Imagine thinking one of the major problems in the country is that doctors aren't allowed to discriminate against certain patients. How void of normal human emotion do you have to be to work on something like this??
Examples of what they want to allow include a nurse refusing post operative care for a woman who had an abortion, a pediatrician who refused to see a child with gay parents, and a fertility doctor who didn't want to provide services to a lesbian couple. Oh and also they want to be free to discriminate against transgender people of course. Who else do they want to discriminate against? I guess it depends on what their religion tells them, maybe they don't like catholics or Jewish or black people. It can be whatever. They want Freedom to be a bigot.
Anybody think this is a good idea? Or Constitutional?
So I'd like to see them defend a Satanist EMT who refuses to treat Christians when responding to emergency medical situations.
Constitutional? Perhaps, but only because the Constitution does not address this particular issue (people refusing service to other groups based solely upon opinion).
Good idea? Or course not. In fact, refusing medical services to someone violates the Hippocratic Oath:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
We definitely have the freedom to dislike each other for whatever reason; however, since we recognize that most rights have limitations that one does, as well. If you are an ob/gyn and you object to abortions on religious grounds, then....well, why did you become an ob/gyn instead of choosing some other specialty?
A Satanist EMT wouldn't care if the patient in the ambulance is Christian or not. They are there to do the job they want to be doing instead of worrying about someone else's religious beliefs.
Constitutional? Perhaps, but only because the Constitution does not address this particular issue (people refusing service to other groups based solely upon opinion).
We definitely have the freedom to dislike each other for whatever reason; however, since we recognize that most rights have limitations that one does, as well. If you are an ob/gyn and you object to abortions on religious grounds, then....well, why did you become an ob/gyn instead of choosing some other specialty?
A Satanist EMT wouldn't care if the patient in the ambulance is Christian or not. They are there to do the job they want to be doing instead of worrying about someone else's religious beliefs.
They could care and Trump's policy is to support the EMT. That example is to show how ridiculous his stance is. Whats the line between a Christian nurse who refuses to care for a woman who had surgery and might die and a Satanist who refuses to care for an injured Christian? And no offense to Satanists, I assume they would not hold that position I just needed an accessible example of religious belief being counter to the intent of these zealots.
There's nothing to stop someone from hearing voices and claiming their God told them x, y, z. What's the difference between that guy hearing voices (with sincerely held beliefs) and the devout Satanist or Christian? Is the government supposed to be picking winners and losers in the "this is the legitimate religion" debate? What about Muslims, Protestants, Jewish, or Catholics. There are some differences in beliefs there. They can't just pick one faith to support their discrimination, they need to support all discrimination.
I fail to see how religion could possibly have any relevance to transgender issues. No major religion or holy text addresses the issue; the very concept of transgender humans did not exist in biblical times.
At least for homosexuality the Bible had an oblique reference to it (arguably one of the sins of Sodom) and an outdated policy on it (death by stoning). The Bible has no verses about transgender issues.
I fail to see how religion could possibly have any relevance to transgender issues. No major religion or holy text addresses the issue; the very concept of transgender humans did not exist in biblical times.
At least for homosexuality the Bible had an oblique reference to it (arguably one of the sins of Sodom) and an outdated policy on it (death by stoning). The Bible has no verses about transgender issues.
I continue to believe a drastic demonstration of how absurd this is needs to make it to a court. Everyone and their mother knows this policy is for Christians. Ostensibly, I suppose Islam or Judaism would pass the test as well, but I see no lobbying from those groups for this change.
What NEEDS to happen is for some doctor, somewhere to say he is the head of a religion that is opposed to conservatism in all forms, and that his holy texts forbid him from treating Republicans. A religion made up on the fly has no more or less legal signifigance than one started thousands of years ago. How could you possibly PROVE one person's beliefs were sincere and someone else's aren't??
Is this absurd on its face?? Yes, of course. That's the point. In all liklihood no court would take this seriously. But just remember that that court (if this change happens) WOULD take a Christian doctor's objections seriously. And keep that in mind the next time you hear about how Christianity in America is "under attack".
