From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Jun 1 10:32:16 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:32:16 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: MERIP Report: Elections Pose Lebanon's Old Questions Anew Message-ID: <07d901c566b6$b5c40290$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> (Middle East Report online) Elections Pose Lebanon's Old Questions Anew Sateh Noureddine and Laurie King-Irani May 31, 2005 (Sateh Noureddine is managing editor of the Beirut daily newspaper As-Safir. Laurie King-Irani is former editor of Middle East Report.) Watching a wave of peaceful protests compel the Lebanese government to resign on February 28, 2005, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli hailed the victory of a "Cedar Revolution" in line with, among others, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and "the Purple Revolution in Baghdad." Ereli went on to claim that Lebanon's spring of discontent, sparked by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri on February 14, proved President George W. Bush's thesis that it is "the natural state of human beings to...want to be free." On the streets of Beirut, though a lively striving for freedom was in evidence, the phrase "Cedar Revolution" never gained currency. In Lebanon, the months of protest, theatrical and musical performances, and all-night, left-right, Muslim-Christian political discussions, culminating in the massive demonstration of over one million people that overflowed Martyrs' Square in downtown Beirut on March 14, were called "the independence uprising" (intifadat al-istiqlal). Throughout this popular uprising, politicians and intellectuals in the broad-based opposition to the pro-Syrian government managed to navigate the dangerous shoals of identification with the Bush administration's agenda, on the one hand, while skirting the perilous reef of alienating powerful domestic players, on the other. In fact, the opposition, including as it did prominent Maronite Christian, Druze and Sunni Muslim figures, conveyed a convincing impression to the outside world that the country had bridged old divides and even overcome the bitter legacies of the 1975-1990 civil war. The Maronites, long the most vocal opponents of Syrian influence in Lebanon, were joined not only by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, with whom they had reconciled in 2001, but also Sunnis furious about the killing of Hariri, for which they blamed Syria. Meanwhile, Hizballah, the primary political and ideological tribune of the Shiite Muslim community, brought counter-demonstrators to the streets to express "thanks" to Syria for its role in Lebanon, but also to echo calls for national unity. Local and foreign observers optimistically declared that Lebanon, once synonymous with destruction, violence and chaos, was now a success story, a country moving in the right direction against all odds. This impression was strengthened by the fact that Syrian troops left Lebanon in an orderly fashion by the end of April. By May 29, the first of four successive Sundays of voting to elect a new Lebanese parliament and government, it was plain that the Syrian "presence," though increasingly burdensome and unpleasant, was never the root problem. Rather, Syrian occupation was a symptom of deeper crises in the Lebanese political system. The celebrations of Syria's departure in Martyrs' Square rarely touched upon these crises, which center on questions of national identity, inter-communal conflict, accountability for wartime atrocities and nation building. The four-week elections will be a telling illustration of how the Lebanese will attempt to deal with these unresolved questions without an outside party to assist them -- or to bear the blame if they fail. While the elections are expected to empower the "anti-Syrian" opposition at the expense of the "pro-Syrian" loyalists who dominate the current parliament, divergent attitudes toward Syria are no longer the salient dividing line. The key word in Lebanese politics is no longer "independence," but once again ta'ifiyya -- the complicated and delicate system of power sharing among Lebanon's 18 officially recognized ethno-confessional communities. Fifteen years of war followed by 15 years of Syrian occupation did not resolve or alter the basic structural and procedural problems posed by Lebanon's confessional system of governance. Each development in the election campaign, including the low turnout at the first round of voting on May 29, served as a troubling reminder of this fact. TWO REBELLIONS Not one, but two rebellions surged into Lebanon's streets and dominated newspaper columns in the three months since Hariri's assassination and the fall of the government. The first was embodied in the significant numbers of Lebanese who marched under the "Syria out!" banner. The other rebellion was not found in the significant numbers of Lebanese who thanked Syrian forces for helping Lebanon to constrain Israeli aggression in Lebanon and for guaranteeing relative calm in the country from 1990 until quite recently, thus allowing Lebanon to present a more attractive visage to foreign investors. Both demonstrations of popular feeling, in fact, showed that the whole country had accepted that the time for the Syrians' departure had arrived. The other rebellion was the recurrence of the same pressing questions after each demonstration. Who will rule Lebanon after the Syrian withdrawal? What kind of balance of power will be concluded between the different confessions? Upon Lebanon's independence from French colonial rule in 1943, a National Pact established unwritten rules whereby the president is a Maronite Christian, the prime minister is a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of Parliament is a Shiite, while allocating parliamentary seats according to a sectarian calculus. Today still, 64 seats are reserved for Christians and 64 for Muslims, including the Druze. The 1989 Ta'if agreement that set the stage for the end of the civil war made only minor modifications to these allocations, without attacking the underpinnings and inequities of the confessional system. The question leading into the elections was simple: Would Lebanon continue to be governed by the provisions of Ta'if or by a new, as yet unconcluded, national pact? In the meantime, how "free and fair" can elections be in a country where parliamentary seats are divided 50-50 between Christians and Muslims, though this division in no way reflects current demographic realities? To these questions there have been no clear or widely satisfactory answers. For three months, Lebanon's citizenry has expressed itself eloquently and peacefully in the streets of Beirut, all the while lacking a truly integrated and national political agenda. Hence, the passion and solidarity exhibited during the Martyrs' Square demonstrations and the counter-demonstrations of Hizballah have not translated into a coherent campaign platform for either the forces of opposition to the lame duck government or the forces that stayed out of the "independence uprising." The demonstrations of March and April addressed one set of problems. The fractious and circus-like politicking witnessed before elections have provided indices of others. FRAGILE RECONCILIATIONS For some time after the "independence uprising" forced the government to step down, it looked as if elections to replace it might be delayed. President Emile Lahoud's attempt to appoint the resigned Omar Karami as interim prime minister failed, with Karami unable to assemble a cabinet after a month of trying. When Najib Miqati was finally installed as caretaker prime minister, he pledged that his government would open the polls by the end of May and secured a month-long extension of the current parliament's term to allow the contests to take place over four weeks. The next controversy concerned the rules that would govern the elections. Lebanon's last parliamentary contests, in 2000, were run according to a law drafted under Syrian tutelage to gerrymander electoral districts in favor of allies of Damascus. The 2000 electoral law divided Lebanon into 14 constituencies that do not always conform to the boundaries of the country's five provinces. Hizballah and Amal, the other major Shiite party, were two beneficiaries of the redrawn districts, but so was Druze chieftain Jumblatt, who at that time was still in Syria's corner. Upon parliamentary approval of his cabinet, Miqati said that "our hands are extended to agree on any election law," but, in the end, no amendment to the 2000 law was debated by the legislature. Christian opposition parliamentarians, backed by Maronite patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir as well as others, mounted a vociferous campaign to subdivide the provinces into 24 districts (qada'), so as to give greater representation to the country's smaller communities. Other factions in the opposition had their own criticisms of the 2000 law, but they were not willing to postpone the date of elections to allow time for complex redistricting negotiations that might wind up reducing their political power. Cracks in the "anti-Syrian" opposition began to appear, with Jumblatt and others siding with the "pro-Syrian" parliamentary speaker, Nabih Berri of Amal, in tacit support for the 2000 law. Washington and Paris, meanwhile, were open about their preference that elections be held on time, without delay, and based on whatever electoral law was readily available. On May 7, shortly after writing a letter to Parliament expressing worry that the 2000 law could be divisive, Lahoud decreed that it would suffice after all. In urging the Lebanese to hold elections as quickly as possible, against the wishes of some of the protagonists in the independence uprising, Washington and Paris were clearly moving to avoid a political vacuum in Lebanon, which could have dangerous regional consequences. The United States and France were also reluctant to provoke the Shia, especially Hizballah, which controls the border with Israel in the south. Nor did anyone want to upset other "pro-Syrian" factions in Lebanon, who will occupy between 35 and 40 of the 128 seats in the next parliament. ELECTORAL EQUATIONS The initial round of voting in Beirut on May 29 will not set the pattern for other parts of the country. Turnout was a surprisingly low 28 percent, in part because several candidates were running unopposed. Most voters who went to the polling stations seemed only to be expressing an emotional reaction to the assassination of Hariri. The lists of Hariri's son Saad, who inherited the leadership of his father's Mustaqbal Party, wound up sweeping all 19 seats in the three Beirut districts. In one curious electoral alliance, the younger Hariri enlisted Solange Gemayel, widow of the assassinated Bashir Gemayel of the Lebanese Forces, to run for office in the Ashrafiyya district of East Beirut. Gemayel, like eight other candidates on Hariri's list, ran unopposed. But Hariri was unable to lure all the Christian opposition leaders, who decided instead to focus on the battles in their strongholds, or simply to boycott the vote in the capital as an objection to the electoral law. The debacle of the formerly "pro-Syrian" forces in Beirut will surely have a psychological impact on their standing in the next parliament, but the fortunes of other major allies of Syria before the withdrawal, such as Hizballah, Amal and traditional families in the north, mainly the Franjiyyas and the Karamis, will be better. Partly as a result of keeping the 2000 electoral law, the "Resistance, Liberation and Development" lists fronted by Hizballah and Amal will dominate the electoral game in the south and in the Bekaa Valley. Here, too, the alliances have been odd. The lists presently include a member of the Lebanese Baath Party and the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party -- both of which would have been classified as very "pro-Syrian" before the withdrawal -- but also the late Hariri's sister Bahiyya, who is running for the slot reserved for a Sunni in the Sidon-Zahrani district. Hizballah and its former rival Amal were also more nimble than others in organizing electoral lists to compete in areas where there will be real competition, including regions once considered Christian strongholds. When all is said and done, Hizballah may emerge just as strong in the new parliament as it was in the old. The fact that the outcome of so many contests was predetermined has directed the attention of many Lebanese to deeper issues than the partisan affiliation of candidates. In the weeks leading up to May 29, several politicians, mainly Muslims, quietly broached the very sensitive issue of inter-communal power sharing. Now more than two thirds of the population, by some estimates (there is no official count), many Muslims are asking for a new division of seats in parliament with the Christians, or at the very least a new commitment to the Ta'if agreement that helped end 15 years of internecine fighting. A key request is for transfer of additional powers from the hands of the Maronite president to the council of ministers led by the Sunni prime minister. The Ta'if accord had already transferred several powers out of the president's purview. On the Christian side, the patriarch Sfeir has set forth a clear demand that Christian representatives in Parliament should be elected exclusively by Christian voters. As it stands, the Muslim voters of a given district vote to fill the Maronite, Greek Catholic and other Christian slots that may exist in their district as well as the Muslim ones. The same is true of Christians voting for Muslims. Meanwhile, one cannot ignore the ideas sparked by the voluble Gen. Michel Aoun, who led an interim military government from 1988 and launched a disastrous and bloody "war of liberation" against Syrian forces in 1989. The general returned from his Parisian exile in mid-May and immediately entered the electoral fray, sallying forth among his old rivals spouting a populist rhetoric that runs counter to the economic polarization the country has experienced over the last two decades, and raising questions about deconfessionalizing the political system. Aoun's agonistic personality and broad-brush approach to political and social realities has earned him a small but passionate following. It is notable that he has stated that he does not want to be considered a member of a Christian list, or to be advancing Christian lists. During the Beirut balloting, the general's partisans distributed leaflets calling on Lebanese not to participate in the "appointment" of parliamentarians at the polls, though, in keeping with the circus-like atmosphere of the election season, the general's Free Patriotic Movement may still field candidates in districts where they think their chances are better. Aoun's impact on the elections is likely to be minimal, but his rhetoric may reverberate in Lebanon's political scene, especially since many of his supporters are young people. OLD QUESTIONS Are Lebanon's first elections of the post-Syrian era fated to be simply an expression of revenge against Damascus? Everyone knows that voting against Syria does not necessarily mean voting for the Lebanese national unity felt by many during the March-April demonstrations, much less a new, overarching national identity. Meanwhile, the presence on the ballot of many candidates who have, in effect, already won their seats, has sown cynicism and probably helped to depress voter turnout so far. The elections will probably result in the removal from Parliament of several Sunni, Christian and Druze politicians who were close to Damascus. Many expect that a further major symbolic blow to Syria will come in the fall, when the new parliament will have the chance to remove Lahoud as president. Other than that, the elections will not bring much change to the underlying political structures of the country. There are few signs that the mobilization among the different confessions precipitated by the electoral law fight and other disputes will be over soon. The elections already represent a clear divergence from the shows of unity in the streets of Beirut during the three months after the assassination of Hariri. The Sunnis, Druzes and Christians who were marching and chanting together against Syria are already facing, once again, the very old Lebanese problem of what kind of national pact should be put on the table. The Shia will soon be asking old questions about their share, but in the context of a new regional environment in which Shiite politics are quite different than they were three decades ago. Not least, Lebanon's new parliament will be faced as well with deciding the future of Hizballah as a political, social and military force in the southern suburbs and in the south of the country, where many still fear Israeli aggression as much as they fear an unfair deal that will cut the Shia out of key political and economic sectors. An institutional order unto itself, Hizballah remains a major political force to reckon with after the Syrian withdrawal, even if that withdrawal has exposed Hizballah's militia to renewed demands that it disarm in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559. US, French and other international pressures are only some of the reasons why the issue of Hizballah's disarmament will be contentious. While it is indisputable that the "independence uprising" and the Syrian departure have allowed Lebanese to acknowledge that the civil war is finally over, few Lebanese would contend that the impact of the long war has truly dissipated. The Lebanese people are still facing the challenge of establishing a state that transcends confessionalism. Azmi Bishara, a prominent Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset, captured the dynamic upon leaving Beirut after paying his condolences to the Hariri family and meeting with a wide range of Lebanese political figures. Bishara was dismayed to discover that Lebanon, despite mounting a dramatic and media-savvy movement for sovereignty, remains a country whose political system lacks formal definition, whose cosmopolitan politicians are rooted in a feudal era despite speaking a post-modern language, and whose greatest problems emanate not from external enemies but rather from chronic internal structural imbalances. Lebanese do indeed "want to be free," but freedom from Syrian occupation has prompted a poignant acknowledgement of the continued constraints on Lebanon's quest to define itself. ----- For background on the independence uprising, see Nicholas Blanford, "Lebanon Catches Its Breath," Middle East Report Online, March 23, 2005. http://www.merip.org/mero/mero032305.html See also Laurie King-Irani, "Commemorating Lebanon's Civil War Amid Continued Crisis," Middle East Report Online, April 14, 2005. http://www.merip.org/mero/mero041405.html . Middle East Report Online is a free service of the Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP). From chapillsbury at igc.org Wed Jun 1 17:35:10 2005 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 17:35:10 -0400 Subject: {news} "Weapons of Mass Deception" Fri. 6/17 Unitarian Church Hamden Message-ID: <006a01c566f1$c979c780$6901a8c0@EXDIR04> Dear Friends, I hope you will attend this event on June 17 in Hamden. The film's director (Danny Schecter, "the news dissector") will be speaking, along with Scott Harris, Denise Manzari and Melinda Tuhus, producers of the syndicated Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine. Please pass it on, and I hope to see you there. Peace, Charlie --------------- You're invited to to a special screening of: "Weapons of Mass Deception" A Film Documentary that Examines the Media's Role in Selling the Iraq War, followed by a discussion with "WMD Director Danny Schechter" on "How Our Media Undermines Democracy" Squeaky Wheel Productions, distributors of the syndicated Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine, will present a screening of the award-winning film, "Weapons of Mass Deception," which examines how America's corporate media sold the Iraq War instead of challenging the Bush administration's dubious rationale for the costly invasion and occupation. WMD film director Danny Schechter, an Emmy Award-winning former ABC 20/20 producer, will be on hand to discuss "How Our Media Undermines Democracy," immediately following the screening on Friday, June 17 at 7 p.m., at the Unitarian Society of New Haven, 700 Hartford Turnpike, Hamden, CT. What they're saying about "Weapons of Mass Deception" . "Something of a comic masterpiece," writes Michael Wolf of Vanity Fair: "WMD is a devastating critique of the TV news networks' complacency and complicity in the Iraq War. A must see!" -- Chicago Reader A reception with refreshments will follow the film and discussion, hosted by Scott Harris, Denise Manzari and Melinda Tuhus, producers of the syndicated Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine. For tickets, advance reservations and directions, call (203) 268-8446 or visit http://www.squeakywheel.net. Suggested contribution is $15 to benefit Squeaky Wheel Productions, a Connecticut-based nonprofit organization that distributes Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine to 35 radio stations in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand - produced locally at WPKN Radio 89.5 in Bridgeport, CT. View the trailer: Broadband: http://www.globalvision.org/wmd/trailer.mov (You must have Quicktime or Windows Media Player) or View a promo in Flash http://www.wmdthefilm.com/flash.html Spread the word! Download a pdf of the WMD flyer! http://www.squeakywheel.net/SCHECHTER.pdf -- Squeaky Wheel Productions, Inc. P.O. Box 110176 Trumbull, CT 06611 (203) 268-8446 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riverbend2 at earthlink.net Thu Jun 2 09:53:49 2005 From: riverbend2 at earthlink.net (John Battista) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:53:49 -0400 Subject: {news} Adminis tration's offenses impeachable: 060205-from Bangor, Maine! Message-ID: <001701c5677a$82b1f960$1102a8c0@newm2.ct.charter.com> Message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Administration's offenses impeachable Thursday, June 02, 2005 - Bangor Daily News -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's consider an item from the news of about two weeks ago: A British citizen leaked a memo to London's Sunday Times. The memo was of the written account of a meeting that a man named Richard Dearlove had with the Bush administration in July 2002. Dearlove was the head of the England's MI-6, the equivalent of the CIA. On July 23, 2002, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair about the meeting. He said that Bush was determined to attack Iraq. He said that Bush knew that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links to foreign terrorists, that there was no imminent danger to the U.S. from Iraq. But, since Bush was determined to go to war, "Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." "Fixed" means faked, manufactured, conjured, hyped - the product of whole cloth fabrication. So we got aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds imported from Niger, biological weapons labs in weather trucks, fear and trembling, the phony ultimatums to Saddam Hussein to turn over the weapons he didn't have and thus couldn't. We got the call to arms, the stifling of dissent, the parade of retired generals strategizing on the "news" shows, with us or against us, flags in the lapel, a craven media afraid to look for a truth that might disturb their corporate owners who would profit from the war. Shock and Awe. Fallujah. Abu Ghraib. It was all a lie. Many of us have said for a long time it was a lie. But here it is in black and white: Lies from a president who has taken a sacred trust to uphold the Constitution of the United States. So, what does it mean? It means that our president and all of his administration are war criminals. It's as simple as that. They lied to the American people, have killed and injured and traumatized thousands of American men and women doing their patriotic duty, killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and poisoned its environment, squandered billions and billions of our tax dollars, made a mockery of American integrity in the world, changed the course of history, tortured Iraqi prisoners, and bound us intractably to an insane situation that they have no idea how to fix because they had no plan, but greed and empire, in the first place. What does it mean? It means that everyone in this administration should be impeached. It means that our Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and our Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud should call for immediate impeachment. They were lied to by their president, voted for war, and are thus complicit in the multiply betrayals of the American people unless they stand up now for the truth. Richard Nixon was impeached for a cover-up of a two-bit break-in. William Cohen, a young Maine Republican, played an important role for the prosecution in those proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Now we have the irrefutable evidence that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for taking the United States to war. The intelligence wasn't flawed. The weapons weren't hidden. Our elected leaders were lying. Democracy, like any sound relationship between people, is built on trust. We trust our leaders to tell the truth so that the consent that we give them is honestly informed. If the consent is won through manipulation, propaganda, fear, or lies, the basis of our democracy has been subverted. It is no longer democracy at all, but we continue to call it that because we have not the courage or stamina to demand its overhaul. We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them. What's curious is why anyone like me should have to even point this out. Don't our senators and congressmen feel betrayed? Are they content to continue the murdering rather than do what truth demands? Do they think they can lie to history, too. Do they think that this little Iraq problem will somehow just go away, that the courageous resistance to the United States occupation will give up and hand Bush the keys to the oil wells? Do they think that any of the grave crises facing the world now - energy consumption, global warming, species extinction - can be solved by lying about them? We are living in an age of no accountability. It's also an age upon which may hang the survival of human life on this earth. One should not bet one's future on people who abjure responsibility. The first courageous step is to come to terms with what we know is true: America's president lied to America's people to create an unnecessary war. I ask Sens. Snowe and Collins, Reps. Allen and Michaud to take that step. Begin impeachment proceedings. It's really no more or less than their duty. It's also the first step toward restoring America's integrity. Robert Shetterly is a writer and artist who lives in Brooksville. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bangor Publishing Company www.bangornews.com/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.4.1 - Release Date: 6/2/2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apbrison at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 10:49:32 2005 From: apbrison at hotmail.com (allan brison) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:49:32 -0400 Subject: {news} Important sewage sludge amendment vote in New Haven In-Reply-To: <001701c5677a$82b1f960$1102a8c0@newm2.ct.charter.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 2 21:03:48 2005 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:03:48 -0400 Subject: {news} website to stay abreast of CT legislation--I reached it via www.cga.ct.gov Message-ID: <003501c567d9$ed3e62a0$31c2f504@edgn2b574u14bi> Message ----- Original Message ----- From: Marilyn Mackay To: Democracy for America Activist Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:26 PM Subject: Emailing: www.cga.ct.gov.htm Politically active folks in CT may wish to bookmark this website to stay abreast of pending and ongoing legislation.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quick Search by: Bill House Cal# Senate Cal# File Copy LCO# Public Act Special Act Number: Year: 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 Bill Tracking Broadcast Media Statutes Committees A - H & I - Z Staff Offices Commissions Under Discussion House Session Senate Session June, 2005 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CGA Today Bulletin (6/2) Go List (6/2) [pdf] List Of Bills Passed (6/2) House Journal (6/1) House Calendar (6/2) Senate Journal (6/1) Senate Calendar (6/2) 2005 Regular Session Convened: January 5, 2005 Adjourns: June 8, 2005 Legislative Bulletin Session Schedule Senate: June 2, 2005 12:00 P.M. June 3, 2005 Time TBA House: June 2, 2005 11:00 A.M. June 3, 2005 Time TBA Search Session Information House Senate Legislative References Citizen Guide -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact Webmaster | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Site Map | Site Help | External Links | Go to CT.gov | Employment Opportunities -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.4.1 - Release Date: 6/2/2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: altcolorbar1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1289 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: magnify1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 981 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: questionmark.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tabrev.gif Type: image/gif Size: 867 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tab.gif Type: image/gif Size: 869 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CGA_logo1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6174 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LessThan.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 785 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GreaterThan.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 791 bytes Desc: not available URL: From riverbend2 at earthlink.net Fri Jun 3 07:10:28 2005 From: riverbend2 at earthlink.net (John Battista) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 07:10:28 -0400 Subject: {news} Job announcment- coordinator for Green Party National Meeting Message-ID: <00b501c5682c$db61da00$1102a8c0@newm2.ct.charter.com> > > > The Green Party of the United States is seeking a part time meeting > coordinator to organize the Annual National Meeting to take place in > Tulsa Oklahoma July 21-24th. > > > > The Coordinator will be responsible, in collaboration with the ANMC, > Oklahoma Greens and DC Staff for coordinating the logistics of the > meeting including: Contract, Insurance, Registration, Supplies, > Arranging Audio Visual Set-up, Checking meeting room set ups, Printing > and distributing packets and other materials to attendees (maps, > schedules, restaurant lists, emergency info), Volunteer Coordination > before and during the event > > > > The Coordinator will be the main contact person for venue personnel and > vendors. The Coordinator will give weekly and daily (as time > progresses) status reports to the ANMC. > > > > This is a part time position starting June 27th thru July 27th paying > $1,800 pending National Commit voting of the budget. Pay schedule will > be negotiated with the Coordinator. Travel to and from Tulsa, food and > accommodations during the meeting will be provided by the GPUS. The ANMC > along with the Tulsa Greens will work diligently to find reasonably > priced or free housing leading up and following the meeting. Other > expenses will be reimbursed pending approval of the ANMC Co-chairs and > GPUS Treasurer. > > > > Qualifications: Previous Green Party involvement and meeting planning > experience essential. Participation in past national Green meetings > preferred. Applicants should be able to spend a significant amount of > time, at least the last two weeks in Tulsa beforehand to work with venue > staff and Tulsa Greens. > > > > Please send cover letter and resume to the Annual National Meeting > Committee c/o office at gp.org no later than June 10th. > > > > Women and people of color strongly encouraged to apply. > > -- > " One person can make a difference, > and every person must try." > > John F. Kennedy > > From riverbend2 at earthlink.net Fri Jun 3 07:13:21 2005 From: riverbend2 at earthlink.net (John Battista) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 07:13:21 -0400 Subject: {news} Book on the Green Party Presidential Campaign of 2004 Message-ID: <00c901c5682d$421de680$1102a8c0@newm2.ct.charter.com> Green Party Tempest Friends and Greens, Last fall the inspiration hit. I realized I had to write up my account of what happened in the Green Party presidential election campaign. Some day the historical record will be glad of a relatively full accounting of what happened, and there are discussions going on around the future direction of the Green Party that I wish to contribute to. So I sat and wrote every for one hour every day from early November until Mid April. Now it is ready, and I think you will find it a very interesting and readable account. You are also more than welcome to forward this letter to anyone you think might be interested, and if you would, lists of Greens in your neighborhood and state. Here is the blurb. Green Party Tempest tells the surprising and inspiring story of the Green Party?s 2004 presidential campaign in the United States. From the party?s first contact with candidates in 2003, through the hotly contested national convention in Milwaukee, to election day and the Ohio recount, Greg Gerritt saw it all, and in Green Party Tempest he tells the whole story for the first time. Here is what some Green Party members that read the manuscript say: Holly Hart, GPUS Platform Committee co chair: ?Written by one of the early founders of the Green Party in the US, Greg?s engaging account of the events surrounding the 2004 Presidential race is an invaluable window into the goals, obstacles, and approaches to organizing and electoral work facing the Green party in today?s forbidding political climate.? Tony Affigne, GPUS International Committee co chair: ?This book was written after a great deal of thought and years of unparalleled work in the US Green party movement. Greg was the first US Green?s candidate for elective office in 1986, a leader in both GPUSA and the Association of State Green Parties, statewide coordinator for Nader/LaDuke in 2000, and national Green party Secretary from 2003-2005. His book holds important lessons for Green Party activists across the nation.? Matt Tilley, co founder Maine Green Party: ?Greg Gerritt?s 20 year history with the Green Party provides him a unique perspective for this account of the 2004 Presidential Nominating convention. Gerritt captures the drama and spectacle that IS the Green Party in the USA, a microcosm of all that is right and wrong with modern American politics? Buy this book: I have self published this book, no corporate publishers. It is completely a boot strap operation, enhanced by other Greens who think the history and message in this book ought to be more widely available. After you read it, if you want to help spread the word, that would be appreciated. If you want this book, you can get it one of several different ways. You can find Greg Gerritt in Providence and buy one directly from him for $10.00. If you are not one of the lucky few who can come to Providence and buy it directly from Greg, you can order it by mail for $10.00 plus $2.00 Shipping and handling (total $12.00) by sending a check to Greg Gerritt 37 6th St Providence RI 02906. I am happy to sign books, just tell me who you want me to sign it to. If you want more than 3 copies please email Greg Gerritt and I can provide information on bulk orders. If you want to take it to events as part of your Green Party table, please get in touch with me and we can figure something out. Here is further inducement to buy the book. A little teaser, the Introduction: After you read this, I am hoping you will want more. Introduction During 2003 I started thinking about how the presidential campaign season was shaping up as a perfect storm for the Green Party. This is what the Green Party faced. The Anybody But Bush (ABB) push in progressive forces following on the tail of the "spoiler" factor left over from 2000. A war on terrorism that was progressing as a disaster that made it even more of a tool for Republicans to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. The Democrats were demonstrating that they were their own worst enemy, supporting war in Iraq and generally trying to be Republican light, but still insisting that progressives join their campaign as there was no other choice or path for removing Bush. Closer to the heart of the Green Party there were additional discussions about what to do. Should the Green Party have a candidate? Should Ralph Nader run? Should he run as a Green? If we decide to have a candidate and its not Nader, who should it be? What should the campaign strategy be? Just what is the best set of tactics for growing the Green Party in 2004? Just who is our core audience and how do we best engage them? With all this rancorous debate is it any wonder there were people in the party who were wishing the 2004 election would just be over so they could get back to the real work of party building. Through a combination of strategizing, action, and the whirlwind we found ourselves in, the Greens ran a homegrown Green ticket for President and Vice President working to build the party by helping grow local efforts, the team of David Cobb and Patricia LaMarche. I ended up supporting the home grown Green strategy because it was the only strategy that I found that could actually provide a plausible explanation of how it was going to help us continue to grow in the conditions we found ourselves in in 2004. Many Greens believe that a different strategy/candidate would have been better for the Green Party, but they have never