[mou] A response to the post of Bernard P. Friel

[Bernard P. Friel]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
     The purpose of my post was to point out that the the  message, in which
the recommendation of the Board of the MOU was contained, could only be
interpreted as designed to stifle any discussion on the pros and cons of the
Constitutional Amendment which was the subject of the Board recommendation.
     I don¹t question the authority of the Board to support passage of the
Amendment or their recommendation to the membership, only their attempt to
discourage hearing other points of view.
     While I have a strong interest in preserving habitat and in many of the
other objectives of the proposed amendment, and I have no objection to
paylng additional taxes for such purposes, I have a stronger interest in not
solving the state¹s budget issues with Constitutional amendments.
     I spent a considerable part of my professional life working with
Constitutional and legislative issues and that is simply bad public policy,
for it will lock up a revenue stream in this case until at least 2034.
Furthermore there is no assurance that that revenue stream will be allocated
among the competing interests in a fashion which will satisfy any particular
one of those competing interests.
     I should have thought we would have learned a lesson from the bad
policies we set with the racetrack and the lottery Constitutional
amendments, but time and again self interest blinds clear vision and common
sense, and we do seem to have difficulty learning from history.
     While there is much to be said on both sides of this question there was
a good discussion of the pros and cons in the ³Opinion Exchange² of the Star
Tribune which I would recommend reading.

Bernie Friel

-- 
Bernard P. Friel
Web Pages - http://www.wampy.com  ;
            http://www.wampy.com/bn   Owl Gallery
            http://www.wampy.com/bn2  Songbirds

            http://www.agpix.com/bernardpfriel

            http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=1113
         
            http://www.digitalrailroad.net/bernardfriel



From: Eric Harrold <gentilis03 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: <gentilis03 at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tom Bell <tnejbell at comcast.net>, MOU net <mou-net at moumn.org>, "Bernard
P. Friel" <wampy at att.net>
Subject: A response to the post of Bernard P. Friel

Folks,
 
Being that an opportunity presented itself, let me ask a question that has
puzzled me for some time. I've been a member of birding forums in North
Carolina and Virginia. Political discussions as they pertain to bird
conservation are frowned upon by some folks who would no doubt describe
themselves as birders. Can someone please provide answers to a couple of
questions actually, that I just don't seem to understand, even over many
years. 
 
1) If birders don't take political initiative, who will for many issues such
as habitat conservation/preservation that are critical to sustainable
populations of certain species? The one group that has done a tremendous
amount for conservation, hunters, often get derided on internet forums and
in birding publications. It seems a whole lot of birders are out of touch on
how conservation is achieved and its inherent political aspect.
 
2) How does noncommunication and the ignorance it promotes help anything? We
can conveniently avoid political discussions altogether to the end of being
polite, but other than this, I don't know what it can accomplish. What forum
or setting would be more appropriate for discussing the politics of avian
conservation than a birding forum?
 
Sincerely,
 
Eric Harrold

--- On Sat, 10/4/08, Bernard P. Friel <wampy at att.net> wrote:
> From: Bernard P. Friel <wampy at att.net>
> Subject: Re: [mou] vote November 4, for constitutional amendment
> To: "Tom Bell" <tnejbell at comcast.net>, "MOU net" <mou-net at moumn.org>
> Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 6:39 PM
> 
> Please explain to me how you can initiate expression of an opinion on a
> subject on MOU net, as you did, and simultaneously caution against initiating
> an expression of opinion on the same subject? Is it your intent to limit the
> expression of opinion to a particular view ...the one you expressed?
> -- 
> Bernard P. Friel
> Web Pages - http://www.wampy.com <http://www.wampy.com/>   ;
>             http://www.wampy.com/bn   Owl Gallery
>             http://www.wampy.com/bn2  Songbirds
> 
>             http://www.agpix.com/bernardpfriel
> 
>             http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=1113
>          
>             http://www.digitalrailroad.net/bernardfriel
> 
> 
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://moumn.org/pipermail/mou-net_moumn.org/attachments/20081006/63f721c1/attachment.html