They can't just pick one faith to support their discrimination, they need to support all discrimination.
I do this--I always support everyone's right to be an ass to other people. If we don't let the asses be asses, how will we know who they are?
Fair enough, but being a doctor, nurse or pharmacist isn't an inalienable right. There are plenty of rules, such as years of schooling and certification being requirements. If you can't treat every patient in front of you or aren't willing to fill any perscription, then find another line of work.
The poster above, which is an advertisement aimed an Indigenous Canadians to communicate that there are less restrictions involved in renewing or obtaining a Status Card, has triggered people to the point of it's removal.
The reason? The woman in the middle looks like Pocahontas; therefore the creators of the ad are mimicking and stereotyping the native American culture.
IMO, this is getting ridiculous. Whatever the government does or says about Indigenous Tribes or people, there are always a handful that get triggered into a furious anger. They hold press conferences or protests and lash out at anyone who attempts to engage them with questions of how can things improve, which is replied with "You don't understand. You're part of the problem."
Yes, there are problems between the Government of Canada and the Indigenous tribes that date back to our colony days. Yes there is still healing and work that needs to be done, especially with the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, with stolen land and the whitewashing of our history.
The model of this controversy has replied. And what she says about it is beautiful, that transcends not just this issue, but a lot of issues in the world.
"It's OK to talk to each other and challenge each other but it needs to be done with kindness," Aaswaakshin said. "It's important for people to remember that everybody is going through different levels of trauma and we need to communicate with ourselves in a kind way. "This brought up an important conversation and I think it just needs to be a kind conversation where we hear all sides of the story and not attack and launch accusations at each other. "That's the way I was raised, that's the way my community raised me."
"It was worth having a conversation but where it stops being a conversation and stops being kind and starts accusing and launching attacks at people and organizations and governments is not productive."
Here is hoping those words foster better communication (both ways) in the future but I doubt it.
After reading it, it is alleged one person received that letter after threatening an intern and using foul language towards her.
The letter is also not from Cotton himself. If the person has been phoning and harassing staff to the point where they think their safety is in jeopardy and they go to the police, the first thing the police are going to say is "ask that person to stop communicating with you." That's what this letter is. If he continues, the police can then intervene as it is now considered harassment.
If it gets to the point where charges are laid and it goes to court, you would probably find that before the police charge the individual, the phones in the office would be tapped to get a confirmation that this individual has been uttering threats to the staff there and that individual will not be able to hide behind the First Amendment as an excuse.
After reading it, it is alleged one person received that letter after threatening an intern and using foul language towards her.
The letter is also not from Cotton himself. If the person has been phoning and harassing staff to the point where they think their safety is in jeopardy and they go to the police, the first thing the police are going to say is "ask that person to stop communicating with you." That's what this letter is. If he continues, the police can then intervene as it is now considered harassment.
If it gets to the point where charges are laid and it goes to court, you would probably find that before the police charge the individual, the phones in the office would be tapped to get a confirmation that this individual has been uttering threats to the staff there and that individual will not be able to hide behind the First Amendment as an excuse.
I will also point to Aaswaakshin quote above and what all parties in this situation can learn from it.
I'd like to see them present a shred of proof regarding the alleged abuse. Much like Trump's threatened lawsuits he makes on weekly basis, that proof will never materialize.
I may have used unprofessional and unbecoming language at times as the anxiety and stress of what I'm witnessing is at times too great a burden to control and I have vehemently expressed my righteous anger...
And they don't have proof yet, but I bet if it continues, they'll get it. It's about treating your fellow human being with respect. If you have too much anxiety to communicate your points properly while speaking, maybe you should attempt to communicate in a different way. Write a letter, get all the anger and frustration out, then go back and edit it after you've calmed down. I bet you won't receive cease and desist orders if you do.
