Holtz wrote a bizarre email claiming that our effort to call the activities of the Libertarian Party about seeking to repeal the laws about dwarf tossing was demeaning to Little People. So, we checked. The Little People of America got those laws passed.I maintain my position that, for any X, it is indeed demeaning to Xs to say that that an X can't figure out whether it's wise to voluntarily consent to an activity like "X tossing" and needs the government -- or the Xs of America -- to make that decision for him. I believe that Xs are grownups and can think for themselves -- even if the Xs of America don't share my belief.
I repeat the questions that Rowen doesn't dare to answer: Do you believe that you are more competent than dwarfs to make choices that preserve personal dignity? If not, then can you list some of the undignified choices that you think you need government to protect you from making?
Holtz has such a terrible attitude towards Little People, as he has said in an email to us that dwarf tossing is not demeaning, but banning it is demeaning
I have never written that X tossing is not demeaning, for any X. My whole point is that each grownup X must decide for herself what is demeaning to her, and that nobody else -- not me, not the government, not even the Xs of America -- should make that decision for her.
Holtz wrote us an email. He did. Now he claims we are bugging him.What I actually claimed was that Rowen "cyber-stalks Libertarians because of their opposition to a taxpayer-subsidized 49er stadium". Rowen is free to fantasize that his cyber-stalking's effect on me is anything other than amusement.
he also is the person directly responsible for the continuation of the at large system of a board that has kept Asian American votes polarized.It's recklessly false to claim that I as a first-term board member am "the person directly responsible for the continuation of the at large system" of our water district. It seems unfounded for Rowen to claim that "Asian American votes [are] polarized" in our water district. This is unikely, because two of our five board seats are held by walk-ons who were elected by default without opposition, and a third had to be appointed because not enough candidates filed for the office. If members of a minority in our district feel under-represented on our board, then they were free to walk on to the board, or to seek appointment to it.
Holtz refused to look at the at large system, though under the CVRA he is supposed to do so.I made no such refusal. Instead, I explicitly requested to our district counsel to "give this issue precisely the amount of attention that you think it deserves". If the water board -- or I personally -- have some obligation under any California law that we/I are not fulfilling, I invite anybody to quote that part of the California code specifying such obligation.
