There are plenty of sharp Americans across the country, who can recognize "textbook fascism" when they see it. The kind of moral courage shown by Alan, the police chief, and town officials is something worthy of praise.

I visited Whiskey Bar today, where Billmon has a biting commentary about General Ashcroft's upcoming national tour to promote what is called The Victory Act (God help us). As Billmon indicates, it's pretty doggone Orwellian.

Of all the things that surprised me, I think the fact that the article is from the Seattle Times may be on top of the list. Though my memory of the incident is referred, I am -told- that when someone once asked about newspapers in the Seattle area, I responded, "Well, there's the conservative paper ... and the Hearst paper." If the Times is reporting things such as this, I think I'm gratified; it means that the present administration has gone farther than even I had thought in pissing off a significant segment of the people.

I take it, Loren, that you're under the impression that the Seattle Times is "conservative" on the spectrum of modern American mass media.

Oh dear. Where do I begin.

Tonasket? Oh, that's over by Twisp, right?

This is all nice. Someone obviously put some effort in putting all this together. No doubt it's inclusion in the minutes of the local town council made someone or some group feel all warm and fuzzy inside as if they had accomplished something practical. I question if this is really the forum for such things.

If I was a resident of this town and we were paying these people a salary out of our taxes I would be down at the next meeting asking them what in the hell is going on and why weren't they spending their time figuring out why the potholes on my street weren't fixed yet instead of trying to solve problems they have no jurisdiction over. But on the other hand I might just say now that they got that big problems taken care of maybe my potholes are next. Am I being too grumpy and being too hard on my good neighbors?

Dennis, having been involved in local politics myself, the answer is always "It depends". If you feel that your civil rights are of less importance than the potholes, a statement of principle like this is just going to irritate you. If you feel that your civil rights are more important than the potholes, a statement like this may hearten you and make you feel proud of your community. If, like most people, you think of your civil rights only when you discover you've lost them, and potholes only when you're driving over them, you will either mutter "Time-waster!" or "Good stuff!" when you read about this defiance of the Patriot Act, depending how it's spun in your news report of choice, but you'll still grumble about the local council (sorry, I'm British - I don't know what the term would be over there) when driving over the potholes.

From your comment, I would guess that you fall into the category of those who regard their civil rights as less important than potholes.

Dennis wrote:

*****
Someone obviously put some effort in putting all this together. No doubt it's inclusion in the minutes of the local town council made someone or some group feel all warm and fuzzy inside as if they had accomplished something practical.
*****

Funny-- that's exactly how I feel about the "Victory Act!"

Argh! I was also going to say that I hoped that "Victory" wasn't some sort of ludicrous acronym like "P.A.T.R.I.O.T.," but while reading up on the damn thing I discovered that it is: "Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act."

Hmmm... VICTORA. I guess they couldn't figure out how to staple a "Y" word on the end, the uncreative shits...

"Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations, Yowza!"

Anyhow, those curious about the Victory Act's desperately needed, hard-hitting anti-terrorist provisions will love the following:

"Increase sentences for drug kingpins to 40 years in prison and $4 million in fines."

Yes! "Faster, please!" And when can we have purveyors of medical marijuana shot in the face without trial like they so richly deserve?

Preemptive disclaimer rant follows:

I think I speak for a great many of my firends and associates (I think of us as "liberal centrists") when I say that our opposition to this sort of nonsense has nothing to do with being "soft on terrorism" or "objectively pro-Saddam" or whatever this week's National Review breakroom bulletin board cartoon says. I'm enthusiastically supportive of *effective* anti-terrorism measures, even lethal ones-- as far as the Taliban and al-Qaeda are concerned, my attitude begins and ends with "put men on the ground with guns to kill or capture them, and work hard to get them all."

I think a great many of us held our breaths after 9/11 and tentatively, trepadatiously (lordy, is that a word?) wished the Bush Administration the best we possibly could under the circumstances-- "This is serious, this requires a firm and possibly deadly response, we extend to you as much trust as we can possibly muster up-- go to it and please, please, please don't screw it up."

