According to this anonymous News-Leader article:
"Now the Minutemen are trying to affect city policy. They've convinced new Councilman Doug Burlison to try to add Springfield to the list of cities with special anti-illegal immigration ordinances. It's a bad idea. It's bad because the city's police force can't afford to enforce the laws on the books, let alone new ones. It's bad because the debate over illegal immigration belongs in the federal arena, and local police officers don't want to be shoved into that intense discussion. And it's a bad idea because the source of the proposal is a group that lacks credibility."
First of all, back on May 21, the News-Leader published another anonymous editorial all about how bloggers should not hide their names, need I really say more? I mean, here is the News-Leader talking down their noses at bloggers who choose not to identify themselves publishing editorial columns anonymously day in and day out. In that article we're told:
"But too much of the conversation going on in the "blogosphere" is anonymous, and we want to do our part to put an end to that...."
"We hope that more bloggers and forum commenters will realize the value of putting their names on their work so that the conversation gains credibility."
I guess there isn't any value in putting one's name on one of these anonymous editorials that the News-Leader regularly publishes? If putting one's name on a blog enty or comment lends "credibility" to the piece then apparently the News-Leader doesn't care much for its own writers' credibility?
Now, let's remember that it's the News-Leader's opinion that the illegal immigration debate belongs in the federal arena and it is the News-Leader's opinion that local police officers don't want to be "shoved into that intense discussion," further, it is the News-Leader's opinion that the Minutemen group "lacks credibility." That said, it seems the News-Leader's primary reason for opposing new illegal immigration policy being discussed and considered for possible City policy is found here:
"It's bad because the city's police force can't afford to enforce the laws on the books, let alone new ones."
Is the News-Leader actually suggesting that as a city body the City Council should not change any of its policies for dealing with crime in Springfield because "our city's police force can't afford to enforce the laws on the books, let alone new ones?" So, the solution to our police shortage and the ongoing problems with dealing with the police and firefighter pension shortfall (according to the News-Leader) is to just not burden them further by dealing with timely topics and problems when they arise rather than seeking a solution for the real problem, which is that we need more police officers and we need to stop the bleeding loss of the ones we currently have!?
Thank GOD the News-Leader is only a misguided opinion giver rather than a force of "credibility" when it comes to city management.
The Springfield News-Leader gives no good reason to oppose the actual policy that Burlison is considering and planning to bring to City Council, in fact it doesn't even touch on the content of the policy. Was their intention to give their readers information about the policy which hasn't even been proposed yet or was it to disparage and discredit the Minutemen and Doug Burlison?
I think Springfieldians are smarter than anonymous editorial hit men at the News-Leader.
If the News-Leader wants to be "credible" then they should cover the issue and not single out the Minutemen or City Councilmen who they didn't endorse in the first place for their ire, then they should do away with anonymous editorials, I mean, what's good fer the goose....
Furthermore, are the SPLC trying to "affect City policy!?" Maybe they should get themselves a representative elected by the people to a City Council seat, afterall, that tends to garner one a bit of "credibility" in the community, now doesn't it?
And when, according to anonymous, the SPLC says...:
"The Minutemen aren't a hate group, but a new class of what the SPLC calls "extremist nativist" groups. They're dangerous, the SPLC says, because they tend to target people, or groups of people, rather than policies."
Is the SPLC "targeting" the Minutemen "group" rather than the policies of which the Minutemen are supportive!? OH MY!
Written by: JACKIE MELTON