Thursday, February 21, 2008

Sign the "We Don't Support Chris Buttars" Petition!

(Cross-posted at The World, According to Me)

So, I read this this morning:

Meantime, an online petition supporting Buttars, posted by the Utah Eagle Forum, has received more than 100 signatures.


And so I thought I'd take a look at the petition. I found that 123 people had signed the pro-Buttars petition. That seemed weak for the all-mighty Eagle Forum.

So, I thought I'd create my own "We don't support Chris Buttars" petition.

Please go and sign it.

-Bob

6 comments:

bekkieann said...

Look again at the Eagle Forum petition and see how many people have signed it two and three times.

Anonymous said...

I lost my job yesterday because my superivsor heard me giving my name to a customer.

I made it all through life without a problem but now i will probably lose my home because of your politically correct complaining.

Thanks a lot,

David Lynch Black
Moab

Anonymous said...

Dear David,

Deep thoughts by Buttars supporters continue to amaze me.

Anonymous said...

From City Weekly website:

Grammarian, when Sen. Howard Stephenson conjured up his "baby" metaphor during his remarks on the Hill, he was inviting everyone present at the meeting to imagine the bill as an actual human baby. Not a camera. Not a sports car. And not even a stripper named Trixie from Vegas.

Said Stephenson: "This is what I call the 'ugly baby' bill. Sen. Eastman has been likened to Solmon in bringing this forth, but he's holding an ugly baby and is ready to cut it in half."

We're instantly required by Stephenson's imagery to picture Eastman holding by the ankle not a stack of legislation, but a breathing, living human child. The mere suggestion that Stephenson's use of the word baby theoretically may have referred to a camera, or a killer deal, or a report card is both silly and insulting.

When Chris Buttars rose up with his addition to this metaphor, it was already quite clear that the senators were being asked to picture a woman's child held in the hand of King Solomon. That's when Mr. Buttars said: "This baby is black I tell you. This is a dark, ugly thing.”

How is one not to interpret that Buttars was calling the infant in King Solomon's hand that Stephenson requested us to picture a black, dark, ugly thing? If Buttars thinks the legislation is dark and ugly (already unclear language when it refers to legislation), he ought to have devised his own metaphor that wasn't already imbued with meaning from previous context. Or perhaps he ought to have avoided metaphors altogether and spoken plainly and to the point.

Yes, it's a fact that the word baby can function as a stand-in for any number of nouns, Grammarian. In this case, however, we know the context and reference clearly from transcripts of the discussion. Chris Buttars knew the legislation was being compared to a human child, and he still chose to utter the words he did. Please, stop making excuses for him.

Max said...

I got the same David Lynch Black comment on my website too. Personally I don't think he really exists. a) why would you tell a customer your full name, including middle? b) Wouldn't his boss already know his name? and c) how would our politically correct complaining permeate society so quickly that it got this guy fired within a week of BUTTar's comments?

Rob said...

There is no David Lynch Black registered to vote in Utah.