demonstrated in any meaningful way that a different strategy or candidate would have actually benefited the Party, produced better results for local candidates, or strengthened local and state parties. Does anyone have a good explanation of how running no Presidential candidate have given us better results for local candidates on election day? Would local Green Parties around the country be bigger and stronger than it is now if we had not run David Cobb for President? Would a screw Kerry campaign have helped local candidates on election day or contributed to a bigger and stronger Green Party today? Would endorsing Nader have helped local candidates more on election day? Where Green Parties worked closely with Nader did that help their local candidates more than working with Cobb would have? Did the local parties working with Nader grow more than those working with Cobb? In places where Greens worked with Nader do they have new and enduring ties to other centers of activism beyond the Green Party that will be used to build the party? Any better than those in other Green centers? In some ways these questions are unanswerable. Alternative futures were unknowable at the times we had decisions to make, and even in hindsight it is hard to say how something else would have played out. For those few things on the list we could theoretically measure, we probably could not get good data. But I am pretty sure we did the right thing by running the Cobb/LaMarche ticket and have a hard time imagining that another approach in 2004 would have produced better results for the Green Party. So all in all the atmosphere around a Green presidential run looked pretty bleak. But from the time I adopted the perfect storm terminology, I was also very clear that despite the storm, despite the fact that the Presidential campaign was likely to be a very difficult campaign no matter what we did, there was no magic bullet that was going to make it a great year for a Green presidential campaign, the Green Party was going to come out just fine in November 2004. The reason I was always so confident that the Green Party was going to be fine is that the Green Party really is about building at the grassroots. Green Party local campaigns were going to be the source of our growth in 2004 no matter what happened in the Presidential campaign. I know it takes away from the drama, but it seems reasonable to state here that the local elections were successful. Local Green candidates garnered 1.6 million votes, more than ever before. There are now more Green elected officials, more local chapters and more active state parties than ever before. There are some Greens who think the year was disastrous, and there are local groups that were severely impacted by the events of 2004, but for the most part Green activities around the country are in pretty good shape and the assessment of the activists is up beat. And yes, the successful outcome does influence how this account shapes up. _________________________________________________________ I want ______ copies of Green Party Tempest at $10.00 a piece and have included $2.00 for shipping and handling per copy. (For orders larger than 3 books contact for shipping and handling costs) I have enclsoed a total of $_________ The book(s) should be sent to: Name___________________________________ Address__________________________________ City State ZIP ______________________________ Book should be signed for______________________ Mail checks to: Greg Gerritt 376th St Providence RI 02906 401-331-0529 gerritt at mindspring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Fri Jun 3 10:33:47 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:33:47 -0400 Subject: {news} FWD Counterpunch: "A Two-State Solution is No Solution: Thinking Outside the Box on Israel " Message-ID: <0b6701c56849$411a2160$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> >From CT Green Mazin Qumsiyeh. Justine --------------------------------------------------- A Two-State Solution is No Solution: Thinking Outside the Box on Israel / Palestine By Mazin Qumsiyeh, Counterpunch 6/2/05 http://www.counterpunch.org/mazin06022005.html http://www.qumsiyeh.org/thinkingoutsidethebox/ Thursday, June 2, 2005 -- In Washington, DC last week, Huwaida Arraf of the International Solidarity movement posed two questions for the Palestinian Authority (PA) Foreign Minister: 1) Why is the PA not articulating the clear and continuing human rights violations by Israel; and 2) Since Mahmud Abbas wants Palestinians to end armed resistance to Israeli colonization, why does his authority not show any visible participation or support for the Palestinian non-violence resistance? His response was that he used to be president of an activist group and knows that activists may say a lot of things that leaders cannot and should not say. He also said that everyone knows Palestinians engage in non-violent resistance, and obviously "we think it is good." Then Phyllis Bennis asked why he stated that the PA "did not like Bush's written assurances to Sharon, but we choose to interpret them in light of International law." She explained that this makes little sense considering that Sharon is proceeding based on these assurances to consolidate control in the occupied West Bank, that such assurances contravene international law and that the Bush administration has a history of violating international law. He did not reply. PA leaders are not in enviable positions. They are required by an imbalance of power to fulfill the Bush and Sharon "visions" of security for the occupier, in return for positions of "leadership" over the captive Palestinians. The PA leaders claim that Israeli settlement policies are destroying the "vision of a two state solution." But outgoing Israeli Army Chief Yaalon said it well: "A two-state solution is not relevant ... it is a story that the Western world tells with Western eyes, and that story does not comprehend the scale of the gap and the scale of the problem. We, too, are sweeping it under the carpet." And why are the Palestinians fulfilling their obligations under an unfair road map even while Israel refuses to implement its obligations of a full settlement freeze? As for two-states, there is already a state called Israel with discriminatory laws, with nuclear weapons, and with the fourth-strongest army in the world. Zionism survives only insofar as it prevents Palestinians attaining their basic human rights, such as the right to return to their homes and lands, and the right to self-determination. Zionism and Israeli law claim all Jews around the world are nationals of the state, and give them the "right" to automatic citizenship while denying Palestinian Christians and Muslims the right to return to their homes simply for being Gentiles. Palestinians, by contrast, are in shrinking cantons on less than 10% of their historic lands. Abbas is calling for resuming direct unconditional negotiations on final status issues, but how can there be unconditional "negotiations" between a superior military power backed by the only remaining military superpower and a captive population stripped of even the meager cards of armed resistance? The Palestinian Authority does have other options. It could choose to build its network with progressive organizations around the world. It could build non-violent resistance (including civil disobedience, divestments and boycotts). It could reject negotiations unless based on human rights and international law. It could insist that all Palestinians are represented (including inside Palestine 48, and refugees). PA leaders who put the welfare of their people before personal interest must start with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Zionism/colonialism and rejection of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands are incompatible with these basic human rights. If the PA does not succeed in reversing colonial rule and instituting equality and justice, then the field will be left to Hamas or a third party (like the democratic initiative called Al-Mubadara). But, like in South Africa, Israeli society is changing, and pressures from outside are building. Israeli artists recently called for ending Israel's apartheid laws. Many churches and universities are developing divestment and boycott campaigns. The International Court ruling on the illegality of the apartheid wall built on Palestinian land is a victory for common sense. US taxpayers who foot the bill with billions to fund Israel are now beginning to understand reality long shielded from them (but not the rest of the world) by a hegemonic media discourse. With the Israeli lobby reeling from US espionage charges, and more Americans joining with the rest of the world in thinking outside the box of the fictional "two-state solution" (in which oppression and ethnic cleansing are legitimized), this may be is a time for a more rational US foreign policy. Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD (http://qumsiyeh.org) is chair of The Association of One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel and founder of AcademicsForJustice.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Fri Jun 3 13:04:08 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:04:08 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Why French And Dutch Citizens Are Saying No to EU Constitution Message-ID: <0b9201c5685e$41fd9700$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> Fyi, Justine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Feinstein" To: Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:35 PM Subject: USGP-INT Why French And Dutch Citizens Are Saying No to EU Constitution > Dear all > > How do we understand the European Greens position on the EU Constitution, > in light of the "Non" vote in France and the "Nee" vote in the > Netherlands? > > 1) In the Winter issue of Green Pages, I did the following story on the > official position of The European Greens > > http://gp.org/greenpages/content/volume9/issue1/article15.php > > This story also has a link to the text of the EuroGreens official > statement on the matter. > > > 2) Here is a press release issued yesterday by the European Greens on the > French and Dutch votes > > http://www.europeangreens.org/news/press.html#09 > > > 3) Finally, the following piece in ZMagazine below includes references to > European Green Party positions on the EU Constitution. Even though the > piece was written before the votes were taken, it has many helpful > insights: > > > http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=7997 > > Why French And Dutch Citizens Are Saying No > by Susan George > and Erik Wesselius > June 03, 2005 > Transnational Institute > > > The French referendum on the EU constitution takes place on 29 May, > followed by a similar referendum in The Netherlands on 1 June. Opinions > polls show the 'no' side edging ahead, but in both countries it's still > too close to call. The following virtual interview is based on > presentations given at the Transnational Institute (TNI) Fellows' Meeting > in Amsterdam on 21 May. Paris-based Susan George (SG) is TNI Associate > Director, Vice-President of Attac France and an active campaigner against > the constitution. Erik Wesselius (EW) is a researcher at Corporate Europe > Observatory and the Secretary of the Comit? Grondwet Nee (Dutch Committee > for the NO Vote) in The Netherlands. > > > What is the state of public opinion in France and in The Netherlands at > this moment? > > EW: It's not just a slight majority opposed to the treaty in The > Netherlands, according to the latest polls. Last week the polls were > indeed still fifty-fifty between the yes and the no, but the polls that > came out yesterday and today show between 60 per cent and 64 per cent for > the no. So, we see there's been a huge development during the last week, > which I think has a lot to do with the fact that the Dutch government is > campaigning very strongly in favour of the constitution. Although I'm > sceptical of opinions polls, I'm more and more convinced that this is > really happening. I had never imagined when we started our campaign that > it would have developed in this direction. > > SG: Although the number of undecided people is going down steadily - you > know the polls are just about neck and neck in France as well - people are > worried about what happens afterwards, because the government has been > leaning on the chaos argument. Our answer to that is 'well no, you just go > back to where you are today. We currently have the Nice treaty and in the > past there has been a treaty about every three years, so there is no > reason to think this won't keep going on as usual'. But this time we won't > turn back, because there has been a major public debate and people are now > far more aware of what European policies actually are. So now we can have > a genuine debate about which direction we want to go. > > What are your main criticisms of the constitution? > > SG: Val?rie Giscard d'Estaing, a former president of France, was named as > head of the constitutional convention that produced this document. The > members of the convention, 105 of them, were named from above, they were > appointed. About two thirds of them were either European or national > parliamentarians, but they were not elected by the citizens to do this. > Then there were some others supposedly representing civil society. So > that's the first criticism: the non-democratic aspect. A constitutional > convention is normally an elected body, so that it comes in a sense from > the people. This constitution does not come from the people; it comes from > an appointed group. > > EW: I could talk about this for hours, but the main basic message is that > this constitution is not democratic and that if we accept it we could be > left with an absolutely inadequate situation for the next 20 years or so. > I think that's very dangerous for the future of European co-operation. The > second basic argument is that a constitution should be readable and > accessible to the population. It should not be a document of 480 pages, > with some 400 more pages of appendixes and declarations. That's really > crazy. > > SG: The members of the convention worked for about two years and were only > supposed to deal with the balances of power, as you would normally do in a > constitution. Besides this, they were supposed to constitutionalise the > Charter, a fundamental declaration of rights which had been placed in the > Nice Treaty but had not been formalised beyond that. Then, for reasons > that I am not really clear on, Giscard d'Estaing himself decided to > include part three, which is around three quarters of the document and > which is this whole list of very detailed policies. > > EW: This document contains a lot of policy. It includes a whole chapter on > economic policies basically fixing Europe on a neo-liberal framework. That > kind of stuff should not be present in a constitution because if the > European governments would like to subsequently change that policy choice > it would not be possible, it would be anti-constitutional. So that's very > dangerous and very easy to explain to people. The inclusion of this whole > chapter on neo-liberal policies in the constitution is one of our main > points of critique. > > Another important criticism is the militarisation of the EU. The document > includes key articles saying that the member states of the EU will improve > their military capabilities every year. This has been turned around by > part of the left, who say that improving doesn't necessarily mean spending > more, but if you know where these proposals come from then you get > worried. They are the product of a working group which included several > representatives of the European military industry, and who want to sell > their goods. That's why they were very happy to have these paragraphs in > the European constitution. > > SG: Part three includes a whole list of policies in every area, > agriculture, environment, police co-operation, justice, the central bank, > etc. But the main thing is, however, that the objectives of the union > define it as an economic space where you have freedoms of movement for > goods, services, people and capital, and a space in which competition is > free and unhindered. Competition comes into the text 47 times, the word > market 78 times, the phrase social progress is not mentioned at all, or > once I guess, and unemployment is not mentioned at all. > > We have many objections to the content of this document, but the major one > is that this text is not amendable, is not revisable. It's not amendable > because you need a triple unanimity across all 25 countries. To amend the > constitution there first has to be a convention, which has to reach a > consensus. Then they hand the baby to the heads of government, who also > have to be unanimous in agreeing the proposed changes. Then it goes into a > process like the one we are going through now, of either parliamentary > approval or referendums, and that also has to be unanimous otherwise the > constitution cannot be changed. So it is considered by anybody who has > read the thing to be virtually impossible to amend. > > How have the French and the Dutch governments reacted to the no campaign? > > SG: The French government uses the argument that there is no 'Plan B', and > that just because France says no that doesn't mean that the other > governments will be willing to renegotiate. Our response to that is that > somebody has got to put a stop to this and, legally, if France votes no > this document is out. It's out for everyone. > > President Jacques Chirac also says 'we will be the black sheep of Europe.' > The government are trying to make people believe we would be living under > a different law from the rest of Europe, that everybody else would have > the constitution but we would have something different, and they have been > confusing this with a new article that says that any state has the right > to leave Europe. So they are promoting ambiguity on this point. > > But in fact we feel that after the vote there would be a great deal of > time for debate and that the balance of power would change drastically. If > we win that means that the Socialist leadership is discredited, the > president is discredited and the prime minister too - the result will be > political upheaval throughout French politics. Then we can also have a > real debate about what we want next with our comrades in other countries. > That is what should happen. But first we have to say no, this is not the > model we want for Europe and the world. > > EW: In Holland they have just approved a special budget of four million > euro to campaign for the yes, because they were very afraid of the no. We > have initiated a court case to either demand that this money is not spent, > or that the no campaign should get equal access to the media and equal > amounts of money, because this is completely out of proportion. The no > campaign has had 400,000 euro in total, and that has been spread over a > number of groups. My own group, which is the main active group campaigning > for the no, only got 30,000 euro, so we can compare our 30,000 with their > four million. > > Anyway, I think we can be happy that the government is so disliked by the > Dutch population at this moment, because it has been implementing hard > line neo-liberal social policies. There were a lot of trade union > demonstrations at the end of last year and I think that what we see now in > this clear shift toward the no is a kind of pay-off. > > SG: I would like to thank former European Commissioner Frits Bolkenstein, > a former member of the Dutch government, for coming to France and > defending his directive, which is about the freedom of movement of > services and about how the laws of the country of origin apply and not the > law of the country in which a service is rendered. And he said he didn't > believe in all this referendum stuff, that people were elected to vote on > these things and they just should be allowed to get on with it, and that > ordinary people should not be involved in this debate. So that was a real > help. That was a big boost to us. > > EW: The Dutch government has made a lot of public relation mistakes. One > of the main governing parties, the Liberals, made a TV advertisement in > which they showed some pictures of Auschwitz, Srebrenica - which is a big > Dutch trauma - and then the Madrid bombings, and the concluding message > was 'we need an EU constitution to make Europe better and safer.' So > afterwards the Liberals thought 'oh well, maybe it is not such a good idea > to broadcast this,' but unfortunately for them the clips were already > circulating on the internet. This is a good example of how the government > is completely lacking arguments to sell the constitution. They are really > falling back on empty statements about why Europe is so important. > > SG: The French government is pulling out all the stops. They are > panicking. The business people had said 'we are not going to actively > campaign because we think it wouldn't be a good idea, it might be > counterproductive.' But this week over a hundred major business leaders > have signed an appeal for a yes vote. The defence minister has said: 'if > you don't vote for the yes, Europe will be shot to hell.' They are really > panicking. Chirac appeared on TV with a group of carefully selected young > people, and two members of ATTAC were thrown out because they said they > were too partisan. So the remaining kids were supposed to be very obedient > and nice, but they asked questions about our future that Chirac wasn't > able to answer, and the polls for the no went up after that. So we thank > Chirac too. And then there's the prime minister. Every time he goes on TV > it helps us. > > People are also voting against the expression of neo-liberalism in France > that they have been suffering since the present government was elected in > 2002. > > How and why did you begin to work around the referendum? > > EW: We started about one and half years ago. Basically, we were a group of > people coming from a broadly left perspective who had been working on EU > issues for a long time. I have been working on EU issues from the > mid-1990s and was involved in the alternative summit in 1997 during the > negotiations for the Amsterdam Treaty. > > We sat together and strategised on how to approach this referendum > question and how to ensure that it would not be possible for the > government to say 'when you say no you are a xenophobe,' which would have > put us in the same corner as the right-wing populists. > > SG: The French debate on the constitution began in a rather low-key way. > We haven't been working on it for one and half years, but we have been > working on it since last summer. ATTAC brought out a list of 21 demands to > the intergovernmental conference in 2004, none of which was satisfied, > except that equality between men and women was put in the objectives, but > that was only one out of 21 demands; the others were not satisfied. Then a > process began which I can't really explain, because this is the biggest > debate we have had in France since 1968. I don't know where this comes > from. It must be the fact that nobody has been asked to give his or her > opinion about Europe in the last 13 years. The last time was around > Maastricht, in 1992, and they kept saying (the government and Giscard > d'Estaing and the people who wrote the constitution) 'well, don't worry > about part three, this is not really the issue, that is just a recap of > all the things that were in the previous treaties, so you have been living > under that and you will be living under it.' But people didn't really know > Europe was all encapsulated, all written down in a single document. Our > adversaries never quoted the text. Once you start to quote it, and people > find out what's actually in this and find out what's going to be > constitutionalised and not revisable and not amendable, they get scared to > death. > > In terms of organising against the constitution, that really began with > the 'call of the 200', which was a document signed by 200 people coming > from different parts of the left, including movements, trade unions, > parties, etc. That spearheaded the formation of collectives all over > France. Now there are between 800 and 900 grassroots collectives at the > departmental level, city level, or sometimes even smaller. These > collectives have been organising debates all over the country. I have been > in debates ranging from 100 to 5000 participants. The right gets nowhere > near these kind of crowds. > > EW: At the start of our campaign we wanted to involve social movements and > NGOs. Our idea was to form a kind of platform as we had done at the time > of the 1997 counter-summit, the European summit from below, but we found > out that none of the NGOs was ready to take a real position on the > constitution. In particular, they were afraid to publicly opt for the no > side. So basically it was impossible for us to form that kind of > coalition. > > We then decided to focus on influencing the terms of the debate. We began > by writing articles on the constitution ourselves, and we also asked some > people from different political origins, for example from the Social > Democrat party and the Green party, to do the same. So, we even have > pieces written by members of parties that support the yes vote, plus > content analysis and criticisms of the constitution gathered in one book. > We also produced other kind of materials, such as a brochure in which we > outline our main objections against the constitution. And I think that has > been very important, because from the right-wing side there has been no > good content, there has been almost no content, and I think that has been > a great advantage for us. > > SG: We have produced a lot of materials. Books about the constitution are > best-sellers. ATTAC produced a little book with a picture of Chirac > together with Francois Roland, who is the general secretary of the > Socialist party, on the cover of a popular weekly called Match. The > headline was 'they said yes to each other.' You know, it looks like a gay > wedding, and we have a picture of them ice-skating together and they say > yes to each other. In this booklet we answered all the arguments of the > Socialist party and the centre-right UMP. This sold 38,000 copies in the > first week. Then we brought out another book which explains the > Constitution step by step. > > Not every criticism of the constitution comes from the progressive camp. > What other political forces are supporting the no vote? > > EW: Part of the right is mobilising around this issue, and they have been > campaigning for the no as well, but until now it's amazing that we have > been able to get more media coverage than them. Until this week it was > basically only our voice that was arguing for a no vote in the media. Now > Geert Wilders, a right-wing populist politician, is touring with a bus, so > that generates some media attention for him, but still it's impossible for > the government to say that if you oppose the constitution then you must be > a right-wing xenophobe. > > SG: I think the yes side is the one advocating a pure and hardline > neo-liberalism. It's about taking Europe into an American model in which > there is little social protection, and there is competition of everybody > against everybody. Public services would be hugely downgraded, free > education and free health could be very seriously hit. So the yes side is > really offering an American model of competition, in which it's the market > that decides and there is very little politics. The people will be > dispossessed of the possibility to decide much of anything. > > The European Left is divided around this issue. Why are some political > parties supporting the yes vote? > > EW: In The Netherlands the Green Left party says yes to the constitution. > So the only left party campaigning for a no vote is the Socialist party. > > The Green party argues that although this is not an ideal treaty, it makes > some progress in terms of improving democracy at the EU level. Their > evaluation is also that, within the current political context, if you have > a renegotiation there is little chance that anything better will come out. > They are saying that the treaty will make Europe better at dealing with > unemployment, that it contains lots of improvements on environmental > policy, etc. We think that these claims are very questionable, but that's > their line of argument. > > SG: I see a lot of similarities between The Netherlands and France. The > Socialists had an internal party referendum and the leadership came out > long ago for the yes (it was about 60-40). The result is that the > Socialists are now split, because two major figures in the party > leadership have come out for the no. One is the former prime minister > Laurent Fabius, and another, Henri Emmanuelli, leads a tendency which is > the furthest to the left. The party leadership has accused them of playing > the game of the far-right fascists, and they have been insulted and > vilified by their own party. This does not go down too well with the rank > and file. In every poll, more than 50 per cent of people who identify > themselves as Socialists say they will vote no. The same thing goes for > the Greens. > > How do you respond to arguments defending the alleged progressive aspects > of the Constitution? > > SG: Part one of the constitution is about the distribution of power and > also contains the military clauses. It says very clearly that NATO is > going to be the major component of the defence of states which belong to > the EU. That's in part one, but still the European Parliament does not > have the power to initiate legislation or to raise taxes, and it has none > of the powers of a normal parliament in a normal country. > > Part two is the fundamental charter of rights. Many people have problems > with this, particularly in France, because it's regressive compared to the > French constitution and to other constitutions that have been written > since the 18th century, including the initial declaration of the rights of > men and women. One of the clauses of the charter, for instance, says you > have the right to look for a job but not that you have the right to work. > Work is not treated as a fundamental right. But the right to work is the > basic grounding of unemployment compensation, so this is a very serious > regression. There are others. Many women feel that the simple mention that > 'everyone has the right to life' without any mention of women's gains in > various countries is a serious omission, and feel that this section was so > worded because in various countries, including Portugal and Ireland, there > is no right to control over fertility, abortion, etc. > > There are various other things that seem regressive to us and at the end > of the charter it states 'this creates no new tasks or obligations for the > EU and any court decision about it is not a claimable right.' In other > words, court decisions cannot enforce claimable rights. They can only > decide whether the constitution is being applied or not. > > EW: Our main argument is basically the democracy argument, so in response > to what the Green party is saying we acknowledge that there are some small > improvements, such as the fact that European Parliament in getting a bit > more say over EU policies in some fields. Transparency in the Council of > Ministers will be slightly improved as well. But - there's always a 'but' > going with these improvements - if you talk about transparency in the > Council you must consider that most of the Council decisions are prepared > in committees. The almost a thousand committees that exist today will > remain as un-transparent as they are now. There's absolutely no scrutiny > about what they are doing, and that situation will not be changed by the > constitution. > > The European Parliament has over the years got more powers, but still you > cannot compare it with your national parliament. The first thing is that > there are no real parties: there are groups in the EU Parliament which > some people think are parties, like the Social Democrats or the Christian > Democrat group, but these do not really function as parties, they are just > a conglomerate of national fractions which operate under an umbrella. > There have been some attempts by the Greens, for example, to create a > European Green party, but those are very provisional. So in that sense we > have a very peculiar kind of politics, and it's even more peculiar because > you don't have a government with a political party composition. Each > country nominates its own Commissioner and the Commission behaves as a > kind of government, but you don't have the normal dynamics between > governing parties and opposition parties that you'd see in a > representative democracy. > > SG: We also use the argument of democracy and the fact that economic > policies are instruments that should not be in a constitutional document. > There is a double executive proposed in the constitution: one is the > Commission, which is defined as the only entity which can define the > common good, that's its job. And then there is a single president, who is > elected for a renewable term of two and a half years. But that seems to be > a recipe for in-fighting between two different sources of executive power. > In other words, they get rid of the six-months rotating presidency, where > it can go to Finland and then to Greece, and then to Ireland and so on. So > they get rid of that, which may be a good thing, but in a way which > doesn't seem to be very productive. > > Overall, though, our argument comes back to neo-liberalism. When the > constitution was handed by the convention to the heads of states and > governments, their additions and subtractions made it even more > neo-liberal than it was when it came out of the hands of the convention. > Perhaps that reflects the governments of Europe as they are today. But it > becomes a problem because it is extremely difficult to change this > constitution. As the 1793 French constitution says, 'One generation should > not subject future generations to its laws.' > > People who have actually read the text of the constitution almost always > come out of this difficult exercise determined to vote against it, despite > the official financial and media propaganda for the yes vote, which says > 'its more democratic than what we had'. > > If we lose the vote in France it will be a historic defeat. But I have > faith in the intelligence of the French people and I think we can win. > > Edited by Daniel Chavez, with additional editing by Oscar Reyes > From apbrison at hotmail.com Tue Jun 7 04:01:59 2005 From: apbrison at hotmail.com (allan brison) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 04:01:59 -0400 Subject: {news} Millstone Rally - Thursday Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Thu Jun 9 07:40:56 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 07:40:56 -0400 Subject: {news} remember: Sun/6/12, Danbury Immigrant Rights March--Important for Green Party to Show up [wear Green buttons] Message-ID: <02c401c56ce8$19b67e90$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: Stan H To: New Haven Greens Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:07 PM Subject: Important for Green Party to Show up [wear Green buttons] Danbury Immigrant Rights March Start: Sun, 06/12/2005 - 14:00 DANBURY UNITY MARCH for solidarity, tolerance and respect for diversity Sunday, June 12th 2:00 pm Kennedy Park Corner of Main St. & Elm St. Let's show the world that Danbury is one community united by love, respect and celebration of our diversity! ? This will be a respectful, peaceful, silent march. ? You can bring a flag from your country of origin (no larger than 8.5 x 11 inches!). ? Please wear a WHITE t-shirt to share in the spirit of peace. ? To avoid congestion, please share a ride or walk to Kennedy Park. ? Signs and other banners must be pre-approved by DACORIM. For more information go to www.dacorim.com or contact DANBURY AREA COALITION FOR THE RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS at 203-702-1443 or at info at dacorim.com Or Contact Stacey at SEIU 203-733-0173 Est?s invitado a la MARCHA POR LA UNIDAD DE DANBURY por solidaridad, tolerancia y respeto a la diversidad ?Mostr?mosle al mundo que Danbury es una comunidad unida por el amor, el respeto y la celebraci?n de nuestra diversidad! ? Esta ser? una marcha respetuosa, pac?fica y silenciosa. ? Puedes traer una bandera de tu pa?s natal (?no m?s grande de 8.5 por 11 pulgadas!). ? Por favor ponte una camiseta BLANCA para compartir el esp?ritu de paz. ? Para evitar el congestionamiento de autos, por favor comparte tu carro con alguien o camina al Kennedy Park. ? Avisos y pancartas para la marcha deben ser pre-aprobadas por DACORIM. Para m?s informaci?n ve a www.dacorim.com o contacta a la COALICI?N PRO-DERECHOS DE LOS INMIGRANTES EN EL ?REA DE DANBURY al 203-702-1443 o a info at dacorim.com Why are we marching? 4 Goals 1- Because we want Governor Rell, Congresswoman Johnson and Mayor Boughton to publicly retract the call to deputize police 2- Because we want our government to recognize our contribution to this community. 3- Because we want to live free of threats of persecution 4- Because we want the community united by solidarity and respect. ?Por qu? estamos marchando? 4 Puntos: 1- Porque queremos que el Gobernador Rell, la Congresista Johnson y el Alcalde Boughton retracten p?blicamente el llamado de la polic?a para que actu?n como agentes de inmigraci?n. 2- Porque queremos que nuestro gobierno reconozca nuestra contribuci?n a esta comunidad. 