I really am not sure that I disagree all that much to what Mark writes.
Somethings of course, but not too many. Certainly we have different views of
some things, and different "definitions of situation" that color those views.
Certainly some different conclusions about "social action" and how one
addresses social problems. But not, as Mark says, where we need to end up.
What I am sometimes more amazed by is how much I agree with Ed Feline on a
range of subjects. I think that may be because he and I are both
"Revolutionaries" rather than strict advocates of a political party. Again
that is because we come from radically different backgrounds and have radically
different ideas on how to get to the promised land, and how to remove the
obstacles we encounter on the highway to it. My style is to remove them rather
than going around them. Though I disagree with Ed's conclusions sometime, and
even his political actions, I do admire that he does not hesitate from doing
something about it.
Some might say I am simplistic in my views, but I have always found that the
more complicated the problem, the more simplistic the answers must be to
address it. Considering complicated answers to those complicated problems
simply loses one in the labyrinth of "complication", so that little is ever
solved. Sort of like U.S. foreign policy and City Politics.
For example we as a country culturally state that we believe in freedom and
democracy, yet we support despotic regimes around the world with our "business"
Do business with China and allow American labor to be destroyed by
multinational corporation CEO's in their attempts at immediate wealth. And as
a Democrat I am amazed that even though giving lip service to supporting labor
and the workers our national democratic leadership does nothing about it.
They say it is complicated matter. No it isn't, we just need to demand ethical
trading, or we as a Nation will not allow products from unethical trading
partners to be brought into our country. Of course our politicians are easily
and cheaply bought. That is the real complication. How do you fix it? It has
to be simple, otherwise the politicians will weave a web that allows them to
personally get around any ethical consideration.
As a City we say we demand good ethical government, responsive and responsible
elected officials, as well as "Participatory Democracy" and "citizen
participation". Yet we allow a Mayor and his totally dominated City Council to
destroy the infrastructure for that participation and the flaunting of State
law and political corruption. Not once, but a pattern of it for years.
Complicated? NO! Since four year terms insulate the City politicians from
citizen influence we "simply" need to reduce terms to two years so we can more
easily get rid of the bad ones.
I do agree with Mark; as far apart as Ed, Mark, and I are in style and
political persuasion, I am sure we agree on where we need to go. The devil is
in the detail of how we get there. But then the conflicts and dialog about
those "ways" just might create new solutions. Or they may simply be old
windbags enjoying yammering at each other. :-)
Well, this particular windbag is enjoying laying in bed after getting back from
Atlanta. Gosh, they have a great stadium and fans for the Braves. A
wonderfully friendly city, but good to be home to Minneapolis.
Now yall have a wonderful Sunday, ya hear.
Jim Graham
"We’re
in such a hurry most of the time we never get much chance to talk.
The result is a kind of endless day-to-day shallowness, a monotony
that leaves a person wondering years later where all the time went
and sorry that it’s all gone."
Rest of post
--- On Sun, 9/18/11, <email obscured> <<email obscured>>
wrote:
From: <email obscured> <<email obscured>>
Subject: Re: [Mpls] This week in Southside Pride
To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 7:10 AM
Ouch!
Ed Felien
Powderhorn
Quoting Anderson&Turpin <<email obscured>>:
> <email obscured> wrote:
>> I am a little nervous that both Mark and Jim enjoyed an article in Southside
>> Pride and found things in it with which they agreed. But I think Tony
>> Bouza's "The Tea Parties are right, sort of"
>> <http://southsidepride.com/2011/09/articles/Tea_parties.html> is one of the
>> best insights you will ever see in print of how a reformer chief of police
>> has to fight political patronage, bureaucratic labyrinths and Police
>> Federation protectionism to make even modest changes in efficiency and
>> effectiveness. I don't think there's any question that Bouza was the most
>> intelligent and best Chief the City has ever had.
>>
>
> Mark Anderson:
> There are actually a whole lot of questions concerning Bouza's tenure.
> I liked him when he was here, but I wondered afterwards if he kind of
> lost control of his department, which resulted in bad results for crime
> in the city. The head cop needs to be a leader as well as a strong
> administrator. I think he understood how important it was to eliminate
> the thumpers out of the department (and many of our chiefs haven't had
> such a priority), but he wasn't able to get rid of them partly because
> he didn't have the support of his people.
>
>> Mark's criticism of Tony's critique of the Tea Party is somewhat
>> gratutitous. After all, the critique is contained in the title, so reader
>> beware.
>>
>>
> Mark Anderson:
> My comments were gratuitous? Actually Bouza's comments were
> gratuitous. The article was all about out-of-control police spending
> (despite what the title said), and the stuff about the Tea Party had
> nothing to do with the rest of the article. I think Bouza was afraid
> that his comments would make people think he was a Tea Party supporter,
> and so he brought it up to disabuse them of that notion. As I said
> before, he is scared that he agrees 100% with them.
>
> This is just like Ed's nervousness because Jim and I liked one of his
> articles. Ed, we don't always have to be opposed. I get your paper on
> my front porch regularly, and I like the articles that aren't
> politically motivated. I think it is a good idea to try to find areas
> of agreement by even the most ideologically opposed. I think we mostly
> agree on what is the best end result of society -- a free, prosperous
> society. We just disagree radically on how to get there.
>
> Mark V Anderson
> Bancroft, Minneapolis