Re: [MAPC-discuss] city peace resolution

Re: [MAPC-discuss] city peace resolution

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-12

>    A common reaction from the alders is that it is problematic to
introduce
> a resolution that gets only a few votes.  This could send the message that
> the city isn't for peace, or jepardize future resolutions on the same
issue.

Regarding this logic... I don't see that as a deterrent really.  I think
it's hard for a city to send the message it isn't for peace.  Making the
city say it is exactly what we should be doing it seems.  For if it's not
true, then they must admit it and that would cause change.  In other
words, it's easy to be quiet and tolerant of the abuses of the US
government; however, it's hard to explicitly condone or disapprove of
those same actions.  It's like denial.  But if we provoke discussion and
make people or the city explicitly state their opinion, we will have made
great progress.  If there's one characteristic of the "silent majority",
it's just that: they are silent.  We should challenge this "majority" to
explicitly state their opinion and their rational.  In the end, we aren't
going to change anyones mind, they will have to do that for themselves.
Furthermore, the best catalyst for thought is debate.

X


_______________________________________________
discuss@madpeace.org mailing list
http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-discuss

Monday, November 12, 2001 2:50 PM

Re: [MAPC-discuss] city peace resolution