I may have used unprofessional and unbecoming language at times as the anxiety and stress of what I'm witnessing is at times too great a burden to control and I have vehemently expressed my righteous anger...
And they don't have proof yet, but I bet if it continues, they'll get it. It's about treating your fellow human being with respect. If you have too much anxiety to communicate your points properly while speaking, maybe you should attempt to communicate in a different way. Write a letter, get all the anger and frustration out, then go back and edit it after you've calmed down. I bet you won't receive cease and desist orders if you do.
One of the Senator's aides has already backed off a tweet in which he claimed a physical threat. So, they have already lied about that. Now it is down to bad language and the "tone" of the call. What's with the discrepancy?? The same person claims there was only one letter, which I am also going to place bets on being....not true. The office itself isn't even officially responding to the story directly. So the only response Cotton's office is giving is from one of his advisers, who has already been caught lying once and forced to correct himself. The first thing the only person to respond did was exaggerate and lie. It sounds to me like they are simply making up the excuses as they go along. And since first impressions last a lifetime, the idea that anyone should actually believe what this guy is claiming seems highly suspect to me. I'm sure someone swore on the phone. I think the rest of what they are claiming is hogwash. If this is so cut and dry, his office should go on the record with an official statement, rather than deflecting with innuendo.
This is ESPECIALLY true of elected Representatives. The person who we know received the letter has admitted only to dropping "f-bombs" (per another article in another Arkansas paper). Is that the standard by which a Senator threatens to take legal action against a constituent??
So we have the person who received the letter being totally upfront about her anger and admitting to using expletives, and we have a shady Senatorial adviser who has already lied once about physical threats. My guess is he made up the other parts as well. I would predict that they heard about the story getting out, and immediately thought up the most extreme, unoriginal scenario they could imagine, which involved physical threats and calling the staffer the c-word. They've already backed off half of it.
Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Tom Cotton is one of the two Senators who, last week, didn't remember if Trump made his "shithole" comment, and by the middle of this week was 110% positive that he hadn't. He is a craven liar, and I suspect he fills his staff with people who fit that bill as well. He also (in the Obama Administration) engaged in what I would consider semi-treasonous activity by writing a letter to the leaders of Iran while the Obama Administration was negotiating the nuclear deal telling them not to pay any attention to what Obama's State Department was doing, because the US would not live up to the deal after he was out of office. Senators have NO authority to insert themselves in that kind of diplomacy. It is the total purview of the Executive Branch.
The Conservative packed Supreme Court has overturned a lower courts opinion that North Carolina districts were drawn "with the intent of discriminating against voters who favored non-Republican candidates" and "motivated by invidious partisan intent" and that the plan violated the First Amendment by "unjustifiably discriminating against voters based on their previous political expression and affiliation."
This might help disenfranchise voters in North Carolina and the entire country by ensuring that seats in North Carolina remain heavily gerrymandered in 2018 to help ensure a House of Representatives Republican majority.
The poster above, which is an advertisement aimed an Indigenous Canadians to communicate that there are less restrictions involved in renewing or obtaining a Status Card, has triggered people to the point of it's removal.
The reason? The woman in the middle looks like Pocahontas; therefore the creators of the ad are mimicking and stereotyping the native American culture.
IMO, this is getting ridiculous. Whatever the government does or says about Indigenous Tribes or people, there are always a handful that get triggered into a furious anger. They hold press conferences or protests and lash out at anyone who attempts to engage them with questions of how can things improve, which is replied with "You don't understand. You're part of the problem."
Yes, there are problems between the Government of Canada and the Indigenous tribes that date back to our colony days. Yes there is still healing and work that needs to be done, especially with the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, with stolen land and the whitewashing of our history.
The model of this controversy has replied. And what she says about it is beautiful, that transcends not just this issue, but a lot of issues in the world.
"It's OK to talk to each other and challenge each other but it needs to be done with kindness," Aaswaakshin said. "It's important for people to remember that everybody is going through different levels of trauma and we need to communicate with ourselves in a kind way. "This brought up an important conversation and I think it just needs to be a kind conversation where we hear all sides of the story and not attack and launch accusations at each other. "That's the way I was raised, that's the way my community raised me."
