🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep23.013622.20382@access.digex.com> dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>In article <25372@oasys.dt.navy.mil> mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
>>In dc.general, dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>>>
>>>This is absolutely incorrect, though often stated.  They
>>>had great respect for a just law, but they held that an
>>>unjust law should be opposed.  
>>
>>What I said is Not *"absolutely"* incorrect. You 
>>stated that they had respect for *just* law.  That 
>>qualifies the statement, thus removing any claim
>>to being absolute.  Respect for just law allows
>>personal interpretation, therefore it is not respect
>>for the law.  It is only respect for those laws that
>>happen to coincide with the individuals judgement
>>as "just".
>
>Yes, yes, but the english lesson put to the side, the 
>issue for the colonials was not a matter of disrespect 
>for law; it was a matter of non-respresentation.

  The issue was a question of money.  Non-representation was a
  smoke blind used to agitate the general populace.  The Boston
  Tea Party was prompted because the tax on tea was being reduced
  not increased.  Much of the tea coming into America at the time
  was smuggled in to avoid the excise tax and the smugglers were
  cleaning up.  The Crown in an attempt to increase the revenue
  and discourage smuggling *reduced* the tea tax.  The disguised
  men who threw the tea into Boston Harbor were smugglers infuriated
  at the lower price that tea would bring in the colonies.  I don't
  want to dilute Lawrence's point because I agree w/ him but the 
  colonists frankly didn't care a whit about representation: nobody
  was going to sail to England to sit for months at a time in 
  Parliament when their influence was bound to be limited anyway.
  Just thought I would throw in this historical correction.

>>>In any case, the whole Barry question should be, why do the
>>>people support this guy?
>>
>>Perhaps one reason might be that it is one way of giving the
>>finger to those who consistently use their tax money, use
>>their fathers and mothers as soldiers, and continue to
>>deny them the rights of other Americans.  It can be
>>said with justification that those who voted for Barry
>>have more respect for the law than those who committed
>>illegal acts under the British.  
>
>But I asked, why Mr. Barry?  There are certainly others
>running for office who share his desire for equal 
>representation, but are not convicted drug users, and are
>not people who will speak at a school to children about the
>evils of drug use, and then show up on the eleven o'clock 
>news smoking crack.

 As someone who voted against Barry when I lived in the District
 because I thought he was a terrible manager and a free-loader and
 still think so It feels pretty strange to indirectly defend him.
 Lawrence is on the money.  Barry went into District 8 and ran a
 smooth convincing election.  He won by persuading the voters there
 that he was rehabilitated and had the experience to be an effective
 representative.  Since he was by far the most prominant and 
 experienced politician in the race, he won.  Simple as that.  Thats
 democracy and the power of "I'm sorry and I won't do it again" at
 work.  He's paid his penalty, albeit reluctantly, and and he is going
 to be the most scrutinized politician anywhere for a while.  I don't
 like it but how does his election affect the basic injustice of 
 600,000 odd disenfrancised US citizens in the District?
 



-- 
*   Christ died for our sins.  Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by *
*   not committing any?  So drink, fornicate, blaspheme, be a sodomite   *
*   and die...the price has already been paid.                           *
Warning: The Pope has determined the above sins are injurious to your health.