Magically, majestically, inevitably, they screwed it up. Ashcroft and the administration pushed PATRIOT through a half-awake congress, tried PATRIOT II, and are now coming back with VICTORY, each more ludicrous and function-creeping than the last. Meanwhile, the middle eastern kleptocracy *most directly linked* to the 9/11 attacks, the one whose financial support for freakjob martyrdom fetishists is the world's most open secret, the one that just happens to have an awful lot of ties to the Bush family and its cohorts, continues to get off without so much as a hand-slap.

And, of course, we get bullshit like PATRIOT and Co. rammed down our throats, because a number of people seem to have confused "effective" with "blustering, hard-assed, and reactionary."

Therefore: Yay Tonasket!

Dennis,

Potholes are important, but so too are things like our rights, and the rule of law.

Since assembling to petition the Gov't for the redress of grievances, (as well as a pesky little thing like states' rights) are items the Constitution guarantees, and some people still value above most others, I cannot but applaud a community which elcts leaders of principle.

Before you decry that I don't feel this way on the other side of the aisle (vis. my disgust and loathing of those who voted for PATRIOT, which in my opinion trades liberty for a, false, sense of security) realise that I swore a mighty oath to, "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." and I see the Act as being just that.

The only trouble is figuring out how to fight it in a manner which might get results (other than my incarceration, with a dishonorable discharge, etc., etc., etc.).

That the PATRIOT Act was given an almost unanimous nod, sight unseen, makes it (and those who voted for it) reprehensible, even if it did all it is purported to.

A pig in a poke is a prize for suckers, and I'd like to think we, as a nation, should have voted for representatives with the stiffness of spine to refuse to vote in a blind panic.

Since we did not, those who can see that a travesty was performed are to be praised for declaring such to have happened.

The other question, the one you did not ask, is whether the other business of the town is being performed, they are not mutually exclusive.

Terry K.

Here, from the Seattle Times article, is the relevance of the resolution to the actual business of the town government:

"Practical impacts are debatable. Federal law clearly trumps local ordinances, but similar resolutions in other U.S. cities contain "unenforceable-in-our-jurisdiction" language to warn the feds that their police are there to protect citizens, not serve as FBI gofers."

I hasten to point out that Dennis himself has said nothing to indicate an ideological inconsistency. But it is worth noting how his rhetoric is used as a smokescreen by the very class he condemns:

Although previous Portland city councils have supported resolutions challenging the Reagan administration's policies in Central America and nuclear weapons proliferation, current council member Jim Francesconi told 200 supporters of the antiwar resolution the act would have no impact and the council should not waste its time with "international" issues. (Francesconi, however, does plan in March to introduce a resolution declaring Bologna, Italy a sister city to Portland; Bologna is one of Nike's European headquarters.)

Although Portland, Oregon led the fight against the Justice Department's attempt to dragnet Muslim and Arab-American men following 9/11, sparking numerous similar revolts in other police departments, Portland has yet to pass a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act (and rejected an anti-war amendment, but hey--bygones). --And I hasten to point out that Portland, Oregon is widely regarded as a liberal city, capital of the People's Republic of Multnomah County, forever known to Papa Bush as Little Beirut...

So when do we see the Victor/Victoria act?

If I was a resident of this town and we were paying these people a salary out of our taxes...

As the daughter of a tiny-town councilwoman, I'll bet you money these people do not get paid.

Not that your argument wasn't lame enough already.

I've tended to take a dim view of municipalities taking positions on war, Israel, etc., or declaring themselves "nuclear-free zones."

This is somewhat different. As the Seattle Times article quoted by Simon points out, this is a way for a town "to warn the feds that their police are there to protect citizens, not serve as FBI gofers."

I suppose one could argue that local governments have no business conveying such feelings to the national government, but it's pretty remarkable to see such arguments coming from people who claim to be "conservative."

Of course, as we've long established, most modern "conservatives" aren't; quite the contrary, they're radical authoritarians, and their agenda is to tear society apart and rebuild it on a new and different model, no matter what the cost.

And I tend to sneer (inwardly) at posters in shops that advertise hate-free zones, or bumperstickers proclaiming the driver to be another man against violence against women. While I understand the attempt to speak out against very real trends in the culture at large, it still feels like someone trying to get credit for living up to the bare minimum standards of civilized behavior.

