Jonathan writes: > But > what would have happened if we hadn't questioned Hitler's motives, he said he was doing > things just for the good of the Aryan race;
A quick digression here: I think Jonathan unintentionally proves Don's point. Having just finished Vol. 1 of Winston Churchill's (gulp!) 5-book history of WWII, I can tell you that Churchill believed the "facts on the ground" (Germany's clear violation of treaties by rearming) were all the proof needed to intervene in the mid-'30s (even before Munich). The trouble was, too many people were listening to his rhetoric (especially Neville Chamberlain). And I would argue that the flip side of listening to a politician's rhetoric is speculating on his or her motives - it's the territory of smoke and mirrors, very hard to prove, easy to become a sideshow. Look at this debate - fundamentally, does it really matter why Rep. Kahn did what she did? The important thing is WHAT she is proposing, WHAT the Redistricting Commission did and thinking about structural/procedural ways to fix it (if you want to fix it). I'm not saying Tamir is wrong - just that it's impossible to know if he's right, and not super-important if he is. It's much more possible to examine/critique/debate/fix what happened. That's where I'd prefer to see the debate focused. David Brauer Kingfield 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