"It was worth having a conversation but where it stops being a conversation and stops being kind and starts accusing and launching attacks at people and organizations and governments is not productive."
Here is hoping those words foster better communication (both ways) in the future but I doubt it.
In regards to this story, I think it would be important to ask who was doing the complaining, and how many people it was. The reason is given in the article, but very little about the volume of the complaints or who was making them. I would guess they probably didn't take it down simply based on the two women interviewed for the story, but maybe it is just that simple. This story is clearly centered around the idea and pervasiveness of cultural appropriation, which is typically isn't even noticeable by the majority group in any society.
Even if we were, the only time you could actually make that claim would be from 1965-2013. We had a 48 year run where the Voting Rights Act was actually in place and enforced.
I may have used unprofessional and unbecoming language at times as the anxiety and stress of what I'm witnessing is at times too great a burden to control and I have vehemently expressed my righteous anger...
And they don't have proof yet, but I bet if it continues, they'll get it. It's about treating your fellow human being with respect. If you have too much anxiety to communicate your points properly while speaking, maybe you should attempt to communicate in a different way. Write a letter, get all the anger and frustration out, then go back and edit it after you've calmed down. I bet you won't receive cease and desist orders if you do.
One of the Senator's aides has already backed off a tweet in which he claimed a physical threat. So, they have already lied about that. Now it is down to bad language and the "tone" of the call. What's with the discrepancy?? The same person claims there was only one letter, which I am also going to place bets on being....not true. The office itself isn't even officially responding to the story directly. So the only response Cotton's office is giving is from one of his advisers, who has already been caught lying once and forced to correct himself. The first thing the only person to respond did was exaggerate and lie. It sounds to me like they are simply making up the excuses as they go along. And since first impressions last a lifetime, the idea that anyone should actually believe what this guy is claiming seems highly suspect to me. I'm sure someone swore on the phone. I think the rest of what they are claiming is hogwash. If this is so cut and dry, his office should go on the record with an official statement, rather than deflecting with innuendo.
This is ESPECIALLY true of elected Representatives. The person who we know received the letter has admitted only to dropping "f-bombs" (per another article in another Arkansas paper). Is that the standard by which a Senator threatens to take legal action against a constituent??
Disagree and here's why:
The office would know the letters would cause the backlash that it did. How would they have not known?
The letters also wouldn't hold up in court alone if this person continued to phone and just swear at the staff for whatever reason.
So if the above two points are correct, why send out the letter? intimidation? If it's only intimidation, why was he the only one to receive the letter if this has been an organized campaign against Cotton?
If there are more letters, why aren't they being plastered all over social media, because you know, if there was proof that more of these were sent, it is ammunition to use against the office and Cotton and they'd already be out and about.
The spoke person involved is being dragged into it. He doesn't know all the facts. All that he knows is that a 19 year old intern was distraught after receiving what was perceived as a threatening call. The caller and letter receiver even admits to using improper language in an uncontrolled manner (these are his own words here). Regardless of what was said, this spoke person is attempting to find out exactly what had transpired and attempting to communicate that with the media. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar, just makes him a person attempting to bring calmness to the situation. That's his job. That isn't the job of the office manager or the 19 year old that received the call. They do not need to say anything as long as they learn from the situation.
As I said prior, the letter was probably sent on advice from police so they can take action if this person does continue to phone. One thing I do not hear from this person is an apology, only excuses to his behaviour. An apology from him would go a long way from deflating this issue.
Kudos to Cotton for reaching out. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit that him personally phoning an organizer to apologize and attempt to make amends on what his staff did when things started getting heated was the right thing to do.
People are human, they make mistakes, its understanding when mistakes are made and taking actions to correct them such as reopening the offices to walk ins and holding a Town Hall meeting (allegedly, will can still wait for this to happen). It's a start. There isn't a need for a "public record from the offices." There shouldn't be winners and losers in this situation. It can come out as everyone winning and learning from the situation.
The poster above, which is an advertisement aimed an Indigenous Canadians to communicate that there are less restrictions involved in renewing or obtaining a Status Card, has triggered people to the point of it's removal.
The reason? The woman in the middle looks like Pocahontas; therefore the creators of the ad are mimicking and stereotyping the native American culture.
IMO, this is getting ridiculous. Whatever the government does or says about Indigenous Tribes or people, there are always a handful that get triggered into a furious anger. They hold press conferences or protests and lash out at anyone who attempts to engage them with questions of how can things improve, which is replied with "You don't understand. You're part of the problem."
Yes, there are problems between the Government of Canada and the Indigenous tribes that date back to our colony days. Yes there is still healing and work that needs to be done, especially with the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, with stolen land and the whitewashing of our history.
The model of this controversy has replied. And what she says about it is beautiful, that transcends not just this issue, but a lot of issues in the world.
"It's OK to talk to each other and challenge each other but it needs to be done with kindness," Aaswaakshin said. "It's important for people to remember that everybody is going through different levels of trauma and we need to communicate with ourselves in a kind way. "This brought up an important conversation and I think it just needs to be a kind conversation where we hear all sides of the story and not attack and launch accusations at each other. "That's the way I was raised, that's the way my community raised me."
"It was worth having a conversation but where it stops being a conversation and stops being kind and starts accusing and launching attacks at people and organizations and governments is not productive."
Here is hoping those words foster better communication (both ways) in the future but I doubt it.
In regards to this story, I think it would be important to ask who was doing the complaining, and how many people it was. The reason is given in the article, but very little about the volume of the complaints or who was making them. I would guess they probably didn't take it down simply based on the two women interviewed for the story, but maybe it is just that simple. This story is clearly centered around the idea and pervasiveness of cultural appropriation, which is typically isn't even noticeable by the majority group in any society.
It's the Canadian government dealing with First Person Issues. You'd be surprised. They didn't want it snowballing like it usually does into other issues until everyone is triggered and protesting for various reasons on the grounds "They're not listening to us."
Apparently there wasn't even a pretense that the gerrymandering was innocent. David Lewis, the chair of the redistricting committee, said himself that it was a political gerrymander, but it wasn't against the law. Lewis said, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”
It's not David Lewis' decision who gets elected. Voters make that decision.
The courts have been fairly consistent in ruling that redistricting is a political process and are generally hands off. The reason why this case (originally) succeeded was because the legislature had explicitly asked for voter ethnicity when they drew the maps--e.g. the problem wasn't that they were drawing maps to disadvantage a party, but rather to disadvantage black voters.
Jeff Sessions Justice Department has also made the "unusual request" (side-eye) to the Supreme Court in it's fight to kill DACA lawsuits. After the successful the removal of the decision of a lower court against North Carolina's gerrymandering, I expect this "unusual request" to circumvent democratic processes will become way more common.
Republicans think they've got the Supreme Court in the bag and they can just skip everything else because it doesn't matter. Maybe these guys are right. I mean, they've got at least one ringer in there with Crazy Gorsuch.
I suspect you meant to say "people are stupid", which they are.
No, I meant to say everyone involved are human beings with emotions. You have people attempting to serve the community the best they can. You have people in that community feeling that they are not being represented in the best way. It is brought to a personal level where defense mechanisms kick in which brings it even further to a us-versus-them argument when it isn't (or shouldn't). Take a step back, figure out how to bring people closer together and do it.
No one is stupid. Every single last person on earth holds some form of intelligence. Writing people off in a negative way because emotions over take rational thought is counter productive.
Comments
Good idea? Or course not. In fact, refusing medical services to someone violates the Hippocratic Oath: We definitely have the freedom to dislike each other for whatever reason; however, since we recognize that most rights have limitations that one does, as well. If you are an ob/gyn and you object to abortions on religious grounds, then....well, why did you become an ob/gyn instead of choosing some other specialty?
