For example, Rev. Burgess shuns proximity -- even figurative proximity -- with respect to some people.
An Infinonyfan notes that a recent advertisement (page 15) in a local publication endorsing "respect and tole
rance" features the photographs of Pittsburgh's city council members -- with the singular exception of Rev. Burgess, who reportedly did not authorize reproduction of his likeness in Pittsburgh Pride, a publication commemorating a weeklong event (beginning tomorrow) for gay and lesbians.Rev. Ricky has no problems with closeness, however, when Luke Ravenstahl is involved.
The latest episode of "Ricky Loves Lukey" featured a familiar but nonetheless entertaining storyline: When city council's other members debated spending less than one percent of a proposed transaction's cost to commission a study of whether that transaction makes sense, Rev. Burgess launched an animated overreaction, accusing his colleagues of using a "slush fund" to finance an "insincere" plot to derail his
Public figures who stridently shun homosexuality have been revealed with remarkable frequency to have been motivated not by bigotry but instead by a desire to conceal their own orientation. Constituents and colleagues therefore might monitor Rev. Burgess' curiously bipolar relationships with his gay constituents and his boy mayor in hopes of discovering that his position with respect to gays is motivated by something other than bigotry -- not that there would be anything wrong with that.
Infinonytune: I Love Lucy theme, Desi Arnaz orchestra
Infinonytune: When The Whip Comes Down, The Rolling Stones
12 comments:
Rev Ricky is a hater like Mark Brently! What I don't get is what's in it for Lukey? The Rev will suck the city dry for all of Homewoods endless needs. Also, the Revs votes don't come without a steep price for the rest of us. I've known for a long time what a homophobic bigot the Rev. is and it is shockingly clear from the way he treats Bruce Krause on the televised meetings. The loathing is palpable! Bruce is the kindess, nicest man and deserves respect. The Rev. needs to be "outted" for the hater and snake in the grass that he truely is.
Spending less than 1% of the cost to independently study the transaction is a good way to put it. Especially when the only advice we've received is from a direct beneficiary of that transaction (and one that's getting sued all over the country). And I'm having a hard time believing Burgess suddenly learned about using unspent money from previous years.
I believe Burgess has spoken and even voted in favor of equal civil rights for gays. Is there an important or interesting distinction to be made in terms of encouraging gays to take "pride"? I hope this conversation continues.
Why is The Rev against the study?
For a guy who likes to portray himself as a man fighting lower income people, he sure is pushing hard for a plan that will remove a key asset from the public's hands. Does he realize this plan failed miserably in Chicago and shortchanged the public?
Rev. Burgess is either an ignorant fool or he is in the pocket of Morgan Stanley and Co.
Spending less than 1% of the cost to independently study the transaction is a good way to put it.
Spending less than one-tenth of one percent might be a better way to put it.
The greasers would bill (one way or another) more than a quarter-million in expenses (car service, after-hours sushi, conference room spreads, $400 hotel rooms) before any deal of this magnitude were completed.
A consumer who purchased an online subscription to Consumer Reports before spending $15,000 on z vehicle would, proportionatly, spend more money investigating that purchase than city council proposes to spend investigating the proposed public garage sale.
Rev Burgess has never spoken out for homosexuals or their rights.
when the whip comes down (special dedication to the rev, not sure he'll get it) +++
ricky loves lukey song +++
you're too much infi
Here's what I have been recalling: on 1/29/08 Burgess voted aye on 2008-0071, a resolution urging the Legislature to adopt HB 1400 & SB 761, an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance.
Then the following year on 3/10 a very similar resolution, 2009-1185, appears to have passed by unanimous voice vote with the Rev in the room, although the minutes are not definitive.
Notably however on 6/17/2008 he voted against 2008-0484, an ordinance (not a will of council resolution) establishing the city's domestic partner registry.
Incidentally, 6/17/2008 is strikingly near the time his relationships with several on the Council began to sour. The wall of opposition to his historic preservation reform agenda of that time factored in as well. It was also just about exactly the time he vacated his seat when discussing some legal bills on the urging of Solicitor Specter.
why do u hold water for Burgess Bram?
I think it is because he visited his blog and made a comment before Bram took his break.
That was Theresa who chimed in recently; though I think the Rev did once pop over about a year prior. It's lovely but not head-turning.
I would not consider my immediately preceding comment "carrying water". As to the one before that, are we not allowed to state facts? These blogs are not the propaganda monkeys some would have them be.
Oops scratch that he did leave a farewell. Sorry Rev!
Post a Comment