I'd merely reiterate that one must never underestimate the potency of symbolic actions. Certainly, some have proven more effective than others; certainly, the resolutions against cooperating with the federal government in implementing aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act are more than symbolic, and bully for them. --But when a varying though significant portion of any representative governing body's business is the passing of symbolic resolutions, taking time and effort to pass those largely articulating the views of those represented--whether against this war or that, in favor of hate-free zones, or stripping the UN of its ability to operate within city limits--is going to be a part of business as usual. As a member of this sort of body, it is disingenuous at best to dismiss a popular such symbolic act, that would be politically dangerous to you in other ways, as insignificant or meaningless or a waste of time and taxes.

Schenectady, N.Y. just passed one of these too...

So when do we see the Victor/Victoria act?

Is that the one where they can make you dress in drag if they think you might be a terrorist? It's in committee. :-)

--k, when I wore a Hate-Free Zone button, it was to indicate not that I wasn't going to indulge in hate, but that I refused to tolerate intolerance (aka hate) in my presence. I called down racists, and refused to deal with people who said "Kill them all" after 9/11 - even if they'd lost good friends, I did not stand for that. (To be perfectly clear, "them" was anybody who could be mistaken for Osama bin Laden from 500 yards away at night in a fog.)

Who defines the limits of refusing intolerance (I seem to be comingling hate-crime laws here)?

I too have called down those I thought to be intolerant, but not at the cost of making a public statement that they could not come near me.

If one is to squelch the intolerant it must begin by letting them speak their piece, that the errors of their ways may be refuted.

Which means, I suppose, that I prefer honey to vinegar, and reason to slogans.

Terry K.

I said that badly. There was only one person who was so bad that I refused to even work with him. For the rest, I just made it clear that I found such statements racist (or whatever-ist) and unacceptable.

Socially, nobody gets to play that in my sandbox, and if they want to play it in theirs, I'll leave it to them. Fortunately it's very rare in my social circle (i.e. a shared sandbox); the one person who really seemed to be advocating total war against all Moslems left the social group voluntarily.

Let me see if I have this straight. You crazy Americans have all these pistols, machine guns, rocket launchers, armoured vehicles and stuff hanging around in the back yard ("Put that howitzer DOWN Junior!") and the justification I always hear is that it is to overthrow an overbearing and unfair Government.

Now, I understand that a lot of racists in America seem to think this means they can only shoot Brits, or people who look like Brits, or black people who might have seen pictures of British people once.

But surely the time has come? Otherwise, what is the point of your massive arsenals?

Isn't your Government oppressive and overbearing and unfair enough - didn't Bush cheat the election?

I'm not advocating anyone start a civil war.

I'm saying that the historic moment for justifying everyone being armed has passed. Disarmnament must be the US's top priority in the next ten years. That, and raising wages for ordinary folks. America can be great again. Let her lead from the front for a change.

*****
Now, I understand that a lot of racists in America seem to think this means they can only shoot Brits, or people who look like Brits, or black people who might have seen pictures of British people once.
*****

Larry, this may simply be some dry-as-vermiculite form of British humor that even fourteen years of intensive *Doctor Who* viewership hasn't prepared me for, but... um... what the *hell* was that supposed to mean?

I'm not convinced that passing this resolution takes time away from pressing local matters like potholes in the road. Systems in the US, may be different, but council meetings in Britain go on for as long as it takes to get through all the business on the agenda, and that time is determined by how much disagreement there is about the motions before the council. Adding another resolution doesn't displace a previous one, it just lengthens the meeting.

This resolution could pass in ten minutes, if the council supported it unanimously -- and if some members opposed it, isn't that a useful thing to know about their political stance? And if it does end up being debated at length, that doesn't take up time the councillors would otherwise spend on potholes: it takes up time the councillors would otherwise spend in the pub.

Iain - it's the same here. Well, here in Hoboken they go out after and stuff themselves on pasta, but the principle is the same.

I don't know how that town's council is paid, if at all. Mine get an annual salary, regardless of how few or how many meetings there are. If it works that way, or if they're paid by the meeting and this was one of several agenda items, the only cost to the taxpayers is a few minutes' extra electricity. Lost in the underflow.

