If I can add something, I can't help but note that Rep. Kahn's legal transgression has been converted by some on this list into a general condemnation of the ethics of individuals who might still opt to vote for the Representative. It's the kind of polemic I would expect from the administration of Pol Pot rather than people raised in a place governed by reason in a tradition where government is set up to be ineffective.
I understand that it's easy to throw rocks instead of sound ideas or contrary points. How about we take the high road instead? I'm more than happy to suggest that a person's support for a contrary point of view automatically indicates that they fornicate with goats, but I think there is a better way. Phyllis broke the law and justifiably opened a can of worms. But the DFL, and people who vote DFL did not, so get over the general labels and push on. Jeremy Wieland Northeast -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Holtman Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [Mpls] RE: Representative Kahn Regarding Rep. Kahn's transgression, I don't see the need for a tremendous amount of outrage here. Yes, there's an ethical aspect to what occurred, but what puzzles me more is the tremendous lack of judgment in doing such a ridiculous thing (particularly where I've never seen anything on a door hanger that said anything relevant whatsoever about why I should vote for a candidate or not). I'm also puzzled by Rep. Kahn's extremely terse explanations to her long-term constituency; more forthrightness would seem to be in order. But in a legislature intent on malicious damage to the state and the urban core, Rep. Kahn still is overwhelmingly a progressive voice (though not entirely, as many have posted here). I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face by demanding ethical purity in the personal world of my representative. The broader point here is how successful the Right has been in framing ethics as relating to personal weaknesses. Character is condemned for peccadillos, while pushing legislation that ravages the public interest for the benefit of an ideology or a well-heeled few, and communicating in a systematically dishonest way with the public in order to keep them hoodwinked, never seem to fall within the realm of ethical judgment. We elect legislators for their legislating, not for their personal qualities. We should judge their ethics on the basis of their demonstrated commitment to act in the public interest. Sure, Rep. Kahn's transgression undermined "the principles of a democratic society," in an incredibly trivial sense. If we rigorously applied the standard of "undermining the principles of a democratic society," how many legislators and members of Congress would remain standing? Chuck Holtman Prospect Park Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:46:31 -0700 (PDT) From: phaedrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Mpls] Re: Kahn's Crime To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > As I suggested in an earlier post, I can still not > understand why Ms. Kahn was out in that district in > the first place. Be that as it may, it is clear > justice has been meted out and the issue will fade > into the background. Although it is not ideal for an > elected official to be convicted of any level of > infraction, we can differentiate absconding > with a piece of paper from being a serial killer. I certainly agree that the infraction is not comparable to that of being a serial killer. I would feel no need for her to suffer additional legal or social consequences. However, politicians are sworn to uphold the principles of a democratic society and Ms. Kahn's actions violate those principles. I do think it is appropriate to call for her resignation or for people to withdraw their political support. Depending on the circumstances, I can overlook minor infractions (speeding or parking tickets, adultry, drug use, petty shoplifting etc) on the part of a candidate, but not when those infractions are aimed at silencing voices of opposition. Of course, I would prefer that someone whose job is to make or uphold the law would follow those laws. Violations for reasons of civil disobedience are an exception to me. - Jason Goray Sheridan, NE 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 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