A Satanist EMT wouldn't care if the patient in the ambulance is Christian or not. They are there to do the job they want to be doing instead of worrying about someone else's religious beliefs.
There's nothing to stop someone from hearing voices and claiming their God told them x, y, z. What's the difference between that guy hearing voices (with sincerely held beliefs) and the devout Satanist or Christian? Is the government supposed to be picking winners and losers in the "this is the legitimate religion" debate? What about Muslims, Protestants, Jewish, or Catholics. There are some differences in beliefs there. They can't just pick one faith to support their discrimination, they need to support all discrimination.
At least for homosexuality the Bible had an oblique reference to it (arguably one of the sins of Sodom) and an outdated policy on it (death by stoning). The Bible has no verses about transgender issues.
What NEEDS to happen is for some doctor, somewhere to say he is the head of a religion that is opposed to conservatism in all forms, and that his holy texts forbid him from treating Republicans. A religion made up on the fly has no more or less legal signifigance than one started thousands of years ago. How could you possibly PROVE one person's beliefs were sincere and someone else's aren't??
Is this absurd on its face?? Yes, of course. That's the point. In all liklihood no court would take this seriously. But just remember that that court (if this change happens) WOULD take a Christian doctor's objections seriously. And keep that in mind the next time you hear about how Christianity in America is "under attack".
The poster above, which is an advertisement aimed an Indigenous Canadians to communicate that there are less restrictions involved in renewing or obtaining a Status Card, has triggered people to the point of it's removal.
The reason? The woman in the middle looks like Pocahontas; therefore the creators of the ad are mimicking and stereotyping the native American culture.
IMO, this is getting ridiculous. Whatever the government does or says about Indigenous Tribes or people, there are always a handful that get triggered into a furious anger. They hold press conferences or protests and lash out at anyone who attempts to engage them with questions of how can things improve, which is replied with "You don't understand. You're part of the problem."
Yes, there are problems between the Government of Canada and the Indigenous tribes that date back to our colony days. Yes there is still healing and work that needs to be done, especially with the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, with stolen land and the whitewashing of our history.
The model of this controversy has replied. And what she says about it is beautiful, that transcends not just this issue, but a lot of issues in the world.
"It's important for people to remember that everybody is going through different levels of trauma and we need to communicate with ourselves in a kind way.
"This brought up an important conversation and I think it just needs to be a kind conversation where we hear all sides of the story and not attack and launch accusations at each other.
"That's the way I was raised, that's the way my community raised me."
"It was worth having a conversation but where it stops being a conversation and stops being kind and starts accusing and launching attacks at people and organizations and governments is not productive."
Here is hoping those words foster better communication (both ways) in the future but I doubt it.
https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2018/01/18/activists-say-tom-cotton-has-a-do-not-call-or-write-list-for-some-constituents
The letter is also not from Cotton himself. If the person has been phoning and harassing staff to the point where they think their safety is in jeopardy and they go to the police, the first thing the police are going to say is "ask that person to stop communicating with you." That's what this letter is. If he continues, the police can then intervene as it is now considered harassment.
If it gets to the point where charges are laid and it goes to court, you would probably find that before the police charge the individual, the phones in the office would be tapped to get a confirmation that this individual has been uttering threats to the staff there and that individual will not be able to hide behind the First Amendment as an excuse.
I will also point out this article: https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/02/04/cotton-apologizes-to-ozark-indivisible-promises-town-hall-this-month Where it states Cotton had personally phoned and apologized to the protesting group and promised to hold a town hall meeting. This is a Win Win for both parties involved if Cotton follows through with the town meeting.
I will also point to Aaswaakshin quote above and what all parties in this situation can learn from it.
And they don't have proof yet, but I bet if it continues, they'll get it. It's about treating your fellow human being with respect. If you have too much anxiety to communicate your points properly while speaking, maybe you should attempt to communicate in a different way. Write a letter, get all the anger and frustration out, then go back and edit it after you've calmed down. I bet you won't receive cease and desist orders if you do.