I don't know where Slater lives, but if his town council wastes no time, I'd be astonished. In between dealing with budgets and such, mine spends a fair amount of time symbolically renaming single blocks of streets, and sometimes streetcorners, to do everything from honoring dead firefighters to annoying the USSR.

Shit, Dennis, go raise hell about the potholes....while you still can.

Dry as vermiculite? I thought the whole idea of all the guns was to beat the British hordes back in the war of Independence, hence the comment. I could understand keeping them when both Canada and Mexico were still potential enemies, but nowadays?

Just my personal bugbear. Don't get me started on capital punishment...

Hi I am one of those warm fuzzy92s that was at the Tonasket city hall that night we passed this re affirmation of our civil agreements enumerated in the constitution, an out growth of an administrative notice to King George called the declaration of independence.
We have a little park here and a bridge sort of like Concord and Lexington, the tourist spots back east. We are neither right wing nor left wing as a people but rather middle of the road conservative agricultural community of American people, friendly and generally industrious. We have our potholes and all and our complaints, after all who does want to pay taxes? Our purpose was simply this; we wish to re affirm our commitment to the values of the republic as we have had due process in forming for the last 227 years or so. We wish to wake up the sleeping giant of the American people92s hearts and mind92s. I am sure that there are expert people much better qualified to do this in a much more meaningful way, highly paid and all, well, where the hell are they then? Here is my warm fuzzy statement that is meaningless, to our local media which no one really reads. Have fun with it, all of you critics, at least we tried! Dear Editor
There are times in life when a person witnesses a moment that is profound. I really don92t know if one is allowed enough of those moments in life, but if I have no more, I am content with the one I have just witnessed. The unanimous decision to accept as ordinance, that, which with great foresight, Mayor Caddo and the Tonasket City council approved Tuesday. Unanimously, the council boldly voted in to ordinance the Resolution of Life & Liberty presented by Mark Alan and Tonasket Chief of Police, Don Schneider. Don and Mark edited this concept into a message to the citizens, a resolution that will be noticed and appreciated by the other cities in our County. The ordinance has been noticed in approval by the honorable State Senator Bob Morton, whom has assured us, in the local 7th district that this constitutionally supportive measure will be brought to attention at the State level. Again my thanks for your prudence, and may yours be an example for other Okanogan municipalities to follow. Perhaps our county citizens would like the same thing, a knowledge that their local elected county officials are willing to say they care for the present and future well being and Constitutional rights of the citizens who locally represent the American and Okanogan way of life, in the strong Constitutional terms that are called for in these trying times. You guys get the 93WELL DONE94 from the full house that witnessed your decision and the many that believe in what you did and trusted you to speak their minds and hearts for them from beyond the limited space of the council chambers. Mark Alan, and Chief Don Schneider, a thank you is little compensation for the work that you so diligently and tenaciously applied to the authoring and presentation of the resolution. As a citizen whose right of free speech in the municipality of Tonasket is farther enhanced and defined by your efforts in due legislative process 93THANK YOU94 is what I can offer, you have fortified a long line of constitutional law and policy that is the backbone of our Democratic Republic.
In admiration
S85
Thanks for the vote of confidence in America, By the way I am active in local politics, I stand up for what I believe in no one else represents us as well as we can. So a middle finger salute to all who spit upon our agreed upon and inalienable rights, we will stand for them, for all, will you?

It will never be popular to make a statement of policy, nor to stand up to a superior force proclaiming rights, but when you have no other choice, it is too late.
S85

Not to be cynical or anything, but let me know if anyone, besides the well-meaning souls involved, in Tonasket or anywhere else remembers that this resolution was passed a year from now. Joe, out there on Longnecker Road, however, will definitely remember if that pothole was fixed or not though. They do not even proudly put the resolution up on their town's website.

Symbolic gestures can have tremendous impact if they are broadcast and internalized by a great many people. Consider the picture of the young man in Tiananmen Square standing in the path of an advancing tank. Only the picture of that courageous act being reproduced millions of times made it significant symbolic gesture that gives it meaning well beyond the act itself. Without the camera being there and without the picture being broadcast what amounted to a simple symbolic gesture would have never become a powerful statement.

