, your right to vote is being taken away by your "representative" respresentative and senator.

What do you all think about that?

6:30 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that there is no room for me to vote on the rights of another adult who is my equal. I think that this type of a vote goes against some of the most fundamental principles of our nation, and is in the end, unlawfull. I think there is room in the world for us to lives our lives by our own beliefs and not get in each other's way. I do not see a valid reason that you cannot live and let live as far as who wants to marry who. Your churches are safe from change, your life is safe from unwanted change. Your right to teach your children what you wish is safe as well. You don't need to control your neighbors in order to be happy or safe.

That's what I think.

7:57 AM, November 22, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"I think that there is no room for me to vote on the rights of another adult who is my equal."

Where is it said that marriage is a "right" or for that matter a privilage in which many pro-marriage advocates are screaming?

You said:

"I think that this type of a vote goes against some of the most fundamental principles of our nation, and is in the end, unlawfull."

What "fundamental principals" does it go against Anonymous? You need to explain yourself instead of passing your opinion off as fact. Also include how it is unlawfull as well.

You have provided some great explanations in the past and I know you can do it with your elaborations. (I am not trying to be smart here.)

You said:

"I think there is room in the world for us to lives our lives by our own beliefs and not get in each other's way."

How can you even remotely say this when the homosexual lifestyle is being shoveled down our children's throat on a daily basis in school?

Just to keep up with the original question that I asked you:

How in any way possible is Lynn, or the others rationalizing discrimination?

You have four questions of mine to answer if we are to continue to engage in any sort of civil discourse.

Good points Anonymous.

I look forward to reading what you have to say.

5:48 PM, November 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the gay community is making you teach your children things that go against your beliefs, that is a real problem we have to fix. What is more likely is that gay people are trying to teach your kids not to be bigots, and no one should have any problem with that. Being intolerant of people who are different than you is a real problem when you are living in a society that is based on inviduality and freedom. I am free to believe God loves me for who I am. You do not have a right to keep laws in place that force your beliefs upon me. That is part of my freedom of religion. If you think that same sex marriage is wrong, you are free not to practice it. The only way you could say that my beliefs are being forced upon you is if you only option was to marry someone of the same sex, so this argument holds no water with me.

If you want to believe otherwise, that's fine. If you want to teach your kids that at home, that's fine. I don't want it to be what kids learn in school though, at least not a school my money goes to. I think that's a fair request, and a good compromise.

9:16 PM, November 25, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You are continuing to not answer any of my previous questions as have been posted by me in my last comments.

You have only answered one of the four questions that I have given you.

Please answer them all and I will respond to them all.

3:50 PM, December 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Q: "Where is it said that marriage is a "right" or for that matter a privilage in which many pro-marriage advocates are screaming?"

A: US Supreme Court Loving v. Virginia 1967

Q: "What "fundamental principals" does it go against Anonymous?"

A: The freedom to live by your own beliefs is a freedom of religion issue. The pursuit of happiness is considered an inalienable right.

Q: "How can you even remotely say this when the homosexual lifestyle is being shoveled down our children's throat on a daily basis in school?"

A: Taking away gay marriage does not change the school curiculum. Convince the school they need to change their ways or don't bring your kids back to that school. It is easier to step out of the way of the train than to ask it to stop.

Q: "How in any way possible is Lynn, or the others rationalizing discrimination?"

A: The anti-gay marriage amendment is about discriminating against the civil rights of other citizens. To support it is to support a form of discrimination.

4:21 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Middleman Joe said...

If these questions are answered, why is there no debate?

11:43 AM, December 11, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com