This is ESPECIALLY true of elected Representatives. The person who we know received the letter has admitted only to dropping "f-bombs" (per another article in another Arkansas paper). Is that the standard by which a Senator threatens to take legal action against a constituent??
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/jan/18/sen-tom-cotton-sends-letter-warning-constituent-st/
So we have the person who received the letter being totally upfront about her anger and admitting to using expletives, and we have a shady Senatorial adviser who has already lied once about physical threats. My guess is he made up the other parts as well. I would predict that they heard about the story getting out, and immediately thought up the most extreme, unoriginal scenario they could imagine, which involved physical threats and calling the staffer the c-word. They've already backed off half of it.
Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Tom Cotton is one of the two Senators who, last week, didn't remember if Trump made his "shithole" comment, and by the middle of this week was 110% positive that he hadn't. He is a craven liar, and I suspect he fills his staff with people who fit that bill as well. He also (in the Obama Administration) engaged in what I would consider semi-treasonous activity by writing a letter to the leaders of Iran while the Obama Administration was negotiating the nuclear deal telling them not to pay any attention to what Obama's State Department was doing, because the US would not live up to the deal after he was out of office. Senators have NO authority to insert themselves in that kind of diplomacy. It is the total purview of the Executive Branch.
This might help disenfranchise voters in North Carolina and the entire country by ensuring that seats in North Carolina remain heavily gerrymandered in 2018 to help ensure a House of Representatives Republican majority.
Supreme Court blocks court order to redraw North Carolina congressional districts
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/north-carolina-supreme-court-redistricting/index.html
The office would know the letters would cause the backlash that it did. How would they have not known?
The letters also wouldn't hold up in court alone if this person continued to phone and just swear at the staff for whatever reason.
So if the above two points are correct, why send out the letter? intimidation? If it's only intimidation, why was he the only one to receive the letter if this has been an organized campaign against Cotton?
If there are more letters, why aren't they being plastered all over social media, because you know, if there was proof that more of these were sent, it is ammunition to use against the office and Cotton and they'd already be out and about.
The spoke person involved is being dragged into it. He doesn't know all the facts. All that he knows is that a 19 year old intern was distraught after receiving what was perceived as a threatening call. The caller and letter receiver even admits to using improper language in an uncontrolled manner (these are his own words here). Regardless of what was said, this spoke person is attempting to find out exactly what had transpired and attempting to communicate that with the media. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar, just makes him a person attempting to bring calmness to the situation. That's his job. That isn't the job of the office manager or the 19 year old that received the call. They do not need to say anything as long as they learn from the situation.
As I said prior, the letter was probably sent on advice from police so they can take action if this person does continue to phone. One thing I do not hear from this person is an apology, only excuses to his behaviour. An apology from him would go a long way from deflating this issue.
Kudos to Cotton for reaching out. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit that him personally phoning an organizer to apologize and attempt to make amends on what his staff did when things started getting heated was the right thing to do.
People are human, they make mistakes, its understanding when mistakes are made and taking actions to correct them such as reopening the offices to walk ins and holding a Town Hall meeting (allegedly, will can still wait for this to happen). It's a start. There isn't a need for a "public record from the offices." There shouldn't be winners and losers in this situation. It can come out as everyone winning and learning from the situation.
It's not David Lewis' decision who gets elected. Voters make that decision.
Republicans think they've got the Supreme Court in the bag and they can just skip everything else because it doesn't matter. Maybe these guys are right. I mean, they've got at least one ringer in there with Crazy Gorsuch.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/trump-administration-daca-appeal-supreme-court.html
No one is stupid. Every single last person on earth holds some form of intelligence. Writing people off in a negative way because emotions over take rational thought is counter productive.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/after-missile-alert-confirmed-as-false-alarm-this-is-how-hawaii-celebrated/