There are a few final thoughts I have on this topic. Final you say, Gary? Yes, final. By the time most read this either the Council will have rightfully done what it should and declare the anti-war resolution not germane to Council work, or it will have passed and Mayor RT Rybak will have vetoed it. Furthermore, just as no regular contributor to the list will likely change my opinion I don't expect to change any regular contributor's opinion on the other side of the issue. After this somewhat lengthy post, do your name-calling and refuting of this post- I'm done with this topic.
Linda Mann writes, speaking to where I got my "poll numbers": "Looks like you got your poll numbers from the same place as your estimates for anti war demonstration numbers". In my various posts on this subject, I don't recall ever talking about "anti war demonstration numbers". That said, I'm not sure what it is you're talking about in that respect. However, my source for support for intervention was clearly identified and it was something so ludicrous as the Gallup Poll. If you wish to check it out again, the web address is: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030129.asp Ultimately, we have what is not uncommon knowledge: polls and statistics can be twisted and convoluted to say whatever the person paying for the information wants it to say. Your poll says A=B and my poll says B=A. Effect: we cancel each other out. You can all say I twisted the numbers to my advantage and I say you've done the same. As far as Kahn's statement that representatives are elected to magnify the voices of constituents, I agree with Michael Atherton at least to the extent he says, "I don't understand the logic here. Since it is unclear if a majority of Minneapolitans are unconditionally opposed to a war with Iraq how is passing an antiwar resolution by the Minneapolis City Council justified"? Furthermore, the statement that only a quarter of the country chose Bush is, at best, only partially true. Those who chose to not vote chose to accept whatever results came about, thereby implicitly voting for Bush. As I mentioned to someone offlist, I question whether all anti-war protestors are sincere in their beliefs. I expect that some are truly anti-war for anti-war's sake. However, I also suspect that some are anti-war just because it's a pet issue for Bush and they don't like Bush. I especially suspect this to be the case with many "anti-war resolution" cities, since cities tend to be more Democratic. What a way to try to undermine a 2004 re-election of Bush. Of course, the moment the US military goes in and finds weapons of mass destruction and Bush was right -Saddam is evil and out to get the US- the 2004 election is all but over. I suspect this is also why some unions are suddenly "anti-war"; they just don't like George W. Bush. I furthermore suspect some groups are "anti-war" only because they don't want America to be able to claim to be liberator. All of these "ulterior motive" groups, of course, should be condemned by all. They do not serve those who are genuinely anti-war and they are incredibly sinister in their actions. Second, in my post "50 or 500, it's still not germane to city issues", I was struck by the near absolute silence to this post. The only response I received was offlist and was in support of the post. For the sake of space, I won't reprint the entire post. However, I must assume there are no points for anyone to disagree with from this post or anti-war advocates simply choose to ignore an argument too difficult to respond to. Here are three of the bigger points from that post, however: "This conversation we've been having about whether it's germane for the Minneapolis City Council to speak on the war with Iraq simply would not be happening in Baghdad. You know as well as I that dissent in Iraq is simply not tolerated�, every proponent of opposing Saddam would be tortured and/or killed". "Let's face it: war is a terrible thing. I remind you, though, history has shown appeasement usually if not always fails. When Europe tried to appease Hitler, six million Jews died. Do we really want a repeat of this? I pray not". "Consider this theoretical twist on the argument that we're all so interrelated: If city governments should speak out on national issues, then why shouldn't national governments speak out on local issues (excepting constitutional arguments)? Maybe we should expect Congress to weigh in every time the City Council wants to issue a parade permit... Wouldn't it be an interesting twist to have the likes of Jesse Helms debating whether a parade permit should be issued for the Gay Pride Parade? Is this what you really want? Is this really a wise use of Congress' time"? That all said, I repeat I'm done with this topic. I have a life to attend to. Gary Bowman Audubon Park ===== "Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace.'' --Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ 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
