The City Attorney of my former city drafted a really bad public nuisance ordinance that, if adopted, would have robbed us of any remaining privacy or property rights.
I got it stopped mostly, I think, because I attacked the poor drafting, pointing out the many errors, many of which, I'm sure, crept in because it was cut & pasted from a whole bunch of other cities' ordinances, and the defined terms weren't conformed.
Someone I respect told me that you can stop legislation by attacking the spelling and grammar.
Exposing people as not knowing the most basic things they should know, while simultaneously filling in the public on the specifics, is the way to go. People are all too ready to think that our elected officials are somehow experts, and they certainly want them to be, so when they find out otherwise, it's enough to stimulate a backlash.
It's kind of like triggering the bullying impulse, and may not be kind or even fair, but it works to point out ignorance. So, yes, "Ha, ha, he doesn't know what "treason" means" may work better than trying to convince people that Snowden didn't commit it, or that he deserves due process.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent