> My point, which was encapsulated in the last statement of my post, is > simple. "Caveat emptor." For people who do read this article, they should > understand that this "newspaper" is not really a newspaper in any sense of > the kind of journalistic ethics and reporting standards that people expect > from a typical newspaper.
I expect no such thing from any newspaper, these days. Especially not the rags we have in the Twin Cities! One must always read with a critical eye. I read the Weekly Standard article(s), and detected the ring of truth there. Given Rybak's stated policy of policing for revenue, red light cameras in Minneapolis looks like a big fat, randomly charged tax to me. Dan McGrath Longfellow 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
