Monday, July 31, 2006
Fidel gone?
In a statement, reported by the Associated Press Cuban president Fidel Castro has turned over control of the government to his brother Raul Castro. Raul Castro has been the planned sucessor to Fidel for some time, but Raul is only five years younger than Fidel, who is 80.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, but you read it here first...well, maybe not, but I reported it pretty quick. Watch out. I might hit you by accident as I slap myself on the back. ~Grin~
It'll be interesting to see what happens in post-Castro Cuba. I hope the transition is free of violence and hope that the people are able to resist the temptation of those billions ready to pour into Cuba to re-create the Cuba of Baptista...casinos, hotels, hookers and Coca Cola...you know, the good life.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, but you read it here first...well, maybe not, but I reported it pretty quick. Watch out. I might hit you by accident as I slap myself on the back. ~Grin~
It'll be interesting to see what happens in post-Castro Cuba. I hope the transition is free of violence and hope that the people are able to resist the temptation of those billions ready to pour into Cuba to re-create the Cuba of Baptista...casinos, hotels, hookers and Coca Cola...you know, the good life.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
What not to do
In a column published almost a year ago Brian Yanity of Anchorage Alaska discusses how to avoid left wing cliches. I don't believe the Greens are left wing, nor do I think we need to be left wing, but his opinions ring true for we Greens as well in my opinion. The piece is behind the "Read more!" link...
October 14, 2005
Avoiding Left Wing Cliches
by Brian Yanity, insurgent49
Anchorage Alaska
http://www.insurgent49.com
This very partial list discusses four issues that face progressive movements not just here in Alaska, but across the U.S. Outside of this country, even in Canada, the left tends be a bit more advanced than it is here. The purpose is to contribute to a collective discussion of where we progressives need to go from here.
1. Negativity
Complain, complain, complain. Whine, whine, whine. Negative, negative, negative. Anti-war, anti-this, anti-that. Perhaps the biggest clich of leftists is this: complaining all day about what is wrong with the world, and never saying (or actually doing) anything positive. I have heard "all leftists [or liberals and
progressives] do is whine about everything, they never do anything constructive" and "you leftists are just anti-everything" a countless number of times. Such negativity and cynicism also represents a lack of courage, and thus is self-defeating. If you are going to be defeated, at least don't be self-defeated.
Its time to negate the negation, so start saying some positive things! Coming up with positive alternatives, initiatives, and projects may be difficult, but there is no alternative to doing so. One thing I have learned by reading those silly Anchorage Times editorials is that right-wingers may be stupid a lot of the time, but they are not afraid to state bold, positive-sounding visions for the future, however
wrong they may be in practice. The left needs to do the same: people don't want to hear more depressing news, they want hope. Our purpose is to change the world for the better, not just complain about it.
2. Sectarianism
Sectarianism is defined as being characteristic of a sect; narrow-minded, limited or parochial. Not working with someone on a political issue unless they see things exactly the same way you do has historically been the greatest weaknesses of the left worldwide. Though it also exists here in Alaska, one of the strengths of progressives I have encountered in Anchorage is non-sectarianism. Back when I lived
in New York City, the sectarianism of the left was out of control, making all progressives a potential laughing stock to those not participating in protests/activism. Such parasites dividing the left are also useful tools for conservatives and/or governments to purposefully divide progressive movements. Even
if you are only in agreement with another progressive activist 80% of the time, you still need to find a way to work together. The stakes right now are too high to do otherwise.
3. "What do we do?"
If you do not have a clear plan about what to do, read some history about past social movements that were at least partially successful, such as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. A good present-day example of hopeful changes is going on in a lot of Latin America. I am not just talking about the election of leftist presidents such as Hugo Chavez and Lula, but that continent's exciting social movements that are
going on. But part of my job as an insurgent49 reporter is to find good examples and clear plans right here in Alaska.
4. Baby-boomer and 'Old White People' Culture
Baby-boomers (Americans born between 1946 and 1965) and those slightly older dominate the progressive activism in Anchorage. For those of us born during the Reagan Administration and after, baby-boomer culture has been shoved down our throats by baby-boomer parents since the crib, giving my generation something to rebel against. Even so, we young people are told that to rebel against such 'protest roots' is an act of betrayal. I hate to break it to you all, but it is not 1967 any more. I am a little tired of hearing the same Dylan songs repeated ad nauseum. Such cultural preferences, in the baby-boomer 'activist' sense of the word, are also very 'white'. This is a factor to consider when you count the number of 'people of color' attending
protests in Anchorage.
When they started singing church hymns at the Sept. 24 anti-war protest on the Anchorage park strip, I had to leave because it brought back some many bad childhood memories of being forced to sit through church. Older people also have a tendency to be, I hate to say it, more burned out (and more guilty of negativity described above) and more stuck in their ways. Below is a good excerpt from an article by my friend Matt Dineen's article on TowardFreedom.com:
In an essay about ageism on the left for ZNet, Brian Dominick addressed this challenge: "It remains true, as ever, that adults have plenty of experience to offer their younger activist counterparts. It's all the more unfortunate, then, that what is usually offered is dogma, traditional methodology, unilateral conversation, tokenizing, and worse. When we think of social change, we should reflect on the
subjective meaning of that term-that is, we should acknowledge that we and our organizations and movements must themselves change, not just the world around us." He concludes, "Change requires new influences on a regular basis, and that requires young people. Kids aren't going to get involved in activism with adults on any wide
scale until those adults make some radical changes in how they treat young people."
De-boomerization of the left is needed, not by kicking baby-boomers out of the movement, but by inviting more youth into the movement. Here in Anchorage, youth, immigrants and Native Alaskans are the future, not old white people. If you look
at history, the major revolutions of the past century were made by young people. For example, the average age of the Bolshevik party members during the Russian Revolution was 19. I am not saying that we should act the like Bolsheviks today in Alaska, but keep in mind that those people were able to put an end to centuries of Czarist tyranny.
Brian Yanity is a student activist and freelance journalist who resides in an undisclosed location in Southcentral Alaska. He can be reached at byanity@insurgent49.com.
October 14, 2005
Avoiding Left Wing Cliches
by Brian Yanity, insurgent49
Anchorage Alaska
http://www.insurgent49.com
This very partial list discusses four issues that face progressive movements not just here in Alaska, but across the U.S. Outside of this country, even in Canada, the left tends be a bit more advanced than it is here. The purpose is to contribute to a collective discussion of where we progressives need to go from here.
1. Negativity
Complain, complain, complain. Whine, whine, whine. Negative, negative, negative. Anti-war, anti-this, anti-that. Perhaps the biggest clich of leftists is this: complaining all day about what is wrong with the world, and never saying (or actually doing) anything positive. I have heard "all leftists [or liberals and
progressives] do is whine about everything, they never do anything constructive" and "you leftists are just anti-everything" a countless number of times. Such negativity and cynicism also represents a lack of courage, and thus is self-defeating. If you are going to be defeated, at least don't be self-defeated.
Its time to negate the negation, so start saying some positive things! Coming up with positive alternatives, initiatives, and projects may be difficult, but there is no alternative to doing so. One thing I have learned by reading those silly Anchorage Times editorials is that right-wingers may be stupid a lot of the time, but they are not afraid to state bold, positive-sounding visions for the future, however
wrong they may be in practice. The left needs to do the same: people don't want to hear more depressing news, they want hope. Our purpose is to change the world for the better, not just complain about it.
2. Sectarianism
Sectarianism is defined as being characteristic of a sect; narrow-minded, limited or parochial. Not working with someone on a political issue unless they see things exactly the same way you do has historically been the greatest weaknesses of the left worldwide. Though it also exists here in Alaska, one of the strengths of progressives I have encountered in Anchorage is non-sectarianism. Back when I lived
in New York City, the sectarianism of the left was out of control, making all progressives a potential laughing stock to those not participating in protests/activism. Such parasites dividing the left are also useful tools for conservatives and/or governments to purposefully divide progressive movements. Even
if you are only in agreement with another progressive activist 80% of the time, you still need to find a way to work together. The stakes right now are too high to do otherwise.
3. "What do we do?"
If you do not have a clear plan about what to do, read some history about past social movements that were at least partially successful, such as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. A good present-day example of hopeful changes is going on in a lot of Latin America. I am not just talking about the election of leftist presidents such as Hugo Chavez and Lula, but that continent's exciting social movements that are
going on. But part of my job as an insurgent49 reporter is to find good examples and clear plans right here in Alaska.
4. Baby-boomer and 'Old White People' Culture
Baby-boomers (Americans born between 1946 and 1965) and those slightly older dominate the progressive activism in Anchorage. For those of us born during the Reagan Administration and after, baby-boomer culture has been shoved down our throats by baby-boomer parents since the crib, giving my generation something to rebel against. Even so, we young people are told that to rebel against such 'protest roots' is an act of betrayal. I hate to break it to you all, but it is not 1967 any more. I am a little tired of hearing the same Dylan songs repeated ad nauseum. Such cultural preferences, in the baby-boomer 'activist' sense of the word, are also very 'white'. This is a factor to consider when you count the number of 'people of color' attending
protests in Anchorage.
When they started singing church hymns at the Sept. 24 anti-war protest on the Anchorage park strip, I had to leave because it brought back some many bad childhood memories of being forced to sit through church. Older people also have a tendency to be, I hate to say it, more burned out (and more guilty of negativity described above) and more stuck in their ways. Below is a good excerpt from an article by my friend Matt Dineen's article on TowardFreedom.com:
In an essay about ageism on the left for ZNet, Brian Dominick addressed this challenge: "It remains true, as ever, that adults have plenty of experience to offer their younger activist counterparts. It's all the more unfortunate, then, that what is usually offered is dogma, traditional methodology, unilateral conversation, tokenizing, and worse. When we think of social change, we should reflect on the
subjective meaning of that term-that is, we should acknowledge that we and our organizations and movements must themselves change, not just the world around us." He concludes, "Change requires new influences on a regular basis, and that requires young people. Kids aren't going to get involved in activism with adults on any wide
scale until those adults make some radical changes in how they treat young people."
De-boomerization of the left is needed, not by kicking baby-boomers out of the movement, but by inviting more youth into the movement. Here in Anchorage, youth, immigrants and Native Alaskans are the future, not old white people. If you look
at history, the major revolutions of the past century were made by young people. For example, the average age of the Bolshevik party members during the Russian Revolution was 19. I am not saying that we should act the like Bolsheviks today in Alaska, but keep in mind that those people were able to put an end to centuries of Czarist tyranny.
Brian Yanity is a student activist and freelance journalist who resides in an undisclosed location in Southcentral Alaska. He can be reached at byanity@insurgent49.com.
Ballot Access
Despite my frustration with the Green Party and some of it's components and personalities, I still know that we are beyond a doubt the globe's best shot at long term survival. At the deepest levels Greens "get it."
One difficulty we must always face is ballot access. In MA, IL, CT and NY as well as elsewhere across the nation, Greens are actively working to secure their spot on the ballot. Won't you volunteer to help one of these states if you are close enough to help out? Get yourself active in one of our most vital endeavors, getting good people on the ballot to fight for us and our beliefs. Help out by writing to the Ballot Access Working Group chair, Phil Huckleberry by clicking his name.
One difficulty we must always face is ballot access. In MA, IL, CT and NY as well as elsewhere across the nation, Greens are actively working to secure their spot on the ballot. Won't you volunteer to help one of these states if you are close enough to help out? Get yourself active in one of our most vital endeavors, getting good people on the ballot to fight for us and our beliefs. Help out by writing to the Ballot Access Working Group chair, Phil Huckleberry by clicking his name.
The definition of "is"
The National Women's Caucus was going to "reveal all" at the Annual National Meeting in Tucson according to a national party leader who wrote to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about in the Stephanie Lawless/NWC dispute. Well, I am still waiting, and thought that I might illustrate my distrust of the National Women's Caucus leadership.
In an exchange on a National Committee email list on the topic came the following:
Member of the National Women's Caucus leadership:
As our report stated, we asked the applicant repeatedly to submit the application with the verification section filled in, but it was sent back again and again without it.
