In recent weeks I've presented how the Precautionary Principle forms the basis of a new morality. People who operate surreptitiously -- for what they believe is the common good -- feel good about themselves no matter how much sophistry they employ. “We’re doing this because it is the right thing to do.” Got it?
Below the read more is an independent video taken at the kickoff for the "winter workshops" of a regional land use commission with the authoritarian sounding name OneBayArea. Have you had similar experiences? Share them. Homeland Security is not the NKVD -- yet.
I've queued this up at 57 seconds to highlight where the first speaker says in response to "How Dare They" from the audience: “We’re doing this because it is the right thing to do.”
- Who exactly decided that "This" is the right thing to do? [The answer comes back that the meeting is based on state law that was written in closed session -- but that doesn't matter. And that answer does not address the "how to carry out the land use" that are being presented as the only choices.]
- There are people (you) who will be subject to the coming land use rules. Isn't that for them to decide? Putting aside the troubling issues concomitant to democracy, the people in attendance would decide those laws under any truly democratic rule. However, this forum attempts to give the appearance of being democratic by asking the chosen limited participants to "choose" their druthers from a predetermined list of choices.***
- The author of this video makes it clear that the limited selection of choices has been decided by some unidentified hands who put together the "workshops." The majority of the 100 of those in the room have been invited (hand-picked over a period of "trial") so that it will be pretty certain that they will answer "Yes. We believe. This is the right thing to do."
Apparently there were quite a few locals who were not officially invited (but, by law, could not be denied access). They saw through the facade. Allegedly this was an opportunity for the public to provide it's opinion. But the reality is something else again. There is an elaborate prefilled-in agenda. Those who wish to inject questions are shouted down.
This is but one of a string of videos. Part 6 quite explicitly lays out what is at stake and shows one way to fight it by law. What should worry you is knowing that your opponents laid down the rules that permit you to fight back.
What similar experiences have you to pass along?