Wow! I can't believe that the same type of opinions about ethics 
and politics are more widely held in Minneapolis than just
Prospect Park.  I had hoped that they were an isolated phenomenon.

I believe that I have the right to question the ethics and
decisions of others, especially when they represent me in the
state legislature.  And, I believe that I should be able to do
so without being compared to Pol Pot. I did not suggest that
Ms. Kahn be dragged off to the killing fields and have her
flesh torn asunder.  I suggested that it would be honorable 
for her to withdraw and that doing so could benefit her party 
more than being reelected. 

I am not the one who was convicted of stealing campaign literature;
I am simply questioning the behavior and ethics of someone who
would, and those who would continue to endorse and support her.
And "endorse" is the keyword here.  She continues to hold the
party's endorsement irrespective of her conviction.  If you feel 
that stealing campaign literature is so trivial that it should not 
impact your vote, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, 
but I am not under any obligation to feel that it is either a wise 
or ethical decision.

I find the political and ethical dynamics here are very interesting.
As far as I tell, Minnesota Nice means not questioning the bad
behavior of others.  But, why would such a social more exist? 
I believe that it's a form of social control.  In my neighborhood
those of us who are so rude as to question the actions of our
neighborhood association are portrayed as a disreputable minority.
Here again on the List I am portrayed as "...throwing rocks instead 
of sound ideas or contrary points," when I believe my ideas were
sound and my points valid.  Is it always the case that when
someone raises ethical questions in Minneapolis that it is synonymous
with sodomy and bestiality?  Remember, I am not the criminal here, 
Ms. Kahn is.  I am suggesting that we take the high road, but it 
appears by doing so that I am the villain.  Is it that I should 
silently slink back into my own morality so that the business of 
politics in Minneapolis can continue as usual?

"In any case, I'm tired of reading commentary on the episode 
over and over again on this list."

Here again is a standard tactic used at my neighborhood association
meetings.  "Irregardless of the truth or the righteousness of
your views, we are just plain tried of hearing them, so please slink
quietly into the background."  Well, while it is true that it
might be necessary to sit and listen while I prattle on about
making ethical decisions at a neighborhood meeting, here in the 
Virtual World there is always the Delete Key.  Thus, the expression 
of such sentiments here seems more a form of social control, than 
a simple expression of frustration.

Chuck Holtman wrote:

> 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.

Well, I didn't see the need for a tremendous amount of outrage
for Clinton's sexual inclinations, but when it turned into
a criminal act (lying under oath) then outrage was appropriate.
Let alone the lack of judgment and stupidity for engaging
in such behavior in the first place.  Besides, while sex is not
directly related to being president, lying is.  In Ms. Kahn's case,
the stealing of campaign literature is directly related to serving
as a representative of the people.  To use your words, "... the 
tremendous lack of judgment..." does call into question Ms. Kahn's
competence.  

> We elect legislators for their legislating, not for their personal 
> qualities.
  
I beg to differ. I believe that we most intentionally elect 
legislators for their personal qualities: intelligence, honesty,
wisdom, good looks, etc.  Are you implying that as long as legislators
pass the legislation you personally support that their honesty is not 
a relevant quality?

> If we rigorously applied the standard of "undermining the principles 
> of a democratic society," how many legislators and members of Congress 
> would remain standing? 

Only as many as we should reelect!

Michael Atherton
Prospect Park





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

Reply via email to