Member of the Lavender Caucus:
Of course, the Caucus membership application form explicitly tells applicants that the verification section is to be separately completed and submitted to the Caucus by the "state Green Party chair/co-chairs (or national GPUS delegates or membership secretary)". Stephanie could not herself complete it however much she may have wanted to.
Did Caucus officers not inquire with the chair/ co-chairs? I do not for one minute believe she failed to forward the verification section to s/he/them for their completion of the section.
Now, maybe it's just me folks, but this is the sort of manipulation I have come to expect in this matter. If the National Committee has granted the National Women's Caucus the right to discriminate in their membership policies, that still does not justify their refusal to give an applicant a straight answer.
The National Women's Caucus has not as yet shown any justice to Stephanie Lawless as far as I can tell, and their deceptive and secretive ways have led me to conclude that every member of the NWC leadership is suspect and not deserving of support in any campaign for party leadership.
In an exchange on a National Committee email list on the topic came the following:
Member of the National Women's Caucus leadership:
As our report stated, we asked the applicant repeatedly to submit the application with the verification section filled in, but it was sent back again and again without it.
Member of the Lavender Caucus:
Of course, the Caucus membership application form explicitly tells applicants that the verification section is to be separately completed and submitted to the Caucus by the "state Green Party chair/co-chairs (or national GPUS delegates or membership secretary)". Stephanie could not herself complete it however much she may have wanted to.
Did Caucus officers not inquire with the chair/ co-chairs? I do not for one minute believe she failed to forward the verification section to s/he/them for their completion of the section.
Now, maybe it's just me folks, but this is the sort of manipulation I have come to expect in this matter. If the National Committee has granted the National Women's Caucus the right to discriminate in their membership policies, that still does not justify their refusal to give an applicant a straight answer.
The National Women's Caucus has not as yet shown any justice to Stephanie Lawless as far as I can tell, and their deceptive and secretive ways have led me to conclude that every member of the NWC leadership is suspect and not deserving of support in any campaign for party leadership.
Stuff that makes you go "Hmmmm..."
We Greens are always happy to let folks know that we are different, but how often do we get something this powerful to show the difference in such stark relief. In a note to the National Media Committee Aram Falsafi sent copies of the Democrats, Republican and Green positions on the question of the right of refugees to return to their family homes in Israel. The Ds and Rs read as if they were written by the same hand. All the details are behind the "Read more!" link...
Democratic Party Platform [1]:
Furthermore, all understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.
Republican Party Platform [2]:
… it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.
Hmmm. Coincidence? How likely is that? Or do they receive their marching orders from the same source?
Then contrast that with our platform:
Green Party Platform [3]:
We reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel.
[1] See page 15. Available from
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
[2] See page 37. Available from http://www.gop.com/About/
[3] See page 13. Available from http://www.gp.org/platform.shtml
We always talk about how there is no difference between the two corporate parties. In this case it is true in a literal sense of the word.
-Aram
Democratic Party Platform [1]:
Furthermore, all understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.
Republican Party Platform [2]:
… it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.
Hmmm. Coincidence? How likely is that? Or do they receive their marching orders from the same source?
Then contrast that with our platform:
Green Party Platform [3]:
We reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel.
[1] See page 15. Available from
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
[2] See page 37. Available from http://www.gop.com/About/
[3] See page 13. Available from http://www.gp.org/platform.shtml
We always talk about how there is no difference between the two corporate parties. In this case it is true in a literal sense of the word.
-Aram
Green Candidates speak on Iraq
DC Statehood Green Party member Dean Murville has put together quotes from a number of high profile Green candidates. These tasty tid bits are waiting for you behind the "Read more!" link...
EXCERPTS FROM GPAX 2006 CANDIDATE PEACE PAMPHLET
Compiled by GPAX Member Dean Murville (DC)
From Pat LaMarche, 2006 Candidate for Governor of Maine, 2004 Vice Presidential Candidate:
The continuing and unnecessary loss of lives in Iraq is a tragedy. As the most powerful nation in the world, we must devote ourselves to justice. The lives of innocents all across the globe depend on our diligence. During the 2004 presidential campaign, speaking out against this illegal and immoral war was a cornerstone of our campaign.
From Aaron Dixon, Candidate for US Senate, Washington State:
America should be a nation based on peaceful democratic relations with others, not an Empire based on military intimidation and economic bullying. There can be no doubt, the war in Iraq is a colossal injustice. While [US Senator] Maria Cantwell says she has "no regrets" for authorizing Bush's war, I say "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!"
From Howie Hawkins, GP Candidate for US Senate, New York:
This unconscionable and unconstitutional war provokes hatred for our country abroad and hopelessness at home, as common people's pressing needs continue to be sidelined. According to current polls, 65% of the American people disapprove of the way the Bush administration is handling the situation in Iraq, while 55% feel that going to war was a mistake. I stand with the majority. I would vote to stop all offensive operations in Iraq, to end this war, and to end this occupation. I would vote to begin the immediate withdrawal of US troops and military equipment from Iraq and to bring them home.
I also am in support of those brave individuals that are putting their freedom on the line by defying orders of deployment to Iraq, including Sgt. Kevin Benderman, Spec. Susan Swift, and Lt. Ehren Watada. These individuals are lighting the path forward for the many soldiers who will eventually join them in refusing an illegal war. In the meantime, these individuals and those like them should be allowed to peacefully resign from the Armed Services, without suffering dishonorable discharges, or imprisonment.
From Todd Chretien, GP Candidate for US Senate, California:
The US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created nothing but disaster and death. Over 150,000 Iraqi people have died along with 2600 American soldiers. Far from bringing "peace and democracy" to the Middle East, we are now witnessing the spread of the war into Lebanon and Gaza in the form of twin Israeli assaults. While the mics were live at the G8 Summit, President Bush told Prime Minister Blair that he wished Hezbollah and Syria would stop all their "shit." Of course, he didn't mean to swear in public, but his actions against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and Venezuela, and his connivance with Israel's actions against the people of Palestine and Lebanon are far more obscene than anything that dribbles from his lips. As if all these crimes weren't enough, President Bush - along with Senators Feinstein and Clinton - are threatening Iran's people with bombs and starvation.
Now, more than ever, the Green Party must reassert its support for the unconditional, immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, an end to the colonial occupation of Afghanistan and the importance of the Green Party's Proposition 190, which stands in solidarity with the people of Palestine. The Democratic and Republic parties fight side by side to maintain American corporations' dominance over the oil resources of the Middle East. Even so-called "liberals" like Sen. Russ Feingold are cheering on the Israeli destruction of Gaza and Lebanon. The Green Party is the only electoral party to base its policies on the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world and their desire for peace, equality and the defense of our planet's environment.
From Malachy McCourt, New York Green Candidate for Governor:
Fighting Words: Outside of working people voting conservative, war has to be at once the most stupid and insane activity indulged in by humankind. Picture a group of middle-aged rich men with erectile dysfunction sitting around wondering how to get richer without taxes and without putting their heirs in danger. Aha, let's make weapons of war, get our men elected, find a useful enemy, sell the weapons to the government, get the working classes excited about patriotism and possible attacks on our country, get their children to join the Army, and send them off to be maimed and killed for corporate profits. Of course, it is important that it be called a noble cause and a defense of all we hold sacred.
I say I love my country too much to kill another human for it. I was taught never to hit another child and when I grew I was told thou shat not kill women, children and other people. I will decide who my enemies are and how to deal with them even if it means forgiving them, but that's my business. One of America's great enemies at the present is the acting president, who has declared war on America and everything it has stood for since independence. War is hell and may hell be the destination of the warmongering, lying profiteer who declared war. Peace, McCourt
From Michael Berg, Green Party Candidate for Congress, Delaware:
Many of you know me as the father of Nick Berg. Nick was seeking a government contract in Iraq for his young radio tower service company. He was kidnapped and brutally murdered in retaliation for the murders, rapes and torture of Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison. Since that awful moment, I have taken every opportunity to work to end the war that took my son from us. Two days after we got the terrible news, I
told the media who had surrounded our home, "Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld."
I've decided to take personal political responsibility for democracy and peace by running as a Green. I have discovered that the Green Party offers the best chance we have to build the electoral arm of the peace movement. You simply will not find a political party with a better record of pursuing peace, building the peace movement, and demanding an end to wars of aggression.
From Rae Vogeler, US Senate Candidate, Wisconsin:
Congress is a rubber-stamp for Bush's war agenda. Passage of the 2006 Defense Appropriations Act, which mandates another $50 billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan represents even more reckless spending from Capitol Hill on the war. Where is the fiscal responsibility? The American people have already footed a $311
billion tab for war; our national debt is out of control. Bush and the Congressional leadership are spending away our children's future. Bush and Congress are taxing working families to spend recklessly on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
War is big business, and some very powerful people are making enormous profits at taxpayer expense. As Senator, one of the first bills I would introduce would be to make it illegal for corporations to profit from war. Our government's spending priorities are way off. Why is there always money for bombs but never for health care? We need money for jobs and education, not endless wars across the globe.
From Aimee Allison, Candidate for Oakland, CA City Council:
As one of the co-authors of the book "10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military"
(edited by Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg, New Press 2006), Oakland City Council candidate Aimee Allison talked about trying to dissuade a young woman from paying for college by joining the armed forces. Allison, a medic in the Persian Gulf War who received an honorable discharge, contends in her chapter that the military is openly racist, misogynist, and homophobic. Also contributing to the book is activist Cindy Sheehan: she tells the story of her son Casey, a 24-year-old who died four days after landing in Iraq. She called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and for a trial of the nation's leaders for war crimes.
From Kevin Zeese, Candidate for US Senate, Maryland:
The Iraq occupation embedded US corporations into the Iraq economy, satisfying a multi-decade design on Iraq's oil wealth. The roots of the economic takeover of Iraq are long and deep. They became more aggressive after the strongest US ally in the region, the Shah of Iran, was deposed in 1979. The roots of the quest of dominance of the oil-rich region are found in both the Democratic and Republican Party, but the most aggressive pursuit has been by George W. Bush.
A new national poll shows that a near majority of voters either strongly or somewhat agree with a pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates. This makes the anti-war movement's potential impact on elections larger than pro-gun, anti-abortion, or anti-gay marriage voters. Politicians will have to pay heed to this new political force. The Voters for Peace Pledge states: "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression a public position in his or her campaign."
EXCERPTS FROM GPAX 2006 CANDIDATE PEACE PAMPHLET
Compiled by GPAX Member Dean Murville (DC)
From Pat LaMarche, 2006 Candidate for Governor of Maine, 2004 Vice Presidential Candidate:
The continuing and unnecessary loss of lives in Iraq is a tragedy. As the most powerful nation in the world, we must devote ourselves to justice. The lives of innocents all across the globe depend on our diligence. During the 2004 presidential campaign, speaking out against this illegal and immoral war was a cornerstone of our campaign.
From Aaron Dixon, Candidate for US Senate, Washington State:
America should be a nation based on peaceful democratic relations with others, not an Empire based on military intimidation and economic bullying. There can be no doubt, the war in Iraq is a colossal injustice. While [US Senator] Maria Cantwell says she has "no regrets" for authorizing Bush's war, I say "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!"
From Howie Hawkins, GP Candidate for US Senate, New York:
This unconscionable and unconstitutional war provokes hatred for our country abroad and hopelessness at home, as common people's pressing needs continue to be sidelined. According to current polls, 65% of the American people disapprove of the way the Bush administration is handling the situation in Iraq, while 55% feel that going to war was a mistake. I stand with the majority. I would vote to stop all offensive operations in Iraq, to end this war, and to end this occupation. I would vote to begin the immediate withdrawal of US troops and military equipment from Iraq and to bring them home.
I also am in support of those brave individuals that are putting their freedom on the line by defying orders of deployment to Iraq, including Sgt. Kevin Benderman, Spec. Susan Swift, and Lt. Ehren Watada. These individuals are lighting the path forward for the many soldiers who will eventually join them in refusing an illegal war. In the meantime, these individuals and those like them should be allowed to peacefully resign from the Armed Services, without suffering dishonorable discharges, or imprisonment.
