Jim writes: > And that hoary claim that the burden of > proof is on the accuser is not convincing. I'm > sure it wouldn't slow you down if you decided to > go on the attack.
Despite your certainty of my hypocrisy, I would say this is another evidence-free accusation. There seems to be some confusion between keeping a careful and critical eye on elected officials - which I applaud, and indeed have made my career doing - and charging them with criminal offenses as "politics as usual" (to quote Jordan's original contention). In criminal cases, the burden of proof is critical, the essence of the Constitution, not in any way "hoary." Tell me, Jim, if this is widespread, who else is guilty of a crime such as Biernat's? Ostrow? Zerby? Goodman? Benson? Niziolek? Forget burden of proof; tell me your suspicions of their criminality, or let my point stand - that Jordan's initial allegation that crimes in Minneapolis politics is wrong. Since I made my point, I believe my debating opponents have backpedaled, turning my objection to criminal guilt-by-association into a defense of a flawed system where elected officials kowtow too much to money power and other special interests. But here, I have no disagreement - keep a careful and close eye, and speak out. However, this is a different question: one of political crimes, not legal ones. In some cases (such as stupid subsidies for mega-projects), the public effects of a political calculation may be worse than a criminal offense such as Biernat's. Still, a crime is something special; to allege it is widespread, you must have proof, or you are sliming people unfairly. David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
