St. Paul E-Democracy Links http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/links.html _________________________________________
I've sat by fairly quietly as the City Council yet again debated a moronic, misguided and purely symbolic resolution, yet another feel-good sop for St. Paul's relentlessly-PC DFL ruling caste. What would be the point of complaining to my "representative" on the council, the relentlessly-trivial Jay Benanav?
But some of this posting just needed a response.
At 04:12 PM 1/21/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The St. Paul Bill of Rights Defense Committee Resolution before the City Council is really largely symbolic. It won't take any funding away from our security funds in St. Paul. It's a way of informing this Administration that there are people in the country that recognize what they're trying to do to the Bill of Rights and that we already have enough laws and regs on the books to deal handily with terrorists, if law enforcement is allowed to use them.
Now, there is no bigger libertarian on this list than I, a two-time Libertarian party candidate for office. And to be sure, there are parts of the Patriot Acts that require scrutiny.
That being said - there are people who are really over the edge on this.
Arno is right, this is exactly the way Hitler began his illustrious career of slaughter.
I'm tempted to invoke Godwin's Law - "whenever specious comparisons to Hitler enter the conversation, no more meaningful discussion will take place".
But I'll humor this statement long enough to ask - how on Reagan's green earth do you figure that? What earthly parallel do you see?
There is none - and I say this as someone who was once a liberal, and who has read "Mein Kampf" in German *and* English (I minored in German and History). To say so is the depths of preening, solipsistic paranoia.
We expect our civil rights to be untouchable by any Administration.
No. Most of you do not expect any such thing, beyond the fashionable civil liberties. Most of the parties to this conversation approached "Libertarianism" with the same distaste they would a burning paper bag on their front steps - *until* John Ashcroft came into office.
I'm not even talking about the easy calls - like Jay Benanav's fascist-friendly stance on gun control (which is, indeed, a civil liberties issue).
Most of the "privacy" violations in the Patriot Act are already fully in place, and were put there during the Clinton Administration - to fight drugs. So - when these same provisions (roving wiretaps, less-specific search warrants, property forfeiture without trial) were instituted against scary dark-skinned people from Chicago and Los Angeles, hardly a peep. Now that they're moving essentially the same provisions over to tracking terrorists - suddenly it's a problem?
Or is it only the administration that's making the move that's the problem? Because Janet Reno was demonstrably every bit as brutal on civil liberties as Ashcroft's been accused of being - but, being a Clinton appointee, I don't expect most of you to recognize it.
The Patriot Acts are a horrendous theft of our privacy rights, among others.
Then, piece by piece, fight the parts that are genuine impositions on rights. Don't go...
...joining 235 other cities all over the US in passing this Resolution.
Like so many such resolutions, it's a self-righteous, feel-good declaration that wastes all our time, and makes us citizens look like a bunch of stooges.
Mitch Berg Da Midway!
Shot In The Dark Minnesota's Best News Source http://www.mitchberg.com/shotindark/
_____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ _____________________________________________ For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