From Todd Chretien, GP Candidate for US Senate, California:
The US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created nothing but disaster and death. Over 150,000 Iraqi people have died along with 2600 American soldiers. Far from bringing "peace and democracy" to the Middle East, we are now witnessing the spread of the war into Lebanon and Gaza in the form of twin Israeli assaults. While the mics were live at the G8 Summit, President Bush told Prime Minister Blair that he wished Hezbollah and Syria would stop all their "shit." Of course, he didn't mean to swear in public, but his actions against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and Venezuela, and his connivance with Israel's actions against the people of Palestine and Lebanon are far more obscene than anything that dribbles from his lips. As if all these crimes weren't enough, President Bush - along with Senators Feinstein and Clinton - are threatening Iran's people with bombs and starvation.
Now, more than ever, the Green Party must reassert its support for the unconditional, immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, an end to the colonial occupation of Afghanistan and the importance of the Green Party's Proposition 190, which stands in solidarity with the people of Palestine. The Democratic and Republic parties fight side by side to maintain American corporations' dominance over the oil resources of the Middle East. Even so-called "liberals" like Sen. Russ Feingold are cheering on the Israeli destruction of Gaza and Lebanon. The Green Party is the only electoral party to base its policies on the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world and their desire for peace, equality and the defense of our planet's environment.
From Malachy McCourt, New York Green Candidate for Governor:
Fighting Words: Outside of working people voting conservative, war has to be at once the most stupid and insane activity indulged in by humankind. Picture a group of middle-aged rich men with erectile dysfunction sitting around wondering how to get richer without taxes and without putting their heirs in danger. Aha, let's make weapons of war, get our men elected, find a useful enemy, sell the weapons to the government, get the working classes excited about patriotism and possible attacks on our country, get their children to join the Army, and send them off to be maimed and killed for corporate profits. Of course, it is important that it be called a noble cause and a defense of all we hold sacred.
I say I love my country too much to kill another human for it. I was taught never to hit another child and when I grew I was told thou shat not kill women, children and other people. I will decide who my enemies are and how to deal with them even if it means forgiving them, but that's my business. One of America's great enemies at the present is the acting president, who has declared war on America and everything it has stood for since independence. War is hell and may hell be the destination of the warmongering, lying profiteer who declared war. Peace, McCourt
From Michael Berg, Green Party Candidate for Congress, Delaware:
Many of you know me as the father of Nick Berg. Nick was seeking a government contract in Iraq for his young radio tower service company. He was kidnapped and brutally murdered in retaliation for the murders, rapes and torture of Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison. Since that awful moment, I have taken every opportunity to work to end the war that took my son from us. Two days after we got the terrible news, I
told the media who had surrounded our home, "Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld."
I've decided to take personal political responsibility for democracy and peace by running as a Green. I have discovered that the Green Party offers the best chance we have to build the electoral arm of the peace movement. You simply will not find a political party with a better record of pursuing peace, building the peace movement, and demanding an end to wars of aggression.
From Rae Vogeler, US Senate Candidate, Wisconsin:
Congress is a rubber-stamp for Bush's war agenda. Passage of the 2006 Defense Appropriations Act, which mandates another $50 billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan represents even more reckless spending from Capitol Hill on the war. Where is the fiscal responsibility? The American people have already footed a $311
billion tab for war; our national debt is out of control. Bush and the Congressional leadership are spending away our children's future. Bush and Congress are taxing working families to spend recklessly on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
War is big business, and some very powerful people are making enormous profits at taxpayer expense. As Senator, one of the first bills I would introduce would be to make it illegal for corporations to profit from war. Our government's spending priorities are way off. Why is there always money for bombs but never for health care? We need money for jobs and education, not endless wars across the globe.
From Aimee Allison, Candidate for Oakland, CA City Council:
As one of the co-authors of the book "10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military"
(edited by Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg, New Press 2006), Oakland City Council candidate Aimee Allison talked about trying to dissuade a young woman from paying for college by joining the armed forces. Allison, a medic in the Persian Gulf War who received an honorable discharge, contends in her chapter that the military is openly racist, misogynist, and homophobic. Also contributing to the book is activist Cindy Sheehan: she tells the story of her son Casey, a 24-year-old who died four days after landing in Iraq. She called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and for a trial of the nation's leaders for war crimes.
From Kevin Zeese, Candidate for US Senate, Maryland:
The Iraq occupation embedded US corporations into the Iraq economy, satisfying a multi-decade design on Iraq's oil wealth. The roots of the economic takeover of Iraq are long and deep. They became more aggressive after the strongest US ally in the region, the Shah of Iran, was deposed in 1979. The roots of the quest of dominance of the oil-rich region are found in both the Democratic and Republican Party, but the most aggressive pursuit has been by George W. Bush.
A new national poll shows that a near majority of voters either strongly or somewhat agree with a pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates. This makes the anti-war movement's potential impact on elections larger than pro-gun, anti-abortion, or anti-gay marriage voters. Politicians will have to pay heed to this new political force. The Voters for Peace Pledge states: "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression a public position in his or her campaign."
Byron De Lear: What is a Peacekeeper to do?
Brian De Lear is running for Congress in CA. He wrote the piece hiding behind the "Read more!" link, so get clicking...
International news outlets are proclaiming that this is 'WWIII'
-- what's a peacemaker to do?
What strategies have been employed in the past to stop unhinged militarism?
When I ask myself these questions I immediately turn to the necessity for the political paradigm shift that the Green Party offers.
The Green Party holds nonviolence as a key component in crafting its vision for a more sustainable, peaceful and just world.
Unpacking the global system of war will mark a philosophical maturation for humanity.
In war, it is life that is the loser.
We must begin to discriminate towards life affirming ideologies made of living principles.
Governing through the lens of militarism denies the ability to see the full spectrum of diplomatic solutions.
Today's militant mindset utilizes an anesthetized lexicon of terminology that attempts to obfuscate the real human costs of war. The establishment at war reduces the lives lost by innocents and civilians into a euphemistic expression, "collateral damage".
Hiding war and masking death with diffuse language is not a survivable trend.
The unacceptable military operations being conducted by the US and Israel today in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Palestine must be halted.
Escalation only breeds more escalation.
The Green Party offers a different approach towards bringing peace to the Middle East. A sense of peace and justice not confined to one's subjective perspective. A sense of peace and justice born from individual human rights, that does not value the safety or dignity of one nationality, one ethnicity or one religion over another.
When it comes to securing peace, the overweening nation state narrative has become obsolete.
The greatest vaunted "just wars" of the past were driven by common interests held by transnational coalitions. To see Congress muzzled and unable to provide any leadership in regard to the feckless malevolence being expressed by the US military's client state of Israel, is the result of these very same Republican and Democratic congressional members voting for the worst foreign policy conducted by our country in decades: the Iraqi War.
How could the Israeli military campaign throughout all of Lebanon be criticized by legislators who voted to affirm Bush's doctrine of pre-emption in order to illegally invade and occupy Iraq?
Even though Iraq has turned into a complete civil war, the politicians who paved the way continue to fund the madness and won't admit that they were wrong.
This is why to avoid self-contradiction they cannot condemn the gross violation of humanity occurring in Lebanon with close to a million Lebanese displaced and in less than two weeks hundreds of lives lost.
In war, nine decades ago, nine tenths of combat casualties were soldiers, military personal - now with the 21st centurian illusion of "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" -- 90% of combat casualties are civilians.
There's nothing "smart" about bombs.
Our ancient warring tendencies encourage us to knee jerk after crises, shouting slogans with war flag unfurled, as those who march in lockstep are led by cartoonish Republican cheerleaders like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, giddy with the notion that the apocalypse has arrived.
We as a nation should take pause and reflect on the path that lay before us.
Why effort towards a different way?
Because the way laid by corporatists and warmongers arrive at a destination of self-immolation.
Yes, it is a strategy to fight fire with fire, to meet force with force alone. But this strategy is one-sided and self-neutered as we crowd the arrows of war into both our Eagle's talons.
There is a way to look at the recent events in the Middle East from beyond the purview of nationality. There is a way to look at events in the Middle East with an ethical consideration that defines the mighty machines of war as ultimately being a threat to all.
There is a way to see the events in the Middle East from the point of view of a common inhabitant of one planet.
We all love our children. We all want safety.
There's nothing Christ-like about killing hundreds of thousands and creating millions of refugees; but this is what our leaders are telling us is the only way. I call on George Bush to turn the other cheek in global leadership and to stop contributing to the authorship of another lifetime burdened by war.
Over hyped-nationalism and an industrialized global system of war brought us 200 million dead in the 20th century. I'm sure if we put it to a vote of the people of the world to make warfare illegal as an enforceable reality - most would agree.
Where are the voices of reason and restraint when the world needs them the most?
Certainly there is an absence, a vacuum of wisdom echoing from our corridors of power today. That absence and missing leadership is something I'm fighting to be rid of.
My opponent, pro-war establishment Democrat Howard Berman exemplifies everything that's wrong about politics as usual. He breathes life into the murder and mayhem occurring in Iraq today by being the lone Californian, the lone Southland Democrat to vote GOP to block an exit plan. He made the front page headline with that overt departure - and in so doing put the 28th District's representation into crisis.
In May and June alone 6000 were killed in Iraq morally no American should stand by and watching from the sidelines be blind to this maelstrom of carnage.
We must act.
Come November 7th, we must elect legislators who will put an end to this tragedy and bring our troops home.
As we move forward into the 21st century and embrace a new found ability to actively reflect on our global community with ways and means never seen before, a great many people around the world are talking transformation and change.
It is imperative for America to take part in this change, and to help lead this Copernican shift fostering ethical stewardship, a harmonious relationship with our Mother Earth and making human rights, dignity and humanitarian ideals represent the primacy of good governance.
This is the transformation that an evolution in politics will bring about. The Ten Key Values of the Green Party act as the operative political and philosophical 'solution set.'
The Green Party Ten Key Values such as ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy and nonviolence will secure and protect our future.
It is a contract with each other and our lives to come.
It is a promise to our children.
In your service,
Byron De Lear
Byron@DeLearforCongress.org
www.DeLearforCongress.org
Congressional Campaign in California's 28th District
International news outlets are proclaiming that this is 'WWIII'
-- what's a peacemaker to do?
What strategies have been employed in the past to stop unhinged militarism?
When I ask myself these questions I immediately turn to the necessity for the political paradigm shift that the Green Party offers.
The Green Party holds nonviolence as a key component in crafting its vision for a more sustainable, peaceful and just world.
Unpacking the global system of war will mark a philosophical maturation for humanity.
In war, it is life that is the loser.
We must begin to discriminate towards life affirming ideologies made of living principles.
Governing through the lens of militarism denies the ability to see the full spectrum of diplomatic solutions.
Today's militant mindset utilizes an anesthetized lexicon of terminology that attempts to obfuscate the real human costs of war. The establishment at war reduces the lives lost by innocents and civilians into a euphemistic expression, "collateral damage".
Hiding war and masking death with diffuse language is not a survivable trend.
The unacceptable military operations being conducted by the US and Israel today in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Palestine must be halted.
Escalation only breeds more escalation.
The Green Party offers a different approach towards bringing peace to the Middle East. A sense of peace and justice not confined to one's subjective perspective. A sense of peace and justice born from individual human rights, that does not value the safety or dignity of one nationality, one ethnicity or one religion over another.
When it comes to securing peace, the overweening nation state narrative has become obsolete.
The greatest vaunted "just wars" of the past were driven by common interests held by transnational coalitions. To see Congress muzzled and unable to provide any leadership in regard to the feckless malevolence being expressed by the US military's client state of Israel, is the result of these very same Republican and Democratic congressional members voting for the worst foreign policy conducted by our country in decades: the Iraqi War.
How could the Israeli military campaign throughout all of Lebanon be criticized by legislators who voted to affirm Bush's doctrine of pre-emption in order to illegally invade and occupy Iraq?
Even though Iraq has turned into a complete civil war, the politicians who paved the way continue to fund the madness and won't admit that they were wrong.
This is why to avoid self-contradiction they cannot condemn the gross violation of humanity occurring in Lebanon with close to a million Lebanese displaced and in less than two weeks hundreds of lives lost.
