Brian's exposition is of course articulate, but off the mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Melendez, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Jordan S. Kushner '" <Jordan.S.Kushner-> [snip] > That Jordan can define his terms does not mean that they are not > inflammatory. The problem with Jordan's definition is that Jordan evidently > gets to decide who is a "hack" and who is "motivated by . . . genuine > commitment."
Anyone expressing an opinion gets to decide who fits the opinion. Anyone else is entitled to express an opinion that is in disagreement. > I cannot imagine that anyone will voluntarily embrace and wear > the label "hack" as Jordan defines it. Since Jordan's definition depends on > the subjective state of mind of the person being labeled, and since neither > Jordan nor anyone else can know with certainty what another person is > motivated by, I suggest that we ought to give each other the benefit of the > doubt. It is true that we cannot be certain about anyone's motives, but we can certainly make an education guess based on a person's conduct. It is fair and sensible to give people the benefit of the doubt until they start acting negatively towards others without giving them the benefit of the doubt. When Kallenbach's supporters attack Zimmerperson so much based on one isolated statement about saunas (that might have been mentioned a couple of times), and refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt, it does not seem completely genuine for the recent Minneapolis DFL chair (Brian) to request the candidate's supporters should get the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, Kallenbach's lack of any substantive ideas makes it fair to question whether there is any substantive principled motive behind his campaign. > > It is fair to ask what "principles, ideology, or other substantive > philosophy or issues" are driving a particular viewpoint. It is fair to ask > whether someone is consistently advancing the same "principles, ideology, or > other substantive philosophy or issues"--which is, as I understand it, what > Dean Kallenbach has been questioning about Dean Zimmerman's stand on saunas. The problem is that this statement about saunas is is all that Dean Kallenbach and his supporters seem to be discussing. Meanwhile, Kallenbach never offers any specific proposals on how to address problems with prostitution or other crimes. His literature merely repeats unsupported assertions that he will do something about crime. Under such circumstances, it is fair to point out that there is no evidence of any substantive philosophy or issues motivating Kallenbach's campaign. > But it is not fair to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is > necessarily uncommitted, unprincipled, or motivated by "blind social group > or party loyalty, desire for personal economic or political gain, a mere > enjoyment of the game-playing aspects of campaigns." The label "hack," as > Jordan defines it, implies such an assumption. It would definitely not be fair to ascribe negative motives to ANYONE who disagrees with you. It is fair to ascribe negative motives to a person or campaign who makes shallow attacks without offering any constructive ideas. > > BRM > > Brian Melendez > St. Anthony West (Ward 3) Jordan Kushner Powderhorn, Ward 8 (a couple of blocks from Ward 6) _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
