Jacob: As much as one might want to trash a political opponent or adversary (or rail against "the system," something that I've done plenty on this list), the ultimate question you need to ask youself is what is the purpose of sharing your opinion? We all blow off steam in private and say very disrespectful things about folks who really rub us the wrong way, but there's a reason we do it in private. When you do it in a public forum, however, you need to be mindful not so much of decorum as to whom you're ultimately trying to reach. (So unlike Tim, I don't object to the language for language's sake, but whether it helps or hurts your case.) Preaching to the choir is fine; we all do it. But if your intent is to offer some substantive points about Kelly's shortcoming that really might get people to think differently about the mayor's record, using incendiary language might not best serve your purpose. Frankly, I think many things that Kelly and Coleman (Norm) have done to St. Paul are both wrong and corrupt, and in another place and time with a real investigative newspaper on the job, the threads of that corruption and back room dealing would have been probed over and over again, and maybe even some criminal charges brought. But I doubt I'm going to get anybody to think differently about either person without first getting them to hear my message, something that isn't as likely to happen if they see red and just hit the delete button.
So, as one "passionate about everything" guy to another, don't lose the passion. Just learn to harness it early on. That way you might be a position to run for political office in your late twenties rather than waiting until your late forties like I've done. Good luck! Tom Goldstein Hamline-Midway (running for School Board) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacob Dorer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tim Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [StPaul] Randy Kelly for all of us? > > Tim et al., > > I am sorry to have written something which violated the rules of this > forum. Since I signed up, I haven't seen a complete written list of rules, > and have assumed that the same sort of free-wheeling posts would be as > appropriate here as on other discussion lists. Perhaps a list of rules > would be useful so that we would know what we are working with. That might > dispel my and others confusions about the nature and purpose of this forum. > > In terms of the contents of the post, you are correct, it was not > respectful and was intended to be a somewhat humorous, but pointed, > commentary on the letter I got in the mail. I hoped to start a discussion > on the ramifications of Mayor Kelly's endorsement of George Bush. I find > that discussions are more interesting when people use the passion that they > feel in their arguments. Perhaps I let my passion get away with me. I > didn't mean to be discouraging, nor would I hope that my comments cause > people to drop out of the group. > > That being said, let me follow with this: When the Mayor can publicly act > the way he has (very un-respectful), I think that he needs to be called to > task. When in meetings, he minimizes the importance of citizen > participation in the political process, he invites attacks from involved > citizens. When he disregards everything he stands for politically to side > with George Bush, who has shown his willingness to distort fact time and > again, then I think that he has to answer for it. Saying something like he > made "a personal choice" to support Bush is not a good enough explanation > for his actions. Tim, you and I can make personal choices, but when an > elected official takes a public stand and campaigns against his own party, > that rises beyond a personal choice. He was trying to influence voters by > virtue of his public office, not as a private citizen. Why did he do that? > What benefit came to the people who elected him? How will he guarantee that > he will support his city, when he threatens the entire city bonding package > to protect his own project? > > I admit that I intentionally used incendiary words that would cause strong > feelings among my readers. I don't apologize for using the English language > effectively. I also don't agree that political discourse should be > dispassionate. Nonetheless, if those are the rules of the forum, I will > abide by them. My only request is that such rules be applied evenly across > the board. > > Jacob Dorer > Passionate about everything ------------------------------------------------- JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY: http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ ------------------------------------------------- POST MESSAGES HERE: [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/