In war, nine decades ago, nine tenths of combat casualties were soldiers, military personal - now with the 21st centurian illusion of "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" -- 90% of combat casualties are civilians.
There's nothing "smart" about bombs.
Our ancient warring tendencies encourage us to knee jerk after crises, shouting slogans with war flag unfurled, as those who march in lockstep are led by cartoonish Republican cheerleaders like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, giddy with the notion that the apocalypse has arrived.
We as a nation should take pause and reflect on the path that lay before us.
Why effort towards a different way?
Because the way laid by corporatists and warmongers arrive at a destination of self-immolation.
Yes, it is a strategy to fight fire with fire, to meet force with force alone. But this strategy is one-sided and self-neutered as we crowd the arrows of war into both our Eagle's talons.
There is a way to look at the recent events in the Middle East from beyond the purview of nationality. There is a way to look at events in the Middle East with an ethical consideration that defines the mighty machines of war as ultimately being a threat to all.
There is a way to see the events in the Middle East from the point of view of a common inhabitant of one planet.
We all love our children. We all want safety.
There's nothing Christ-like about killing hundreds of thousands and creating millions of refugees; but this is what our leaders are telling us is the only way. I call on George Bush to turn the other cheek in global leadership and to stop contributing to the authorship of another lifetime burdened by war.
Over hyped-nationalism and an industrialized global system of war brought us 200 million dead in the 20th century. I'm sure if we put it to a vote of the people of the world to make warfare illegal as an enforceable reality - most would agree.
Where are the voices of reason and restraint when the world needs them the most?
Certainly there is an absence, a vacuum of wisdom echoing from our corridors of power today. That absence and missing leadership is something I'm fighting to be rid of.
My opponent, pro-war establishment Democrat Howard Berman exemplifies everything that's wrong about politics as usual. He breathes life into the murder and mayhem occurring in Iraq today by being the lone Californian, the lone Southland Democrat to vote GOP to block an exit plan. He made the front page headline with that overt departure - and in so doing put the 28th District's representation into crisis.
In May and June alone 6000 were killed in Iraq morally no American should stand by and watching from the sidelines be blind to this maelstrom of carnage.
We must act.
Come November 7th, we must elect legislators who will put an end to this tragedy and bring our troops home.
As we move forward into the 21st century and embrace a new found ability to actively reflect on our global community with ways and means never seen before, a great many people around the world are talking transformation and change.
It is imperative for America to take part in this change, and to help lead this Copernican shift fostering ethical stewardship, a harmonious relationship with our Mother Earth and making human rights, dignity and humanitarian ideals represent the primacy of good governance.
This is the transformation that an evolution in politics will bring about. The Ten Key Values of the Green Party act as the operative political and philosophical 'solution set.'
The Green Party Ten Key Values such as ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy and nonviolence will secure and protect our future.
It is a contract with each other and our lives to come.
It is a promise to our children.
In your service,
Byron De Lear
Byron@DeLearforCongress.org
www.DeLearforCongress.org
Congressional Campaign in California's 28th District
Sometimes great news slips by
and that is what happened to me recently. The Progressive Party of MO, that state's affialiate of the USGP, has filed enough signatures to qualify for ballot status in the fall's elections. All the exciting details are behind the "Read more!" link...
PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF MISSOURI
P.O. BOX 33106
Kansas City, MO 64114
July 24, 2006
PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release
Contact: Dee Berry, Kansas City, (816) 942-3081
or Tim Barnhart, St. Louis, (314) 351-4268
PROGRESSIVE PARTY FILES BALLOT ACCESS PETITIONS
The Progressive Party of Missouri today (Monday, July 24, 2006) filed petitions containing 14,932 signatures with the Missouri Secretary of State to get the party on the November ballot in Missouri, together with papers nominating six candidates for statewide and congressional offices. Registered voters from 95 Missouri counties plus the City of St. Louis signed the petition. The signatures amounted to 49% more than
the 10,000 required by law.
Progressive Party leaders are confident that enough of the signatures are valid to place the party on the ballot, because all of the signatures were collected by party volunteers. Signatures obtained by volunteers historically have higher validity rates than those obtained by paid petitioners.
Missouri law requires Secretary of State Robin Carnahan to determine and announce no later than August 22 whether the party and its candidates have met legal requirements to appear on the ballot. The party will announce its candidates after Carnahan certifies them for the ballot.
The party failed in a similar attempt in 2004, when election authorities disallowed enough signatures to cause the party to fall 377 short. This year the party submitted over 2,000 more signatures than in 2004. The party previously placed two candidates for state representative on the ballot in 2002.
The Progressive Party of Missouri is affiliated with the Green Party of the United States.
-30-
PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF MISSOURI
P.O. BOX 33106
Kansas City, MO 64114
July 24, 2006
PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release
Contact: Dee Berry, Kansas City, (816) 942-3081
or Tim Barnhart, St. Louis, (314) 351-4268
PROGRESSIVE PARTY FILES BALLOT ACCESS PETITIONS
The Progressive Party of Missouri today (Monday, July 24, 2006) filed petitions containing 14,932 signatures with the Missouri Secretary of State to get the party on the November ballot in Missouri, together with papers nominating six candidates for statewide and congressional offices. Registered voters from 95 Missouri counties plus the City of St. Louis signed the petition. The signatures amounted to 49% more than
the 10,000 required by law.
Progressive Party leaders are confident that enough of the signatures are valid to place the party on the ballot, because all of the signatures were collected by party volunteers. Signatures obtained by volunteers historically have higher validity rates than those obtained by paid petitioners.
Missouri law requires Secretary of State Robin Carnahan to determine and announce no later than August 22 whether the party and its candidates have met legal requirements to appear on the ballot. The party will announce its candidates after Carnahan certifies them for the ballot.
The party failed in a similar attempt in 2004, when election authorities disallowed enough signatures to cause the party to fall 377 short. This year the party submitted over 2,000 more signatures than in 2004. The party previously placed two candidates for state representative on the ballot in 2002.
The Progressive Party of Missouri is affiliated with the Green Party of the United States.
-30-
The Alaska Brain Trust comes thru
In a message to the National Committee, Deirdre Helfferich of Alaska asked about the idea of creating a nation wide coordinated campaign on instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. In her message she quotes Joni LeViness of Oklahoma, and they point out that IRV is something that voters agree with and which advances our prospects of success.
The idea is to have one Green in each state who will be that state's contact person to advance IRV via the Green Party. Basically, the strategy would have to vary from state to state, depending on what can and what cannot be done. Here in South Carolina for example, if we had good, concise wording to put on a petition, we could get IRV passed by a vote of the people. In other states it may require lobbying, lawsuits, or running for office in places where we know we will "spoil" in the process, to force our demand for IRV.
I think it's a great idea. Who will be your state's IRV contact person? What else should we do? Public financing of campaigns? "Clean elections" changes? Stronger ethics laws? Better ballot access laws? Should we develop a comprehensive "Model legislation" to address all these issues at once, and then push the whole package nation wide as a Green Party agenda for action?
The idea is to have one Green in each state who will be that state's contact person to advance IRV via the Green Party. Basically, the strategy would have to vary from state to state, depending on what can and what cannot be done. Here in South Carolina for example, if we had good, concise wording to put on a petition, we could get IRV passed by a vote of the people. In other states it may require lobbying, lawsuits, or running for office in places where we know we will "spoil" in the process, to force our demand for IRV.
I think it's a great idea. Who will be your state's IRV contact person? What else should we do? Public financing of campaigns? "Clean elections" changes? Stronger ethics laws? Better ballot access laws? Should we develop a comprehensive "Model legislation" to address all these issues at once, and then push the whole package nation wide as a Green Party agenda for action?
Been busy being "Official"
As some of you know, I was appointed to the National Media Committee by my state, South Carolina, in hopes that I might be able to revive Greensweek, the weekly email that the national party used to send out, well, weekly. Towards that goal, I have been working on both a media committee blog, which you can visit by clicking here, and a Greensweek blog which is in the "Not ready for Prime Time" basket.
This has taken some of my time, as have other duties. I want to thank the recent commentors and emailers for their words of support and interest. They came at a crucial time and I appreciate them more than I can say.
I don't intend to let up on what I see as problems in the Green Party, both personality (leadership) wise and culturally. I am almost persuaded at this point that non-issue caucuses are proving to be harmful to the Green Party, and continue to believe that the party must not trust into leadership those Greens who would hide behind lawyers rather than address head on questions that we Greens have a right to have answered. We are not children and will refuse to allow those who treat us as such to lead us.
So, if you want the "nice" and "official" Gregg, visit the gp.org blog linked to above. If you prefer your Gregg without filters, well, you're here, aren't you? ~Smile~ Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks. Thanks.
Love,
Gregg
This has taken some of my time, as have other duties. I want to thank the recent commentors and emailers for their words of support and interest. They came at a crucial time and I appreciate them more than I can say.
I don't intend to let up on what I see as problems in the Green Party, both personality (leadership) wise and culturally. I am almost persuaded at this point that non-issue caucuses are proving to be harmful to the Green Party, and continue to believe that the party must not trust into leadership those Greens who would hide behind lawyers rather than address head on questions that we Greens have a right to have answered. We are not children and will refuse to allow those who treat us as such to lead us.
So, if you want the "nice" and "official" Gregg, visit the gp.org blog linked to above. If you prefer your Gregg without filters, well, you're here, aren't you? ~Smile~ Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks. Thanks.
Love,
Gregg
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Michigan Greens stand up
This was posted to the National Committee email list. It speaks for itself, so I won't try to add to it. Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one.
****************************************
The following resolution was passed in open meeting of the Green House Outreach Local, in a near unaminous vote, July 20:
The GH Outreach Local supports the Flint-HVGreens resolution in its entirety. We urge the SCC to come to a vote on this resolution and have requested that our two representatives vote in favor of the resolution.
The five provisions of the Flint-HVGreens resolution are listed below:
The Green Party of Michigan:
1. Expresses its support for Stephanie Loveless in her attempt to gain membership in National Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the United States (GP-US); and,
2. Agrees with the July, 2005, finding of the National Lavender Greens Caucus Officers and Representatives that the "National Women's Caucus's denial of membership to Stephanie Loveless [is] a violation of the Green Principles of Social Justice, Respect for Diversity,and Feminism, as expressed in the 10 Key Values"; and,
3. Recalls it own interpretation of the key value of feminism: "Greens are feminists, which means that we believe in the equality of women and men (regardless of sexual orientation) . By extension, it also means that we affirm the right of all people to
self-definition. Each person has the right to choose a culture, and to exhibit all (legal) aspects of its corresponding lifestyle"; and,
4. Upholds the platform of the GP-US which states, in part: "We support the right of all persons to self-determination with regard to gender identity and sex"; and,
5. Concurs in, and calls upon the National Committee to enact, the recommendation of the GP-US Accreditation Committee "that the accreditation of the National Women's Caucus be suspended."
Nearly all of us of the GH Outreach Local reached the conlusion a while back that the shameful two years of stonewalling on Ms. Loveless's application and the refusal to provide an answer, all of this must come to an end. The time for that ending to take place is now.
****************************************
The following resolution was passed in open meeting of the Green House Outreach Local, in a near unaminous vote, July 20:
The GH Outreach Local supports the Flint-HVGreens resolution in its entirety. We urge the SCC to come to a vote on this resolution and have requested that our two representatives vote in favor of the resolution.
The five provisions of the Flint-HVGreens resolution are listed below:
The Green Party of Michigan:
1. Expresses its support for Stephanie Loveless in her attempt to gain membership in National Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the United States (GP-US); and,
2. Agrees with the July, 2005, finding of the National Lavender Greens Caucus Officers and Representatives that the "National Women's Caucus's denial of membership to Stephanie Loveless [is] a violation of the Green Principles of Social Justice, Respect for Diversity,and Feminism, as expressed in the 10 Key Values"; and,
3. Recalls it own interpretation of the key value of feminism: "Greens are feminists, which means that we believe in the equality of women and men (regardless of sexual orientation) . By extension, it also means that we affirm the right of all people to
self-definition. Each person has the right to choose a culture, and to exhibit all (legal) aspects of its corresponding lifestyle"; and,
4. Upholds the platform of the GP-US which states, in part: "We support the right of all persons to self-determination with regard to gender identity and sex"; and,
5. Concurs in, and calls upon the National Committee to enact, the recommendation of the GP-US Accreditation Committee "that the accreditation of the National Women's Caucus be suspended."
