Well, I appreciate Don's point of view, but have to respectively disagree. I don't
think that anyone is "just fine" with census ward lines, and to state so is a bit
misleading. There are two general objections that those opposed to the redrawn maps
have: 1. That the lines were unfairly drawn and done so with the purpose of benefiting
certain Council Members and disadvantaging others, and, 2. That trying to
retroactively force elections smacks more of "Florida tactics" than it does of trying
to ensure adequate and fair representation.
However, I'm uncertain how you can say that you agree with Phyllis Kahn in her efforts
and say that you respect the opinions of other folks who believe otherwise and yet
still query why some people (I'm pretty sure you meant me since I'm the only one who
wrote about her specifically) question her motives. The motives that people have make
all of the difference in the world. There's a big difference between a man stealing
money or food to feed his family, and a man stealing money or food because he likes
the thrill.
But, case in point, Phyllis accused those elected officials against her bill (HF 67)
of aligning themselves with with Southern Segregationists and their philosphy in this
very forum on February 25, 2003. On Jan 26, 2003, she stated clearly that she felt
disenfranchised as a 3rd Ward resident because the special election was being held in
the old 3rd Ward and endorsed Don's opponent partially because of this, and that she
found it "outrageous" that ward 6 has two resident council members and 8 had none, and
finally that "one of the principles of representative government is residency". Yet
this was never an issue important enough for her to raise in the previous 15 terms.
Again, if you're going to have ethics around an issue, they have to be consistent.
Motive becomes an issue when you keep your mouth shut for 30 years and shout when
things don't go your way and when your actions seem to have no purpose other than
political assault. Motive becomes an issue when you have supporters write fluff
pieces masquerading as news and when you are a public figure stating public reasons
for doing things that people find illogical.
See, I would support Phyllis' resolution if we were talking about from here forward.
Planning for the future doesn't usually disenfranchise voters, it gives people a time
to understand what's happening, and it's called progess. But when you decide to go
into the past and retroactively change systems and it is directed at "emerging"
groups, it doesn't smack of fairness it rings of marginalization. Finally, I have yet
to hear any groundswell of support from the very people she claims to represent. If
you're going to claim to be doing this "for the people" it helps when the majority of
them are not against your actions.
Lastly, unfortunately, we don't live in a world of sweetness and light where everyone
does things for the best of reasons. You have to examine and question the intentions
and motives of those in power if only to reassure yourself of them accurately
representing you. If their intentions are good and their motives are pure, they
should stand up to any questioning. 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; or what about George Wallace, it was only for the sanctity of "good,
God-fearin' Christians" that he did what he did, or even tobacco companies and their
policies. To be clear, I don't think Phyllis is anything like these examples, but it
is the purpose and responsibility of every American to question their leaders and
people in positions of power to make certain they are doing the right things for the
right reasons. The ends do not always justify the means.
Jonathan Palmer
Victory
DC41KTyzZ^v^^I[azXfjj٩b\wm(ا)'v}睶e"
*.ZڊhZvvڕجr,硶^+į݊.mQhmzڕ+k,ymyצs*+{^-2)yh+˞Z+`ܟˬyТ'.Ȩ
r,g &j)mjeiߢ &R{.n+ƭizj 2?l