3- Porque queremos vivir libres de amenazas de persecuci?n. 4- Porque queremos la comunidad unida por la solidaridad y respeto. By Aldon Hynes at 06/01/2005 - 16:45 | add new comment | calendar | trackback url -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From capeconn at comcast.net Thu Jun 9 14:43:50 2005 From: capeconn at comcast.net (Tom Sevigny) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:43:50 -0400 Subject: {news} GP press release Message-ID: <001601c56d23$827d4d60$a3970218@sevigny8wcbjrd> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 9, 2005 1:26 PM CONTACT: Green Party of the United States Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty at greens.org Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, nallen at acadia.net Green Party: Impeach Bush Now! The Downing Street Memo proves that invasion of Iraq wasn't the 'last resort' but Bush's intent all along, leading to cooked intelligence and other impeachable offenses; Greens note bipartisan and media complicity in overlooking evidence of deceit, urge public protest WASHINGTON -- June 9 - Green leaders reiterated the party's July 2003 call for impeachment of Bush, and called on all Americans outraged by the Bush Administration's list of deceptions, violations of the U.S. Constitution, the disastrous Iraq occupation, and policies that have disgraced the U.S. to demand that Congress begin the impeachment process. "The invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused the deaths of over 1,600 U.S. military personnel, as well as untold suffering and tens of thousands of civilian dead in Iraq," said David Cobb, the Green Party's 2004 candidate for President of the United States. "The Downing Street Memo confirms what we already knew -- that a conspiracy to deceive the American people led us into the war, and that this conspiracy constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors' according to the U.S. Constitution." The Green Party of the United States called for the impeachment of George W. Bush during the party's 2003 national meeting . Greens have organized and participated in numerous protests against the war since early 2003, and have called for an immediate end to the occupation, cancellation of further war spending, and removal of military recruiters from schools as U.S. troops continue to face death and injury in Iraq. Greens praised Rep. John Conyers' (D-Mich.) public demand for an explanation from President Bush in the wake of Downing Street Memo's publication, and questioned why so many of the mainstream U.S. media have remained silent on the content and implications of the memo. But Greens also called many Democrats as responsible as Republicans for Iraq policy, having voted in October 2002 to transfer war power to the President, which created the scenario for White House deceit and abuse of power, and having recently voted for another $82 billion for the war. "It was already apparent, long before the Downing Street Memo, that President Bush's case for invading Iraq was based on fraud," said Rebecca Rotzler, co-chair of the Green Party's Peace Action Committee. "All of the reasons for invasion that Mr. Bush listed in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address -- Iraqi WMDs, collusion between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, evidence that Saddam had sought nuclear weapons materials from Africa, nuclear aluminum rods, Iraq's supposed threat to the U.S. and to other nations -- are now known to be false. The Downing Street Memo shows that the intelligence supporting an invasion was fixed, with the complicity of the Bush and Blair administrations as early as July 2002." Green Party leaders also noted that Ahmed Chalabi, whose false testimony to U.S. intelligence officials on Iraqi WMDs formed much of the basis of the claim that Saddam Hussein was an iternational threat, is now serving as interim Iraqi Oil Minister, with the Bush Administration's approval; and that John Bolton, now under consideration for appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., repeatedly manipulated intelligence and lied to the U.S. media and the U.N. about Iraqi weapons materials. "Americans should be protesting in every way possible against the continued occupation of Iraq, and for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney," said Jake Schneider, treasurer of the Green Party of the United States. "But this has also been a bipartisan war all along, and every Democrat and Republican in Congress who has supported it despite evidence of deceit from the very beginning also deserves removal from office." For More Information Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20009. 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN Fax 202-319-7193 Green Party Peace Action Committee "The 'I' word" By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese The Boston Globe, May 31, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_\i_word/ Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes" From Rep. John Conyers http://www.johnconyers.com "Hold Bush Accountable If He Lied About Iraq" By Mark Dunlea (Green Party of New York State) The Albany Times Union, July 9, 2003 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0709-04.htm ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Fri Jun 10 22:29:06 2005 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:29:06 -0400 Subject: {news} Notes for recent SCC and EC meeting Message-ID: <20050611022910.KID11036.lakermmtao01.cox.net@BarbaraBarry> Dear CT Greens: Here are the minutes for the April 26, 2004 SCC meeting and the minutes for the Executive committee meeting of 5/23/05. Barbara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes of April 26,2005 SCC meeting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 72704 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CTGP 5-23-05 Executive Committee Meeting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 32256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Sat Jun 11 23:38:01 2005 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:38:01 -0400 Subject: {news} June Executive Meeting Mon. June 13, 2005 7PM Hamden Government Center Message-ID: <20050612033803.HDTB28809.lakermmtao07.cox.net@BarbaraBarry> The EC meeting will be held from 7-9PM @ Hamden Government Center in the 3rd floor meeting room on Monday June 13,2003. Directions are below. agenda items: * CTGP re-orientation/re-org * Basecamp subscription * SCC agenda (standing) * next EC meeting time/place (standing) DIRECTIONS ================================================================= >From North (Hartford) I 91 South to Exit 10. Merge right into Exit 1. Take a left at the light off the exit, a left at the next traffic light (onto Hartford Turnpike) and a right at the next traffic light (onto Dixwell Avenue). Travel down Dixwell Avenue for approximately 1 1/2 miles to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Route 15 South (Wilbur Cross Parkway): Exit 62. Left onto Whitney Avenue. North on Whitney approximately 0.3 miles to intersection with Dixwell Avenue. Left on Dixwell Ave. Proceed 1/2 mile to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. >From South (New York) I-91 North to Exit 10. Merge right into Exit 1. Take a left at the light off the exit, a left at the next traffic light (onto Hartford Turnpike) and a right at the next traffic light (onto Dixwell Avenue). Travel down Dixwell Avenue for approximately 1 1/2 miles to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Route 15 North (Meritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway)to Exit 61. Right onto Whitney Avenue. North on Whitney approximately 0.3 miles to intersection with Dixwell Avenue. Left on Dixwell Ave. Proceed 1/2 mile to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Thanks, Barbara Barry DeRosa From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 14 00:34:29 2005 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:34:29 -0400 Subject: {news} proposal to reimburse Chris Reilly for rent payments Message-ID: <00b001c5709a$624f3600$89fbf504@edgn2b574u14bi> I have already e-mailed this proposal (which I wrote) to many State Central Committee members, but I figured I'd post it to the News (and Forum) listserves as well, so that people within the Party could discuss it and comment on it. It is attached to this e-mail and pasted below. Please do not comment on this proposal on the News listerve--use the Forum listerve instead. (To join the Forum listserve, go to www.ctgreens.org and click on "listserves" at the top left of the home page.) Alternatively, you can send comments to me (edubrule at sbcglobal.net). I'm hoping to find cosponsors (individuals or chapters) of this proposal and to have it considered by the July or August SCC meeting. --Ed DuBrule ------------------------------------------------------ Green Party Meeting Proposal Form PRESENTER: cosponsors being sought CONTACT: Ed DuBrule, 39 Outlook Ave, West Hartford CT 06119-1432, 860-523-4016, edubrule at sbcglobal.net SUBJECT: Reimbursement of Chris Reilly for rent payments he made BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The SCC on 11/14/2000 agreed that the Hartford chapter would pay half the rent and half the utillities of the Hartford office, and that the CTGP would pay the other half of the rent and utilities. (The April 2004 SCC meeting decided that the CTGP will no longer pay half the rent and utilities of the office.) In 2003-4, during the period when Bruce Crowder was treasurer, Chris Reilly paid $2,650 of his own money to the landlord of the Hartford office, New Britain Ave. Real Estate, LLC. The reasons Chris made these payments have been explained in the minutes of the August 2004 and October 2004 SCC meetings, written by secretary Ed DuBrule (Appendices 1 and 2). In e-mails to Ed dated 9/8/04 and 11/7/04, Chris Reilly stated that these minutes extracts are accurate. Bruce also commented on the accuracy of the August SCC minutes extract, saying, in part, "This seems fairly accurate, except that I don't think I ever 'asked' Chris to cover any bills. More like he offered and I agreed, but that's not an important distinction." Bruce's complete comments are in Appendix 3. (Ed did not request that Bruce comment on the accuracy of the October SCC minutes extract.) The dates and amounts of Chris' rent payments are in Appendix 4. In brief, the reasons why Chris chose to pay the landlord from his own pocket are: (1) For months previously Chris had handled the rent payments. (2) There were problems transitioning from the former treasurer (Chris Nelson) to Bruce. Among these problems were an inability of Bruce to write checks because he hadn't gotten the Party's checkbook and because of problems with bank paperwork. (3) Often in the past Greens had spent thousands of dollars of their own money and had been reimbursed later by the CTGP. (4) Chris expected that the CTGP would send out an annual fundraising letter to thousands of Connecticut Greens, as in past years, and that this letter would bring in many thousands of dollars, as in past years, enough to reimburse him. (Despite this expectation, a fundraising letter to only 1000 Greens was sent out, many months after Chris had made most of his rent payments, and it netted only at most $500.) In past years about $2,000 in postage and printing costs had been required to send out the annual fundraising appeal, and one reason Chris paid the rent was so that the CTGP checking account balance could be preserved and used for these costs. (When Bruce took over as treasurer, the CTGP checking account held only $2000 or less.) Six of the seven rent payments made by Chris were made in the period April 2003 through September 2003. One additional payment toward the rent was made by Chris in March 2004; Chris explained this payment as follows: The GP/CT, for whatever reason (perhaps financial?) only sent a check for $350. Because the rent was $500, I needed to make up the difference with $150 of my own money". [E-mail response to Ed, 5/27/05.] During 2003-4 Chris also paid money from his own pocket to cover CTGP envelopes, postage, printing, and domain name registration expenses. The October SCC decided to reimburse Chris for these expenses at a rate of $74.24 per month over twelve months. PROPOSAL: (A) The SCC should state that the CTGP will pay back Chris for the entire amount of the rent payments he made ($2,650). (B) Payments from the CTGP to Chris for the rent expenses should start at the rate of $75.00 per month when the twelve monthly payments of $74.24 for the postage and other expenses have been finished. The $75 monthly payments should continue without interruption until the entire rent-associated expenditures of $2,650 have been paid to Chris, except that if the financial status of the CTGP improves the SCC may decide to increase the monthly payment amount to Chris. Appendix 5 discusses the question of the Hartford chapter's financial responsibilities in this matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 1. Minutes extract of August 2004 SCC meeting. 3. Budget (Appendix 5) (a) Budget item relating to unreimbursed expenditures made by Chris Reilly. One line of the proposed budget is payment of $900 to Chris Reilly. Chris distributed a handout (available from the Secretary) showing amounts he spent from his personal funds which were never reimbursed. The budget entry says "this is partial re-payment; balance to be repaid in future budget years". The handout begins with a check for $800, paid by Chris to the landlord of the Hartford office on 4/1/03 for April and May rent. It includes 5 other rent checks paid to the landlord of the Hartford office ranging from $150 to $500. The sum of the rent checks is $2650. The handout also includes 10 checks, ranging from $6.29 to $370, for envelopes, postage, and printing; these ten checks sum to $855.82. Finally, the handout includes one check for $35 for domain registration renewal for the CTGP website. The sum of the rent checks, envelopes/postage/printing checks, and domain name check is $3,540.82, and Chris is requesting reimbursement from the CTGP of this amount. The last check on the handout was written 3/12/04. Chris explained how these unreimbursed expenses had come about. He said that the November 2000 SCC meeting had decided that the state Party should pay half the office rent and utilities; he was one of two people at this meeting to vote against this decision. He was Party treasurer for several years and had gotten in the habit of paying the rent. Bruce Crowder became treasurer as a result of the February 2003 internal elections. There were problems transitioning from the former treasurer (Chris Nelson) to Bruce. Among these problems were "problems with the accounts" and an inability of Bruce to write checks because he hadn't gotten the Party's checkbook. Bruce, Chris continued, asked Chris to pay the rent. Chris described how for several years he did the bulk of the work in getting the annual CTGP fundraising letters out. These letters had cost, each year, about $2000 in printing, postage, and related expenses. Greens had donated, as a result of these mailings, about $8000 each of these years, for a net gain to the Party of about $6000 each year. During the period May to September 2003, the SCC repeatedly affirmed that it wanted a fundraising letter to go out, as in previous years. Chris continued to pay the office rent out of his personal funds, expecting that he would be reimbursed from the proceeds of the fundraising letter. The fundraising letter finally went out in September 2003; the handout includes, as noted above, expenditures Chris made for envelopes/postage/printing for this mailing. [Note from the secretary: it appears, from the dates on the handout, that Chris also spent money for envelopes/postage/printing for the mailing associated with the March 2004 internal elections.] Chris said that he stopped paying the rent when proceeds from the fundraising letter came in to the Party. Lynah asked if the Executive Committee during this time (co-chairs Tom Sevigny, Justine McCabe, and Mike DeRosa; Bruce as treasurer; Ed DuBrule as secretary) had known of these facts. Tom said that Bruce never informed that Executive Committee of this situation. Justine said that she hadn't known of this situation. Elizabeth Horton Sheff pointed out that Chris said that Bruce had asked Chris to pay the rent. Elizabeth believes that expenditures authorized by a treasurer are legally binding on a Party. Chris said he agreed with the latter statement; the state Party is therefore responsible for reimbursing him. Justine pointed out that the SCC had agreed to pay only half the office rent and half the office utilities--how does that affect this situation? Chris pointed out that the Hartford chapter should have gotten 30% of the proceeds from the fundraising letter. Justine said that it would be desirable for Bruce Crowder to come to an SCC meeting to explain what happened. Chris pointed out that Bruce used to report chapter balances to the SCC, including the large negative Hartford chapter balance which related to this situation. Lindsay and Jean asked why Bruce hadn't reimbursed Chris from the proceeds of the September 2003 fundraising letter. Ed DuBrule pointed out that the proceeds of that fundraising letter were much smaller than previous fundraising letters. (Ed attributed this, in part, to Chris not being involved in many of the details of getting the letter out in 2003--others Greens merged chapters' mailing lists and made the arrangements for postage and printing, details that in the past Chris had handled.) (Ed and Chris spoke of many bags of bad-address envelopes returned from that mailing; per the mailing plan selected with the post office, each of these bad-address envelopes required the Party to pay a 92 cents fee to the post office.) Chris agreed with Ed that over time the quality of our mailing lists have deteriorated. Ed said that the Executive Committee, at its August 2004 meeting, had spoken of a desire to get the 2004 fundraising letter out the third week in September. He wondered if that was a realistic goal, in view of the deterioration in quality of the mailing lists. Tom noted that last month the SCC passed a set of financial policies for the CTGP and that the SCC at tonight's meeting was discussing a budget. The CTGP has never had such financial policies before, nor a budget; these deficiencies may have allowed the situation of Chris' unreimbursed expenditures to arise. Elizabeth Horton Sheff said that in her opinion Chris should be reimbursed, for both legal reasons and because he acted with the best interests of the CTGP in mind. She hoped that the issue of whether or not to reimburse Chris would not become reduced down to the legal issue of whether Bruce had approved each check written by Chris from his personal funds. Elizabeth Brancato said that it is the opinion of the Executive Committee that this is a true debt owed to Chris. Elizabeth also said that Bob, our current treasurer, has done excellent work; he should be protected from any legal issues arising from the failure of the CTGP to reimburse Chris. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 2. Minutes extract of October 2004 SCC meeting. Unreimbursed expenditures of Chris Reilly. The Executive Committee requested that Chris make a presentation to the SCC tonight on his unreimbursed expenditures. During his presentation, Chris responded to the questions raised in the Women's Caucus proposal on those unreimbursed expenditures (Appendix 1). That proposal includes the following questions: "1) why Chris Reilly, founder of the GPC and former treasurer, did not communicate the presence of the loans to at least two of the co-chairs (Tom and Justine), despite his obvious knowledge of GPC process; "2) why Chris wasn't repaid (if the loans were regarded as short-term and 'informal' by Bruce and Chris) once there was income from a fundraising letter; "3) why half of the rent for the Hartford office wasn't paid by the Hartford chapter, even if the SCC half was paid through a loan from Chris." Chris passed out an Excel spreadsheet listing expenditures he made and for which he has not been reimbursed. The spreadsheet lists 17 expenditures; the earliest is dated 4/1/03 and the latest is dated 3/12/04. Six of the expenditures are rent payments for the Hartford office. The rent payments range from $150 to $800 and total $2,650. Ten of the expenditures are for envelopes, postage, or printing. They range from $6.29 to $370 and total $855.82. Finally, there is a $35 check made out to Network Solutions for domain registration renewal for the CTGP website. The total of the unreimbursed expenditures is $3540.82. Chris passed around, for viewing by all SCC attendees, a cancelled check, cash register receipt from OfficeMax, receipt from the US Postal Service, or similar documentation for each of the seventeen entries on the spreadsheet. Tim, the facilitator, asked if any attendees had any questions relating to the receipts and cancelled checks that Chris had passed around--no one did. Chris said that the November 14, 2000 SCC meeting had decided that the state party would pay half the rent and half the utilities for the Hartford office. At this time the rent was $400 per month. For months after that the CTGP treasurer wrote a check for the entire rent for the office and made an accounting entry for the Hartford chapter's half of the rent (this accounting entry was made in the Hartford chapter's "setaside" account, also known as the "chapter balance"). During this period Chris sent the treasurer a reminder that the rent was coming due, the treasurer sent Chris the check, and Chris brought the check to the landlord. Then in February 2003 Bruce Crowder was elected treasurer. In early April 2003 Chris learned from Bruce that the rent hadn't been paid for two months. Due to problems with bank paperwork, Bruce had been unable to sign CTGP checks. Bruce agreed that Chris should pay two months' rent ($800--March and April), and Chris did this. Later the landlord informed Chris that they had received a $400 check from Chris Nelson, the former treasurer, so that the $800 paid by Chris became rent for April and May. Chris straightened out the problems at the bank with the paperwork. Chris said that in 2000 the CTGP had raised over $25,000, including nearly $9,000 from the annual fundraising letter. In 2001 almost $15,000 had been raised, including close to $10,000 from the letter. But in 2002, after Chris had stopped being treasurer, a fundraising letter did not go out. Thus in early 2003, when Bruce took over the treasurer position, the party checking account held only $2000 or less. It required about $2,000 in postage and printing costs to mail the annual letter, so Chris proposed paying the office rent for a month so that CTGP funds could be used for the mailing. Some progress was made toward putting together the maiing--Ed Savage worked on merging the chapters' lists. The next month Chris e-mailed Bruce and again offered to pay the office rent. Chris distributed an excerpt from the minutes of the 7/21/03 Executive Committee meeting. Chris' handout included, in part, the following: 5. Hiring of staffperson(s). A proposal submitted by Tim McKee to the Executive Committee is appended .... The Executive Committee will need to write a job description ... Due to the Connecticut Green Party's low bank account balance, it would make sense to hire this person, perhaps, as an independent contractor, though reservations were expressed as to whether progressive organizations should be using independent contractors .... The Executive Committee would post the position opening/job description .... The Executive Committee would interview candidates and make a recommendation as to hiring to the SCC. ... A proposal will be submitted by the Executive Committee to the July SCC meeting. 6. Fundraising. The annual fundraising letter (sent out in September last year) might bring in $2500 (a guesstimate). Perhaps, because of the low bank account balance of the Connecticut Green Party, postage could be spent on sending the letter initially to 1000 names. With donations received from this initial mailing, the rest of the names could be mailed to. Or a loan from a Party member could be sought for postage costs. Chapters should be encouraged to hold fundraisers, sharing revenues with the state. Chris pointed out, in particular, the sentence above which reads "Or a loan from a Party member could be sought for postage costs." Chris distributed an excerpt from the minutes of the June 24, 2003 SCC meeting. The attendees at that meeting included all members of the Executive Committee (co-chairs Mike DeRosa, Tom Sevigny, and Justine McCabe; secretary Ed DuBrule, and treasurer Bruce Crowder). Chris' handout included, in part, the following: 5 Treasurer's report. The Party bank account has holds $2,200; $1200 is owed in debt. In a typical month, there is $400 in operating expenses but only $300 comes in. Chris said that the $1,200 owed in debt referred to the rent payments he had made thus far. At this meeting, much to Chris' embarrassment, Mike publicly thanked Chris for paying the rent. Other minutes from this period also mention a debt in the Treasurer's report, Chris said, though a calculation may need to be made. Tom read the Treasurer's report in one of those minutes. Eventually a mailing was done to 1000 names. It had a poor financial return. It raised at most $1500 but cost nearly $1000 to do. No follow-up mailing was done. Therefore Chris did not ask for reimbursement at this time. Bob Eaton was elected treasurer in March 2004. By this time the office rent had risen to $500 per month. One of the rent checks on Chris' spreadsheet is for $150--Bob wrote a check for $350 and Chris wrote a check for $150. Ed DuBrule said that he had sent an e-mail to Bruce a few days ago, asking if Bruce could come to tonight's meeting, but received no reply. Bruce had told the Executive Committee previously that he is now very busy with graduate school and a new job. Ed said that he has multiple copies of an e-mail from Bruce relating to these matters which he could distribute. Question 1 above asks "why Chris Reilly ... did not communicate the presence of the loans to at least two of the co-chairs (Tom and Justine), despite his obvious knowledge of GPC process". Chris said there has never been clear process in the CT Green Party; there has been talk of putting together a policy-and-procedures manual, but no one has ever done it. (Elizabeth reminded us that the July 2004 SCC meeting passed a proposal on financial management.) Chris pointed out that he worked with the treasurer, Bruce, in these matters. Andy asked if Mike and Ed, who had been on the Executive Committee during these events, had known about Chris' spending his own money. Mike said that he had been generally aware of the situation. Ed said that he had been aware that there was a problem involving Chris' spending his own money, though he hadn't understood the details. Lynah said that the Executive Committee had failed in its responsibility to inform the SCC of the situation. Mike said that often in the past Greens spent thousands of dollars and were reimbursed later by the Connecticut Green Party. Chris agreed with this statement. Question 3 above asks " why half of the rent for the Hartford office wasn't paid by the Hartford chapter, even if the SCC half was paid through a loan from Chris." Chris said again that the Hartford chapter's share of the rent was paid for (in some sense) by an accounting entry in the "setasides" account (Hartford chapter balance). The Hartford chapter balance is now large and negative. Chris further noted that per an SCC decision, 30% of donations made to the CTGP are sent back to the chapter of the donor--the failure during 2003 to do a fundraising mailing which included Hartford chapter members had left the Hartford chapter low on funds. Chris said he hoped that a successful annual mailing could be done soon. He said, however, that he was concerned about the condition of the mailing list. The facilitator asked if the secretary could put into the minutes that Chris had addressed all the questions in the Women's Caucus proposal to the best of his ability. There were no objections to this request. Elizabeth said that the intention of the Executive Committee was that Chris should not have to spend his time at future SCC meetings addressing this issue; the hope was that all questions chapter members had could be addressed tonight. Chris had also explained the unreimbursed expenses at the August 2004 SCC meeting. The meeting turned to the proposal from the Executive Committee on partial repayment of Chris (Appendix 2). Mike, Ed DuBrule, and Elizabeth explained that this proposal divided Chris' unreimbursed expenses into two categories: expenses related to the rent payments for the Hartford office, and other expenses (envelopes, postage, printing, and website domain name registration). The Executive Committee feels that consensus may be reachable tonight on repaying Chris the "other expenses"; more discussion among SCC members and chapter members may be needed before consensus is reached on reimbursing Chris for the rent-related expenses. This proposal totals the "other expenses" ($890.82--see proposal) and proposes paying back Chris this amount at the rate of $74.24 per month for twelve months. SCC DECISION: By consensus the SCC passed this proposal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 3. Bruce Crower's comments on the minutes extract of the August SCC meeting: e-mail from Bruce to Executive Committee members sent 9/16/04: Hi Ed. This seems fairly accurate, except that I don't think I ever "asked" Chris to cover any bills. More like he offered and I agreed, but that's not an important distinction. I think it was awfully considerate of him to do this. I would agree with EHS that these were authorized expenses -- authorized by the chapter -- and we have a commitment to reimburse Chris. I'm pretty sure we did discuss this at exec meetings and I know at least Tom was aware of the situation but perhaps my memory fails me. One thing to note is that half of the rent for the office comes from the Hartford Chapter. At some point after I took the rent payments back over from Chris, I began the practice of only paying the SCC portion because the Hartford's balance was in the red. If Chris covered the rest of those particular payments out of his pocket, it seems to me that he should get his reimbursement from the Hartford chapter. If the Hartford chapter cannot reimburse him for those payments, then the SCC may decide to increase the Hartford debt to the SCC by that amount. I'd say the chances of me coming to an SCC meeting are pretty small. I just started graduate school and a new job and any spare time I devote beyond that comes out of my sleep. Hope things are going well. -Bruce On Sep 13, 2004, at 9:40 PM, edubrule wrote: > Hi Bruce: how are you?--long time no see! The SCC is now considering > a one-year budget for the CTGP--one line of that proposed budget would > pay back $900 to Chris Reilly for unreimbursed expenses. Future > years' budgets would pay off the rest of Chris' unreimbursed expenses. > Over the past couple of months, the Executive Committee > (Elizabeth Horton Sheff, Elizabeth Brancato, Mike DeRosa, Bob Eaton, > and I) has set aside time to learn about the circumstances of Chris > having spent so much money without being reimbursed. We asked Chris > to submit the details of those unreimbursed expenses--he submitted a > spreadsheet (attached to this e-mail.) We have concluded that > we believe that Chris be should be reimbursed the entire amount > ($3540.82). One reason we believe this is because we believe that > expenses authorized by a political party's treasurer are legally > binding on the party. > This issue was discussed, as part of the discussion on the > proposed budget, at the August SCC meeting. A section of my minutes > for that meeting--not yet "published"--is pasted below. During that > SCC meeting I proposed that Chris explain the circumstances of his > expenditures, and Chris and the SCC agreed that Chris should make that > explanation. We, the Executive Committee, feel that it is proper that > you should be given the opportunity to comment on what Chris said and > what I have written. Further, we ask that you do submit written > comments on what Chris said (e-mail response fine); we propose to > bring those comments to the SCC, as information related to the > decision to be made by the SCC as to whether the budget should include > $900 to begin reimbursing Chris. Chris reviewed the minutes extract > below and said that they are an accurate representation of what he > said at the SCC meeting. > I believe you have had some discussion of these matters with Bob > (860-379-0632). I'm sure he'd be willing to talk further with you, as > would I (860-523-4016). I have cc'd this e-mail to the members of the > Executive Committee, and to Chris. > I hope to "publish" my minutes later this week. They are long > overdue (they're supposed to be published within one week of the > 8/31/04 SCC meeting). The September SCC meeting will be, as usual, > the last Tuesday of the month (9/28/04); we plan to hold it in > Middletown or Portland (location still being worked out). > --Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 4. CTGP finances during the period Chris made the rent payments from his own funds. [Word file created from Excel file month-by-month 2003-4 rents payments.xls.] month rent charged Chris paid Hartford chapter paid CTGP paid Sheff campaign paid Totals charged to Hartford chapter balance A B C D E F G H Apr-03 $400 $400 0 0 0 $400 0 May-03 400 400 0 0 0 400 0 Jun-03 400 400 0 0 0 400 0 Jul-03 400 400 0 0 0 400 0 Aug-03 400 400 0 0 0 400 0 Sep-03 500 500 0 0 0 500 0 Oct-03 500 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 500 Nov-03 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dec-03 500 0 0 500 1000 1,500 250 Jan-04 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feb-04 500 0 0 350 100 450 100 Mar-04 500 150 0 0 0 150 0 Totals 5,500 2,650 0 1,850 1,100 5,600 850 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 5--the question of the Hartford chapter's financial responsibilities in this matter. During consideration by the SCC of this proposal, questions about the Hartford chapter's responsibility for repaying Chris all or part of the $2,650 will undoubtedly discussed. At least two approaches to the issue of the Hartford chapter's financial responsibility are possible: (1) One view is that Chris' rent payments were authorized by the CTGP treasurer (Bruce), and that expenditures authorized by a treasurer are legally binding on a Party. (2) A second view might be that since the Hartford chapter was supposed to pay half the rent each month, perhaps the Hartford chapter should be held responsible for paying Chris half the $2,650, with the CTGP responsible for the other half. $1,100 was contributed to the office rent during the period April 2003-March 2004 by the Elizabeth Horton Sheff campaign for Hartford City Council. (The Sheff campaign made use of the office.) (See table in Appendix 3.) If viewpoint (2) is adopted, how (if at all) does this $1,100 contribution alter the amount that the Hartford chapter should pay Chris? The concept of a "chapter balance" (also known as a "chapter setaside account") arose from an SCC decision that when a donation is made to the CTGP (at least in response to an annual fundraising letter) 30% of the donation should be given back to the chapter in whose geographic territory the donor resides. Chapter balances arose when these donations were not immediately distributed to the chapters; in this case the chapter balances were considered positive (the CTGP owes the chapter money). When the Hartford chapter failed to pay its half of the rent on many occasions, the rent was paid from CTGP funds, with an accounting entry made debiting the Hartford chapter balance for the amount of the rent it owed. (At least this is the way the system worked in theory; as column H in the table in Appendix 4 shows, during the period April 2003 through March 2004 the debits to the Hartford chapter balance account were made erratically.) The cosponsors of this proposal believe: (a) Chris should be fully reimbursed from some source. The basis of this belief is ethical, and/or to maintain interpersonal cohesiveness and trust among Party members, and possibly legal (see view [1] above). (b) The reimbursement should be made from CTGP funds. The basis of this belief is pragmatic (the CTGP historically has done better at raising money and paying debts than has the Hartford chapter), and possibly legal (see view [1] above). If the reimbursement is made fully from CTGP funds, this matter can be conceptualized as a series of loans from Chris to the CTGP. (Chris made his checks out to the landlord, but he could have made them out to the CTGP.) The cosponsors of this proposal also believe that if the CTGP pays Chris $2,650, the Hartford chapter must be required to pay back the CTGP half of this amount (i.e. $1,325). Work must be done to properly compute the current Hartford chapter balance, in light of the problems seen in column H above. The process of properly computing the Hartford chapter balance must also ensure that the Hartford chapter was properly credited in the past (30% of the donation) for donations to the CTGP made by people living in the geographic territory of the Hartford chapter. Over time the Hartford chapter could reduce its chapter balance to zero. (If the Hartford chapter balance remains negative after corrections are made, it can only reduce its chapter balance to zero by making payments to the CTGP.) If the problems seen in column H above are corrected, the Hartford chapter will pay back the CTGP its share of the rent payments in the course of reducing its chapter balance to zero. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: proposal to reimburse chris for rent expenses.doc Type: application/msword Size: 96256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Tue Jun 14 06:33:20 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:33:20 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT New Left Party in Germany? Message-ID: <047801c570cc$7c665e10$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Feinstein" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:20 AM Subject: USGP-INT New Left Party in Germany? > http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1614248,00.html > > Germany's New Left Threatens Schr?der > > Dream team? Gysi (l.) and Lafontaine might lead the left > > With two former media darlings looking to lead them into battle, Germany's > newly allied leftists are hoping for major gains in the election. But how > much can they really bite off? > > In the run-up to this fall's expected federal elections, Germany's > political left will rail against Chancellor Gerhard Schr?der's labor and > welfare reform packages in their bid to storm back into the Bundestag. But > at the moment, they're pre-occupied with much smaller things, namely, what > to call themselves. > > The founding of the Election Alternative for Social Justice (WASG) as a > reaction to Schr?der's reform packages, has been spearheaded by former > finance minister and political star Oskar Lafontaine. Schr?der's most > prominent critic from the left is looking to form a political alliance > with the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), the successor to East > Germany's communist party which remains the third-strongest voice in the > country's eastern states. > > Over the weekend, the PDS, eager to get another shot at entering the > Bundestag after failing to get enough votes in 2002, floated the > "Democratic Left - PDS" as a possible name for the alliance. But many > leftist stalwarts in the western part of the country are skeptical of the > PDS, which is still viewed as an eastern German party. > > "We know that the PDS doesn't always sound good," in the West, PDS chief > Lothar Bisky acknowledged. > > Good chances -- if it takes off > > This coming weekend, Bisky, former PDS star and media darling Gregor Gysi > and other party officials will meet with Lafontaine in an effort to reach > an agreement on the name. > > The potential east-west alliance has good chances if Schr?der's wish to > call federal elections this fall is granted by Germany's president and the > Bundestag. A recent poll by public broadcaster ZDF said 18 percent of the > population would consider voting for a leftist alliance. > > Dissatisfaction with Schr?der's labor market reform program, dubbed Hartz > IV, has plunged his government into a crisis. Staggering losses suffered > by his Social Democrats in state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia on > May 22 prompted Schr?der to take the unusual tactic of calling general > elections, scheduled for 2006, one year early. > > Third-largest party? > > Analysts are bleak about his chances against the opposition Christian > Democratic Union and the FDP, their likely coalition partners in a new > government. Polls show the SPD getting only 35 percent of the vote, with a > strong leftist alliance possibly peeling even more percentage points away. > A team combining Gysi and Lafontaine has made many on the left salivate at > the prospects of leapfrogging the Green Party, currently junior coalition > partners in Schr?der's government, to become the country's third-biggest > party. > > But the new left is anything but solid, say observers and party members. > The WASG will find its voters by criticizing Schr?der's reform course as > overly harsh, and contrary to social democratic tradition. The PDS has > traditionally won support from disgruntled East Germans who embrace its > criticism of capitalism. > "We are unified in the rejection of the government's social policies and ? > Hartz IV, but that's about it," said Petra Pau, a PDS leader in Berlin. > > Whatever the outcome of this weekend's talks, the PDS has already reached > one goal: after three years in which they disappeared from the national > political stage, people are once again talking about them. > > > --- > | Sent via usgp-int > | To unsubscribe, please send a message to usgp-int-request at gp-us.org > | with ONLY unsubscribe in the message > --- > From apbrison at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 10:36:18 2005 From: apbrison at hotmail.com (allan brison) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:36:18 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT New Left Party in Germany? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karinlee1 at mindspring.com Thu Jun 16 12:03:34 2005 From: karinlee1 at mindspring.com (Karin Lee Norton) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:03:34 -0400 Subject: {news} Fwd: Feds preventing peaceful gathering in W. Va., enforcing blockade of state forest Message-ID: Delivered-To: klnorton at greens.org From: Garjurney at aol.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:55:23 EDT Subject: Glowing Feathers Update CC: (names deleted for privacy) Hi everyone, We received this newest update from Glowing Feather, but found it barely readable because of hotmail squiggles. So here is a cleaned up version of the update. Thank you Glowing Feather for your timely news. See you all soon in the hills of WV. spotted zebra Info from the front line. There now is an encampment of vehicles &; rainbows 1/4 mile long waiting to get in. I guess we found parking. They are all off the road. There are plenty (Miles) of places to pull over and that's where the majority of folks are going. I again tried to get in for day visit and was denied and even they used the word quantined I guess that's even stronger than a blockade. They thus far have not ticketed those waiting but they all will be subject to ticket, thus far no arrests. They have issued over 120 tickets for two mass court dates the first being on June 28th. They are closing the regional headquarters next week and they are over 100 law enforcement offices taking turns patrolling. They offered to let in a news crew but had to be escorted by police they declined for now. They did get statements from some folks waiting to get in. There is a news story today in the local paper www.theintermountain.com. There are some small encampments under 75 and available at spring council and at knob hill and low cost $2 night at bear mountain. People waiting to get in asked me to tell folks to come ASAP and flood them with demands to let us come hOMe. Badger has called for a council tomorrow (Thursday) on the bridge at12 noon please post on agr to all who are in the area. The Forest Service has denied permit for this area but wants us to go to an old mining quarry. I do not think we are even considering the move. I will e-mail again after council tomorrow. This is glowing feather and the spirit of the family here is strong and united we need some family legal help and more national media also try to think of ways that we can get around the blockade (legal challenge) All my joy &; peace & Love the press got a big WE LOVE YOU from at least100 rainbows waiting to get in. We are coming hOMe FAMILY Always All Ways This is the information I sent to the media this evening (June 14th). I hope it helps. >Love, Rumor Mill from the Rainbow Gathering Rumor has it the United States Forest Service has erected a blockade at the Rainbow Gathering in the Monongahelia National Forest east of Elkins, near Alpena to stop the flow of gatherers heading home. The United States Forest Services wants an individual to sign a group use permit for the gathering. As the permit application states, it's a felony to falsify information on a federal document and the person signing must be a "duly authorized representative" of the group. The Federal government has created a Catch-22 situation. No individual can be duly authorized by a non-hierarchical free assembly open to all peoples. Any person that is terrorized by the United States Forest Service into signing will be committing a felony. Despite various alternatives offered by individual gatherers to the United States Forest Service over a number of years, the Incident Command team continues to try to enforce a regulation targeting corporations and non-profit groups on a public assembly event. As people stream into the area to attend the annual Gathering of the Tribes and are turned away from the gathering site, they are bound to pile up in adjacent areas. As of June 13th, approximately 115 people were at the gathering site behind the blockade and countless others are wandering the back roads of West Virginia with no place to land. As the days go by, the number of wandering gypsies stranded near Elkins West Virginia, it is bound to grow. The only way to get the facts on this situation is to go to the gathering site and talk to the people behind the blockade. There are some gatherers with information on the situation holed up at the Stuart Camp ground. Peace! -- Karin L. Norton-O'Connor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Thu Jun 16 16:21:06 2005 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:21:06 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: July 22-24 Training on Global Warming - register now! Message-ID: <00e201c572b0$ed293b00$6901a8c0@EXDIR04> You are invited to the fourth annual Building the Movement to Stop Global Warming summer workshop. If you can't make it or already responded, please also forward this on to your networks to help us spread the word! The event, to be held July 22-24th on Boston's Thompson Island, will have a dual focus: SPEAKING and COMMUNITY ACTION - YOU CHOOSE THE TRAINING THAT WILL BEST SUIT YOUR NEEDS! WHAT YOU WILL GAIN: You will leave with the information and inspiration you need to make a difference in your community. This is also a great opportunity to network with others local leaders from across the Northeast: a.. Community action: Get the nuts and bolts and leave with a concrete workplan for action in your community b.. Speaking: Learn how to advocate and motivate others to act with the latest climate science, policy and messaging expertise. The weekend workshop will provide resources on the latest science and solutions, and will feature special sessions: ? renewable energy purchase campaigns ? biodiesel & cleaner transportation options ? wind energy development ? the emerging Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Go to http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/workshop2005.php to learn more and register today. Organized by Clean Air-Cool Planet, the Greenhouse Network, and the Massachusetts Climate Action Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Thu Jun 16 16:34:26 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:34:26 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: The bright, shining lie -- Jonathan Schell Asia Times Online, Hong Kong Message-ID: <0a5001c572b2$ca7f9070$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF17Ak01.html Middle East Jun 17, 2005 The bright, shining lie By Jonathan Schell Sometimes the truth of a large, confusing historical enterprise can be glimpsed in a single news report. Such is the case in regard to the Iraq war, it seems, with the recent story in the Washington Post by Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru called "Building Iraq's Army: Mission Improbable". Shadid and Fainaru did something that is rarely done: they spent several days with a unit of Iraq's new, American-trained forces. (The typical treatment of the topic consists of a few interviews with American officers in the Green Zone in Baghdad, leading to some estimation of how long it will take to complete the job.) The Post story starts with the lyrics of a song the soldiers of the unit, called Charlie Company, were singing out of earshot of their American overseers. It was a ballad to Saddam Hussein, and it ran: We have lived in humiliation since you left We had hoped to spend our life with you The American media often discuss the political makeup of the insurgency, but no one until now has suggested that some of the very forces being trained by the United States might be longing for the return of Saddam. To the extent that this is the case - or that these forces are otherwise opposed to the occupation - the United States, far from improving "security", is now training the future resistance to itself. Indeed, the soldiers of Charlie Company told Shadid and Fainaru that 17 of them had quit in recent days. They added that every one of them planned to do the same as soon as possible. Their reasons were simple. They were bitter at the United States. "Look at the homes of the Iraqis," one soldier remarked. "The people have been destroyed." When asked by whom, he answered, "Them" - and pointed to the Americans leading the patrol. The Iraqis had enlisted in the new army only for the salary - US$340 per month, an enviable sum in today's ruined Iraq. But the money had come at the price of self-respect. The new recruits had been bought off and hated themselves for it. One said that after they had all quit, "We'll live by God, but we'll have our respect." One might wonder whether the reporters had deliberately or unknowingly picked an exceptionally rebellious unit. But in fact, Charlie Company was selected by the US Army itself, presumably eager to put its best foot forward. The American officers' response to their sullen recruits is of a piece with the entire American effort in Iraq. The officers treat their charges as if, owing to certain mysterious personal defects, they somehow are not quite up to the job they have been given. After a typical episode in which the unit was attacked and ran away (four hailed taxis to make their escape), Sergeant Rick McGovern, who leads the unit, dressed them down. "You are all cowards," he informed them. He went on, "My soldiers are over here, away from our families for a year. We are willing to die for you to have freedom. You should be willing to die for your own freedom." The tongue-lashing assumed that the Iraqis and the American shared a cause that, as the story shows, was actually 100% missing. Iraqi men who hate the American occupation are not cowards if they decline to shoot other men who are fighting the occupation. On the contrary, the more courage they had, the less they would engage in such a fight. The men of Charlie Company do indeed lack courage - courage to turn down the money they accept for pretending to fight for a cause they despise. Their most cowardly moment, given their beliefs, was when they sat still while Sergeant McGovern called them cowards. One soldier, Amar Mana, explained the situation in the clearest terms: "We don't want to take responsibility," he said. "The way the situation is, we wouldn't be ready to take responsibility for a thousand years." And so the Americans and the Iraqis of Charlie Company, like the United States and Iraq in general today, are led, by choice on the one side and by bribery and compulsion on the other, to play roles in a script that has little or nothing to do with the situation they are actually in. In this situation, it is not necessary to form a whole sentence to tell a lie. Use of single words or phrases - "Iraqi sovereignty", "freedom", "election", "security", "democracy", "anti-Iraqi forces", even "courage" and "cowardice" - involve the speaker in deception, for they are the constitutive elements of a framework of thought and belief that is itself a fabrication. The American occupation of Iraq is something new, but the fundamental error of the United States has a long pedigree. It is the imprisonment of the human mind in ideology backed by violence. The classic example is Joseph Stalin's Russia, under which decades of misrule were rationalized as a "stage" on the way to the radiant future of true communism. As for the miserable present, it was amusingly called "actually existing communism". The future, when it came, of course was not communism at all but the disintegration of the whole enterprise. All the "stages" turned out to lead nowhere. Once the mind is in the grip of such a system, every "actually existing" horror can be seen as a mere imperfection in a beautiful larger picture, every defeat a stage on the way to the glorious future. The simpler and more coherent an ideology, the better it can withstand the assault of fact. So today in Iraq, every act of torture, every flattened city, every gushing sewer, every car-bombing and beheading, is presented as a bump on the road to "freedom" for Iraq, or for the Middle East, or even for the whole world, in which President George W Bush has promised an "end to tyranny". (It's apparently a rule of ideology that the more sordid the reality, the more grandiosely splendid the eventual goal must be.) But a moment comes - perhaps it is a sudden defeat, or perhaps it is merely reading a story like Shadid and Fainaru's - when the fantasy dissolves, and then one is left face-to-face with the factual truth. All the "exceptions" turn out to be the rule. When that happens with respect to Iraq, America's grotesque misadventure there - born of lies, sustained by lies and productive of more lies every day it continues - will be brought to a close. Jonathan Schell, author of The Unconquerable World, is the Nation Institute's Harold Willens Peace Fellow. The Jonathan Schell Reader was recently published by Nation Books. (Copyright 2005 Jonathan Schell) (Published with permission of Tomdispatch.com/The Nation Magazine) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Fri Jun 17 14:38:43 2005 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Impeach Bush----Request by Green Party-Kansas City Message-ID: <20050617183843.18978.qmail@web81404.mail.yahoo.com> Dee Berry wrote:From: "Dee Berry" To: Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:09:41 -0500 CC: dberry7 at sbcglobal.net Subject: [usgp-coo] Request by Green Party-Kansas City Please join our grassroots effort to call for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Chaney. The Green Party of Kansas City is inviting and urging Green local or state parties across the US to join us in calling for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Chaney. We have called a press conference for Friday morning urging impeachment and calling for the media to get the story out about the Downing Street Memo and subsequent memos. Our hope is to see hundreds of Green press conferences across the US on Friday through Monday. This is a real grass roots effort and does not require any action by the national GP-US or the national committee only the locals if they so choose. It does of course dovetail very nicely with the US-GP call for impeachment that came out a couple of days ago. We are inviting all of the peace, justice, veterans, media reform groups in KC to join us in our call and are in the process of gathering up co-sponsors. We will put out another press release tomorrow listing others who have joined us in calling for impeachment. We believe that we have a tremendous opportunity to break through Bush's strangle hold on this country, and it is extremely important to build as much momentum as possible to holding Bush accountable and end the war soon. We also believe a grassroots Green effort that coincides with our national effort can be very effective in building this momentum. Please join us. I have copied our press release below. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE GREEN PARTY OF KANSAS CITY Contacts: Marie Smith, Coordinator, 816-523-1813 Melinda Ivey, Media Coordinator, 816-260-6002 Greens Call for the Impeachment of President Bush and Richard Chaney The Green Party of Kansas City announces a news conference Friday, June 17, 10 a.m. at JC Nichols Fountain, 47th and Broadway, Kansas City, MO to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice and Vice-President Richard Cheney. In support of Representative John Conyer's hearing to be held on Thursday, June 16, the Green Party of Kansas City is joining its National Party in a call to the U.S. Congress to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry, requiring the House Judiciary Committee to hold formal investigations with the power of subpoena. This would be the first step in determining whether the president and vice president of the United States have committed impeachable offenses. The Downing Street Memo and other leaked documents, verified as authentic by the British goverment, strongly suggest that the invasion of Iraq wasn't the "last resort" but was Bush's intent as early as April, 2002. These documents have exposed lies, distortions, and the convoluted morals used by the Bush Administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. They futhre expose the faillure of the Administration to plan for the lengthy occupation which has been so devastating to the American military and the Iraqi people, and has mired us in a horrible situation from which the American military has conceded there is no military solution. "This memo has confirmed what many of us in the peace movement knew all along - that this war was illegal, immoral, and unnecessary. George Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of over 1700 American service men and women, the many more wounded and maimed, the deaths of tens of thousands Iraqis, and the squandering of our resources and our reputation." Said Dee Berry, co-coordinator of the state Green Party, the Progressive Party of Missouri. "We believe the mainstream media in the US and Kansas City have been ignoring the implications of these memos. The people in this country must be informed of what the Bush administration was doing behind closed doors while it was preaching peace and international cooperation. Now the media have a wonderful opportunity to rectify their negligence by bringing these memos to the attention of the American people," said Ben Kjelshus a long time green and peace activist in Kansas City. The Green Party of Kansas City is a a local chapter of the Green Party of the United States, founded on the values of ecological wisdom, social justice, nonviolence, and grassroots democracy. -END- _____ _______________________________________________ Natlcomvotes mailing list To send a message to the list, write to: Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes If your state delegation changes, please see: http://gp.org/committees/cc/documents/delegate_change.html For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: http://gp.org/committees/cc/ THE GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT is the third largest political party in CT. The Greens are also the third largest political party in the US, with 220 Greens officeholders in 27 states. Over 80 countries in world have Green Parties. Wangari Maathai, the 2004 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is Kenya's assistant minister for environment and an elected Green Party member. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riverbend2 at earthlink.net Fri Jun 17 19:04:21 2005 From: riverbend2 at earthlink.net (John Battista) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:04:21 -0400 Subject: {news} Deadly Immunity: Vaccines and Autism by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Message-ID: <003201c57390$e794ca20$1102a8c0@newm2.ct.charter.com> > > >Published on Thursday, June 16, 2005 by _Salon.com_ > > >(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/print.html) > > >Deadly Immunity > > > >When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused > > >autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data -- > > >and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the > epidemic. > > > > > >by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. > > > >In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials > > >gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in > > >Norcross, > > >Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting > > >was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next > > >to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had > > >issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 > > >attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and > > >Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health > > >Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, > including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific > > >data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, > was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, > > >no taking papers with them when they left. > > >The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to > > >discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety > of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young > > >children. > > >According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had > analyzed the > > >agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 > > >children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- > > >appeared to > > >be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other > > >neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I > > >saw," > > >Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering > > >number of > > >earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech > delays, > > >attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when > the > > >CDC > > >and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with > the > > >preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within > > >hours of > > >birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased > > >fifteenfold, > > >from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children. > > >Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life > > >and > > >death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you > > >want," > > >Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told > > >the > > >group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard > Johnston, > > >an > > >immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose > > >grandson > > >had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even > > >more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal > comment -- > > >I do > > >not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we > know > > >better what is going on." > > >But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the > > >vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at > Simpsonwood > > >spent > > >most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. > > >According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, > > >many at the > > >meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about > thimerosal > > >would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line. > > >"We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any > lawsuits," > > >said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital > for > > >Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy > plaintiff > > >attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the > > >CDC, > > >expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have > > >been able > > >to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. > > >John > > >Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared > > >flatly > > >that the study "should not have been done at all" and warned that the > > >results "will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the > > >control of > > >this group. The research results have to be handled." > > >In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the > > >damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute > of > > >Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, > > >ordering > > >researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld > > >Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate > > >publication, and > > >told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could > > >not be > > >replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its > > >giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring > it > > >off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his > > >study in > > >2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to > > >bury the > > >link between thimerosal and autism. > > >Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of > > >injections given to American infants -- but they continued to sell off > > >their > > >mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave > > >them a hand, > > >buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and > > >allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some > > >American vaccines > > >-- including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters > > >routinely given to 11-year-olds. > > >The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in > > >Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 > > >in > > >contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to > > >immunize vaccine > > >makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the > > >parents of > > >injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal > all > > >of > > >the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood > > >transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from > > >subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as > > >the "Eli > > >Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company > > >contributed > > >$10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on > > >bioterrorism. > > >Congress repealed the measure in 2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist > > >slipped > > >another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny > compensation > > > to > > >children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits > are > > >of > > >such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and > > >limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says > > >Andy > > >Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist. > > >Even many conservatives are shocked by the government's effort to cover > up > > >the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, > > >oversaw > > >a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was > diagnosed > > >with autism. "Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly > > >related > > >to the autism epidemic," his House Government Reform Committee concluded > > >in > > >its final report. "This epidemic in all probability may have been > > >prevented > > >or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack > of > > >safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin." The FDA > > >and > > >other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of > > >"institutional malfeasance for self protection" and "misplaced > > >protectionism of the > > >pharmaceutical industry." > > >The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to > > >hide > > >the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of > > >institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the > controversy > > >only > > >reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years > > >working on > > >issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic > children > > >who > > >were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. > > >Privately, I was skeptical. I doubted that autism could be blamed on a > > >single > > >source, and I certainly understood the government's need to reassure > > >parents that > > >vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases > > >depends > > >on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a > Democrat > > >from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government > > >Reform > > >Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. "Why > > >should we scare people about immunization," Waxman pointed out at one > > >hearing, > > >"until we know the facts?" > > >It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the > > >leading > > >scientific research and talking with many of the nation's preeminent > > >authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between > > >thimerosal and > > >the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own > > >children are members of the Thimerosal Generation -- those born between > > >1989 and > > >2003 -- who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. "The > elementary > > >grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological > or > > >immune-system damage," Patti White, a school nurse, told the House > > >Government > > >Reform Committee in 1999. "Vaccines are supposed to be making us > > >healthier; > > >however, in 25 years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick > > >kids. > > >Something very, very wrong is happening to our children." More than > > >500,000 kids > > >currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than > 40,000 > > >new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was > > >identified and diagnosed among 11 children born in the months after > > >thimerosal was > > >first added to baby vaccines in 1931. > > >Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by > > >thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a > result > > >of better diagnosis > > >-- a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new > > >cases > > >of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. "If the > > >epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis," scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, > > >one of > > >the world's authorities on mercury toxicity, "then where are all the > > >20-year-old autistics?" Other researchers point out that Americans are > > >exposed to a > > >greater cumulative "load" of mercury than ever before, from contaminated > > >fish > > >to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only > > >part > > >of a much larger problem. It's a concern that certainly deserves far > more > > >attention than it has received -- but it overlooks the fact that the > > >mercury > > >concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our > > >children. > > >What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading > > >detectives > > >have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. > > >From > > >the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has > > >been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and > > >bacterial > > >growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. > Truckloads > > >of > > >studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of > > >primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines -- and > > >that the > > >developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a > > >Russian > > >study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of > > >ethylmercury > > >than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years > > >later. > > >Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines 20 years ago, and > > >Denmark, > > >Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have > > >since > > >followed suit. > > >"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," > says > > >Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. > > >"It's > > >just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain > > >will > > >sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it > in > > >a > > >petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking > > >if > > >one could inject it into an infant without causing damage." > > >Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed > > >thimerosal, > > >knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even > death > > >-- > > >in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by > > >administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom > died > > >within > > >weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its > > >study > > >declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine > > >manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about > > >thimerosal's safety "did > > >not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with > thimerosal-based > > >vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the > > >preservative > > >"unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs." > > >In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued > to > > >mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used > > >the > > >preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it > > >"poison." > > >In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed > mice > > >when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies > > >discerned > > > that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low > as > > >one > > >part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical > > >vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as > > >"nontoxic" and > > >also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, 10 babies at a > > >Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was > > >dabbed > > >onto their umbilical cords. > > >In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that > > >contained > > >thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal > > >vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that > infants > > >be > > >injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be > > >vaccinated for > > >hepatitis B within 24 hours of birth, and 2-month-old infants would be > > >immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis. > > >The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same > > >year > > >that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the > > >fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that > 6-month-olds > > >who > > >were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. > He > > >recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on > > >infants and > > >children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The > > >best > > > way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines > > >without adding preservatives." > > >For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. > > >Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in > > >vials that > > >contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they > > >are > > >more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials > cost > > >half > > >as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for > > >international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at > risk > > >of > > >epidemics. Faced with this "cost consideration," Merck ignored > Hilleman's > > >warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more > > >thimerosal-based > > >vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received only > > >three > > >vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and > > >measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal > recommendations, > > >children were > > >receiving a total of 22 immunizations by the time they reached first > > >grade. > > >As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children > > >exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with > > >thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury > > >during a period > > >critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of > > >thimerosal, > > >it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury > > >that > > >children would receive from the mandated vaccines. "What took the FDA so > > >long to do the calculations?" Peter Patriarca, director of viral > products > > >for > > >the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. "Why didn't CDC and > the > > >advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the > > >childhood > > >immunization schedule?" > > >But by that time, the damage was done. Infants who received all their > > >vaccines, plus boosters, by the age of 6 months were being injected with > > >levels of > > >ethylmercury 187 times greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure > to > > >methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry > insists > > >that > > >ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is > > >removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April > > >by the > > >National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually > > >more > > >toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than > > >methylmercury. > > >Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the > > >additional > > >vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that > > >thimerosal > > >is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, > cannot > > >afford the single-dose vials that don't require a preservative. Dr. Paul > > >Offit, > > >one of CDC's top vaccine advisors, told me, "I think if we really have > an > > >influenza pandemic -- and certainly we will in the next 20 years, > because > > >we > > >always do -- there's no way on God's earth that we immunize 280 million > > >people > > >with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials." > > >But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many > of > > >those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines > had > > >close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee's chair, was a > > >paid > > >consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and shares a patent on a > > >measles > > >vaccine with Merck, which also manufactures the hepatitis B vaccine. Dr. > > >Neal > > >Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine > > >companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on > the > > >hepatitis B vaccine. > > >Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such > > >conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC > "routinely > > >allows > > >scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual > > >advisory > > >committees that make recommendations on new vaccines," even though they > > >have > > >"interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to > be > > >providing unbiased oversight." The House Government Reform Committee > > >discovered that four of the eight CDC advisors who approved guidelines > for > > >a > > >rotavirus vaccine laced with thimerosal "had financial ties to the > > >pharmaceutical > > >companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine." > > >Offit, who shares a patent on the vaccine, acknowledged to me that he > > >"would > > >make money" if his vote to approve it eventually leads to a marketable > > >product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist's direct > > >financial stake > > >in CDC approval might bias his judgment. "It provides no conflict for > me," > > >he > > >insists. "I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by > it. > > >When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make > > >recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It's > > >offensive to say > > >that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry > and > > >thus > > >are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It's just > not > > >the way it works." > > >Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like > > >Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children's > health, > > >proud > > >of their "partnerships" with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the > > >seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose > > >anti-vaccine > > >campaigns are endangering children's health. They are often resentful of > > >questioning. "Science," says Offit, "is best left to scientists." > > >Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts > of > > >interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of > > >the > > >FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the > > >danger > > >posed by the added baby vaccines. "I'm not sure there will be an easy > way > > >out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and > immunization-policy > > >bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now," > > >Patriarca > > >wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the > pharmaceutical > > >industry, he added, "will also raise questions about various advisory > > >bodies > > >regarding aggressive recommendations for use" of thimerosal in child > > >vaccines. > > >If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the > > >potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim > ignorance > > >after the > > >secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to > > >test > > >the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed > > >politics > > >over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines -- > > >which had > > >been developed largely at taxpayer expense -- over to a private agency, > > >America's Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for > > >additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an > > >advisory > > >organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to > produce > > >a study > > >debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC > "wants > > >us > > >to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe," Dr. Marie > McCormick, > > >who chaired the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her > > >fellow > > >researchers when they first met in January 2001. "We are not ever going > to > > >come > > >down that [autism] is a true side effect" of thimerosal exposure. > > >According > > >to transcripts of the meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen > > >Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was > > >"inadequate > > >to accept or reject a causal relation" between thimerosal and autism. > > >That, > > >she added, was the result "Walt wants" -- a reference to Dr. Walter > > >Orenstein, > > >director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC. > > >For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the > > >revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had > > >worked for. > > >"We've got a dragon by the tail here," said Dr. Michael Kaback, another > > >committee member. "The more negative that [our] presentation is, the > less > > >likely > > >people are to use vaccination, immunization -- and we know what the > > >results of > > >that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out > of > > >the trap, I think is the charge." > > >Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal > in > > >studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. "Four current > > >studies > > >are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and > > >thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for > > >vaccine > > >research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton > > >University > > >gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research > > >claiming > > >to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to > > >conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." > > >Douglas > > >formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored > > >warnings about thimerosal's risks. > > >In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. > > >Its > > >conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in > > >vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing > > >the toxicity > > >of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed > > >epidemiological > > >studies examining European countries, where children received much > smaller > > >doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of > the > > >Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been > > >reworked > > >to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included > > >children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked > > >others who > > >showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in > a > > >startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further > > >research > > >be conducted. > > >The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. > David > > >Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House > > >Government > > >Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied > on > > >a > > >handful of studies that were "fatally flawed" by "poor design" and > failed > > >to > > >represent "all the available scientific and medical research." CDC > > >officials > > >are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, > > >because "an association between vaccines and autism would force them to > > >admit that > > >their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want > > >to > > >make that conclusion about themselves?" > > >Under pressure from Congress, parents and a few of its own panel > members, > > >the Institute of Medicine reluctantly convened a second panel to review > > >the > > >findings of the first. In February, the new panel, composed of different > > >scientists, criticized the earlier panel for its lack of transparency > and > > >urged the > > >CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public. > > >So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. > Mark > > >Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, > > >spent a > > >year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August > > >2002, > > >when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the > > >Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful > correlation > > >between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which > > >compares > > >the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 > and > > >1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a "very significant > > >relationship" between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational > > >performance > > >found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were > > >nearly > > >three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three > > >times > > >as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. > Another > > >soon-to-be-published study shows that autism rates are in decline > > >following the > > >recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines. > > >As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying > > >vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, > > >reporter Dan > > >Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. > > >Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in > vaccines -- > > >the kind > > >of population that scientists typically use as a "control" in > experiments > > >-- > > >Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Penn., who refuse to > > >immunize > > >their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated > that > > >there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One > had > > >been > > >exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three -- > > >including one child adopted from outside the Amish community -- had > > >received > > >their vaccines. > > >At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews > of > > >thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the > > >risks, > > >the Iowa Legislature was carefully combing through all of the available > > >scientific and biological data. "After three years of review, I became > > >convinced > > >there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury > and > > >the > > >increased incidences in autism," says state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a > > >Republican > > >who oversaw the investigation. "The fact that Iowa's 700 percent > increase > > >in > > >autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added > > >to > > >the children's vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone." Last year, > > >Iowa > > >became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by > California. > > >Similar bans are now under consideration in 32 other states. > > >But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers > to > > >include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as > > >steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government > > >continues to > > >ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some > of > > >which > > >are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where > > >the > > > disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal > by > > >U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are > now > > >more > > >than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come > by, > > >autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, > > >Nicaragua and > > >other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. > > >The > > >World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it > > >promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological > > >disorders > > >"under review." > > >I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a > moral > > >crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our > > >public-health > > >authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an > > >entire > > >generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one > of > > >the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. "The CDC is > > >guilty of > > >incompetence and gross negligence," says Mark Blaxill, vice president of > > >Safe > > >Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in > > >medicines. "The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It's > bigger > > >than > > >asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you've ever seen." > > >It's > > >hard to calculate the damage to our country -- and to the international > > >efforts > > >to eradicate epidemic diseases -- if Third World nations come to believe > > >that > > >America's most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their > > >children. > > >It's not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by > > >America's enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers -- many of them > > >sincere, > > >even idealistic -- who are participating in efforts to hide the science > on > > >thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of > > >protecting > > >children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly > > >misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back > > >horribly to haunt > > >our country and the world's poorest populations. > > >Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is senior attorney for the Natural Resources > Defense > > >Council, chief prosecuting attorney for Riverkeeper and president of > > >Waterkeeper Alliance. He is the co-author of "_The Riverkeepers_ > > > >(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068484625X/commondreams-20/ref=nosi > m) > > >." > > >? 2005 Salon.com > > > > > From dlombard at retec.com Tue Jun 7 09:15:55 2005 From: dlombard at retec.com (Debra Lombard) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:15:55 -0400 Subject: {news} Re: [newhavengreens] Millstone Rally - Thursday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thursday is a bad day for me to go as I will have to be at work. Be strong for us that can't make it! peace, Debra Debra Lombard, LEED AP Sustainable Design Specialist The RETEC Group, Inc. 900 Chapel St., 2nd Fl - Box 9 New Haven, CT 06510 Tel: 203-868-0137 Fax: 203-773-3657 dlombard at retec.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ehscouts at aol.com Tue Jun 7 14:42:43 2005 From: Ehscouts at aol.com (Ehscouts at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:42:43 EDT Subject: {news} Voting Registration Message-ID: <1e3.3d691c73.2fd744a3@aol.com> Hello! Starting this coming Sunday June 12, 2005 and every Sunday from this time on, beside the Taking Back New Britain Walk around the City we will be hosting Voting Registration booth. We will be setting up booth at the following locations: 1) ABCO Distributors Inc. 880 West Main Street New Britain CT. 2) Rentown Store West Main Street New Britain CT. We will be providing the Tents, Tables, Supplies and Refreshments but volunteers needs to supply their own chairs. I need your help pleases become a volunteer other places will be available soon. For more information pleases give me a call at 860-832-8141. Thank you! "Taking Back New Britain" Miguel Angel Nieves New Britain Mayoral Candidate New Britain Green Party Co-Chairman _www.nieves.politicalgateway.com_ (http://www.nieves.politicalgateway.com/) _www.groups.yahoo.com/group/nievesformayor_ (http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/nievesformayor) _www.groups.yahoo.com/group/nbgreen_ (http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/nbgreen) Tel: (860) 832-8141 Paid by Nieves for Mayor Campaign, Annette Alicea -Treasurer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Sun Jun 19 14:14:36 2005 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:14:36 -0400 Subject: {news} Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools References: <200506010247.j512lTe07676@easy-designs.net> Message-ID: <00cd01c574fa$c099ad30$841efea9@S0031616584> good article by Tom Sevigny in today's Hartford Courant. Tom Sevigny of Canton is a board member of Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion, a member of the Citizens Network "Financing Local Education" study committee and a member of the Green Party. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plcsevigny0619.artjun19,0,7591060.story?coll=hc-headlines-commentary Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools By TOM SEVIGNY June 19 2005 Another spring has arrived in Connecticut, and with it the obligatory haggling over town budgets. As usual, you have one side that stubbornly demands no increase in what it rightly perceives as already too high property taxes, and another side that decries what it views as draconian cuts to the education budget. Neither side ends up winning. A modest increase in the mill rate is usually finally approved after lengthy hearings, but never enough to fully fund all the wished-for education programs. Both sides leave the process dissatisfied, angry, and all too quick to blame their local elected officials. The most tragic aspect of this yearly ritual, however, is the fact that both sides do a lot of talking and shouting, but they never really take a step back and listen to each other. If they did, they would discover that we are all players in a game in which the rules are stacked against us. In Connecticut we have connected our highest priority and fastest-growing expense in local budgets - public education - to the slowest-growing source of revenue - local property taxes. Connecticut's local public education system is more reliant on the local property tax than all other states in the union because the percentage of education funding coming from state revenues - 37 percent - is near the bottom (45th) among the states. As a result, the property tax burden in Connecticut is the third-highest in the nation per capita and ranks as the 11th-highest in the nation when it comes to the percentage of personal income going to property taxes. These "rules" are a prescription for strife, whether evident in failed local budget referendums, constrained educational investment, or intergenerational struggles over priorities. Furthermore, Connecticut's property tax structure has created a competition among the 169 towns for property tax funds and has put pressure on local officials to build the grand list by commercially developing available land - the so-called fiscalization of land use - to offset the high cost of residential development they can do little to control. The result is urban sprawl, the loss of farmland and open space, increased traffic congestion, and a decline in the quality of life in far too many of our communities. With the rules as they are, local officials are pretty much constrained as to what they can do about these budgetary and land-use problems. Local officials are almost forced to produce the results that citizens, frustrated by high taxes, improperly funded education programs and bad land-use decisions, find so aggravating. I am in no way attempting to absolve local officials from blame. In my hometown of Canton, for example, buying open space could have been made a priority years ago as a way to mitigate the impact of residential development. Instead, we get an open space commission with almost no money to purchase property. In addition, far too many of our local elected officials continue to believe that we can grow our way out of our financial problems. For example, the Shoppes at Farmington Valley were hailed as the economic savior of Canton, yet here we are still unable to fully fund an education budget despite a 9 percent increase in our grand list. What is going to happen next year without such an increase? The fact is that we would have to build almost the equivalent of the Shoppes every year to offset just a 3 percent yearly increase in Canton's overall budget. If we are unable to control residential development, no amount of commercial development will be able to offset its impact on our budget. Residential development attracts more commercial development which, in turn, attracts more residential development - it is just a vicious cycle. Property taxes, already some of the highest in the country, will simply continue to rise. So what do we do? First, we need to acknowledge that the rules of the game are stacked against us. Whether you are for increased education budgets, lower property taxes, or the preservation of open space, we are all going to lose. Second, we need to pressure our elected state officials to change the rules. How the state funds local education needs to be completely overhauled. Simply put, the state needs to pay its fair share of local education expenditures. It is imperative to increase the state's share to rectify the imbalance between state and local contributions to support local education. We should employ a diverse range of taxes with a broad base, with balance among income, sales, and property taxes. This means we should specifically avoid a heavy reliance on the local property tax, which hurts families and businesses, grows revenues slowly, and contributes to urban sprawl. Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we don't change the rules of the game, we will continue to see the same fruitless results every spring. It's time we embrace the spirit of spring and begin to sow the seeds of change. Tom Sevigny of Canton is a board member of Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion, a member of the Citizens Network "Financing Local Education" study committee and a member of the Green Party. Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riverbend2 at earthlink.net Mon Jun 20 13:20:13 2005 From: riverbend2 at earthlink.net (John Battista) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: {news} Tom Sevigny - "Property Tax: Poor Way to Fund Schools" Message-ID: <001901c575bc$5357eda0$1102a8c0@newm2.ct.charter.com> Excellent opinion piece by Tom Sevigny. > > > > > ,0,7591060.story?coll=hc-utility-opinion> > > Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools > > By TOM SEVIGNY > > > > June 19 2005 > > > > Another spring has arrived in Connecticut, and with it the obligatory > > haggling over town budgets. As usual, you have one side that stubbornly > > demands no increase in what it rightly perceives as already too high > > property taxes, and another side that decries what it views as draconian > > cuts to the education budget. Neither side ends up winning. > > > > A modest increase in the mill rate is usually finally approved after > > lengthy hearings, but never enough to fully fund all the wished-for > > education programs. Both sides leave the process dissatisfied, angry, and > > all too quick to blame their local elected officials. The most tragic > > aspect of this yearly ritual, however, is the fact that both sides do a > > lot of talking and shouting, but they never really take a step back and > > listen to each other. If they did, they would discover that we are all > > players in a game in which the rules are stacked against us. > > > > In Connecticut we have connected our highest priority and fastest-growing > > expense in local budgets - public education - to the slowest-growing > > source of revenue - local property taxes. Connecticut's local public > > education system is more reliant on the local property tax than all other > > states in the union because the percentage of education funding coming > > from state revenues - 37 percent - is near the bottom (45th) among the > > states. As a result, the property tax burden in Connecticut is the > > third-highest in the nation per capita and ranks as the 11th-highest in > > the nation when it comes to the percentage of personal income going to > > property taxes. These "rules" are a prescription for strife, whether > > evident in failed local budget referendums, constrained educational > > investment, or intergenerational struggles over priorities. > > > > Furthermore, Connecticut's property tax structure has created a > > competition among the 169 towns for property tax funds and has put > > pressure on local officials to build the grand list by commercially > > developing available land - the so-called fiscalization of land use - to > > offset the high cost of residential development they can do little to > > control. The result is urban sprawl, the loss of farmland and open space, > > increased traffic congestion, and a decline in the quality of life in far > > too many of our communities. > > > > With the rules as they are, local officials are pretty much constrained as > > to what they can do about these budgetary and land-use problems. Local > > officials are almost forced to produce the results that citizens, > > frustrated by high taxes, improperly funded education programs and bad > > land-use decisions, find so aggravating. > > > > I am in no way attempting to absolve local officials from blame. In my > > hometown of Canton, for example, buying open space could have been made a > > priority years ago as a way to mitigate the impact of residential > > development. Instead, we get an open space commission with almost no money > > to purchase property. In addition, far too many of our local elected > > officials continue to believe that we can grow our way out of our > > financial problems. > > > > For example, the Shoppes at Farmington Valley were hailed as the economic > > savior of Canton, yet here we are still unable to fully fund an education > > budget despite a 9 percent increase in our grand list. What is going to > > happen next year without such an increase? The fact is that we would have > > to build almost the equivalent of the Shoppes every year to offset just a > > 3 percent yearly increase in Canton's overall budget. If we are unable to > > control residential development, no amount of commercial development will > > be able to offset its impact on our budget. > > > > Residential development attracts more commercial development which, in > > turn, attracts more residential development - it is just a vicious cycle. > > Property taxes, already some of the highest in the country, will simply > > continue to rise. > > > > So what do we do? First, we need to acknowledge that the rules of the game > > are stacked against us. Whether you are for increased education budgets, > > lower property taxes, or the preservation of open space, we are all going > > to lose. Second, we need to pressure our elected state officials to change > > the rules. How the state funds local education needs to be completely > > overhauled. Simply put, the state needs to pay its fair share of local > > education expenditures. > > > > It is imperative to increase the state's share to rectify the imbalance > > between state and local contributions to support local education. We > > should employ a diverse range of taxes with a broad base, with balance > > among income, sales, and property taxes. This means we should specifically > > avoid a heavy reliance on the local property tax, which hurts families and > > businesses, grows revenues slowly, and contributes to urban sprawl. > > > > Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing > > over and over again and expecting different results. If we don't change > > the rules of the game, we will continue to see the same fruitless results > > every spring. It's time we embrace the spirit of spring and begin to sow > > the seeds of change. > > > > Tom Sevigny of Canton is a board member of Canton Advocates for > > Responsible Expansion, a member of the Citizens Network "Financing Local > > Education" study committee and a member of the Green Party. > > > > Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant > > > > > From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Jun 20 13:25:03 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:25:03 -0400 Subject: {news} Reminder: CT Green-sponsored event: Refugee Children Theater Troupe performances, Falls Village, Hartford Message-ID: <046701c575bc$ff0f6e70$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> CT GREENS PLEASE TRY TO ATTEND THESE GPCT-SPONSORED PERFORMANCES PALESTINIAN CHILDREN's THEATER TROUPE, Falls Village, Hartford (press release/directions below) SPECIAL NOTE: Before Friday's performance, there will be greetings by playwright and Green Congressional candidate, BILL C. DAVIS. Bill is the author of MASS APPEAL, AVOW and the upcoming THE SEX KING, and many political/cultural essays on COMMON DREAMS. Let's see some GREEN presence. Spread the word. Thanks, Justine McCabe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Palestine Right to Return Coalition For Immediate Release , June 2, 2005 Contacts: Justine McCabe, 860-354-1822; Gale Toensing, 860-824-7636; Hassan Fouda, 860-514-1544 PALESTINIAN CHILDREN'S THEATER TROUPE COMES TO CONNECTICUT Connecticut residents are in for a cultural treat this month when the Al Rowwad Children's Theater, a troupe from a Palestinian refugee camp, performs a play and traditional Middle Eastern dances here. On Friday, June 24, at 8 p.m., Al Rowwad Center Children's Theater will perform the play We are the Children of the Camp at Housatonic Valley Regional High School, Warren Turnpike & Rte. 7, Canaan (Falls Village). Tickets are $10 each at the door, at Falls Village Town Hall, or by calling the above numbers. All proceeds will benefit the non-profit independent Al Rowwad Children's Theater. On Saturday, June 25, at 5:30 p.m. Al Rowwad will join other international dancers and musicians at the 13the Annual Grove Festival at the Town Grove on Lake Wononscopomuc in Lakeville/Salisbury where they will perform Dabka -- traditional Palestinian dances. The festival is sponsored by Project Troubador, a nonprofit organization that builds bridges of peace and friendship throughout the world through the universal language of music. Tickets are $10 for adults and $5 for children. Parking is free and plentiful. On Sunday, June 26, at 2:30 pm, the Al Rowwad Children's Theater will perform the play We are the Children of the Camp at Charter Oak Cultural Center, 21 Charter Oak, Hartford. Tickets are $15 for adults, $8 for children available at the door or by calling the above numbers. All proceeds will benefit the non-profit independent Al Rowwad Children's Theater. These events offer unique opportunities to experience Palestinian culture while enhancing knowledge of the realities of the daily lives of children who were born under military occupation and have lived their entire lives under military occupation. Connecticut is one of four states hosting Al Rowwad on its first US tour. The children will also perform in New York City, Vermont, and Kentucky. Established in 1998 by Dr. Abed Abu-Srour, Al-Rowwad Children's Theater and Cultural Training Center provides artistic and theatrical training for children in and around Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem, Palestine. The six-acre camp is home to 4,500 refugees from 35 Palestinian villages in what is now Israel. Al Rowwad means ``the pioneer." Both the staff and children at Al Rowwad are pioneers in attempting to provide relief from and alternatives to the daily violence of occupation by teaching and practicing peaceful means of self-expression-- poetry, theater, dance, film. Since 2000, Abu Srour has taken the children to perform in Sweden, Denmark, Egypt and France. "These exchanges fulfill a central role at Al Rowwad. They project positive images of Palestinian children to the outside world, as opposed to the violent representation often portrayed by most media outlets. It's also important that these children know what is normal life without checkpoints, and to continue to have hope," Abu-Srour said For the past seven years, Al Rowwad has nourished that hope for more than 800 children. The troupe arrives in Connecticut June 23. Interviews with Abu Srour are available in advance by calling 011 (972) 522 401 325 or emailing alrowwadtheatre at yahoo.com. For more information call 860-354-1822, 860-824-7636, or 860-514-1544. The Al Rowwad Children's Theater tour is sponsored in Connecticut by Al-Awda-CT, The Palestine Right of Return Coalition [a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization], P.O. Box 1172, Derby, CT 06477, and supported by Connecticut United for Peace; Connecticut Alliance for Peace in Palestine & Israel; Northwest Connecticut Coalition for Peace and Justice; Center for Peace and Justice (Burlington, VT); Middle East Crisis Committee; We Refuse to Be Enemies; Connecticut Council for National Interest (Cnionline.org); Connecticut If Americans Knew (IfAmericansKnew.org); Palestinian American Congress; and the Green Party of Connecticut (www.ctgreens.org) ------------------------------------- DIRECTIONS: -Friday, June 24 Performance at 8 p.m. in Falls Village, Canaan Take Route 8. Get off at exit 44, Downtown Torrington. At the end of the ramp there is a light. Go straight one block. At the next light make left onto Route 4 West. Go 6.5 miles and go right onto Route 63. Go 10 miles on Route 63 and then make left onto Route 126. Go 2 miles and then at the flashing light on Route 7 make a left onto Route 7. Go 1.5 miles. At the light make a right onto the Warren Turnpike. Housatonic Valley Regional High School is a few hundred feet on the left. Plenty of parking. [Alternatively you can take the scenic route and go from Woodbridge all the way up 63 and pass through Litchfield, Goshen and Cornwall and then look for route 126] -Sunday, June 26, 2:30 performance at the Charter Oak Theater (starting from the southern part of the state). Take I-91 north to exit 29a which is a left hand exit. It puts you on a short highway headed for the Capitol area. Go to its end. Just before it ends you'll go underneath a library. When you pass the library the road ends in front of a traffic circle with a grassy area in the middle. Go almost all the way around the circle (the 9 o'clock position) and exit onto Hudson St. Take a left on the second light which is Buckingham St. Go a few blocks. Buckingham crosses Main St. and becomes Charter Oak Avenue. Immediately look for the 2nd building on the right, an old converted synagogue. It's 21 Charter Oak Avenue. Park on the street or make a left at the next intersection and park there or in the church parking lots on the street. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From capeconn at comcast.net Mon Jun 20 15:38:48 2005 From: capeconn at comcast.net (Tom Sevigny) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:38:48 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Concert July 2! Please circulate this flyer widely! Message-ID: <004701c575cf$ec822780$a3970218@sevigny8wcbjrd> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 71826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From capeconn at comcast.net Mon Jun 20 16:03:22 2005 From: capeconn at comcast.net (Tom Sevigny) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:03:22 -0400 Subject: {news} Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools References: <200506010247.j512lTe07676@easy-designs.net> <00cd01c574fa$c099ad30$841efea9@S0031616584> Message-ID: <014a01c575d3$1cac4b90$a3970218@sevigny8wcbjrd> There was also an excellent article in the Northeast Magazine section of the Courant about a couple from Hamden who where moving to Canada because of the political environment in the U.S. The article described there Green Party activity in Texas and CT and even quoted Charlie Pillsbury. A double whammy for the Greens! Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: Charlie Pillsbury To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Cc: nhgreensannouncements at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 2:14 PM Subject: {news} Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/ to unsubscribe click here mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ good article by Tom Sevigny in today's Hartford Courant. Tom Sevigny of Canton is a board member of Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion, a member of the Citizens Network "Financing Local Education" study committee and a member of the Green Party. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plcsevigny0619.artjun19,0,7591060.story?coll=hc-headlines-commentary Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools By TOM SEVIGNY June 19 2005 Another spring has arrived in Connecticut, and with it the obligatory haggling over town budgets. As usual, you have one side that stubbornly demands no increase in what it rightly perceives as already too high property taxes, and another side that decries what it views as draconian cuts to the education budget. Neither side ends up winning. A modest increase in the mill rate is usually finally approved after lengthy hearings, but never enough to fully fund all the wished-for education programs. Both sides leave the process dissatisfied, angry, and all too quick to blame their local elected officials. The most tragic aspect of this yearly ritual, however, is the fact that both sides do a lot of talking and shouting, but they never really take a step back and listen to each other. If they did, they would discover that we are all players in a game in which the rules are stacked against us. In Connecticut we have connected our highest priority and fastest-growing expense in local budgets - public education - to the slowest-growing source of revenue - local property taxes. Connecticut's local public education system is more reliant on the local property tax than all other states in the union because the percentage of education funding coming from state revenues - 37 percent - is near the bottom (45th) among the states. As a result, the property tax burden in Connecticut is the third-highest in the nation per capita and ranks as the 11th-highest in the nation when it comes to the percentage of personal income going to property taxes. These "rules" are a prescription for strife, whether evident in failed local budget referendums, constrained educational investment, or intergenerational struggles over priorities. Furthermore, Connecticut's property tax structure has created a competition among the 169 towns for property tax funds and has put pressure on local officials to build the grand list by commercially developing available land - the so-called fiscalization of land use - to offset the high cost of residential development they can do little to control. The result is urban sprawl, the loss of farmland and open space, increased traffic congestion, and a decline in the quality of life in far too many of our communities. With the rules as they are, local officials are pretty much constrained as to what they can do about these budgetary and land-use problems. Local officials are almost forced to produce the results that citizens, frustrated by high taxes, improperly funded education programs and bad land-use decisions, find so aggravating. I am in no way attempting to absolve local officials from blame. In my hometown of Canton, for example, buying open space could have been made a priority years ago as a way to mitigate the impact of residential development. Instead, we get an open space commission with almost no money to purchase property. In addition, far too many of our local elected officials continue to believe that we can grow our way out of our financial problems. For example, the Shoppes at Farmington Valley were hailed as the economic savior of Canton, yet here we are still unable to fully fund an education budget despite a 9 percent increase in our grand list. What is going to happen next year without such an increase? The fact is that we would have to build almost the equivalent of the Shoppes every year to offset just a 3 percent yearly increase in Canton's overall budget. If we are unable to control residential development, no amount of commercial development will be able to offset its impact on our budget. Residential development attracts more commercial development which, in turn, attracts more residential development - it is just a vicious cycle. Property taxes, already some of the highest in the country, will simply continue to rise. So what do we do? First, we need to acknowledge that the rules of the game are stacked against us. Whether you are for increased education budgets, lower property taxes, or the preservation of open space, we are all going to lose. Second, we need to pressure our elected state officials to change the rules. How the state funds local education needs to be completely overhauled. Simply put, the state needs to pay its fair share of local education expenditures. It is imperative to increase the state's share to rectify the imbalance between state and local contributions to support local education. We should employ a diverse range of taxes with a broad base, with balance among income, sales, and property taxes. This means we should specifically avoid a heavy reliance on the local property tax, which hurts families and businesses, grows revenues slowly, and contributes to urban sprawl. Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we don't change the rules of the game, we will continue to see the same fruitless results every spring. It's time we embrace the spirit of spring and begin to sow the seeds of change. Tom Sevigny of Canton is a board member of Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion, a member of the Citizens Network "Financing Local Education" study committee and a member of the Green Party. Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org _______________________________________________ CTGP-news mailing list CTGP-news at ml.greens.org http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news ATTENTION! The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members. NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From TDayan at aol.com Mon Jun 20 16:04:27 2005 From: TDayan at aol.com (TDayan at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:04:27 EDT Subject: {news} Impeach Bush----Request by Green Party-Kansas City Message-ID: Impeachment is a GREAT idea! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Mon Jun 20 16:18:37 2005 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} GP National Business-Passed= Endorsement Sponsorship of BioDemocracy Convergence Message-ID: <20050620201837.50484.qmail@web81406.mail.yahoo.com> This is part of the GPUS national business. This was passed by the National Committee. -Tim McKee Endorsement Sponsorship of BioDemocracy Convergence PresenterGreen Party of PennsylvaniaFloor ManagerMaya O'ConnorPhaseClosedDiscussion06/12/2005 - 06/13/2005Voting06/14/2005 - 06/19/2005ResultAdoptedPresens Quorum32 0.6666Consens Quorum45 0.6666 of Yes and No VotesBackground Coming up June 19 to 22, 2005, the largest consortium of biotechnology corporations -- the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) -- is holding its annual international convention in downtown Philadelphia. Activists from all over are coming too to say NO to BIO's agenda of genetically engineered (GE) agriculture, medicine for profit & not healing, and bioweapons proliferation. Activities will include teach-ins, workshops, a festival, tabling, marches, and direct action. ProposalThe GP-US will endorse the BioDemocracy 2005 Statement of Unity as well as become a sponsoring organization of the event. Sponsoring organziations will be listed in the literature as well as information about the event and are being asked to donate $500. ========================= BIODEMOCRACY 2005 STATEMENT OF UNITY Our survival, well-being, common heritage and democracy are currently under attack by the biotechnology industry. Without the knowledge or consent of the public, biotech corporations and government collaborators are making sweeping decisions about the future of life and human society on earth. We, a coalition of diverse groups and individuals, call for democratic participation in all such decisions, and for an immediate halt to the use of biotechnologies that threaten and harm the natural world, human health, and our prospects for a sustainable future. We seek an end to the use and open-field testing of genetically engineered plants and animals because of their potential to disrupt natural ecosystems, harm human health and contaminate the world's diverse seed supplies. We seek to transform a food system that is dominated by corporate profit margins into one that is democratic, sustainable and provides nutrition and sustenance for everyone. We call for a healthcare system that focuses on providing healthcare to all people, rather than producing large profits for a few corporations. Funding should be restored to non-genetic medical research and withdrawn from manipulative marketing schemes and research into exotic or redundant treatments. We call for a moratorium on genetically engineered bio-pharming for the production of medicine, as well as the experimental genetic engineering of humans, misleadingly promoted as "gene therapy.? We demand that the precautionary principle be applied to biotech medicines and treatments, to genetic engineering and to all other biotechnologies. Whenever a technological process or product raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if cause-and-effect relationships are not yet established by science. We believe that agricultural and medical research must be conducted with the highest level of scientific integrity and honesty. Full disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest is necessary, to guard against misleading research supported by corporations that stand to gain from particular results. We call for a stop to the revolving door between industry representatives and government regulators that has led to the inappropriate approval of numerous biotech products. We oppose the patenting of human, animal and plant genetic information. We demand a halt to the development, production and proliferation of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by the US government, US corporations and all others. "Defensive" biological weapons programs nearly always have offensive applications. US development and testing of genetically engineered anthrax, germ weapons factories, and germ warfare bombs clearly violate international treaties restricting biological weapons. We call for a moratorium on all such bioweapons research, and on the actual use of chemical and biological weapons by the US as an agent of war in Iraq, Colombia and elsewhere. We demand reparations for civilian victims of past US chemical attacks in Vietnam, Iraq, Colombia and other countries, and for criminal sanctions against the government officials and corporations who authorized and carried out those attacks. We support the farmers, farm workers, gardeners, scientists and indigenous people who are practicing and working toward sustainable and ecological systems of agriculture. We support those who work for an equitable healthcare system and to provide healthcare to people who presently cannot afford it. We support the global movement for peace, and all honest efforts to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons. We envision and work for a world where everyone?s basic needs are met, where wealth is equitably distributed, where racial, economic and gender justice prevail, where indigenous cultures are cherished, where restitution is made to the exploited, and natural ecosystems are fully protected. We recognize, celebrate and fight for biodiversity and diversity of cultures and knowledge. We call for true democracy, where all people participate in the decisions that affect them, and where human rights are honored everywhere on earth. We demand: A moratorium on the use of genetically engineered plants and animals. A halt to the production, testing and use of biological and chemical weapons. The application of the precautionary principle to biotechnology. An end to the patenting of life. We call for: A healthcare system that provides for everyone. A sustainable and just food system that provides good, affordable food to all people. Scientific integrity in agricultural and medical research. We support and celebrate: The complex, diverse and wondrous ecosystems of our planet that make life possible, as well as the gardeners, farmers, farm workers, scientists, healthcare workers, activists and indigenous people who are working for a just, democratic and sustainable future. ResourcesCONTACT: Mike Rosenberg, micro.zen at verizon.net ReferencesActivity & Action Info: -- Alert ::: Grassroots Democracy is Growing! Counter the Annual Convention of the Biotech Industry June 18-21, 2005 in Philadelphia HYPERLINK www.reclaimthecommons.net www.reclaimthecommons.net *** HYPERLINK www.biodev.org www.biodev.org Update # 1 (Forward widely) >From June 19 to 22, 2005, the Earth_s largest consortium of biotechnology corporations -- the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) -- is holding its annual international convention in downtown Philadelphia. Join us to say NO to their agenda of genetically engineered (GE) agriculture, medicine for profit and bioweapons proliferation! Activists in Philadelphia and throughout the East Coast are hard at work mobilizing a diverse smorgasbord of activities to challenge the biotech industry with our own vision of peaceful, sustainable and GE-free grassroots democracy. In this update, we_ll give you a taste of the mouth-watering menu of events that you can expect to enjoy if you join us in Philadelphia this June ... (1) BIODEMOCRACY FESTIVAL (2) BIODEMOCRACY TEACH-IN (3) SUMMER SOLSTICE DAY OF ACTION (4) FOOD NOT BOMBS 25th ANNIVERSARY GATHERING (5) GREEN AND BLACK URBAN GATHERING (6) ANIMAL RIGHTS CONFERENCE (7) GET INVOLVED and DONATE! (8) UPCOMING MEETINGS But first ... let us tell you how to help us spread the word! - Go to HYPERLINK www.reclaimthecommons.net www.reclaimthecommons.net, download our flyers, print them, and post or wheatpaste them in your community. - Take our call to action (HYPERLINK www.biodev.org www.biodev.org) and this update, post it on your local Indymedia Center and send it out on listservs, blogs and progressive newswires, and to your friends and family. - Organize a film screening or benefit party fundraiser! Excellent films include: "The Future of Food" (HYPERLINK www.organicconsumers.org/party.htm www.organicconsumers.org/party.htm) -- "Fed Up! Genetic Engineering, Industrial Agriculture and Sustainable Alternatives" (HYPERLINK www.wholesomegoodness.com www.wholesomegoodness.com) -- and _Life Running Out of Control_ (HYPERLINK www.denkmal-film.com/abstracts/Lakengl.html www.denkmal-film.com/abstracts/Lakengl.html). - Be a local point person (we_ll send you beautiful postcards) or contact us for more ideas! Contact Philadelphia RAGE (Resistance Against Genetic Engineering): phillyrage(at)riseup.net * 215-222-4711 * or toll-free at 877-806-2871 And now, on with the update ... (1) BIODEMOCRACY FESTIVAL Saturday, June 18th, 10 AM to 3 PM The BioDemocracy convergence will kick off with an open-air festival to celebrate the diversity of nature and our local communities. In a location to be determined, the Festival will bring together organic farmers, community gardeners, alternative health practitioners, artists, musicians, families, and activists from near and far to share knowledge, give-aways, food, fun and skills! The Festival is likely to include the following specific elements ... and much more! Green Circus (HYPERLINK www.greencircus.org www.greencircus.org) ::: Saving the planet one clown at a time, the Green Circus is a collective of multi-disciplined artists who perform THE CLEANEST SHOW ON EARTH! This free show is performed in a magical, multi-sensory circus tent which offers the audience a glimpse into a world that is ecologically sustainable. Through multimedia, audience interaction, acrobatics, trapeze, and live music, the circus, which is for audiences of all ages, will illustrate easy, simple solutions to creating cleaner air, water, and land. Really REALLY Democratic Bazaar ::: The biotech industry buys, sells and patents our genetic and natural resources in the name of "free trade". However, it is clear to us that their so-called "free trade" is a code-word for a war on democracy, people, and the planet. In response, we proclaim that a REAL free market is possible. A market in which we are truly free to give, receive, and to work on our own terms. A market in which we can fulfill our needs by working together in communities. A market that values both cultural and ecological diversity. To celebrate this vision, we invite everyone to join in the creation of a people's market: the "Really REALLY Democratic Bazaar." We will strengthen our opposition to the biotech industry by celebrating the alternatives that already exist. Our vision is a positive, non-confrontational festival of generosity, healing, and mutual care. We call for individuals and groups to organize bazaar "booths_ that contain performances, creative events, items to barter and give away, and other activities that express our visions of a better world. Some things we hope to see are natural healing (massage, yoga, capoiera, etc.), stories, music, dances, arts, crafts, ideas, goods and services. Contact Desi: desiburnette19(at)hotmail.com Farmers Speak-Out and Market ::: In our fast-paced, post-modern age of fast food and packaged produce, the voice of local organic and family farmers is overrun by the high-priced spin of corporate agribusiness and biotech profiteers. Yet small farmers continue to struggle and survive! This farmers speak-out and market will create a forum in which independent, sustainable and non-corporate farmers can give voice to their experiences, and market their produce, to a supportive public! Contact Edmund: somesanite(at)yahoo.com This is just a sampling ... Stay tuned for more details about the Festival! HYPERLINK www.reclaimthecommons.net www.reclaimthecommons.net (2) BIODEMOCRACY TEACH-IN Saturday & Sunday, June 18 & 19, 2 to 10 pm and Monday, June 20 (all day) Locations TBA Designed to educate and inform the general public as well as dedicated activists about the hazards of corporate biotech and the possibility of ecological alternatives, this 3-day teach-in will offer something for everyone! Saturday and Sunday will feature panel discussions on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture, Pharmaceuticals and Human Genetics, Biowarfare and Bioweapons, Sustainable Alternatives, and Scientific Integrity, plus workshops and a special screening of the film _The Future of Food_ introduced by its producer and many of the experts interviewed in it. Confirmed speakers include Medea Benjamin, Ignacio Chapela, Percy Schmeiser, Anuradha Mittal, Deborah Koons Garcia, Carmelo Ruiz, Sheldon Krimsky, Judy Wicks, Brian Tokar, Ramona Africa and many more! Monday will feature workshops, trainings and skillshares oriented for activists and anyone who desires a deeper look at the problems with biotech and ecological solutions. Topics will include: local victories against GE agriculture in Vermont and California; campaigns against GE trees; nanotechnology; lawsuits vs. Monsanto; the dangers of _Terminator_ technology; the biotech ties of the Carlyle Group; the patenting of life; biofuels; the politics of alternative medicine; the corporate theft of the fisheries commons; non-violence and anti-oppression trainings; and radical urban sustainability skillshares with the Black and Green Urban Gathering (see below)! Stay tuned for more teach-in details! HYPERLINK www.biodev.org www.biodev.org And read our BioDemocracy 2005 Statement of Unity: HYPERLINK http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=187 http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=187 Get your organization(s) to endorse it! (3) SUMMER SOLSTICE DAY OF ACTION Tuesday, June 21 On the Summer Solstice, rise up in Philadelphia's streets and gardens for the "Longest Day (of Action) of the Year"! Shine a light on biotech and pharmaceutical hotspots in central Philadelphia and spark non-violent resistance to business as usual at BIO 2005. Help us mobilize: come to action spokescouncils June 18th to 20th! On June 21 in the Northern Hemisphere, the Summer Solstice is the first day of Summer. It_s also the longest day of the year, with more hours of sunlight than any other day. Since ancient days, the Summer Solstice has been a time for tribal gatherings, rituals of renewal and transformation, and celebrations of natural fertility. Activists from the Pagan Cluster will be present in Philly to facilitate a spirit of connection with these primal roots and natural rhythms, as we act for a future without corporate greed, environmental destruction, genetic pollution, and biotech patents on the DNA essence of life! As always, stay tuned for details --- and contact PhillyRAGE(at)riseup.net with action proposals and ideas. You can also join our list to help plan the action scenario: june21philly(at)lists.riseup.net (4) FOOD NOT BOMBS 25TH ANNIVERSARY GATHERING 1980_2005 ::: Celebrate Food Not Bombs! June 16-21, Philadelphia Food Not Bombs is one of the fastest growing revolutionary movements active today and is gaining momentum. There are hundreds of autonomous chapters sharing free vegetarian food with hungry people and protesting war and poverty throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia. Founded in 1980, Food Not Bombs is now celebrating its 25th Anniversary! Philadelphia_s 2 chapters of Food Not Bombs are joining this celebration by hosting a 25th Anniversary Food Not Bombs Gathering in Philadelphia during the BioDemocracy counter-convention. This Gathering will begin on Thursday and Friday, June 16th and 17th, with workshops, discussions and skillshares. We'll also brew scrumptious foods for everyone who attends BioDemocracy! We're excited to open our warm, early summer, sweaty food-filled arms to all sorts of visitors who believe that access to healthy & tasty food is a right that all deserve! Learn more and download our flyer at: HYPERLINK www.foodnotbombs.net/philly_gathering.html www.foodnotbombs.net/philly_gathering.html Philly Food Not Bombs needs your help and COMMITMENT to make this Gathering happen! We are looking for help acquiring these items on our _Grocery List_: massive quantities of food (especially DRY GOODS!! -beans, rice, grains, spices, oils etc. Please be conscious of common allergen foods like wheat, soy etc.), coolers, big pots/pans, utensils, bowls and serving devices, hand-cleaning ooze, and bicycles! We also want help fundraising, finding a friendly lawyer, making and fixing bike carts, transporting food, and obtaining large-scale cooking equipment for our still-in-the-works kitchen (which we hope will be up and running by June). We are open to all kinds of input, so feel free to contact us by e-mailing phillyfnbgathering(at)lists.riseup.net. Please visit lists.riseup.net/www/info/phillyfnbgathering to sign up for our organizing e-mail list, to get involved, and to send us your ideas about holding this 25th Anniversary Gathering. (5) GREEN AND BLACK URBAN GATHERING sous les pavis, la plage! philadelphia, june 16-21, 2005 As part of this counter-biotech mobilization, we -- the Under the Pavement Collective -- intend to facilitate the presence of a strong radical caucus with the perspective to critique biotechnology in the context of our resistance to all forms of domination. As such, our enemies are not just GMOs but global capitalism, neo-colonialism, patriarchy, the industrial ethos, & anthropocentric western science itself, which aim to reduce all people and nature to orders of coercion and control. The Green and Black Urban Gathering will include a day for veggie-lovin_ radicals from far and wide to help out a neighborhood garden: get your hands dirty supporting community food sovereignty and sustainable local growing! Monday the 20th will be a day of skillshares for sustainable, post-capitalist urban living. Themes will include gardening and growing, squatting, bicycle technology and alternatives to car culture, composting and greywater, d.i.y. physical and mental health, nutrition, anti-oppression community dynamics, d.i.y. sustainable energy, post-consumer resource reclamation, urban foraging & more. We are still actively soliciting ideas for workshops & events. We are also planning a project called Bikes Against Biotech which will include a workspace to provide refurbished bicycles for out-of-towners and at least one Critical Mass-style protest ride against the BIO convention. The rest of the week will include block parties, music, marches, and maybe even a few surprises on June 21, the Summer Solstice -- the longest Day (of Action) of the year! Come to Philly to oppose biotech and sow the seeds of widespread resistance to industrial capitalism. We can and will destroy this machine from within _ let_s get busy! Under the Pavement Organizing Collective, Philadelphia underthepavement(at)riseup.net _ HYPERLINK www.gbug.org www.gbug.org (6) ANIMAL RIGHTS CONFERENCE On June 18th, HUGS FOR PUPPIES will host an anti-vivisection conference in response to BIO 2005. Not only do animals suffer needlessly from inhumane experiments --- these experiments are harmful to humans as well. After all, can we really learn about human anatomy by studying a cat? For every toxin, there is an animal that is immune to it -- and corporations are constantly searching for an animal immune to their toxins to protect themselves from legal liability when their products make people sick. The conference will take place from noon until 7:30 at the Philadelphia Ethical Society (1906 S. Rittenhouse Square). Speakers include Kevin Jonas, an animal rights activist currently charged with _animal enterprise terrorism_ and facing 23 years in prison for operating a web site. Other speakers include Dr. Ray Greek, Michelle Rokke, and Alka Chandna. Contact for more info: hugsforpuppies(at)riseup.net (7) GET INVOLVED and DONATE! We can_t stop the earth-eating insanity perpetuated by greedy biotechnology corporations by ourselves. We need your help! Want to join a working group? Check out the list of working groups at this link -- HYPERLINK www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=34 www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=34 -- and contact the point person of the group(s) you want to be involved in, become a point person for a group that has none, or create your own working group. Your own unique talents, experiences, and thoughts are welcome, encouraged, and vitally important. Please donate! We work for a world in which finances are not the limiting factor in the activities people engage in, but are unfortunately not there quite yet. We need everything we can come up with to transform our collective vision into a reality that can_t be ignored or denied! Your tax-deductible contribution will help continue our critical work. Please give a Gift today. (See below for "in-kind" items we need.) Please make checks out to ISE Biotech Project and write "BioDemocracy 2005 Project" in the memo area. Then mail your contribution to: Biotechnology Project, Institute for Social Ecology 1118 Maple Hill Road Plainfield, Vermont 05667 If every one reading this makes a donation, the BioDemocracy mobilization can afford to fly speakers to our June 18-20 educational forums, print out thousands of postcards and posters, do some serious outreach and get a significant amount of people in the streets & gardens of Philadelphia. We can stop biotech and corporate power from dominating our government and our lives. We can pay rent for a Welcome Center (possibly $5,000 - 7,000 / month). We can create beautiful banners that can reach thousands with messages of hope and resistance. So please be generous, but know that donations of any size are appreciated. What_s authentic democracy worth to you? Take a look at your finances, and then give as much as you can. If you can't afford a personal donation, then organize a benefit party! We need all the help you can deliver: This demonstration will be unlike anything the Philadelphia area has ever seen, and it_s coming up fast. Donate your talents, your resources, your stuff! Here_s what we need in particular right now: * Donate housing for speakers and activists * Donate (or loan) computers, copier, printers and telephones * Donate cell phones, walkie-talkies and video equipment * Donate used (or new!) bicycles for the mobilization to use * Donate vans or large vehicles that we can convert to veggie or biodiesel * Donate printing or copying costs for our postcards, posters, fliers and newspapers, recycled print paper and ink cartridges * Donate art supplies and graphic art skills * Donate warehouse space for a public Welcome Center * Donate gardening tools/water hoses/drip lines/soil/mulch/straw-bales for the greening of the Welcome Center and for the various Garden and Eco Projects we are planning * Donate plants and seedlings to give away * Donate goodies for our Really REALLY Free Market * Donate displays, tables, skills demonstrations, and children's activities for our Saturday, June 18th alternatives festival * Donate food, both ingredients and prepared (GMO-Free) * Donate tables, tablecloths, awnings * Loan a sound system and technical assistance * Get your organization to co-sponsor the mobilization or * Endorse the BioDemocracy 2005 Statement of Unity: HYPERLINK http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=187 http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=187 To offer any of the items listed above, please contact Nathaniel Miller at the Student Environmental Action Coalition: 215-222-4711, or nathaniel(at)riseup.net. (8) UPCOMING MEETINGS The best way, however, for you to get involved could very well be by coming to a meeting! Here_s when they_re happening ... On the 4th Wednesday of each month, Reclaim the Commons/BioDemocracy Mobilization has coalition meetings in central Philadelphia from 6 to 9 pm. Join us April 27th and May 25th! Contact phillyRAGE(at)riseup.net for the location. On the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of each month, Philadelphia RAGE (Resistance Against Genetic Engineering) holds working group meetings at 7:30 pm in West Philly. Join us May 4 + 18 and June 1 + 15. Contact phillyRAGE(at)riseup.net for the location. Working groups are also holding separate meetings, as needed. Find out about these meetings by visiting our working groups page and contacting the appropriate point person: HYPERLINK www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=34 www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=34 Our next National Consulta will be on Saturday, June 4th from 12 to 5 pm in downtown Philly. Join us! Contact phillyRAGE(at)riseup.net for the location. And if you can_t attend our meetings, don_t despair! We also have bi-monthly national conference calls. To find out about the next scheduled call, contact phillyRAGE(at)riseup.net Thursday, April 28th ::: PhillyRAGE movie night! Screening "Fed Up! Genetic Engineering, Industrial Agriculture and Sustainable Alternatives" at 7:30 pm in the A-Space (4722 Baltimore Ave.) We can_t wait to see you in Philly this June! Stay tuned ... for our next update in mid-May! HYPERLINK www.reclaimthecommons.net www.reclaimthecommons.net *** HYPERLINK www.biodev.org www.biodev.org BioDemocracy 2005 Statement of Unity: HYPERLINK http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=187 http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=187 _Because disease and starvation will not be solved by corporations!_ --------------------------------- Green Party of the United States THE GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT is the third largest political party in CT. The Greens are also the third largest political party in the US, with 220 Greens officeholders in 27 states. Over 80 countries in world have Green Parties. Wangari Maathai, the 2004 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is Kenya's assistant minister for environment and an elected Green Party member. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From capeconn at comcast.net Mon Jun 20 16:28:27 2005 From: capeconn at comcast.net (Tom Sevigny) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:28:27 -0400 Subject: {news} Article in Northeast magazine Message-ID: <01ec01c575d6$9d6a55d0$a3970218@sevigny8wcbjrd> Great article in Northeast magazine that mentions the Green Party http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-leavingus.artjun19,0,867344.story?coll=hc-headlines-northeast -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaron at easy-designs.net Mon Jun 20 20:13:02 2005 From: aaron at easy-designs.net (Aaron Gustafson) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:13:02 -0400 Subject: Message with possible fraud attempt: Re: {news} Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools In-Reply-To: <014a01c575d3$1cac4b90$a3970218@sevigny8wcbjrd> Message-ID: <200506210013.j5L0DT410839@easy-designs.net> Kelly and Joel were very active members of the Hamden Green Party. They will be greatly missed. Cheers, Aaron Gustafson Co-chair, Green Party of Connecticut webmaster at ctgreens.org _____ From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Tom Sevigny Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:03 PM To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Subject: Message with possible fraud attempt: Re: {news} Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Panda Titanium Antivirus 2005 has detected that this email could be spoofed Take maximum precautions, as spoofed emails could be the sign of a fraud attempt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- There was also an excellent article in the Northeast Magazine section of the Courant about a couple from Hamden who where moving to Canada because of the political environment in the U.S. The article described there Green Party activity in Texas and CT and even quoted Charlie Pillsbury. A double whammy for the Greens! Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: Charlie Pillsbury To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Cc: nhgreensannouncements at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 2:14 PM Subject: {news} Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/ to unsubscribe click here mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org _____ good article by Tom Sevigny in today's Hartford Courant. Tom Sevigny of Canton is a board member of Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion, a member of the Citizens Network "Financing Local Education" study committee and a member of the Green Party. _____ http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plcsevigny0619.artjun19,0, 7591060.story?coll=hc-headlines-commentary Property Tax: Poor Way To Fund Schools By TOM SEVIGNY June 19 2005 Another spring has arrived in Connecticut, and with it the obligatory haggling over town budgets. As usual, you have one side that stubbornly demands no increase in what it rightly perceives as already too high property taxes, and another side that decries what it views as draconian cuts to the education budget. Neither side ends up winning. A modest increase in the mill rate is usually finally approved after lengthy hearings, but never enough to fully fund all the wished-for education programs. Both sides leave the process dissatisfied, angry, and all too quick to blame their local elected officials. The most tragic aspect of this yearly ritual, however, is the fact that both sides do a lot of talking and shouting, but they never really take a step back and listen to each other. If they did, they would discover that we are all players in a game in which the rules are stacked against us. In Connecticut we have connected our highest priority and fastest-growing expense in local budgets - public education - to the slowest-growing source of revenue - local property taxes. Connecticut's local public education system is more reliant on the local property tax than all other states in the union because the percentage of education funding coming from state revenues - 37 percent - is near the bottom (45th) among the states. As a result, the property tax burden in Connecticut is the third-highest in the nation per capita and ranks as the 11th-highest in the nation when it comes to the percentage of personal income going to property taxes. These "rules" are a prescription for strife, whether evident in failed local budget referendums, constrained educational investment, or intergenerational struggles over priorities. Furthermore, Connecticut's property tax structure has created a competition among the 169 towns for property tax funds and has put pressure on local officials to build the grand list by commercially developing available land - the so-called fiscalization of land use - to offset the high cost of residential development they can do little to control. The result is urban sprawl, the loss of farmland and open space, increased traffic congestion, and a decline in the quality of life in far too many of our communities. With the rules as they are, local officials are pretty much constrained as to what they can do about these budgetary and land-use problems. Local officials are almost forced to produce the results that citizens, frustrated by high taxes, improperly funded education programs and bad land-use decisions, find so aggravating. I am in no way attempting to absolve local officials from blame. In my hometown of Canton, for example, buying open space could have been made a priority years ago as a way to mitigate the impact of residential development. Instead, we get an open space commission with almost no money to purchase property. In addition, far too many of our local elected officials continue to believe that we can grow our way out of our financial problems. For example, the Shoppes at Farmington Valley were hailed as the economic savior of Canton, yet here we are still unable to fully fund an education budget despite a 9 percent increase in our grand list. What is going to happen next year without such an increase? The fact is that we would have to build almost the equivalent of the Shoppes every year to offset just a 3 percent yearly increase in Canton's overall budget. If we are unable to control residential development, no amount of commercial development will be able to offset its impact on our budget. Residential development attracts more commercial development which, in turn, attracts more residential development - it is just a vicious cycle. Property taxes, already some of the highest in the country, will simply continue to rise. So what do we do? First, we need to acknowledge that the rules of the game are stacked against us. Whether you are for increased education budgets, lower property taxes, or the preservation of open space, we are all going to lose. Second, we need to pressure our elected state officials to change the rules. How the state funds local education needs to be completely overhauled. Simply put, the state needs to pay its fair share of local education expenditures. It is imperative to increase the state's share to rectify the imbalance between state and local contributions to support local education. We should employ a diverse range of taxes with a broad base, with balance among income, sales, and property taxes. This means we should specifically avoid a heavy reliance on the local property tax, which hurts families and businesses, grows revenues slowly, and contributes to urban sprawl. Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we don't change the rules of the game, we will continue to see the same fruitless results every spring. It's time we embrace the spirit of spring and begin to sow the seeds of change. Tom Sevigny of Canton is a board member of Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion, a member of the Citizens Network "Financing Local Education" study committee and a member of the Green Party. Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant _____ To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org _______________________________________________ CTGP-news mailing list CTGP-news at ml.greens.org http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news ATTENTION! The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members. NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Panda Titanium Antivirus 2005 has detected that this email could be spoofed Take maximum precautions, as spoofed emails could be the sign of a fraud attempt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Tue Jun 21 17:56:15 2005 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:56:15 -0400 Subject: {news} Agenda for SCC meeting on Tuesday, 6-28-05, of Green Party of CT Message-ID: <20050621215620.FJBG6804.lakermmtao09.cox.net@BarbaraBarry> Time: 7 to 9pm, 6-28-05 Location: Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, Hamden, CT 3rd floor meeting room (turn right then left from the elevators) Facilitator: Thomas Sevigny A. Preliminaries: 1. (2 minutes): Introductions/identify chapters, recruit timekeeper and stacker. 2. (1 minute): Identify people present who are NOT voting representatives. 3. (1 minute): Adopt ground rules. 4. (2 minutes): Approval of tonight's proposed agenda, additions and deletions. 5. (2 minutes): Comments and approval of May 31,2005 SCC minutes. 6. (2 minutes): Comments and approval of April 26, 2005 SCC minutes. 7. (2 minutes): Comments and approval of March 2005 SCC minutes. 8. (15 minutes): Presentation of Treasurer's monthly report. 9. (30 minutes): Guest speaker slot regarding CT campaign finance reform proposals, by representative from either CCAG or Common Cause. 10. (10 minutes): questions for the guest speaker. B. Reports: 1. (2 minutes each): Chapter reports. 2. (10 minutes): U.S. Green Party representatives' reports by Tim McKee and Thomas Sevigny. 3. (5 minutes): Women's Caucus report. 4. (5 minutes): V.O.T.E.R. report from Mike DeRosa. 5. (2 minutes): legislative report from Mike DeRosa. 6. (2 minutes): 6-13-05 EC meeting from Barbara Barry. 7. (2 minutes): Strategy Committee. C. Proposal: 1: EC proposal: What: Have voting members sign-in on a sheet at each SCC meeting. Goal: To assist the Secretary with a count of voters, if votes are taken during the SCC meeting. DIRECTIONS: >From North (Hartford) I 91 South to Exit 10. Merge right into Exit 1. Take a left at the light off the exit, a left at the next traffic light (onto Hartford Turnpike) and a right at the next traffic light (onto Dixwell Avenue). Travel down Dixwell Avenue for approximately 1 1/2 miles to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Route 15 South (Wilbur Cross Parkway): Exit 62. Left onto Whitney Avenue. North on Whitney approximately 0.3 miles to intersection with Dixwell Avenue. Left on Dixwell Ave. Proceed 1/2 mile to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. >From South (New York) I-91 North to Exit 10. Merge right into Exit 1. Take a left at the light off the exit, a left at the next traffic light (onto Hartford Turnpike) and a right at the next traffic light (onto Dixwell Avenue). Travel down Dixwell Avenue for approximately 1 1/2 miles to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Route 15 North (Meritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway)to Exit 61. Right onto Whitney Avenue. North on Whitney approximately 0.3 miles to intersection with Dixwell Avenue. Left on Dixwell Ave. Proceed 1/2 mile to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Thanks, Barbara Barry DeRosa _______________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Jun 22 08:04:50 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:04:50 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Al-Rowwad Children's Theater troupe schedule in CT: GPCT-Sponsored event Message-ID: <00af01c57722$9af3a7a0$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> Please attend this event co-sponsored by Greens Party of CT ------------------------------------------------------------------- Final schedule Al Rowwad Children's Theater Connecticut appearances presents the play "WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE CAMP" . Friday, June 24, 8 p.m., Housatonic Valley Regional High School, Warren Turnpike & Rt. 7, Town of Canaan (Falls Village), CT, Performance of the play We Are the Children of the Camp (tickets $10) . Saturday, June 25, 5:30 p.m Dabka (Palestinian Folk Dances), at 16th annual Grove Festival, Town Grove, Lakeville/Salisbury, CT. Free . Sunday, June 26, 2:30 p.m., Charter Oak Center, 21 Charter Oak, Hartford, CT`, Performance of the play We Are the Children of the Camp (tickets $15, $8 children) . Sunday, June 26, 6 p.m. 138 Warren Turnpike Road, Falls Village, CT, Palestinian-American community invited for a potluck hosting of Al Rowwad Children's Theater group (others welcome but see below for other picnic opportunity). PLEASE RSVP by Saturday by email or message at 824-7636. Monday, June 27, around 6 p.m. 138 Warren Turnpike Road, Falls Village, CT, a potluck open community picnic for the Al Rowwad Children's Theater group. This is a rare chance to meet a group of young (and not so young!) Palestinian actors for an evening of cultural exchange, food, fun, friendship and hope for a peaceful future. PLEASE RSVP by Saturday by email or message at 824-7636. Al Rowwad Children's Theater is a nonprofit, independent cultural center in Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem, Palestine, a six-acre area where 4,500 people live. The children of Al Rowwad were born under military occupation and have lived their entire lives under military occupation. We Are the Children of the Camp is a powerful reflection through drama, dance and music of the violent reality of their lives and of their irrepressible and joyful hope for the future. Al Rowwad U.S. Summer Tour 2005 is sponsored in Connecticut by the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, P.O. Box 1172,, Orange, CT 06477, a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit organization and the Palestinian American Congress, and The Middle East Crisis Committee. The tour is supported by Connecticut United for Peace, Connecticut Alliance for Peace in Palestine-Israel; Northwest Connecticut Coalition for Peace and Justice; We Refuse to Be Enemies, Connecticut Council for National Interest. Connecticut If Americans Knew (IfAmericansKnew.org), Greater New Haven Peace Council, Greater Danbury Peace Activists, American Friends Service Committee, and the Green Party of Connecticut. From roseberry3 at cox.net Wed Jun 22 22:55:36 2005 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:55:36 -0400 Subject: {news} REVISED Agenda for SCC meeting on Tuesday, 6-28-05, of Green Party of CT Message-ID: <20050623025538.QDGV6804.lakermmtao09.cox.net@BarbaraBarry> _____ Time: 7 to 9pm, 6-28-05 Location: Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, Hamden, CT 3rd floor meeting room (turn right then left from the elevators) Facilitator: Thomas Sevigny A. Preliminaries: 1. (2 minutes): Introductions/identify chapters, recruit timekeeper and stacker. 2. (1 minute): Identify people present who are NOT voting representatives. 3. (1 minute): Adopt ground rules. 4. (2 minutes): Approval of tonight's proposed agenda, additions and deletions. 5. (2 minutes): Comments and approval of May 31,2005 SCC minutes. 6. (2 minutes): Comments and approval of April 26, 2005 SCC minutes. 7. (2 minutes): Comments and approval of March 2005 SCC minutes. 8. (15 minutes): Presentation of Treasurer's monthly report. 9. (30 minutes): Guest speaker slot regarding CT campaign finance reform proposals: Phil Sherwood, Communications Coordinator, CT Citizens Action Group, History and Context of Bills, Posssible special session, How the Green Party can get involved. 10.(10 minutes): questions for the guest speaker. B. Special Presentation by Aaron Gustafson and Kelly McCarthy on Restructuring Plan and Basecamp software Demo(30Minutes). C. Reports: 1. (2 minutes each): Chapter reports. 2. (10 minutes): U.S. Green Party representatives' reports by Tim McKee and Thomas Sevigny. 3. (5 minutes): Women's Caucus report. 4. (5 minutes): V.O.T.E.R. report from Mike DeRosa. 5. (2 minutes): legislative report from Mike DeRosa. 6. (2 minutes): 6-13-05 EC meeting from Barbara Barry. 7. (2 minutes): Strategy Committee. D. Proposals: 1: EC proposal: What: Have voting members sign-in on a sheet at each SCC meeting. Goal: To assist the Secretary with a count of voters, if votes are taken during the SCC meeting. (15 Min) 2.Proposal from Tolland Chapter: "Call For the Impeachment of President Bush" (10 Min) E. Justine McCabe's endorsements request DIRECTIONS: >From North (Hartford) I 91 South to Exit 10. Merge right into Exit 1. Take a left at the light off the exit, a left at the next traffic light (onto Hartford Turnpike) and a right at the next traffic light (onto Dixwell Avenue). Travel down Dixwell Avenue for approximately 1 1/2 miles to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Route 15 South (Wilbur Cross Parkway): Exit 62. Left onto Whitney Avenue. North on Whitney approximately 0.3 miles to intersection with Dixwell Avenue. Left on Dixwell Ave. Proceed 1/2 mile to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. >From South (New York) I-91 North to Exit 10. Merge right into Exit 1. Take a left at the light off the exit, a left at the next traffic light (onto Hartford Turnpike) and a right at the next traffic light (onto Dixwell Avenue). Travel down Dixwell Avenue for approximately 1 1/2 miles to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Route 15 North (Meritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway)to Exit 61. Right onto Whitney Avenue. North on Whitney approximately 0.3 miles to intersection with Dixwell Avenue. Left on Dixwell Ave. Proceed 1/2 mile to Hamden Government Center, 2750 Dixwell Avenue, on the right. Thanks, Barbara Barry DeRosa _______________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00014.txt URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Fri Jun 24 11:55:54 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:55:54 -0400 Subject: {news} MERIP: Iran's Presidential Runoff: The Long View Message-ID: <03a401c578d5$342982b0$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> Iran's Presidential Runoff: The Long View Kaveh Ehsani June 24, 2005 (Kaveh Ehsani is a research scholar at the University of Illinois-Chicago and an editor of Middle East Report.) Many observers were caught off guard when the first round of Iran's presidential election on June 17, 2005 catapulted the arch-conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, into a runoff against former president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani. Ahmadinejad's unpredicted strong showing raises the prospect that he could win in the second round on June 24, thereby consolidating even further the control of radical conservatives over the Islamic Republic. Some commentators have warned that such a development presages "Talibanism" in Iran; others see an Ahmadinejad victory as tantamount to a military takeover of Iranian politics. These concerns are not mere hyperbole. Mehdi Karrubi, a former speaker of Iran's parliament and one of two first-round candidates hailing from the reformist current that dominated the legislature from 1997-2004, continues to question the validity of the first-round results, accusing the authorities and conservative-run campaigns of fraud and voter intimidation. Ahmadinejad beat out Karrubi by some 600,000 votes, out of more than 29 million total ballots cast, to stand in the runoff. Even Rafsanjani briefly threatened to pull out of the runoff in response to what he called illicit influencing of voters and "character assassination," following the announcement by the Interior Ministry of the discovery of "millions" of flyers and DVDs attacking him personally. Such negative campaigning is prohibited by law in Iran. In this climate, many concerned intellectuals, artists, academics, businessmen and activists have thrown their support behind Rafsanjani, who is not a democrat by any definition of the word, to forestall what they view as the threat of "fascism." Even Rafsanjani's erstwhile political rivals from the Participation Front Party and the Mojahedin-e Enqelab Organization, both constituent parties of the reformist front that was largely locked out of the 2004 legislative elections, have backed the wily, unprincipled ex-president. Meanwhile, a vocal rejectionist camp, both inside and outside the country, is calling for a boycott of the second round on the grounds that elections in the Islamic Republic are nothing but a means of deluding the populace into believing that they have a real say in the orientation of a regime that is otherwise completely delegitimized. Without a doubt, an Ahmadinejad victory could be a major setback for Iran's tortuous process of democratization. The conservative forces that he represents have been consistently exclusionary and intolerant in both rhetoric and practice. They have regularly resorted to the use of violence, up to and including committing murder, to deal with their critics. Nor can a Rafsanjani victory be seen as a positive step forward, given the human rights record of the Iranian regime from 1989-1997, when he was president. These two gloomy scenarios are precisely why it is important to take the time to analyze the results of the first round calmly, as well as lay out the various political positions that have been taken regarding participation in the second round, in order to evaluate the long-term prospects of democratic development in Iran. IN SEARCH OF THE BIG LOSERS Those hoping to revive the political fortunes of the defeated reformist front suffered a shock when their expectation that a large voter turnout would benefit their favorite son proved incorrect. The last polls before the June 17 round showed the most reformist-identified candidate, Mostafa Moin, running neck and neck with Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf for second place to Rafsanjani. Qalibaf, a police general, presented himself as a "soft conservative" who would maintain law and order and battle corruption. Qalibaf's support in the polls stood at 15 percent and Moin's at 14 percent, compared to 26 percent support for Rafsanjani. The other candidates trailed well behind. Around half the electorate -- a low number by Iranian standards -- were expected to vote. On June 17, fully 61 percent of the electorate showed up at the polls. The higher turnout did not benefit the Moin campaign, but instead added to the totals of Karrubi and Ahmadinejad, the two candidates who ran on platforms of social and economic populism. Rafsanjani received 6.2 million votes (21 percent); Ahmadinejad came in second with 5.7 million (19 percent); Karrubi garnered 5 million votes (17 percent); and Qalibaf and Moin both won around 4.1 million (14 percent and 13 percent, respectively), with the two other candidates bringing up the rear. The outcry about irregularities from the Karrubi camp is credible, given the known preference of the military establishment for Ahmadinejad and given the narrow difference between their vote totals. Nevertheless, it is clear that the more significant portion of Ahmadinejad's tally was either siphoned from other conservative candidates, like Qalibaf and former state television chief Ali Larijani, or came from formerly undecided voters who had gravitated toward the Tehran mayor as he railed against corruption and ostentation. Why did Moin not perform according to expectations? His campaign, responding to popular discontent with the reformists' unfulfilled promise, sought to convince the voters that reformists were now pursuing a more careful strategy to secure the institutionalization of democracy in Iran. The parliamentary reformists, along with their ally President Mohammad Khatami, had been thwarted multiple times by the encroachments of the Guardian Council, an unelected clerical body charged with judging the compatibility of acts of Parliament with the tenets of the Islamic Revolution. Moin said he would find ways to ward off these interventions and those of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, successor to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as the revolution's Supreme Leader. In comparison to Khatami, Moin lacks charisma. Instead of flashing personal star power, he promised to adhere to party discipline in formulating and implementing policy. Moin's candidacy marked the first time that the lay reformers who compose his party had put forward a non-cleric as their candidate. They did so in explicit competition with their reformist allies, the Assembly of Combatant Clerics, whose candidate, Karrubi, is a cleric. In the penultimate stages of the campaign, as Moin's popularity failed to increase, his backers broke a political taboo and extended their hand to Iranian opposition forces that have stayed inside the country, but have always stayed outside the regime. In addition, Moin announced that his administration would contain minority Sunni Muslims as well as non-regime opposition figures. Moin's campaign pledged to continue political liberalization and economic reforms, to struggle to free political prisoners and protect the press and civil society groups, and to defuse tensions with the United States over Iran's nuclear program. If Moin rose in the polls during the last weeks of the campaign, it was because of these overtures to those politically marginalized by the system. However, in the end, and possible vote rigging notwithstanding, this strategy proved unsuccessful. The majority of the population was not swayed by a platform geared to the urban, educated middle classes and short on actual evidence that Moin could deal with the crippling political deadlock, not to mention the pressing problems of unemployment and increasing poverty plaguing the working classes. But perhaps an even bigger disappointment was reserved for those who called for a boycott of the first round as a way to rob the regime of the legitimizing effect of a high turnout. If one compares the 61 percent first-round turnout to the nearly 70 percent turnout in the 2001 contest that reelected Khatami, it appears that only an additional 10 percent of the electorate turned their backs on the election in the end. It is by no means clear how many of these were convinced to do so by the boycotters' call. The boycott camp maintains that elections in the Islamic Republic serve only to prolong the life of a system that is fundamentally irredeemable. Instead, some in this heterogeneous camp demand a referendum, held under international auspices, to change the constitution of the Islamic Republic. Others call for waves of civil disobedience. Whatever the merits of these positions in principle, the only visible practical strategy of this camp seems to be refusal to participate in the political system. The paradox of this strategy is that effective organizing to challenge the system can scarcely occur without the modicum of political and civil liberty that presently exists. This liberty, in turn, is a byproduct of electoral politics and the erstwhile ascendancy of reformers therein. Outside the country, the political programs of Iranian exiles are varied, but there are indications that some exile groups hope to replicate in Iran the kind of peaceful regime change that occurred in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia. In Washington, according to the June 16 Financial Times, the International Center on Non-Violent Conflict has quietly played an influential role in shaping the discourse on this topic among exile activists, including the son of the former Shah, as well as State Department officials. However, as the first round showed once again, absent the hard work of building grassroots social and political organizations on the ground, which could then present a convincing picture of a political transition without chaos and major hardship, the Iranian public is unlikely to follow such leads. READING THE VOTE A major lacuna in the strategic thinking of both the reformist and the rejectionist camps has been their neglect of the "political sociology" of contemporary Iran. Numerous studies, as well as patterns of voter behavior over the past eight years, have shown that the Iranian public is, by and large, cautious and pragmatic, rather than ideological. Outside major cities, elections are always hotly contested affairs. People in rural areas and provincial towns continue to participate in electoral politics in fairly large numbers simply because they realize that elected officials, whether presidents or parliamentarians, are the only channel they have (or will have) to central power. The inhabitants of this large "periphery" -- who make up the majority of the population -- know that the meager resources distributed to them are negotiated through such elected officials and might not arrive at all without their aid. Such realism among the population living outside major cities prevents them from risking the loss of the only "voice" they have in the power structure. The fact that Karrubi and Ahmadinejad did so unexpectedly well in many smaller towns and provinces, as well as among urban dwellers of modest means, stems from their humble personas as well as the similarities in their messages. Both came across as unassuming men of provincial origin, who refused to call for cuts in the enormous state subsidies to industries and agriculture or to countenance further privatization of state assets. Instead, both men promised further downward redistributions of wealth. Ahmadinejad, in particular, sounded a note of egalitarianism, promising a return to the austere self-denial and revolutionary purism of the 1980s. By contrast, the reformists surrounding Moin continued to direct their appeals to the middle classes, and openly spoke of themselves as a party of "the elite" (nokhbegan, a term which, unfortunately, does not have the negative connotations it carries in English). Rafsanjani's support came primarily from the same strata, and especially from entrepreneurs, technocrats, state managers and liberal economists, who appreciate his long-established commitment to neo-liberal economic policies. Both the Moin and Rafsanjani camps assumed the provincial populations would follow the lead of the urban middle classes. Ironically, however, the only mass abstention from the election in the first round seems to have come from precisely these urban middle classes. At the same time, there are worrisome indications of a rise of class hostility in the rural and provincial vote, which may indeed gather behind the obscurantist candidacy of Ahmadinejad in the second round. UNAPPETIZING CHOICE It is ironic indeed that Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the most reviled man in Iranian politics, the very personification of corruption in the eyes of Iranians, has emerged as the great hope for safeguarding the democratic progress achieved in Iran in recent years. Without much convincing evidence, but always with firm conviction, the Iranian public, as well as outsiders like the editors of Forbes magazine, maintain that Rafsanjani and his relatives have exploited their political power to accumulate fabulous wealth and establish a grip over major sectors of the Iranian economy. Ahmadinejad, in his latest salvo, claimed that the ex-president's family controls Iranian oil revenues, citing the fact that one of his sons is a high official in the Oil Ministry. Rafsanjani is a consummate politician and dealmaker, a master tactician with neither scruples nor a strategy aside from playing both ends against the other, preferably with a light touch. It will be no surprise, if he wins, to see his presidential rivals accommodated as members of his cabinet: Qalibaf as interior minister, Larijani as higher education minister and Moin as minister of culture. Nevertheless, as a hard-core realist, Rafsanjani will ensure the continuation of the relative glasnost that is the basis of Iran's long and difficult march to democracy. The greatest threats to the institutionalization of homegrown democratic forces in Iran are internal chaos and violent civil conflict, the demagogic reemergence of radical populist Islamism represented by Ahmadinejad, and, ever present in the background, the specter of military confrontation with the Bush administration. The least that can be said for Rafsanjani is that, as a politician, he may be capable of staving off these threats. The conservatives, at least for now, have refrained from using violent force, and have shown that, some cheating aside, they can put together a formidable political machine to mobilize voter support in election after election. But to date, this conservative establishment has not once managed to muster more than 12 million votes, or 24 percent of the electorate. While the conservative support has a ceiling, the nebulous reformist -- or, more appropriately, anti-conservative -- forces are far more numerous, but also heterogeneous and volatile. Whether these voters will enter the booths en masse to ensure that a dangerously demagogic current does not gain all levers of political power in Iran is an open question. What is certain is that an outright conservative victory will severely curtail the limited freedoms of the press, civic organization and grassroots mobilization that have so drastically transformed the Iranian polity and society over the past eight years. The June 24 runoff may well be a very close affair. The provincial bloc that voted for Karrubi may be attracted to Ahmadinejad's radical egalitarian message, thereby augmenting the assuredly unified conservative vote. If the middle classes stay away, this will be an especially close election. In that case, dirty tricks and the kind of fraud displayed by the hardline paramilitary organizations and the Guardian Council could tip the scales in favor of Ahmadinejad. WHITHER IRANIAN DEMOCRACY? In the long run, the anti-conservative and democratic forces in Iran -- whether secular or religious -- need to match and then outmatch their opponents in creating the institutionalized political networks (such as functioning political parties, trade unions and formal civic associations) that can link them to those segments of the population who have felt unrepresented by the reformist movement. In addition, these forces need to act on their apparent realization that only an inclusive democratic front that unites these rival groups against their authoritarian and Islamist opponents will have a chance to succeed. However, and ironically, the short-term survival of the democratic movement in Iran will depend on the victory of Rafsanjani. That said, the presidential election in Iran has also demonstrated that no single political trend enjoys hegemony -- not conservative Islamists, not post-Islamist reformers, not secular democrats and not rejectionist advocates of regime change. None of these forces can hope to solve the daunting problems facing the country alone, either by using violence or by relying on external aid. Barring a disastrous foreign military intervention, the path of democracy in Iran will continue to be tortuous, but real. Would-be democrats will need to take into account the heterogeneity of the society, and the existence of an array of political forces that can barely stand each other but will need to come to a modus vivendi if they wish to live to fight another day. Despite the unappetizing choice between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, all is not gloom and doom. The campaign allowed for many important lessons to be learned the hard way, and these can become the new basis for a broader-based democratic front. The voting to date has made clear that the expectations of Iran's majority of provincial, rural and urban poor people for improved economic conditions, and a greater voice in the power structure, cannot be ignored any longer. None of the extant political forces can take popular support for granted. The emergence of a broad-based coalition politics for democratic change can become the most valuable outcome of the 2005 election, no matter which candidate comes out the victor. ----- For background on the first round, see Arang Keshavarzian and Mohammad Maljoo, "Paradox and Possibility in Iran's Presidential Election," Middle East Report Online, June 17, 2005. http://www.merip.org/mer/mero061705.html The winter 2004 issue of Middle East Report, "Iran's Clouded Horizons," offers in-depth coverage of the reasons for the passing of Iran's "reformist moment." Order the issue, or subscribe to Middle East Report, via a secure server at MERIP's home page: http://www.merip.org . Middle East Report Online is a free service of the Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From capeconn at comcast.net Fri Jun 24 16:18:07 2005 From: capeconn at comcast.net (Tom Sevigny) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:18:07 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: GREEN RELEASE Greens to Senate: Reject nuke-friendly energy bill Message-ID: <004d01c578f9$d651ebd0$a3970218@sevigny8wcbjrd> ----- Original Message ----- From: "DC Statehood Green Party" To: Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:10 AM Subject: GREEN RELEASE Greens to Senate: Reject nuke-friendly energy bill > GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES > http://www.gp.org > > For Immediate Release: > Thursday, June 23, 2005 > > Contacts: > Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, > mclarty at greens.org > Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, > nallen at acadia.net > > > GREENS TO SENATE: REJECT THE McCAIN-LIEBERMAN ACT, > WHICH WOULD SUBSIDIZE DANGEROUS NUCLEAR POWER > > > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders are urging the > Senate to reject the McCain-Lieberman Climate > Stewardship Act, calling the bill an effort to > subsidize nuclear energy as a way to combat global > warming. > > The bill repeats earlier failed legislation that would > combine mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions > with a credit-trading system modeled after the Clean > Air Act, and adds incentives for nuclear development > ($6.1 billion in the recently passed House version; > $4.3 billion in the Senate bill). > > Greens have called market-based solutions to global > warming severely inadequate and warn that the dangers > of nuclear power are insurmountable. > > "Democrats and Republicans have turned the need for > sound energy policy into a choice between suffering > the effects of catastrophic climate change and the > massive accumulation of deadly radioactive waste from > nuclear power," said Jody Grage Haug, co-chair of the > Green Party of the United States. "The only rational > response to the threat of global warming is a plan > that phases out fossil fuel and nuclear power, > develops clean, renewable energy sources, and reduces > energy consumption." > > Greens, while criticizing the Kyoto Protocols' modest > measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have > called it an important first step, and continue to > urge the U.S. to sign on and expand its goals. > > "By ignoring energy conservation and embracing nuclear > power, Democrats and Republicans who say they care > about global warming have proved themselves only > marginally better than President Bush," said David > Cobb, the Green Party's 2004 presidential candidate. > "Nuclear power is expensive, it would require the > addition of 1,500 new plants worldwide to replace > fossil fuel energy, it would present an enormous > security and public health risk, and the storage of > nuclear waste would be a permanent and growing > environmental crisis. > > "Furthermore, nuclear power does nothing to address > the major source of CO2 emissions -- cars, trucks, and > airplanes," Mr. Cobb added. "But Congress and the > White House have refused to enact and enforce more > stringent fuel economy standards, such as the > Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] rules, or > introduce consumer incentives to reduce demand, > because of industry pressure." > > > MORE INFORMATION > > Green Party of the United States > http://www.gp.org > 1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404 > Washington, DC 20009. > 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN > Fax 202-319-7193 > > "Energy: Ignoring the Obvious Fix" > By Thane Peterson, Business Week, June 20, 2005 > http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2005/nf20050620_6725_db045.htm > http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/062105EB.shtml > > > ~ END ~ > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com > From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 24 22:36:14 2005 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:36:14 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Center for Popular Economics Summer Institute 2005-Amherst Message-ID: <000001c5793c$db5979c0$918cf504@edgn2b574u14bi> MessageI went to this summer institute twice. Classes in morning (US economy focus or international economy focus) + films and speakers later in day; also material on health care. ----- Original Message ----- From: miguel at populareconomics.org To: greens at ctgreens.org Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:42 PM Subject: Center for Popular Economics Summer Institute 2005 Hello, My name is Miguel Colon, I called earlier from The Center for Popular Economics in Amherst, MA. We are running a Summer Institute for Health and Economic Justice in Amherst, MA this summer. Here's some information below. email us back if your interested and let us know if you, or your organization, could sponser someone to come to the institute. This is a great oppurtunity for grassroots activists and funding is still available. Also, It will be greatly appreciated if you could forward this email to as many people possible and post the event on your calender. Thanks, Miguel Colon The Center for Popular Economics invites you to our 26th Annual Summer Institute With a Special track on: Health and Economic Justice July 31-August 6, 2005 Amherst College, Amherst, MA Speakers & workshop presenters: Heidi Behforouz, Partners in Health & PACT; John Abramson, author of Overdosed Americans; Jim Westrich, health economist; Dickson Despommier, Columbia University, Environment & Health Sciences; Jose deMarco, ACT-UP, Philadelphia; Mark Dudzic, national organizer for the Labor Party & formerly with OCAW; Sarah Kemble, Physicians for a National Health Program; and more! The Summer Institutes: CPE's Summer Institute is a week-long intensive training in economics for activists, educators, and anyone who wants a better understanding of economics. We focus on the how the economic system impacts our lives, communities and work every day. Although activists from all over the world attend the Summer Institutes, classes and workshops are taught in English. No background in economics is required. Who attends the Summer Institute? CPE's Summer Institute draws a diverse group of participants from across the U.S. and around the world, with interests and expertise in a broad array of issues and organizing methods. On average, one-third of our participants are people of color, two-thirds are women, one-fifth are from countries other than the U.S., and ages range from 18-75. Together they form a lively community in which participants learn as much from the rich interaction with one another as from Institute programs. Core classes: At the heart of the Summer Institute program are two core courses, one on the U.S. Economy, one on the International Economy. All participants must choose one core course. The core classes meet each day in the mornings. Afternoon and evening events: In addition to the core courses is a rich selection of speakers, workshops, videos, and discussion groups. Some of these are led by CPE or outside facilitators, some are participant-led, some are spontaneously generated. In the evenings there are panels, speakers, and cultural events. All of these events are open to participants of both classes. Special Track: Each year we choose an issue area that we focus on in the workshops, panels as well as in the core classrooms. This year's special track is on Health and Economic Justice. We will explore the relationships between health, poverty, race, and gender from a national and international perspective. Fees: The fee for tuition and meals is $750 and the fee for lodging in dormitory facilities at Amherst College is $150. If you feel that you cannot afford these fees, we strongly encourage you to apply for a scholarship. In past years around 80% of participants received scholarship assistance. Scholarships: Our scholarships are based both on financial need and on the applicant's commitment to activism. We are committed to making our programs financially accessible. Scholarships are still available, but limited, so please apply ASAP. Housing: 'Residential' participants pay an extra $150 for 6 nights lodging from Sunday through Friday night. (An extra night's lodging is available for Saturday, July 30 for $35 to assist participants taking advantage of less expensive airline tickets.) Participants receive single rooms in Amherst College dorms unless they request a shared room (sorry, no double beds available). Bathrooms are shared, with separate facilities for men and women. The dorms are not air conditioned but fans will be available. Meals: A fee for meals is included in the tuition. They are served in the Amherst College Dining Commons and there is a wide selection of hot and cold meals including vegetarian and vegan options. Meals are provided from Sunday dinner through Saturday Breakfast. Children: We provide free childcare during all Institute programs. We charge nominal fees for children's meals and housing. Fees for room and board for children can be found on the registration form. Late fees: There is an automatic $35 late fee for registration forms mailed after June 30, 2005. Scholarship requests sent after June 15 are discouraged but will be given consideration based on the remaining availability of funds. Location and Facilities: The 2005 Summer Institute will be held at Amherst College located in the beautiful Pioneer valley in Western Mass. Downtown Amherst, with it's wide selection of restaurants, cafes, bookstores and shops, is in easy walking distance. There are hiking and biking trails nearby. All facilities are handicap accessible. Academic credit: Academic credit is available through the UMass-Amherst Continuing education Department. For more information email: programs at populareconomics.org or call us at (413) 545-0743. Summer Institute Brochure and registration form are available on our website: www.populareconomics.org For more information, contact us at: Center for Popular Economics, P.O. Box 785, Amherst, MA 01004 phone: (413) 545-0743 E-mail: programs at populareconomics.