Look, I like to cancel folks as well as the next guy.
But is it too much to ask, exactly what we're canceling Ms Vanuch for? Just out of curiosity, of course.
As a newcomer to this area, I asked the other day, when the cartoon came out depicting her as associating with the Klan. That's a fairly strong accusation, where I come from. Maybe it's bandied about a little more freely here, with less meaning. But when I asked for context then, I never got it.
And this morning, she is described as a "fire-brand". Why?
All that is provided is a link to an article that refers to her and the Stafford Board of Supervisors voting to provide the same protections to private wells that were given to public wells.
I'll trust the court's decision that their efforts were improper. But I saw nothing in the referenced article that indicated their and her opposition had anything more to do with the word "Muslim" in the description than it did the word "Cemetery".
With Ms Vanuch living directly across the street from the cemetery, mightn't her opposition have been as much to do with NIMBYism, - personal concerns regarding loss of value of her home, as well as the concern regarding a private well, if she had one - as due to any racism as implied in the cartoon?
Maybe not admirable, but certainly no more deplorable than the opposition currently seen in Falmouth to the methadone clinic.
I dunno. Maybe there is more to story. Again, I read this, and felt like I was coming in on a conversation that was already halfway over.
But from what's been provided here, I'd say the conclusions are based upon facts not entered into evidence.
Look, I like to cancel folks as well as the next guy.
But is it too much to ask, exactly what we're canceling Ms Vanuch for? Just out of curiosity, of course.
As a newcomer to this area, I asked the other day, when the cartoon came out depicting her as associating with the Klan. That's a fairly strong accusation, where I come from. Maybe it's bandied about a little more freely here, with less meaning. But when I asked for context then, I never got it.
And this morning, she is described as a "fire-brand". Why?
All that is provided is a link to an article that refers to her and the Stafford Board of Supervisors voting to provide the same protections to private wells that were given to public wells.
I'll trust the court's decision that their efforts were improper. But I saw nothing in the referenced article that indicated their and her opposition had anything more to do with the word "Muslim" in the description than it did the word "Cemetery".
With Ms Vanuch living directly across the street from the cemetery, mightn't her opposition have been as much to do with NIMBYism, - personal concerns regarding loss of value of her home, as well as the concern regarding a private well, if she had one - as due to any racism as implied in the cartoon?
Maybe not admirable, but certainly no more deplorable than the opposition currently seen in Falmouth to the methadone clinic.
I dunno. Maybe there is more to story. Again, I read this, and felt like I was coming in on a conversation that was already halfway over.
But from what's been provided here, I'd say the conclusions are based upon facts not entered into evidence.
What am I missing, or are you not saying?