Nearly all of us of the GH Outreach Local reached the conlusion a while back that the shameful two years of stonewalling on Ms. Loveless's application and the refusal to provide an answer, all of this must come to an end. The time for that ending to take place is now.
Wanna be a Big Wig?
The Green National Committee (GNC) is in the process of choosing a Senatorial Campaign Committee (SCC). The committee, authorized by the GNC, is supposed to assist the various US Senate campaigns. A similar committee has been established for House races.
There are seven seats available on the SCC, and only six candidates. Dave Jette has had his name put forward as a write-in for the last seat, and two GNC members have voted for him. He may well be the perfect candidate for the last seat, but if you have the time and inclination to serve in this role, why not let the GNC know that you are interested in serving, and maybe you can get three write-in votes. *smile*
If you're interested, but don't know how to proceed, drop me a note and I'll try to hook you up with someone who can help.
There are seven seats available on the SCC, and only six candidates. Dave Jette has had his name put forward as a write-in for the last seat, and two GNC members have voted for him. He may well be the perfect candidate for the last seat, but if you have the time and inclination to serve in this role, why not let the GNC know that you are interested in serving, and maybe you can get three write-in votes. *smile*
If you're interested, but don't know how to proceed, drop me a note and I'll try to hook you up with someone who can help.
Charles Lutwidge Dodgson
`What I was going to say,' said the Dodo in an offended tone, `was, that the best thing to get us dry would be a Caucus-race.'
`What is a Caucus-race?' said Alice; not that she wanted much to know, but the Dodo had paused as if it thought that somebody ought to speak, and no one else seemed inclined to say anything.
`Why,' said the Dodo, `the best way to explain it is to do it.' (And, as you might like to try the thing yourself, some winter day, I will tell you how the Dodo managed it.)
First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (`the exact shape doesn't matter,' it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no `One, two, three, and away,' but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out `The race is over!' and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, `But who has won?'
This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, `Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.'
`But who is to give the prizes?' quite a chorus of voices asked.
`Why, she, of course,' said the Dodo, pointing to Alice with one finger; and the whole party at once crowded round her, calling out in a confused way, `Prizes! Prizes!'
Alice had no idea what to do, and in despair she put her hand in her pocket, and pulled out a box of comfits, (luckily the salt water had not got into it), and handed them round as prizes. There was exactly one a-piece all round.
`But she must have a prize herself, you know,' said the Mouse.
`Of course,' the Dodo replied very gravely. `What else have you got in your pocket?' he went on, turning to Alice.
`Only a thimble,' said Alice sadly.
`Hand it over here,' said the Dodo.
Then they all crowded round her once more, while the Dodo solemnly presented the thimble, saying `We beg your acceptance of this elegant thimble'; and, when it had finished this short speech, they all cheered.
`What is a Caucus-race?' said Alice; not that she wanted much to know, but the Dodo had paused as if it thought that somebody ought to speak, and no one else seemed inclined to say anything.
`Why,' said the Dodo, `the best way to explain it is to do it.' (And, as you might like to try the thing yourself, some winter day, I will tell you how the Dodo managed it.)
First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (`the exact shape doesn't matter,' it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no `One, two, three, and away,' but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out `The race is over!' and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, `But who has won?'
This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, `Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.'
`But who is to give the prizes?' quite a chorus of voices asked.
`Why, she, of course,' said the Dodo, pointing to Alice with one finger; and the whole party at once crowded round her, calling out in a confused way, `Prizes! Prizes!'
Alice had no idea what to do, and in despair she put her hand in her pocket, and pulled out a box of comfits, (luckily the salt water had not got into it), and handed them round as prizes. There was exactly one a-piece all round.
`But she must have a prize herself, you know,' said the Mouse.
`Of course,' the Dodo replied very gravely. `What else have you got in your pocket?' he went on, turning to Alice.
`Only a thimble,' said Alice sadly.
`Hand it over here,' said the Dodo.
Then they all crowded round her once more, while the Dodo solemnly presented the thimble, saying `We beg your acceptance of this elegant thimble'; and, when it had finished this short speech, they all cheered.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Ever wonder
where to go to get a copy of the party by-laws? Organizing tools? A link to the Ten Key Values? The party platform? Maybe some Green Party history?
Are you in luck! The intrepid webstaff at gp.org has created just such a page, just for you. :-) Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one gang, but to find the treasure trove of documents I mention, step right over here.
Are you in luck! The intrepid webstaff at gp.org has created just such a page, just for you. :-) Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one gang, but to find the treasure trove of documents I mention, step right over here.
Black Caucus
Well, at one time a fellow South Carolinian ran the Green Party Black Caucus website, but they had a conflict of some sort and the result was the temporary loss of the Black Caucus website.
Well, it would seem that history may be repeting itself.
This URL is the one listed at the national party website for the Black Caucus.
http://www.greenpartyblackcaucus.net/
Now, there is here is nothing behind the "Read more!" link here, but either copy and paste the link into your browser, or just click here, or if you would prefer, link through the National Party website. Take a look and tell me if you think this is a good sign, or something to concern all Greens.
Well, it would seem that history may be repeting itself.
This URL is the one listed at the national party website for the Black Caucus.
http://www.greenpartyblackcaucus.net/
Now, there is here is nothing behind the "Read more!" link here, but either copy and paste the link into your browser, or just click here, or if you would prefer, link through the National Party website. Take a look and tell me if you think this is a good sign, or something to concern all Greens.
Ted Glick column
It's behind the "Read more!" link, and deals with the G8 summit just ended...
G8 Leaders: How Low Can They Go?
It was the big news coming out of the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, early this week. George Bush and Tony Blair had an unscripted conversation over Monday lunch without knowing that a live microphone was picking up their words. Their conversation was being transmitted to, in the words of the New York Times, “gleeful journalists.”
Bush cursing was the really big news. Also notable was his disdain for Kofi Annan’s efforts to bring about a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
It was an appropriate ending to a thoroughly lousy weekend.
Compared to 2005’s G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, the 2006 meeting was a case of two steps backwards and then two more for good measure. And that’s saying something, because not much happened in Gleneagles.
What did happen leading up to and at Gleneagles was that Tony Blair, chair of that event, put climate change at the top of the agenda. About a week before it convened in July, he said, “It is incredibly important that we do get some clear agreement that we need to move to a low-carbon economy, that we need to curb greenhouse gas emissions and we need to do so urgently.”
Gleneagles produced little in the way of concrete commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, in large part because of Bush’s obstructionism. But there was a statement, “Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development,” which made some important points, among them: “Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. . . We know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. . . We will act with resolve and urgency now to meet our shared and multiple objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving the global environment, enhancing energy security and cutting air pollution in conjunction with our vigorous efforts to reduce poverty.”
Fast forward to this past weekend. Going into it, Vladimir Putin made it clear that at the top of his agenda was “energy security,” and this did not mean a dramatic shift to renewables. Apparently Tony Blair and the other G8 leaders had no problem with this, with the exception of France’s Jacques Chirac, quoted in a Reuters news story as saying, “we cannot talk about energy security while there is no progress on climate change. Mankind is dancing on the edge of a volcano.”
The Reuters story reported on a G8 statement that “acknowledged divisions among the world’s top economies on promoting nuclear energy and tackling climate change. . .
“Graham Saul at Oil Change International said the G8 statement predicted a massive increase in demand for fossil fuels over the next century.
“’The G8 can’t fight climate change and subsidize an expansion of fossil fuels at the same time. This is a complete contradiction and a dramatic failure of leadership on the part of the G8,” Saul said.”
There was a ray of sunshine, however, amidst the gloom in St. Petersburg.
A story released by Environment New Service on July 16 reported that 37 brave activists from a number of European countries were arrested while “blockading the entrance of a hotel on the Nevsky Prospekt which was used by participants of the G8 summit.” The article quoted them as saying in a statement, “’Nuclear reactors are dangerous, extremely expensive, take many years to build, and require massive government subsidies.’
“The activists say they would like this funding to be used to quickly reduce carbon emissions through energy efficiency measures, development of renewable energy sources, and restoration of damaged wetland and forest ecosystems.”
The St. Petersburg 37 are challenging all of us who say that we get it on climate change. Let’s draw strength from their example. Let’s get visible in the streets on this urgent issue. Let’s come out in large numbers all over the country on November 4th, the International Day of Climate Action. Around the world climate activists are making plans for significant actions on that day. Organizing has begun in the USA for local actions in all parts of the country that help to mobilize a large turnout of climate-conscious voters a few days later.
And five weeks from now, on August 26th, a year after Hurricane Katrina, many hundreds of people will rally in front of the headquarters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Hurricane Center in D.C. We will call for an end to the cover-up and denial by its top leadership of the steady stream of scientific reports which make the connection between global warming and major storms like last year’s Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
If the governments are diddling around with this urgent crisis, we the people must seize the initiative and force them to act.
Ted Glick and Mike Tidwell are, respectively, coordinator and director of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council (www.climateemergency.org). Ted can be reached at 973-338-5398 or usajointheworld@igc.org.
G8 Leaders: How Low Can They Go?
It was the big news coming out of the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, early this week. George Bush and Tony Blair had an unscripted conversation over Monday lunch without knowing that a live microphone was picking up their words. Their conversation was being transmitted to, in the words of the New York Times, “gleeful journalists.”
Bush cursing was the really big news. Also notable was his disdain for Kofi Annan’s efforts to bring about a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
It was an appropriate ending to a thoroughly lousy weekend.
Compared to 2005’s G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, the 2006 meeting was a case of two steps backwards and then two more for good measure. And that’s saying something, because not much happened in Gleneagles.
What did happen leading up to and at Gleneagles was that Tony Blair, chair of that event, put climate change at the top of the agenda. About a week before it convened in July, he said, “It is incredibly important that we do get some clear agreement that we need to move to a low-carbon economy, that we need to curb greenhouse gas emissions and we need to do so urgently.”
Gleneagles produced little in the way of concrete commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, in large part because of Bush’s obstructionism. But there was a statement, “Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development,” which made some important points, among them: “Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. . . We know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. . . We will act with resolve and urgency now to meet our shared and multiple objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving the global environment, enhancing energy security and cutting air pollution in conjunction with our vigorous efforts to reduce poverty.”
Fast forward to this past weekend. Going into it, Vladimir Putin made it clear that at the top of his agenda was “energy security,” and this did not mean a dramatic shift to renewables. Apparently Tony Blair and the other G8 leaders had no problem with this, with the exception of France’s Jacques Chirac, quoted in a Reuters news story as saying, “we cannot talk about energy security while there is no progress on climate change. Mankind is dancing on the edge of a volcano.”
The Reuters story reported on a G8 statement that “acknowledged divisions among the world’s top economies on promoting nuclear energy and tackling climate change. . .
“Graham Saul at Oil Change International said the G8 statement predicted a massive increase in demand for fossil fuels over the next century.
“’The G8 can’t fight climate change and subsidize an expansion of fossil fuels at the same time. This is a complete contradiction and a dramatic failure of leadership on the part of the G8,” Saul said.”
There was a ray of sunshine, however, amidst the gloom in St. Petersburg.
A story released by Environment New Service on July 16 reported that 37 brave activists from a number of European countries were arrested while “blockading the entrance of a hotel on the Nevsky Prospekt which was used by participants of the G8 summit.” The article quoted them as saying in a statement, “’Nuclear reactors are dangerous, extremely expensive, take many years to build, and require massive government subsidies.’
“The activists say they would like this funding to be used to quickly reduce carbon emissions through energy efficiency measures, development of renewable energy sources, and restoration of damaged wetland and forest ecosystems.”
The St. Petersburg 37 are challenging all of us who say that we get it on climate change. Let’s draw strength from their example. Let’s get visible in the streets on this urgent issue. Let’s come out in large numbers all over the country on November 4th, the International Day of Climate Action. Around the world climate activists are making plans for significant actions on that day. Organizing has begun in the USA for local actions in all parts of the country that help to mobilize a large turnout of climate-conscious voters a few days later.
