Kent, Yours is an interesting response. But what if one has no principles, just strategy and tactics? If you don't know what your principles are -- if you can't identify them and speak to them -- then you have no business being an advocate. "I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle." --Jane Austen -Declan On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 1997 at 07:19:31PM -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: [...]
This goes back to the original debate: pragmatism vs. principle. How do you stand on principle and remain an effective advocate in Washington? If you navigate the route of pragmatism and compromise, what does that mean for civil liberties? Can you avoid compromising them away?
A quote you may find interesting:
"The debate between compromise and principle is a false debate, because principle doesn't speak, it acts. People don't compromise their principles -- they simply mis-identify them."
-- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html