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 25 00:06:23 2005 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:06:23 -0400 Subject: {news} AFSC Community Calendar 6-24-05--immigrant rights actions, and lots more Message-ID: <000701c5793c$ec240770$918cf504@edgn2b574u14bi> 6-Story Newsletter Template + Images ----- Original Message ----- From: AFSC Connecticut To: edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 6:24 PM Subject: Community Calendar 6-24-05 American Friends Service Committee Connecticut In This Issue: Connecticut Peace and Justice Calendar 6-24-05 . Immigrants' Rights Rally and Forum - Saturday, June 25th . Community Calendar 6-24-05 Immigrants' Rights Rally and Forum - Saturday, June 25th Friends, we will be gathering for immigrants rights in Hartford tomorrow (Saturday). There will be a rally and press conference for immigrants' rights in the morning and a Forum on How to Defend the Rights of the Immigrant Community in the evening. I hope you can join us. Please find our regular calendar below. Anti-immigrant forces led by Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control have called a demonstration for Saturday at 9:30 a.m. in front of the offices of Sen. Joseph Lieberman. They intend to protest his views on immigration and demand that he support their barbaric policy recommendations, which include withholding driver's licenses and workmen's compensation from undocumented immigrants, denying in-state college tuition to their children, and deputizing police with the authority to deport them. (You can view their website by clicking the link below) We will hold a peaceful counter-demonstration at a reasonable distance from CCIC. We do not defend nor endorse the immigration views of Sen. Lieberman. Rather we protest actions taken by vigilante groups and federal authorities that victimize immigrants and create a climate of fear in their communities. We join together in defense of immigrant rights. How To Defend The Rights Of The Immigrant Community Forum Saturday, June 25th 6-8pm Charter Oak Cultural Center, 21 Charter Oak Ave. Hartford CT * We'll give a Report Back on recent successful mobilizations against anti-immigrant forces in CT * Speaker to discuss U.S. immigration policy since 9/11 * Speaker will give explanation of the rights of immigrants living in the U.S. sponsored by Latinos Contra La Guerra (Hartford) and Unidad Latina en Accion (New Haven) for more info. please contact Marela Zacarias at (860) 538-3921 or email us at latinoscontralaguerra at yahoo.com _________________________________________________ In Spanish: Latinos Contra La Guerra los invita a que atienda a un foro en c?mo defender a los derechos de los Inmigrantes el 25 de junio de 2005 6-8pm en El Charter Oak Cultural Center en Hartford, CT * Daremos un reporte sobre las movilizaciones acertadas recientes encontra de el grupo anti-inmigrante en CT. * Discutiremos la pol?tica de la inmigraci?n en los Estados Unidos desde 9/11. * Daremos explicaci?nes sobre los derechos de los inmigrantes que viven en los Estados Unidos. Este Foro sera auspiciado por Latinos Contra La Guerra (Hartford) y Unidad Latina En Accion (New Haven). Para m?s informacion por favor llame a Marela Zacarias al (860) 538-3921 o envianos un correo electronico a latinoscontralaguerra at yahoo.com Read the Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control's statement to Lieberman Community Calendar 6-24-05 *** Friday, June 24, 2005 Al Rowwad Children's Theater presents "WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE CAMP" 8pm . Housatonic Valley Regional High School, Warren Turnpike & Rt. 7, Town of Canaan (Falls Village), CT, Performance of the play We Are the Children of the Camp (tickets $10) (see below- June 26th - for more information) Saturday, June 25 Dabka (Palestinian Folk Dances), at 16th annual Grove Festival, Town Grove, Lakeville/Salisbury, CT 5:30 p.m. Free *** Saturday, June 25th 9:00am Rally and Press Conference One Constitution Plaza (State and Market streets) Hartford NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL! EQUAL RIGHTS FOR IMMIGRANTS! UNITE AND FIGHT FOR JOBS AND JUSTICE! Anti-immigrant forces led by Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control have called a demonstration for Saturday at 9:30 a.m. in front of the offices of Sen. Joseph Lieberman. They intend to protest his views on immigration and demand that he support their barbaric policy recommendations, which include withholding driver's licenses and workmen's compensation from undocumented immigrants, denying in-state college tuition to their children, and deputizing police with the authority to deport them. We will hold a peaceful counter-demonstration at a reasonable distance from CCIC. We do not defend nor endorse the immigration views of Sen. Lieberman. Rather we protest actions taken by vigilante groups and federal authorities that victimize immigrants and create a climate of fear in their communities. We join together in defense of immigrant rights. Sponsored by the Ad Hoc Coalition for Immigrant Rights. For more information, call Marela Zacarias at 860-538-3920. Organizers ask all participants to park their cars on the street. Pearl Street is recommended. **** Saturday, June 25th 6-8pm Charter Oak Cultural Center, 21 Charter Oak Ave. Hartford CT How To Defend The Rights Of The Immigrant Community Forum * We'll give a Report Back on recent successful mobilizations against anti-immigrant forces in CT * Speaker to discuss U.S. immigration policy since 9/11 * Speaker will give explanation of the rights of immigrants living in the U.S. sponsored by Latinos Contra La Guerra (Hartford) and Unidad Latina en Accion (New Haven) for more info. please contact Marela Zacarias at (860) 538-3921 or email us at latinoscontralaguerra at yahoo.com _________________________________________________ In Spanish: Latinos Contra La Guerra los invita a que atienda a un foro en c?mo defender a los derechos de los Inmigrantes el 25 de junio de 2005 6-8pm en El Charter Oak Cultural Center en Hartford, CT * Daremos un reporte sobre las movilizaciones acertadas recientes encontra de el grupo anti-inmigrante en CT. * Discutiremos la pol?tica de la inmigraci?n en los Estados Unidos desde 9/11. * Daremos explicaci?nes sobre los derechos de los inmigrantes que viven en los Estados Unidos. Este Foro sera auspiciado por Latinos Contra La Guerra (Hartford) y Unidad Latina En Accion (New Haven). Para m?s informacion por favor llame a Marela Zacarias al (860) 538-3921 o envianos un correo electronico a latinoscontralaguerra at yahoo.com *** Saturday, June 25 "TOUGH GUISE: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity" 8pm ArtSpace, Hartford 555 Asylum St. HIMC benefit screening- from the director of "Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire": Directed by Sut Jhally Talkback facilitated by Melinda Miceli, sociology professor at the University of Hartford Suggested donation $5-10 No one ever turned away for lack of funds Proceeds benefit the Hartford Undercurrent newspaper- new issue out this week! For more information call the Hartford Independent Media Center 246-HIMC *** Saturday & Sunday, June 25th & 26th La Paloma Sabanera Quixote Read-a-thon! 9:00am-9:00pm each day 405 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Tel 860.548.1670 (on the corner of Babcock St & Capitol) In the opening of "Don Quixote," the main character doesn't sleep, but reads so much he eventually goes mad. La Paloma Sabanera, along with Miguel de Cervantes enthusiasts, will imitate art as they attempt a marathon reading of "Don Quixote." on Saturday & Sunday, June 25th and 26th. Cervantes aficionados will read part one of the novel from 9 a.m. through 9 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. This is part of our year-long celebration to Don Quixote and the 400th anniversary of it's printing. Join La Paloma Sabanera in our yearlong celebration to Cervantes' timeless classic about a haphazardly put together knight and his quest for his true love dulcinea. We will read the entire first book this weekend and everyone is encouraged to come read in and participate in the Northeast's only such celebration to the best novel of all time. To secure a specific time slot, please email Luis Edgardo Cotto. Readers are encouraged to be as dramatic as one can imagine!! *** Sunday, June 26 Al Rowwad Children's Theater presents "WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE CAMP" 2:30 p.m. Charter Oak Cultural Center 21 Charter Oak Avenue, Hartford, CT Tickets: $15 Al Rowwad Children's Theater is a nonprofit, independent cultural center in Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem, Palestine, a six-acre area where more than 6,000 people live. The children of Al Rowwad were born under military occupation and have lived their entire lives under military occupation. We Are the Children of the Camp is a powerful reflection through drama, dance and music of the violent reality of children's lives under military occupation and of their irrepressible and joyful hope for the future. For reservations & information, call 860-824-7636 or 860-514-1544 Al Rowwad U.S. Summer Tour 2005 is sponsored in Connecticut by: The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, *** Tuesday, June 28th IWW - Hartford meeting 6:30pm Friends Meeting House, 144 S. Quaker Lane, West Hartford, CT Come to the newly formed Industrual Workers of the World - Hartford area meeting. For more information contact Matt: circleamatt at riseup.net *** Wednesday, July 6th Friendship Caravan to Cuba Comes to Hartford Fundraising event 6-8:30pm Central Baptist Church 457 Main St., Hartford, CT Come to a special evening of food, music, fun, solidarity and fellowship as the Greater Hartford Coalition on Cuba welcomes the 16th Friendshipment Caravanistas on their trip from Canada to Mexico, and then on to Cuba. The US embargo of Cuba causes shortages of food, medicine and other important supplies for eleven million people. This embargo is an immoral policy that uses hunger and disease as political weapons. This will be the sixteenth time that Pastors for Peace has organized a Friendshipment challenge to this attack upon the people of Cuba. Admission: $10/ children $5 $25 sponsor/$100 patron/$400 caravanista Material aid will be collected at the event. Please consider bringing school supplies, vitamins, or powdered milk. For more information call: 860.688.5418 or email: ecoalitiononcuba at yahoo.com *** Attention Parents: Hartbeat Ensemble: Hartford's Theater For Active Change Presents: Middle School Summer Theater Program For Youth Ages 11-13 This five-day summer program will teach youth the exciting art of playmaking in the spirit of Augusto Boal's "Forum" and "Playback" Theater. Two Sessions Session One: July 11th - 15th Session Two: August 22nd - 26th Scholarships Available Call for more information 860-548-9144 Also - Overnight Summer Theater Program For Youth Ages 14-19 This five-day program is designed to give teenagers the best theatrical training available through ensemble building games, movement exercises, and improvisation. Participants will live on a 56-acre farm in Voluntown, CT while creating and producing a one-act play, in the spirit of Augusto Boal's social change theater. August 1st - 5th Scholarships Available Call for more information 860-548-9144 *** SAVE THE DATE: Saturday, August 6th Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembrance Day 5:00pm Potluck Picnic 7:00pm Speakers and Vigil This August join us to support an end to nuclear war in honor of those who suffered from U.S. nuclear attacks sixty years ago. This remembrance will take place the evening of August 6th, at Riverside Park, off of Jennings road. More detailed information to come soon. For more information contact: Joseph Wasserman: 860.561.1897 *** September 11th Hope Out Loud 1pm at Bushnell Park Hartford, CT Share your convictions of peace in our community and world. There will be music, celebration, and kids events. Join us in supporting a more peaceful Hartford. For more information, or to reserve a table call AFSC, 860.523.1534 *** SEPTEMBER 24-26, 2005 END THE WAR ON IRAQ - BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! Leave no bases behind - End the corporate occupation of Iraq Stop bankrupting our communities - No military recruitment in our schools Sat., 9/24 - Massive March, Rally & Festival Sun., 9/25 - Interfaith Service, Grassroots Training Mon., 9/26 - Lobby Day, Mass Nonviolent Direct Action and Civil Disobedience Visit AFSC Connecticut online AFSC Connecticut 56 Arbor Street Hartford, CT 06106 tel: 860.523.1534 fax: 860.523.1705 kho at afsc.org Visit AFSC CT Online Update Profile | Unsubscribe | Confirm | Forward -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Sat Jun 25 14:20:37 2005 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Nader Attacks Court's Eminet Domain Case (New London, CT) Message-ID: <20050625182037.38582.qmail@web81403.mail.yahoo.com> WASHINGTON, June 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement of Ralph Nader on the Supreme Court eminent domain: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London mocks common sense, tarnishes constitutional law and is an affront to fundamental fairness. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits government to seize private property for a "public use," such as a highway, railroad, or military facility, provided it gives the owner "just compensation." Many state constitutions have similar provisions. But in modern times it has become common for the government, usually at the state or local level, to seize property and transfer it to another private party rather than maintaining it for public use. Hundreds of abuses of eminent domain have occurred during the last few decades, with municipalities playing reverse Robin Hood? taking from ordinary citizens and giving to powerful individual developers or corporations. In many cases, the alleged public benefit is a transparent cover for what amounts to legalized theft. With today's decision, the Court has abdicated its role as guardian of the Constitution and individual rights. This decision authorizes courts across the country to allow self- defining misuses of "public use" and "public benefit" requirements. State courts, however, remain free to impose more reasonable restraints on government taking of individual property. For a more detailed discussion of this topic see: Ralph Nader & Alan Hirsch, "Making Eminent Domain Humane," 49 Villanova Law Review 207 (2004). http://www.usnewswire.com/ -0- =========================================================== THE GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT is the third largest political party in CT. The Greens are also the third largest political party in the US, with 220 Greens officeholders in 27 states. Over 80 countries in world have Green Parties. Wangari Maathai, the 2004 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is Kenya's assistant minister for environment and an elected Green Party member. =========================================================== National Committee member from Connecticut: Tim McKee (860) 324-1684 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Sun Jun 26 20:51:58 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:51:58 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT World Tribunal on Iraq--IC should endorse it Message-ID: <057601c57ab2$6c7a5110$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> Suggestion has been made that the USGP International Committee endorse this. Justine McCabe -------------------------------------------------------------------- World Tribunal On Iraq: Opening Speech Arundhati Roy Opening Speech Arundhati Roy On Behalf Of The Jury of Conscience Of The World Tribunal Of Iraq - Istanbul, Turkey. O6/24/05 "WTI" - - This is the culminating session of the World Tribunal on Iraq. It is of particular significance that it is being held here in Turkey where the United States used Turkish air bases to launch numerous bombing missions to degrade Iraq's defenses before the March 2003 invasion and has sought and continues to seek political support from the Turkish government, which it regards as an ally. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9259.htm Attachment 1: World Tribunal On Iraq Opening Speech Arundhati Roy.url (application/octet-stream) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 27 21:33:38 2005 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:33:38 -0400 Subject: {news} request for help from Green running for NYC mayor Message-ID: <000001c57b8f$d16600f0$82c2f504@edgn2b574u14bi> I received the following request for volunteer help from >> a Green running for mayor of New York City: >> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Theo Chino" ... >>>> Subject: The Green Race in New York City >> >>>>> I am writing you because I am running for the office of Mayor of New >>>>> York >>>>> City as a Green Party candidate. In order to be on the ballot in >>>>> November, >>>>> I need to collect 7,500 valid signatures. It really means that I >>>>> actually >>>>> need to collect 15,000 signatures (or even more.) That's a lot of >>>>> signature! >>>>> >>>>> I devised a plan to accomplish that but I need the help of green >>>>> fellow >>>>> around the country. >>>>> >>>>> I designed a 30 pages booklet with petitions inside. Before the >>>>> petition >>>>> windows open on July 12, I am going to distribute those booklets >>>>> around >>>>> New York City to small business owners and taxi drivers. >>>>> >>>>> I need to find volunteers to contact those people over the phone to >>>>> remind >>>>> them on July 12 that they can start petitioning. After that, those >>>>> people >>>>> would need to be contacted once a week to follow up on their progress. >>>>> >>>>> Theo Chino, Green Party Candidate >>>>> http://www.theochino.com - info at chino2005.com From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Tue Jun 28 08:15:02 2005 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:15:02 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Action alert: Downing Street Minutes to Hit House Floor Message-ID: <06de01c57bdb$031c0770$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> Action alert: Downing Street Minutes to Hit House Floor Downing Street Minutes to Hit House Floor Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2005-06-27 13:42. Congress Congressman John Conyers, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee are asking their colleagues in the House of Representatives to join them on the evening of June 28 to discuss the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of the House. They need our help. Please contact your Congress Member right away and ask them to contact the Judiciary Committee staff and commit to taking part. Phone: 1-877-762-8762 Email: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/39 Below is a letter that has been circulated to Congress members: Join the 'Out of Iraq' Caucus On June 28, 2005 for an Hour of Special Order on the Downing Street Minutes June 24, 2005 Dear Democratic Colleague: Please join the 'Out of Iraq' Caucus this Tuesday, June 28th for a Special Order hour on the Downing Street Minutes. The Democratic hour for these remarks is scheduled for the second hour of the Special Orders, which will commence immediately after votes for the day have ended Over the past month, 128 Members of Congress, along with some 560,000 citizens have sent letters to the President demanding a response to reports of a pre-war deal between Great Britain and the United States and to evidence that pre-war intelligence was intentionally manipulated. All of these letters have gone unanswered. Given the importance of these matters, we believe it is incumbent upon Congress to discuss these issues in a public and forthright manner. We hope you will join us in this hour of Special Orders. To reserve time during the Special Order, please contact Stacey Dansky or Adam Cohen of the Judiciary Committee staff at 225-6906. Thank you. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary Maxine Waters Member, Committee on the Judiciary Barbara Lee Member, Committee on International Relations http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/472355.html MARC PARENT CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS http://www.livejournal.com/~mparent7777/ For today's news overview scroll to bottom and work up : http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/2005/06/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From capeconn at comcast.net Tue Jun 28 17:01:58 2005 From: capeconn at comcast.net (Tom Sevigny) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:01:58 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: GREEN RELEASE Supreme Court ruling legalizes 'theft by takings', say Greens Message-ID: <003601c57c24$a18545e0$a3970218@sevigny8wcbjrd> ----- Original Message ----- From: "DC Statehood Green Party" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:40 AM Subject: GREEN RELEASE Supreme Court ruling legalizes 'theft by takings', say Greens > GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES > http://www.gp.org > > For Immediate Release: > Tuesday, June 28, 2005 > > Contacts: > Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty at greens.org > Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, nallen at acadia.net > > > GREENS CALL SUPREME COURT'S DECISION ON EMINENT DOMAIN 'LEGALIZATION OF > THEFT' > > While Democratic and Republican officials side with developers, Greens vow > to remain a bulwark against the condemnation of private homes. > > > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders sharply criticized the Supreme > Court's June 23 decision in the Kelo v. City of New London case, calling it > a "legalization of theft." > > The decision expands the power of government to condemn private property > ('eminent domain'), permitting officials to transfer property from one > private owner to another. > > "Working class and low income homeowners will be at special risk, since they > provide less tax revenue, and the Court now gives permission for city > councils and statehouses to evict and replace them with commercial and > residential development for the sake of a wealthier tax base," said Steve > Kramer, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. "The Court has > legalized theft -- theft from the poor for the rich." > > Green leaders say that the party will remain steadfast in its opposition to > the use of eminent domain to remove people from their homes under the > license provided by the Kelo v. City of New London decision. > > "Republican and Democratic officials -- including many liberal and > progressive Democrats -- accept huge gifts from real estate interests that > want to clear out neighborhoods for new development. Greens refuse all > corporate contributions," said Peggy Lewis, who is also co-chair of the > national Green Party. "In the wake of the New London decision, the choice > between voting for a Green and voting for a Democrat or Republican in some > races might spell the difference between keeping and losing one's home." > > Greens around the U.S. are fighting predatory development plans in which > residents and small businesses face mass removal under strengthened powers > of eminent domain: > > . Brunswick, Georgia faces a massive redevelopment plan targeting 135 blocks > of the heart of Brunswick, the population of which is 78% black, with 57% in > entrenched poverty. Elaine Brown, Green candidate for Mayor of Burnswick, > is defending African American residents threatened under the plan, which has > slated whole neighborhoods for brutal displacement through "takings by > condemnation" and eminent domain. Ms. Brown has offered an alternative plan > to make Brunswick a national model and a base for black economic empowerment > and progressive social and political change. More information: > . > > . In Brooklyn, New York, Park Slope Greens are working with other local > activists in the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn Coalition to head off an > attempt by billionaire developer Bruce Ratner to seize homes and businesses > in Fort Greene and Prospect Heights. Mr. Ratner, with the support of the > current Borough President and other Democratic elected officials, wants to > build an arena and 19 high-end residential skyscrapers. Gloria Mattera, > Green candidate for Brooklyn Borough President, is challenging the plan and > has publicly exposed the secret sweetheart deals behind it. Ms. Mattera > calls for a moratorium on big scale development of high rises and big box > stores until developers agree to involve the community in decision-making > and commit to maintaining the integrity of existing neighborhoods. More > information: "Mattera Campaign Calls On Brooklyn Borough Hall for Restraint > After Supreme Court Ruling" > . > > "The decision proves that liberals may be as likely as conservatives to side > with wealthy and corporate interests, and sometimes even more likely," said > Greg Gerritt, secretary of the Green Party of the United States. "We now > have reason to fear judicial appointments made by Democrats as much as the > hard-right appointments of President Bush. We clearly need a new spectrum > to describe politics -- dedication to corporate power versus dedication to > the rights of people and the health of the environment. Let there be no > doubt where Greens stand." > > Greens especially praised Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion: > > "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, > but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries > are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in > the political process, including large corporations and development firms. > As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from > those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have > intended this perverse result." > > > MORE INFORMATION > > Green Party of the United States > http://www.gp.org > 1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404 > Washington, DC 20009. > 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN > Fax 202-319-7193 > > > ~ END ~ > > From capeconn at comcast.net Wed Jun 29 16:37:01 2005 From: capeconn at comcast.net (Tom Sevigny) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:37:01 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: David Lanman is second Green elected in Texas..... Message-ID: <009401c57cea$4db24f50$a3970218@sevigny8wcbjrd> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Cobb To: Brent McMillan ; Tom Sevigny ; Amy Heart Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:41 PM Subject: David Lanman is second Green elected in Texas..... Begin forwarded message: From: jane elioseff Date: June 29, 2005 7:29:12 AM PDT To: cobbweb at greens.org Cc: Subject: David Lanman Good morning! Here is a brief bio of David Lanman from the Desert Mountain Times: http://www.dmtimes.net/blog/_archives/2005/5/12/797958.html Contact information: 432-729-4939 General Delivery Marfa, Texas 79843 David Lanman, who is in his early 50s, was living in Alpine when I met him and still owned a retreat he built near Terlingua, as well as a gallery complex in Alpine. Vaughn Grisham, the first chair of the Big Bend Green Party, introduced us in 2000, he recruited David and his band to play at the first Green fundraiser in Alpine. I do not exaggerate when I tell you that David is a wonderful musician (guitar). I believe he was owner or part owner of a club in Austin at some point in his Texas adventure. The Big Bend Green Party focused on community service. They adopted a highway and every three to six months would have a day party to clean up trash. When Pete Smyke moved from Austin to Alpine, he succeeded Vaughn as chair of BBGP and ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Alpine in about 2003, I forget exactly when. I was told that Pete, whom I never met, lacked the common touch and a willingness to go door to door, and he lost by a wide margin. David, by contrast, although he is smarter than a whip, does not set himself above people; he meets everyone eye to eye. He also has a kind of natural lazy manner, which goes over well in West Texas. David was elected mayor of Marfa on May 7 but was not actually seated as mayor until well into June because of various obstacles thrown up by the outgoing mayor and some members of the outgoing council, and then by a recount request by his opponent. Now that I think about it, it is just possible that David Lanman is not the first Green in the Big Bend to hold public office. Louis Dobay, who manages the Marfa Book Company, was elected to the Marfa City Council two or three years ago and may identify as a Green, too. I'll check on this. To my knowledge the only other Green in Texas holding elected office is serving on a water board in San Antonio and just won a second term. Love, Jane -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apbrison at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 11:55:40 2005 From: apbrison at hotmail.com (allan brison) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:55:40 -0400 Subject: {news} REVISED press release about Joyce Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apbrison at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 13:29:04 2005 From: apbrison at hotmail.com (allan brison) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:29:04 -0400 Subject: {news} REVISED press release about Joyce Message-ID: Tom, If the State GP meeting had proceeded before being grounded the other night, I probably would have been able to give a NH chapter report, where I would have disclosed the news about Joyce and been available for comment. Joyce appears on a Voter's Registry on June 7th as a Democrat. Someone pointed this out to me on about one week later. Meanwhile on the 9th Joyce had appeared at a GP chapter meeting posing as though nothing had happened. And then, on the 14th, she left for a month in India, during which time she is incommunicado. There were many rumors over the past couple of months that she had been planning this. Since she had not confided in us, in fact had actually denied it on one occassion, and is not available for comment, we can only guess as to why. She has close allies on the board who are the Opposition Dems, Dems in opposition to the DeStefano machine. These are alders that the GP as a whole has been aligned with as well. Word has it that they wanted her in the Dem Party. There may have been electoral considerations. There is no alder that the Mayor would like to see driven off the Board more than Joyce. Party affiliation does not change this. She can be expected to face fierce opposition: as a Dem that will happen in Sept in the Dem Primary, as a Green in would happen in Nov in the General Election. I would guess that Joyce would rather face that opposition in Sept for two reasons: 1. it gives the Mayor 2 less months to get his candidate in place; 2. Joyce starts full time Law school at Quinnipiac in Sept. I would imagine that she would rather be running a difficult campaign in August, before school starts, than in Sept and Oct after. Lastly, Joyce is ambitious. She tried as a Green to win a State Rep post in 2004 and got smashed - less than 20% of the vote. Maybe she feels that she might go further as a Dem. All of the above is speculation. For all I know, she cut a deal with the Mayor. I don't think so but stranger things have happened. Allan ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Tom Sevigny" To: "allan brison" , Subject: Re: {news} REVISED press release about Joyce Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:10:26 -0400 Allan and Charlie, What happened? This comes out of left field for most of us. Why did she switch? Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: allan brison To: newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com ; nhgreensannouncements at yahoogroups.com ; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:55 AM Subject: {news} REVISED press release about Joyce Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/ to unsubscribe click here mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Greens, Here is a new, revised, press release concerning Joyce. Also, the Advocate contacted me today. They plan to do a story in next week's issue. Best, Allan ------------------------------------------------------------- Press Release We want to thank Joyce for all her efforts as a Green on the Board of Alderman. We wish her well and look forward to having her as an ally of the Board in matters of common concern. But we feel that her decision to change parties is the wrong one. The New Haven Green Party believes in a more principled politics, that of providing voters with a greater choice. A two party system gives us the lesser of two evils. Here in New Haven we get the lesser of one evil. Towards that end, the NHGP will continue to be an effective force in NH politics through recruiting new candidates, registering voters, educating the community, listening to the community's needs, and generating grassroots, people-centered support for those needs. Joyce has been a major leader of the Opposition to Machine Politics on the Board of Alderman. This does not change with her conversion. She has stood for opening up the Board of Ed, a major festering sore of Mayoral patronage and cronyism, to accountability. She has opposed the Machine on major budget proposals such as corporate welfare for Tweed Airport, the contract dispute where the Mayor's office went ahead and spent money that had been explicitly disallowed by the Board, the recent Downtown Development folly, and others. Joyce has an excellent Environmental and Labor record on the Board. But Joyce's record was not entirely unblemished. She stood alone, as a Green, in her opposition to Gay Marriage, voting against the Domestic Partnership Registry ordinance in 2002 on the Board. Because of this vote, her relationship to the Green Party has remained tenuous. We wish Joyce the best but we reserve the right to field a Green candidate against her in November, one with a clear positive stance on Gay Rights issues. Allan Brison Co-Chair New Haven Greens ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org _______________________________________________ CTGP-news mailing list CTGP-news at ml.greens.org http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news ATTENTION! The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members. NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org From qumsi001 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 12:14:21 2005 From: qumsi001 at hotmail.com (Mazin Qumsiyeh) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:14:21 -0000 Subject: {news} RE: [newhavengreens] REVISED press release about Joyce In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I suggest you aded something like "We have many Green party members who donated to the campaigns of Joyce Chen as a Green candidate over the years. They rightly feel betrayed by this unilateral decision. Further we are saddened that this change was done by Joyce in a rather abrupt way and withourt discussion with or even announcement to party members." I think something like that is factual but not vindictive. Mazin >From: "allan brison" >Reply-To: newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com >To: newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com, nhgreensannouncements at yahoogroups.com, >ctgp-news at ml.greens.org >Subject: [newhavengreens] REVISED press release about Joyce >Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:55:40 -0400 > _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "allan brison" Subject: [newhavengreens] REVISED press release about Joyce Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:55:40 -0400 Size: 6051 URL: