Carol Becker wrote: > It should be noted that the "Weekly Standard" is an > ultra-conservative right wing newspaper known for its > biased pseudo-journalism. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch > and is perceived to be one of the leading neo-conservative > papers, well read by the Bush administration. It does not > support itself through its own revenues but are funded by
I can't see how this is any more than a Genetic Fallacy or an ad hominem attack (see http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html). There is absolutely no attempt to address the facts or issues reported in the article. Ms. Becker only attempts to counter by citing her own "ultra-liberal left-wing biased pseudo-journalistic sources." Chris Johnson wrote: > http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp > > After reading the extensive multi-part report at the above > web site, I have completely reversed my position. I am now opposed > to red-light cameras, even though I am in favor of giving tickets to > people who run red lights and stop signs. Funny, I read the same article and had a completely different reaction: I was not concerned by what was reported in the article. The practice of sub-contracting government services has around for centuries, if not millennia. I suppose it might be threatening if you are predisposed to mistrust corporations, but the article didn't claim that innocent drivers were being tagged and it didn't cite any consistent privacy violations. What it did report was that the off-duty police officers seemed unconcerned with the goal of improving public safety. This is simply an administrative problem. As with all law enforcement, management policies determine how effective or abusive enforcement is. Does anyone know if the MPD plans to contract for this service or do it themselves? If they are going to contract out what type of oversight would they maintain? Michael Atherton Prospect Park After reading the research in the above report, it is clear that both the companies who provide the red light camera equipment, and every government entity in the USA which has used them, all suffer from horrible lapses of ethics and honesty. Instead of using the red-light cameras to improve safety, their claimed goals, they have been uniformly used to generate revenue and profits. If cities using them really wanted to improve safety, they would start by lengthening the yellow lights to improve intersection clearance, and then install the red-light cameras at intersections which had the worst safety records. However, in case after case across the nation, this has been exactly what did not happen. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that Minneapolis would be any better at proper use than any other city. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the subjects of privacy and accuracy of all those photographs and vehicle registrations being handled by the employees of the private, for-profit companies running these programs. I highly recommend reading the report at the web site above, whether you are for, against or undecided about red light cameras. It's chock full of information, from a real investigative journalism piece -- something we never see in the Star Tribune it seems. Chris Johnson - Fulton 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
