Peter, Thanks for your thoughtful response, although I disagree with you on a few points. That's alright though, as you said, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and it's good to have many opinions represented. Mark already said what I would have to Chris, so I'll respond to your points.
First and foremost, I don't see Margaret as holding RT or anyone's feet to the fire, what I do see her doing is making a lot of noise that does not seem to have a purpose. Holding RT or any other official's feet to the fire is not a bad thing, but it's usually something a reasonable person uses as a last resort. You hold someone's feet to the fire when you've tried reasonable courses of action and they refuse to be reasonable, I haven't seen that happen. What I've seen is Margaret jump out and "yell" at people about how bad or wrong they are like she's done with RT or like she did about Paul Wellstone a few days after he was killed (check the archives for a post about her saying Paul was never a true fighter for justice), and with no real objective to speak of. What less invasive methods has Margaret tried? What efforts has she put forth and what is her goal? You say that she's tried things before, if you could point them out to me it might make this more understandable, but all I've heard is Margaret's anecdotal recounts of what she's done, I haven't seen or heard anything anywhere else. I've heard Margaret's statements of "facts" but haven't seen any evidence to support it. Take for example you're recounting of anti-camping ordinances. To begin with, we have just Margaret's word that she did all of the things that she says, but even if she did do things in that manner, there is no "less invasive" part to it. I first heard of Margaret when she decided to make a video and have a camp out to protest the anti-camping ordinance. She was doing this because "across the nation" they were being used against poor and homeless people according to her. Now, she didn't cite that it was happening in Minneapolis, she didn't cite how it was being used against people, but she did demand that it be repealed and stated that she was holding the protest and filming the documentary, which did, incidently, get her quite noticed. So since you believe as I do that activism begins with the least invasive approach and then is ramped up as necessary, help me understand when Margaret has taken a least invasive approach? I don't see anything prior to her bursting on the scenes and demanding that this ordinance be repealed. And I have yet to see some evidence that it is being used in Minneapolis in the manner in which she says it is. More to the point, I have yet to see what goals or plans Margaret has or what she wants to or has accomplished besides making a name for herself. You say that RT has been silent on the homeless, I say remember the State of the City address in 2002 being held in the newly constructed People Serving People shelter? The fundraiser may be an ideal place to confront the Mayor, but it would be on his promise on campaign fundraising not on homeless because there is no connection. Sure the Mayor and the City and all of us could do better on homeless and other issues, but don't you need to have an idea of what you want to accomplish first and why before you demand that it be done? I agree wholeheartedly with holding someone's feet to the fire (although I disagree that this is the only way to get RT to accomplish things) when they are not following through, but I've yet to see that crucial first step of speaking reasonably to a person and presenting the issue as well as a proposed solution. What I do see is Margaret "yelling" at the Mayor's office for things like counting shelter beds. Interesting thing about that is that they changed that, once they became aware, according to them. So support the tactics if you think it's the right thing to do, but I think it's missing the reasonable, rational part of less invasive initial steps, which is why I offered to help Margaret with them. She refuses to work with me on them or to even present goals and objectives and for that reason I can't support her tactics or methods. More to the point, I can't find a use for them, and without that, all she is doing is drawing attention, efforts and resources away from actually addressing the real problem. But I like to consider myself a reasonable person (my wife says different at least as far as watching The Daily Show is concerned), so please educate me if I'm missing something. Show me where Margaret's taken these other steps or followed the path that you and I both think is right, and I'll be the first person standing outside that fundraiser decrying the Mayor, otherwise I've got to continue really working on the issues and that includes exposing the truth all through this situation. Jonathan Palmer Victory REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
