My accusations of affiliations with nefarious organizations are not aimed at people who are critical of elected politicians guilty of a crime, regardless of the degree. I'll defend Phyllis for a number of reasons, but I want to make it clear that she opened herself up to criticism. I think you're wrong, but go for it.
Rather the strength of my protest is aimed at the suggestion that voters endorsing Rep. Kahn are automatically unethical. I believe that to be unjustified. To replace or remove the endorsement from Rep. Kahn would require a DFL convention. To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise everyone who showed up at the convention in the spring. There is an election in a few weeks, and Phyllis is the horse we're riding. Some will say her actions wouldn't change the vote, for others there is no time to rustle up a candidate and throw down a convention. We'll revisit this and hold a referendum in two years. As to why I would vote for Phyllis this go around, (I'm in the wrong district, Go Diane!) aside from her legislative history, I would consider this particular infraction of the law to pale in comparison to the Republican Party platform. The GOP platform doesn't represent me in any way. Those are my alternatives, someone who supports the GOP platform, which, right or wrong, I believe to be anathema to universal opportunity, or a good person who did a dumb thing. If you still think I'm unethical, then fine. Silly string at dawn. As for the Pol Pot thing, Yeah got a little crazy. Sorry about that. But projecting a universal value judgment onto an entire group of people based on the behavior of one person is, well, not the best foot forward. Based on Hannah Arendt's classic definition of a totalitarian state, this is a behavior that would fit in nicely. So, one could argue that there is a scholarly body of work to support my contention that, perhaps, people sound like they can get carried away. I would certainly never suggest that anyone on this list would be an active participant in some nefarious deed. So speak your mind. Get crazy at your association meeting. Couldn't care less. But don't think you're going to throw accusations of unethical behavior at me, a DFL supporter who you don't know and have never met, and get away with it. I prefer to be a lurker, but golly, just couldn't let this stuff go. Jeremy Wieland Circulation Director Utne magazine 1624 Harmon Place Minneapolis, MN 55403 612.338.5040 x326 www.utne.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Atherton Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] RE: Kahn's Crime 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 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