And five weeks from now, on August 26th, a year after Hurricane Katrina, many hundreds of people will rally in front of the headquarters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Hurricane Center in D.C. We will call for an end to the cover-up and denial by its top leadership of the steady stream of scientific reports which make the connection between global warming and major storms like last year’s Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
If the governments are diddling around with this urgent crisis, we the people must seize the initiative and force them to act.
Ted Glick and Mike Tidwell are, respectively, coordinator and director of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council (www.climateemergency.org). Ted can be reached at 973-338-5398 or usajointheworld@igc.org.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
North Carolina Greens press for reform
We all know that a political party pretty much has to be on the ballot to engage our members. It's tough to persuade folks to take time from their busy lives to engage in an effort with no prospects of success.
Of course, many states with no ballot access can still run very important and successful campaigns. Even in North Carolina, many elected offices are non-partisan.
Even so, being able to put "Green Party" on the ballot is crucial to success in many cases. The North Carolina Green Party has joined a lawsuit attempting to set rules for ballot access which are attainable for them in the state. Even with the changes, securing ballot access will not be easy. But there is a world of difference between difficult, and impossible.
The Associated Press has an article telling all the details Check it out and be impressed at all the hard work NC Greens are doing, and the success we all hope will be theirs soon. I don't suppose many of us will be surprised to read that the Republicans are willing to make ballot access more possible, and the Democrats are pushing for holding on to the old system of denial and refusal.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one.
Of course, many states with no ballot access can still run very important and successful campaigns. Even in North Carolina, many elected offices are non-partisan.
Even so, being able to put "Green Party" on the ballot is crucial to success in many cases. The North Carolina Green Party has joined a lawsuit attempting to set rules for ballot access which are attainable for them in the state. Even with the changes, securing ballot access will not be easy. But there is a world of difference between difficult, and impossible.
The Associated Press has an article telling all the details Check it out and be impressed at all the hard work NC Greens are doing, and the success we all hope will be theirs soon. I don't suppose many of us will be surprised to read that the Republicans are willing to make ballot access more possible, and the Democrats are pushing for holding on to the old system of denial and refusal.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one.
From Sam Smith-publisher of Progressive Review
Greens tell Bush:Push Israel to get out of Lebanon
The national party has issued a press release calling on the Whitehouse to pressure Israel to get out of Lebanon. Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but the press release is strong, to the point, and filled with information explaining our position, and how the ongoing military effort, using US provided weapons, violates Israel's agreements with the US on how those weapons will be used.
Want to get involved in the Campus Greens?
There seems to be a bit of confusion on the question of which email listservs are actually Campus Green's mailing lists, and which are "unofficial" Campus Greens lists.
According to David Wilcox, chair of the Campus Greens, all the official Campus Greens email lists are hosted at RiseUp.net.
Therefore, if you want to know the straight poop from an "official" source, make sure your list is on RiseUp.net. If you prefer an "unofficial" list, then look around at Yahoogroups. There are apparently several there. That said, one gets the impression that the Yahoogroups Campus Greens mailing list may be of less value than the RiseUp.net listservs.
According to David Wilcox, chair of the Campus Greens, all the official Campus Greens email lists are hosted at RiseUp.net.
Therefore, if you want to know the straight poop from an "official" source, make sure your list is on RiseUp.net. If you prefer an "unofficial" list, then look around at Yahoogroups. There are apparently several there. That said, one gets the impression that the Yahoogroups Campus Greens mailing list may be of less value than the RiseUp.net listservs.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Perhaps some clarity now on the NWC
I have asked and so have others for information from the National Women's Caucus, and from the Accreditation Committee about the hows of accreditation of the NWC, as well as about the Stephanie Loveless issue. I just spotted this from Holly Hart, former campaign leader in the Cobb campaign and leader in the NWC and of course, elsewhere, including her responsibilities as Secretary.
I am posting it here immediately and unedited. Assuming that there is anyone looking right this moment, the text will be all messed up. Sorry. I want this out there yesterday. I may have an apology to make. For now, here it is raw. Then I will clean it up and re-post it. Nothing behind the "Read more!" link this time.
***Please Note***
I have now "cleaned up" the piece, so it's pretty much all together, and hopefully easier to read.
And no, I have decided I owe no apology. This is a perfect example of the arrogance exhibited by the NWC all during this process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quoting Roger Snyder:
...
>
> The AC has not received a statement from the NWC CC.
>
Perhaps the AC missed it. That would explain why the NWC never received a response. Here it is again, below.
Holly Hart
GPUS-NC Delegate, NWC
************************************************************************
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:36:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Morgen D'Arc"
Subject: AC meeting
To: "Roger Snyder", "Brent White"
CC: "Holly Hart", "Sanda Everette"
, "Nan Garrett" , "Morgen
D'Arc", "Katey Culver"
, "Maya O'Connor"
November 11, 2005
TO: Accreditation Committee Co-Chairs Roger Snyder and Brent White
>cut<
STATEMENT
The NWC has learned that the AC has written a report to recommend to the GPUS NC disaffiliation of the NWC. The report contains many serious errors about the basic conditions concerning the accreditation of the NWC as well as defamatory language about the NWC's work. Any accreditation process must be built on accurate facts. It is extraordinary that the Accreditation Committee would publish a report urging disaffiliation of the National Women's Caucus which represents the largest historically oppressed and underrepresented population in the world, a population necessary to the GPUS for its continued development as a political party. We reject this report because it is filled with misleading and untrue statements. We request that an investigation of the AC be undertaken to determine what process was followed to produce this egregious report and why a GPUS committee chartered by the NC to facilitate the accreditation and well being of a caucus went so far astray from its
required task.
The following facts are relevant:
1) The NWC has complied with its obligation to the GPUS NC to the letter of the requirements originally requested by the AC on August 23, 2004, and set forth in the proposal for NWC accreditation adopted by the NC November 21, 2004. THE NWC BYLAWS AND RULES AMENDMENTS WERE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 6, 2005 BY A VOTE OF THE NWC MEMBERSHIP.
2) The AC has demanded things of the NWC that the NWC has already done, a pattern since September 2004. They have attempted to alter the accreditation requirements for the NWC after the fact. They did this without basis, without authority and without a vote of the NC to amend the adopted NWC accreditation proposal, and without notifying the NWC. As a result, at a meeting of the GPUS SC where both the AC and NWC were present to resolve this problem, on March 11, 2005, the SC declared that the AC was to have nothing more to do with the NWC bylaws and rules amendment process, the NWC bylaws and rules or the NWC itself.
3) The AC did not comply with the SC decision, but ceased all direct communication with the NWC in this matter, thereby limiting themselves and their information to rumor and innuendo.
4) Instead, the AC increased its interference in NWC matters, choosing a more indirect route by writing their disaffiliation report while seeking no direct information from the NWC itself. In addition, they involved themselves with things that were not the jurisdiction of the AC. In relation to the NWC, they ignored their own rules - such as they were since their own P & P were not adopted by this body until October 2005 - issuing vague and inconsistent new requirements, and erroneously referring to the NWC as 'provisionally' accredited. They refused to recognize the authority of the NC which had fully accredited the NWC by adopting the AC's own
proposal for "full accreditation" of the NWC on November 21, 2004.
5) The NWC has produced and sent to the AC many documents with full facts, information and substantiation. The AC has refused to utilize the material we worked hard to develop and provide at their request. All requirements of NWC accreditation have been addressed repeatedly, completely and conclusively by the NWC. We are not going to keep responding to the same requests by the AC over and over, when we had already proven complaints wrong, provided documentation and corrected their same mistakes and false information.
6) The AC has repeatedly re-opened requirements, added requirements and demands after the NWC had already fully complied.
7) The AC has maligned NWC work, refused to accept correction and at all times continued to perpetrate wrong information about the NWC while disseminating disparaging speculation about the NWC and its officers.
8) The AC appears unaware of the accomplishments and the value that the NWC brings to the GPUS.
9) The AC co-chairs have a conflict of interest. They are both opposed to identity caucuses in the GPUS in general and have stated their opposition of NWC accreditation in specific. Both are men judging an organization of and for women. The NWC has a right to be judged by peers. Other AC members also have conflicts of interest.
10) The AC provided no expert advice and refused to acknowledge advice from experts consulted by the NWC CC. Initially, prior to September 2004, the AC offered good counsel. With several changeovers in leadership and membership, the AC disregarded its own decisions, allowed two members who lacked necessary competency (as required by their charter) to self-appoint to oversee completion of the bylaws and rules amendment work, with no accountability to the AC, NWC or GPUS; who did not acknowledge the original requirements or accreditation proposal approved by the GPUS NC; and who attempted to dictate to the NWC the entire terms of our affiliation, after we had been affiliated by the GPUS NC.
When the NWC came to the GPUS to apply for accreditation to be affiliated with the Green Party of the United States, we did so with complete belief that we would be working together in an atmosphere of mutual collaboration, respect and support to build the Green Party for women. The NWC has accomplished many things that have done just that. A partial listing is copied below. Imagine our surprise, disappointment and outrage to be harassed by the AC, demeaned, disparaged, extremely disrespected and required again and again to do long tedious work that had already been done.
The AC has become a place where people opposed to identity caucuses and people with special interests against the NWC and women have gathered. They are engaged in disabling the efforts of the larger party, including the creation of the NWC, which serves as a beacon to correct the imbalance of male domination and privilege in the party and the country at large.
The NWC CC denounces the actions of the AC to disaffiliate the NWC.
The NWC CC does not believe that the affiliation agreement is a one-way contract or that the AC or GPUS are the only parties to the agreement that can make demands. The NWC and the NWC CC demand and are entitled to respect and support as an absolute
baseline requirement for the NWC part to this affiliation.
We come to the table to experience that reality. We do not come to the table to be disaffiliated for no cause.
For a bright Green future for all Women.
The Coordinating Committee
National Women's Caucus
Green Party of the United States:
Morgen D'Arc, Co-Founder Co-Chair
Holly Hart, Delegate to the GPUS NC
Sanda Everette, Treasurer, delegate International Committee
Nannette Garrett, Spokesperson, Media Committee
Katey Culver, Voting & Elections Committee
Maya O'Connor, Voting & Elections Committee
-----------------------------------
NATIONAL WOMENÂS CAUCUS OF THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: July 2002 November 2005
On November 21, 2004 the National Women's Caucus was fully accredited by a vote of the Green Party of the United States National Committee.
It was the highest vote for any caucus and the second highest vote for any proposal in 2004.
The NWC has helped the GPUS raise money: June 2005 - The NWC provided content, signed and helped recruit the other accredited caucuses to participate in one of the largest GPUS fundraising mailings that resulted in one of the largest net gains for a mailing
in 2005.
The NWC provides credibility for the GPUS in news releases pertaining to issues of women. The NWC has consistently provided the GPUS media coordinators with women for news release quotes. Previous to the NWC, GPUS news releases were dominated by quotes by men.
A few news releases about the NWC or with quotes by members of the NWC:
October 26, 2005 - Greens Pay Tribute to Rosa Parks
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_10_26.shtml
March 7, 2005 - Greens Mark International Women's Day, March 08.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_03_07.html
January 3, 2005 - Greens Replace Dems as Party for Abortion Rights.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_01_03b.html
November 23, 2004 - Green Party Accredits Women's Caucus
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_11_23_04.html
June 18, 2004 - Medea Benjamin to be a Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Green National Convention.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_06_18_04.html
April 21, 2004 - Greens to Participate in April 25 March for Women's Lives in D.C.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_21_04.html
February 25, 2003 - Calling for the Protection of the Home in Our Homeland, Greens Cite an Alarming Increase of Violence Against Women.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_25_03.html
OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1) 150 verified members from 28 states - November 7, 2004.
1.a) Established a sound process for verifying applicants for membership.
2) Spring 2004: Established a Voting and Elections Committee (VEC) to conduct all votes and elections. It includes an advisor experienced in elections and training of voting systems, processes and in consulting voting experts.