The calculated and carefully worded symbolic gesture by the good people of Tonasket (http://www.tonasketcity.org/ - a pretty little town) will not shake the world because the world will never know or care about it. It will not change anything. It is like the Poppy Days Proclamation they made on 4/22/03. The Tonasket Police Chief even said he would not have a shoot-out the FBI if they showed up in the library looking for information. Just like before the resolution passed. Even if they got every Tonasket in the US to pass such a resolution it would not change anything. All this resolution accomplished was to get all the leftwing blogs all a-twitter. Can anyone name a significant change that occurred because some community's city council passed a resolution such as this?

Jee-zus, Dennis, back off a little and get some perspective. The fact that this act has set "left wing blogs all a-twitter" seems to displease you; I'm at a loss to see how it should displease anyone who isn't a Dalek. Symbolic action creates a foundation for meaningful action at a later point, if and when such action is needed. Nothing more, nothing less.

You wrote:

Symbolic gestures can have tremendous impact if they are broadcast and internalized by a great many people ... The calculated and carefully worded symbolic gesture by the good people of Tonasket ... will not shake the world because the world will never know or care about it.

Really? Seems to me that quite a few people already know and care about it*, and that neither you nor I can control how publicized and/or important this resolution might eventually become. It doesn't have the visceral impact of a guy facing down a line of tanks, to be sure, but it's one of a growing number of actions, symbolic or otherwise, that indicate how ornery a great many Americans of all political stripes are feeling about the Patriot Act and similar shenanigans. These rumblings among the hoi polloi are how elected officials figure out which way they should be voting if they want to keep their jobs.

Also, what obligation does the City Council of Tonasket have to "shake the world," or weigh its resolutions in the light of such goals? It seems to me that their resolution was designed to hearten the citizens of Tonasket. It's already done quite a bit more than that.

They do not even proudly put the resolution up on their town's website.

The town's website refers to it in the City Council meeting minutes for April of this year:

"Many people were in the audience to support the proposed Life and Liberty Resolution that was compiled by Chief Schneider and Mark Alan. After discussion and input by the audience, it was moved by Walter and seconded by DeChiara to adopt Resolution 2003-03 as read. Motion carried."

Or is that not "proud" enough?

I would find it odd and disagreeable if the town plastered the Life and Liberty Resolution all over its website; the site is clearly intended to be a no-nonsense, low-cost guide to the area and its essential services and features. You complain that the council wasted its precious time by dealing with this resolution, yet you also criticize them for not spending more of their time and resources to plaster the text of it on their website. These criticisms are contradictory.

According to the article Patrick quoted above, the City Council had the sense to edit the proposed resolution and remove language that baldly attacked President Bush; it seems to me that at every step of the way they were cognizant of their duties as councilmembers as well as their sentiments as American citizens. A third party (the police chief) stepped into the debate and offered to help reshape the proposed resolution (NOT on the council's time, mind you) into something broader and less divisively political; the council said "go ahead," and when the improved resolution appeared they found it quite acceptable, voted for it, put it in the minutes, and got on with their business.

For their execution of the affair as well as their sentiments, I say again: Yay Tonasket.

Cheers,

SL

-----

*Quoting from the article Patrick linked to above: "Local push has yet to come to Federal shove in places that have approved Patriot Act snubs96 a list that now includes three states and 141 counties and cities representing 16 million Americans," according to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, which supports citizen petitioners."

Dennis, earlier this year, US Congress took some time out from their usual business of fixing national potholes to pass a resolution decreeing that French Fries (from Belgium) would from now on be Freedom Fries, and French Toast (named by an American called French) would from now on be Freedom Toast.

Now that was a pointless, meanspirited, and badly-aimed symbolic gesture.

See the difference?

Mea culpa! I was relying on a faulty memory, but when I checked the news story on the BBC website, I found that it wasn't US Congress, but US House of Representatives; and it wasn't a general decree, just a local one for their own cafeteria.

Still a pointless, meanspirited, and badly-aimed symbolic gesture, though.

These laws sound a bit marxist, don't you think?

Jee-zus, Dennis, back off a little and get some perspective. The fact that this act has set "left wing blogs all a-twitter" seems to displease you; I'm at a loss to see how it should displease anyone who isn't a Dalek. Symbolic action creates a foundation for meaningful action at a later point, if and when such action is needed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ummm, yeah, I guess. I once tried to convince my boss that my job was to come up symbolic actions that would be foundations for meaningful actions, but he seemed to want me to actually do something for some reason.

The fact that this act has set "left wing blogs all a-twitter" seems to displease you

Why would it? A-twittering leftwing blogs are a source of constant amusement for me not displeasure. A decent blog, like this one, can be a source for good information as well.

It seems to me that their resolution was designed to hearten the citizens of Tonasket.

My take on it was that it was passed to appease their neighbors, Mr Alan and a few friends. I can't imagine a small town like this is awash in concerns about the FBI snooping around their 1000 book library. You never know though. Anything is possible especially after Mr Alan's bad experience with the government. Mr Alan was probably harboring a deep personal grudge of some sort after getting his hand severely slapped by the feds for running an illegal micro-radio station. The fact that his first offering to the council was a lengthy diatribe against President Bush would be a clue to as his motivations. The city council there normally seems more interested in weighty issues like giving approval to use the city's parking lot for a car wash than making grandiose symbolic gestures. A crowd at their city council meeting would probably be 4 people. Do not bother reading between the lines that I am looking down my nose at small towns and those lucky enough to live in them. I am not.

The town's website refers to it in the City Council meeting minutes for April of this year:

"Many people were in the audience to support the proposed Life and Liberty Resolution that was compiled by Chief Schneider and Mark Alan. After discussion and input by the audience, it was moved by Walter and seconded by DeChiara to adopt Resolution 2003-03 as read. Motion carried."

Or is that not "proud" enough?

Sounds real proud to me.

Yonmei:

Now that was a pointless, meanspirited, and badly-aimed symbolic gesture.

You are 100% on target. Can I add childish, frat-boy humor on government time instead of meanspirited? The symbolism of what they did may not have been totally lost on potential travelers to France however because American tourism is down 80% I understand. The cause and effect syllogism probably tenuous here though.

Woo, Dennis, we agree on something! Suddenly I like you better. :-) Anyway, my question goes unanswered: do you see the difference between the House of Representatives pointless, meanspirited, and badly-aimed symbolic gesture and what the City of Tonasket did?

Look out, Yonmei! Dennis doesn't like it when we agree with him.

Dennis, I'm just bustin'.

I've missed the twitter about Tonasket on the left-wing blogs, and it made me feel like I might actually be living in the "early days of a better nation" to read it. Thank you, S...., for your on-the-site comments! They mean a lot.

I spend a week a year in the county next to Okanogan, a tourist-visitor, and I salute you.

Several days later, but I've been somewhat busy. Patrick, you are aware that my asking for a token payment for a book review once nearly precipitated a general strike at the Times and PI, because prior to that point NO ONE had been paid for book reviews ... and the the Colonel called in the department heads at the Times and said, "Here's the story. If there's a strike, I close the paper. No arguments. No discussion."

Yes, I do kinda think that there is sort of a conservative history at the Seattle Times. Yes, I am aware that there are other papers that are, occasionally, more conservative.

However, the point is moot. The article did not appear in The Seattle Times; I looked. It appeared in the regional Okanogan edition; people in the actual Seattle area were spared the sight, unless they saw it on line.

Of course, snideness and sarcasm is the absolute best way to conduct a friendly conversation.

-- LJM

It occurred to me, while thinking about this thread, that this particular symbolic action is both important *and* noticed. This small Washington town isn't the first place to pass such a resolution. Each time it happens, other places are inspired to do the same. If it were this small town and only this small town Mr Slater might have a point. But it isn't. Here's hoping the idea spreads even further.

MKK

I must say that I am all a twitter bloging along in a wherewithal puesdo cyber Ville that must stand for something, enlightened double digit intellect, where we there after all, and by the way is it definable? Am I in cyber heaven? Really Dennis have you even considered standing away from the herd you romp with in your own imagination parented by many sources of media who all agree, wink wink, and smell that decon you ingest, given a suitably blase9 name to make it suger coated and palatable? Or am I out of sorts old fellow, perhaps too enheartened for my own constitution? It is safe to stand in the wings85 perhaps not even standing85 but I know little of your accomplishment now do I, none notorious any way. If you do not act you can92t be held accountable, and to analyze at a distance from a meditized perspective and be so right85 what a talent. I am in awe, but a mere human possessed of little high perspective; just a bloging along85 do you need to speculate on this meaning? What ever could he have meant by that symbolic misuse of the English language, more to follow when blog is defined. :o} ( I am sure I did and didn92t even realize it85 how provincial of me). So long and thanks for the mirth folks, gotta get back to defending the wolves from the herd of fuzzies here in no where land, 91tis such an uphill battle, in the bowl of the oracle92s seeing, immersed in life92s complexities, in the waters of dismemory85
Thank you, S...., for your on-the-site comments! They mean a lot.
You are welcome Debbie, and we are not really basking in triumph as one might imagine, just getting ready to take the concept farther, feed back is so valuable. even from such notions as "put the howitzer down jr"... uh, howitizers are really heavy, but if that is what you believe, I suppose, like the heads on poles around the Anglo Saxon moat, (bloody Romans) it is a good deterent to have those that wish you harm with that for a lasting image... peace out enlightened ones for I retire to the concept of Locke and his alloadial bliss

My take on it was that it was passed to appease their neighbors, Mr Alan and a few friends.

Why on earth would they "appease" him and "a few friends?" Obviously, they found enough merit in Mr. Alan's proposal to avoid shitcanning it with extreme prejudice and politely telling him to go stuff himself. An interested third party stepped in to help achieve a compromise that was acceptable to all parties, and that modified resolution (sans any nutbar diatribes aimed at individual politicians) was accepted without further argument. I don't see the council (according to its minutes) wasting its time with any other symbolic gestures of support or criticism, so I think there's some basis for the conclusion that the Life and Liberty Resolution had a broader base of support than Mr. Alan, his pet squirrels, and the resident hippies.

We can play this game forever, Dennis... I'm sure we all do it, too, unconsciously or otherwise. The little symbolic actions we agree with are "heroic" and "heart-warming" and "necessary;" the little symbolic actions we disagree with are "designed to appease the fringe," "a waste of time," "empty posturing," etc.

Do not bother reading between the lines that I am looking down my nose at small towns and those lucky enough to live in them. I am not.

I don't think you are at all, Dennis. I just think you're really stretching the bounds of credulity in an effort to present the appearance of a logical and objective argument for a purely aesthetic disagreement. Far brainier folks than you or I sucker themselves into that fallacy all the time.

You don't seem to approve of the resolution (or, more accurately, how it was passed and who it was passed by) whereas quite a few of us here find it inspiring. The argument therefore devolves to a matter of taste. I find the Tonasket Resolution tasty and filling, you think it's junk food. C'est la vie.

Can anyone name a significant change that occurred because some community's city council passed a resolution such as this?
-Thermopolis- as symbolic as it was, Boston, circa 1774 in a resolvement of a flap over unfair taxes, which seemed to have escalated a bit. The list far exceeds the significant change perpetrated by those that have waited for someone to take pity on their plight while engaged in warming their posterior in imagined security, do you have an argument or is it a neo political rhetorical clone, sharpened to a dulled wit with preponderance of caca? I sense jealousy. Back to the squirrels, at least they will not seek refreshment in the fruit of the poisonous tree. Folks it is a meaningless gesture we all know we can not stand alone85 or can we? President of the Weimar Republic, General Hindenberg marched into the face of the guns of the army after a drink or two in a ratthous while A. Hitler and his cronies scattered in face of the same superior odds, something that was used by both sides to propagate policy, and yes the brave man who stood to the tanks in China, We all face the inevitable alone, it is to us sometimes to make it meaningful. Please indulge us that have stood for something, the latitude of grace, there will be none forthcoming from a self assumed authority, ah nobility where are you now?

I'm sorry to have offended Loren MacGregor, for what that's worth. I hope he sees this.

My point was that much of the American mass media has moved so far to the right that the editorial politics of the Seattle Times are now, relatively speaking, moderate.

I don't doubt that their attitude toward (for instance) their own employees undertaking collective action was and is Neanderthal.