3) Elections of Officers September 15, 2004. Second elections in progress beginning September 2005.
4) Bylaws passed and adopted January 20, 2004.
5) Held four consecutive annual meetings of the NWC:
. Founding meeting, July 22, 2002 in Philadelphia.
. Second meeting, July 17, 2003, in Washington, D.C.
. Third meeting June 24, 2004 in Milwaukee.
. Fourth meeting July 21, 2005 in Tulsa.
6.a) Third Annual Meeting in Milwaukee was one of the largest convention events with Medea Benjamin as featured speaker. Washington Post and other national media coverage.
7) June 2003: NWC submission to National Platform Committee, Plank on Equal Rights Amendment, with State Party approval.
8.a) June 26, 2004: Plank on Women's Rights adopted in 2004 GPUS Platform. Developed and written by NWC member. The first separate substantive plank on women in GPUS platform history.
9) Green Pages article Fall 2003: announcement article.
10) Green Pages article Spring 2004.
11) Green Pages article Convention 2004 Issue.
12) Green Pages article, Fall 2004.
13) Green Pages article, Winter 2005.
Green Pages article, Fall 2005.
14) Active Listserv and participants.
15) Showed that the Caucus could deal with and weather significant assaults from the inside and the outside and handle them responsibly. Developed better processes to deal with challenges. Developed outside support from other committees. The 2003/04 SC said in a letter of support to the NWC: "How you deal with challenges is as much an
indicator of the quality of your caucus as any achievement. We are proud of the way you handled difficult times and want to thank you for your commitment to preserving process and deliberation,"
16) Co-Sponsored, March for Women's Lives, Washington D.C., April 25, 2004. NWC listed on the March for WomenÂs national website.
16.a) March for Women linked on GPUS website frontpage to news release and NWC announcement.
16.b) GPUS news release on the March for Women had a quote from Caucus Co-founder, Morgen D'Arc as the lead quote.
16.c) GPUS March for Women news release and others posted on the Commondreams website.
17) Listed, announced and outreached on numerous state and local Green Party listservs.
18) Participation in the Diversity, Media, GPAX and International Committees
19) NWC Co-Founder and Coordinating Committee member, Morgen D'Arc invited to Speak at the Maine Green Indpendent Party Presidential Candidate Forum, February 7, 2004 on, "Women and Diversity in the Green Party."
20) Recognition and support from the GPUS Diversity Committee.
21) Recognition, appreciation and support from the GPUS Steering Committee posted to the NWC listserv February 2004.
22) The NWC is helping the Party to carry out the 2001 Santa Barbara resolution to form caucuses within the party.
23) The NWC Coordinating Committee has kept the GPUS Steering Committee informed of progress, activities and challenges.
24) Developed sound database and database process.
25) Monthly to twice monthly teleconference calls of the CC 2002-04. Weekly meetings from May 2004 through November 2005.
26) 2003-05 GPUS budgets submitted to GPUS as requested.
----- End forwarded message -----
I am posting it here immediately and unedited. Assuming that there is anyone looking right this moment, the text will be all messed up. Sorry. I want this out there yesterday. I may have an apology to make. For now, here it is raw. Then I will clean it up and re-post it. Nothing behind the "Read more!" link this time.
***Please Note***
I have now "cleaned up" the piece, so it's pretty much all together, and hopefully easier to read.
And no, I have decided I owe no apology. This is a perfect example of the arrogance exhibited by the NWC all during this process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quoting Roger Snyder
...
>
> The AC has not received a statement from the NWC CC.
>
Perhaps the AC missed it. That would explain why the NWC never received a response. Here it is again, below.
Holly Hart
GPUS-NC Delegate, NWC
************************************************************************
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:36:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Morgen D'Arc"
Subject: AC meeting
To: "Roger Snyder"
CC: "Holly Hart"
D'Arc"
November 11, 2005
TO: Accreditation Committee Co-Chairs Roger Snyder and Brent White
>cut<
STATEMENT
The NWC has learned that the AC has written a report to recommend to the GPUS NC disaffiliation of the NWC. The report contains many serious errors about the basic conditions concerning the accreditation of the NWC as well as defamatory language about the NWC's work. Any accreditation process must be built on accurate facts. It is extraordinary that the Accreditation Committee would publish a report urging disaffiliation of the National Women's Caucus which represents the largest historically oppressed and underrepresented population in the world, a population necessary to the GPUS for its continued development as a political party. We reject this report because it is filled with misleading and untrue statements. We request that an investigation of the AC be undertaken to determine what process was followed to produce this egregious report and why a GPUS committee chartered by the NC to facilitate the accreditation and well being of a caucus went so far astray from its
required task.
The following facts are relevant:
1) The NWC has complied with its obligation to the GPUS NC to the letter of the requirements originally requested by the AC on August 23, 2004, and set forth in the proposal for NWC accreditation adopted by the NC November 21, 2004. THE NWC BYLAWS AND RULES AMENDMENTS WERE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 6, 2005 BY A VOTE OF THE NWC MEMBERSHIP.
2) The AC has demanded things of the NWC that the NWC has already done, a pattern since September 2004. They have attempted to alter the accreditation requirements for the NWC after the fact. They did this without basis, without authority and without a vote of the NC to amend the adopted NWC accreditation proposal, and without notifying the NWC. As a result, at a meeting of the GPUS SC where both the AC and NWC were present to resolve this problem, on March 11, 2005, the SC declared that the AC was to have nothing more to do with the NWC bylaws and rules amendment process, the NWC bylaws and rules or the NWC itself.
3) The AC did not comply with the SC decision, but ceased all direct communication with the NWC in this matter, thereby limiting themselves and their information to rumor and innuendo.
4) Instead, the AC increased its interference in NWC matters, choosing a more indirect route by writing their disaffiliation report while seeking no direct information from the NWC itself. In addition, they involved themselves with things that were not the jurisdiction of the AC. In relation to the NWC, they ignored their own rules - such as they were since their own P & P were not adopted by this body until October 2005 - issuing vague and inconsistent new requirements, and erroneously referring to the NWC as 'provisionally' accredited. They refused to recognize the authority of the NC which had fully accredited the NWC by adopting the AC's own
proposal for "full accreditation" of the NWC on November 21, 2004.
5) The NWC has produced and sent to the AC many documents with full facts, information and substantiation. The AC has refused to utilize the material we worked hard to develop and provide at their request. All requirements of NWC accreditation have been addressed repeatedly, completely and conclusively by the NWC. We are not going to keep responding to the same requests by the AC over and over, when we had already proven complaints wrong, provided documentation and corrected their same mistakes and false information.
6) The AC has repeatedly re-opened requirements, added requirements and demands after the NWC had already fully complied.
7) The AC has maligned NWC work, refused to accept correction and at all times continued to perpetrate wrong information about the NWC while disseminating disparaging speculation about the NWC and its officers.
8) The AC appears unaware of the accomplishments and the value that the NWC brings to the GPUS.
9) The AC co-chairs have a conflict of interest. They are both opposed to identity caucuses in the GPUS in general and have stated their opposition of NWC accreditation in specific. Both are men judging an organization of and for women. The NWC has a right to be judged by peers. Other AC members also have conflicts of interest.
10) The AC provided no expert advice and refused to acknowledge advice from experts consulted by the NWC CC. Initially, prior to September 2004, the AC offered good counsel. With several changeovers in leadership and membership, the AC disregarded its own decisions, allowed two members who lacked necessary competency (as required by their charter) to self-appoint to oversee completion of the bylaws and rules amendment work, with no accountability to the AC, NWC or GPUS; who did not acknowledge the original requirements or accreditation proposal approved by the GPUS NC; and who attempted to dictate to the NWC the entire terms of our affiliation, after we had been affiliated by the GPUS NC.
When the NWC came to the GPUS to apply for accreditation to be affiliated with the Green Party of the United States, we did so with complete belief that we would be working together in an atmosphere of mutual collaboration, respect and support to build the Green Party for women. The NWC has accomplished many things that have done just that. A partial listing is copied below. Imagine our surprise, disappointment and outrage to be harassed by the AC, demeaned, disparaged, extremely disrespected and required again and again to do long tedious work that had already been done.
The AC has become a place where people opposed to identity caucuses and people with special interests against the NWC and women have gathered. They are engaged in disabling the efforts of the larger party, including the creation of the NWC, which serves as a beacon to correct the imbalance of male domination and privilege in the party and the country at large.
The NWC CC denounces the actions of the AC to disaffiliate the NWC.
The NWC CC does not believe that the affiliation agreement is a one-way contract or that the AC or GPUS are the only parties to the agreement that can make demands. The NWC and the NWC CC demand and are entitled to respect and support as an absolute
baseline requirement for the NWC part to this affiliation.
We come to the table to experience that reality. We do not come to the table to be disaffiliated for no cause.
For a bright Green future for all Women.
The Coordinating Committee
National Women's Caucus
Green Party of the United States:
Morgen D'Arc, Co-Founder Co-Chair
Holly Hart, Delegate to the GPUS NC
Sanda Everette, Treasurer, delegate International Committee
Nannette Garrett, Spokesperson, Media Committee
Katey Culver, Voting & Elections Committee
Maya O'Connor, Voting & Elections Committee
-----------------------------------
NATIONAL WOMENÂS CAUCUS OF THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: July 2002 November 2005
On November 21, 2004 the National Women's Caucus was fully accredited by a vote of the Green Party of the United States National Committee.
It was the highest vote for any caucus and the second highest vote for any proposal in 2004.
The NWC has helped the GPUS raise money: June 2005 - The NWC provided content, signed and helped recruit the other accredited caucuses to participate in one of the largest GPUS fundraising mailings that resulted in one of the largest net gains for a mailing
in 2005.
The NWC provides credibility for the GPUS in news releases pertaining to issues of women. The NWC has consistently provided the GPUS media coordinators with women for news release quotes. Previous to the NWC, GPUS news releases were dominated by quotes by men.
A few news releases about the NWC or with quotes by members of the NWC:
October 26, 2005 - Greens Pay Tribute to Rosa Parks
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_10_26.shtml
March 7, 2005 - Greens Mark International Women's Day, March 08.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_03_07.html
January 3, 2005 - Greens Replace Dems as Party for Abortion Rights.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_01_03b.html
November 23, 2004 - Green Party Accredits Women's Caucus
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_11_23_04.html
June 18, 2004 - Medea Benjamin to be a Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Green National Convention.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_06_18_04.html
April 21, 2004 - Greens to Participate in April 25 March for Women's Lives in D.C.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_21_04.html
February 25, 2003 - Calling for the Protection of the Home in Our Homeland, Greens Cite an Alarming Increase of Violence Against Women.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_25_03.html
OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1) 150 verified members from 28 states - November 7, 2004.
1.a) Established a sound process for verifying applicants for membership.
2) Spring 2004: Established a Voting and Elections Committee (VEC) to conduct all votes and elections. It includes an advisor experienced in elections and training of voting systems, processes and in consulting voting experts.
3) Elections of Officers September 15, 2004. Second elections in progress beginning September 2005.
4) Bylaws passed and adopted January 20, 2004.
5) Held four consecutive annual meetings of the NWC:
. Founding meeting, July 22, 2002 in Philadelphia.
. Second meeting, July 17, 2003, in Washington, D.C.
. Third meeting June 24, 2004 in Milwaukee.
. Fourth meeting July 21, 2005 in Tulsa.
6.a) Third Annual Meeting in Milwaukee was one of the largest convention events with Medea Benjamin as featured speaker. Washington Post and other national media coverage.
7) June 2003: NWC submission to National Platform Committee, Plank on Equal Rights Amendment, with State Party approval.
8.a) June 26, 2004: Plank on Women's Rights adopted in 2004 GPUS Platform. Developed and written by NWC member. The first separate substantive plank on women in GPUS platform history.
9) Green Pages article Fall 2003: announcement article.
10) Green Pages article Spring 2004.
11) Green Pages article Convention 2004 Issue.
12) Green Pages article, Fall 2004.
13) Green Pages article, Winter 2005.
Green Pages article, Fall 2005.
14) Active Listserv and participants.
15) Showed that the Caucus could deal with and weather significant assaults from the inside and the outside and handle them responsibly. Developed better processes to deal with challenges. Developed outside support from other committees. The 2003/04 SC said in a letter of support to the NWC: "How you deal with challenges is as much an
indicator of the quality of your caucus as any achievement. We are proud of the way you handled difficult times and want to thank you for your commitment to preserving process and deliberation,"
16) Co-Sponsored, March for Women's Lives, Washington D.C., April 25, 2004. NWC listed on the March for WomenÂs national website.
16.a) March for Women linked on GPUS website frontpage to news release and NWC announcement.
16.b) GPUS news release on the March for Women had a quote from Caucus Co-founder, Morgen D'Arc as the lead quote.
16.c) GPUS March for Women news release and others posted on the Commondreams website.
17) Listed, announced and outreached on numerous state and local Green Party listservs.
18) Participation in the Diversity, Media, GPAX and International Committees
19) NWC Co-Founder and Coordinating Committee member, Morgen D'Arc invited to Speak at the Maine Green Indpendent Party Presidential Candidate Forum, February 7, 2004 on, "Women and Diversity in the Green Party."
20) Recognition and support from the GPUS Diversity Committee.
21) Recognition, appreciation and support from the GPUS Steering Committee posted to the NWC listserv February 2004.
22) The NWC is helping the Party to carry out the 2001 Santa Barbara resolution to form caucuses within the party.
23) The NWC Coordinating Committee has kept the GPUS Steering Committee informed of progress, activities and challenges.
24) Developed sound database and database process.
25) Monthly to twice monthly teleconference calls of the CC 2002-04. Weekly meetings from May 2004 through November 2005.
26) 2003-05 GPUS budgets submitted to GPUS as requested.
----- End forwarded message -----
This can't be good
I may have my access suspended for publishing this here, for it's an email sent to the National Committee mailing list. I am an observer, and some, including one woman I respect a lot, feel that these are somehow private conversations. I don't think that email messages sent out to hundreds, or at least scores of people can be considered private, but I may be booted from the list even so. I hope not.
This is what was posted to the National Committee email list today in reference to the questions raised by the Accreditation Committee about the NWC and their refusal to disclose anything at all about how they have treated Stephanie Loveless, a woman I have never even met or heard from. If you don't know what I'm talking about, well, peek around. :-)
***************************************************
Quoting Roger Snyder:
>
> The AC has not received a statement from the NWC CC.
>
Here is a second response the AC received from the NWC CC:
**********
From: Sylvia Inwood
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
To:,
Cc:, ,
, ,
, ,
Subject: Re:Notice from the GP-US Accreditation
Committee
Dear AC:
The NWC CC has received your request for further
response concerning the complaint you received. This
matter involves nothing in which the AC would have any
jurisdiction. Therefore, no further reply is
warranted.
NWC Co-Chairs
Sylvia Inwood
Morgen D'Arc
CC: SC
Sylvia Inwood,
Chair, Green Party of Michigan
Co-chair, Detroit Green Party
Co-chair, National Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the US
*******************************************************************
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link this time gang...
This is what was posted to the National Committee email list today in reference to the questions raised by the Accreditation Committee about the NWC and their refusal to disclose anything at all about how they have treated Stephanie Loveless, a woman I have never even met or heard from. If you don't know what I'm talking about, well, peek around. :-)
***************************************************
Quoting Roger Snyder
>
> The AC has not received a statement from the NWC CC.
>
Here is a second response the AC received from the NWC CC:
**********
From: Sylvia Inwood
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re:Notice from the GP-US Accreditation
Committee
Dear AC:
The NWC CC has received your request for further
response concerning the complaint you received. This
matter involves nothing in which the AC would have any
jurisdiction. Therefore, no further reply is
warranted.
NWC Co-Chairs
Sylvia Inwood
Morgen D'Arc
CC: SC
Sylvia Inwood,
Chair, Green Party of Michigan
Co-chair, Detroit Green Party
Co-chair, National Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the US
*******************************************************************
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link this time gang...
Jumping Ship-Spitzer as Nader
A Green sent this to me, and I found it facinating. We all know that the The Green Party of New York is running the candidate most deserving of your vote, Malachy McCourt, for Governor, but Elliott Spitzer is not the worst person we could have run.
Anyway, the interesting thing about this piece is that Doreen Banks, formerly in Thomas Suozzi's camp, left him to support Spitzer because...get ready folks...Spitzer is the Ralph Nader of this day.
Well, in that case, will he be a "spoiler" for the Greens this fall? Afterall, if he's Nader, we all know he was the spoiler. Don't believe me? Visit this link, and then come back and read all about Mr. Spitzer, the "New Ralph Nader".
Frankly, I kinda liked the old one. :-)
Newsday, 7/17/06
SWITCHING SIDES
Ex-Suozzi aide throws Spitzer bash
Democrat Doreen Banks, the former Nassau county clerk and former North Hempstead town board member, has a long history with Thomas Suozzi. She was his aide when Suozzi was the Glen Cove mayor and a member of the now-defunct Nassau Board of Supervisors.
Banks was also an original member of Suozzi's "dream team" of top staff, appointed as his first commissioner of parks and recreation when he became Nassau County executive in 2002.
Now Banks, who became a "special assistant" to Suozzi in February and left the county payroll in May, is hosting a fundraiser for Eliot Spitzer for governor at her East Williston home on July 30.
Why not for Suozzi, who is challenging Spitzer for the Democratic nomination for governor?
"Let's just say I'm very impressed by Eliot Spitzer's integrity," Banks said.
She added, "I feel that the federal government has completely abandoned the regulatory role and Eliot Spitzer stepped into the void. To me, he's like the Ralph Nader of this particular era in politics."
Anyway, the interesting thing about this piece is that Doreen Banks, formerly in Thomas Suozzi's camp, left him to support Spitzer because...get ready folks...Spitzer is the Ralph Nader of this day.
Well, in that case, will he be a "spoiler" for the Greens this fall? Afterall, if he's Nader, we all know he was the spoiler. Don't believe me? Visit this link, and then come back and read all about Mr. Spitzer, the "New Ralph Nader".
Frankly, I kinda liked the old one. :-)
Newsday, 7/17/06
SWITCHING SIDES
Ex-Suozzi aide throws Spitzer bash
Democrat Doreen Banks, the former Nassau county clerk and former North Hempstead town board member, has a long history with Thomas Suozzi. She was his aide when Suozzi was the Glen Cove mayor and a member of the now-defunct Nassau Board of Supervisors.
Banks was also an original member of Suozzi's "dream team" of top staff, appointed as his first commissioner of parks and recreation when he became Nassau County executive in 2002.
Now Banks, who became a "special assistant" to Suozzi in February and left the county payroll in May, is hosting a fundraiser for Eliot Spitzer for governor at her East Williston home on July 30.
Why not for Suozzi, who is challenging Spitzer for the Democratic nomination for governor?
"Let's just say I'm very impressed by Eliot Spitzer's integrity," Banks said.
She added, "I feel that the federal government has completely abandoned the regulatory role and Eliot Spitzer stepped into the void. To me, he's like the Ralph Nader of this particular era in politics."
Is the National Women's Caucus lying to us?
As I have written here in the past, the National Women's Caucus has been embroiled in controversy over the request for membership by a pre-operative male-to-female transgendered person. I call her a woman, but then again, I ain't one, so what do I know, eh? Only women can be feminist I reckon.
At any rate various members of the National Women's Caucus contuinue to claim that they have been told by their lawyers (the NATIONAL party doesn't have an attorney, but a caucus has one?) that they can't talk about this for THREE years! That is OUTRAGEOUS.
I ask absolutely any member of the National Women's Caucus to tell me and my few readers if they have allowed Stephanie Loveless to join the caucus, and if not, why not. I further ask that *someone* from the National Women's Caucus give a time line for when Ms. Loveless applied for membership, and how her case was handled.
Frankly, I am growing absolutely disgusted with the National Women's Caucus and their behavior in this case. I must wonder if the caucus, which has apparently got a tiny membership, even by GPUS standards, is not living up to it's potential, and is working at cross purposes to the Green Party's objectives.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but I sure would like someone to explain to me how the Green Party is willing to allow a formal party caucus to refuse to talk with anyone in the party about problems in the caucus because "my lawyer said I shouldn't talk to you."
Has the time come to change the Party's caucus structure? Would a "National Feminist Caucus" be more appropriate than a "National Women's Caucus"?
At any rate various members of the National Women's Caucus contuinue to claim that they have been told by their lawyers (the NATIONAL party doesn't have an attorney, but a caucus has one?) that they can't talk about this for THREE years! That is OUTRAGEOUS.
I ask absolutely any member of the National Women's Caucus to tell me and my few readers if they have allowed Stephanie Loveless to join the caucus, and if not, why not. I further ask that *someone* from the National Women's Caucus give a time line for when Ms. Loveless applied for membership, and how her case was handled.
Frankly, I am growing absolutely disgusted with the National Women's Caucus and their behavior in this case. I must wonder if the caucus, which has apparently got a tiny membership, even by GPUS standards, is not living up to it's potential, and is working at cross purposes to the Green Party's objectives.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but I sure would like someone to explain to me how the Green Party is willing to allow a formal party caucus to refuse to talk with anyone in the party about problems in the caucus because "my lawyer said I shouldn't talk to you."
Has the time come to change the Party's caucus structure? Would a "National Feminist Caucus" be more appropriate than a "National Women's Caucus"?
Labor Party submits petitions in South Carolina
Making the deadline to file in time for the November elections, the Labor Party has submitted more than enough signatures to secure a spot on the ballot for the Labor Party here in South Carolina.
We now have the following parties on our ballot, the most in the US I believe.
Democratic
Republican
Green
Libertarian
Constitution
Labor
Working Families
Independence
United Citizens
That's right gang, NINE political parties.
And only the Democrats and Republicans are running a candidate for Governor, although an Independent may be on the ballot for Gov, meaning that the race we all would have the best shot at impacting will not have an organized third voice.
I believe the Labor and Working Families parties will file paperwork to run candidates this fall, but I don't think the state Elections Commission will let them. While it is true that the Natural Law Party did run a Presidential nominee in the election following their filing paperwork, but that nominating period had not ended. With no Presidential ballot this fall, I don't see how either of these new parties is going to be able to run anyone this year, unless a special election is held.
The Labor Party press release is behind the "Read more!" link...
More Than 16,500 South Carolinians Say "Yes" to the Labor Party
When we embarked on our campaign to gain ballot access in South Carolina, our organizers faced the task of building an organization capable of gathering 10,000 valid signatures of registered voters. And we've made it!
On July 11, organizing committee members Willie Legette, Donna Dewitt and Linda Houck submitted 16,500+ signatures to the state election commission. Voters from every county in the state signed the petition.
"This was a major hurdle, but we cleared it with a healthy cushion to spare because of the commitment and dedication of the South Carolinians who see the need for a clear working class politics in the state," says Willie Legette, professor of political science at SC State University. "Now we can turn our attention to broadening and deepening our statewide base and building a strong, fighting organization that can enter the electoral arena on our own terms."
"I am excited," says Donna Dewitt, president of the SC AFL-CIO, "that we have submitted the signatures and am encouraged by the enthusiastic reception from union members and from the general public. And it especially means a lot to me as a trade unionist that the campaign is generating support all across the country. We are well on our way to being the first state in the nation where workers can vote for a real party of our own."
"We need to raise substantial funds to see the party-building process through to completion and to solidify a deeply rooted South Carolina Labor Party that will be strong enough to contend seriously, says National Organizer Mark Dudzic. This will take hard work and great care, but all of us involved in this process, from both the national party and the Palmetto State, are more excited than ever about the potential of what we're doing."
We now have the following parties on our ballot, the most in the US I believe.
Democratic
Republican
Green
Libertarian
Constitution
Labor
Working Families
Independence
United Citizens
That's right gang, NINE political parties.
And only the Democrats and Republicans are running a candidate for Governor, although an Independent may be on the ballot for Gov, meaning that the race we all would have the best shot at impacting will not have an organized third voice.
I believe the Labor and Working Families parties will file paperwork to run candidates this fall, but I don't think the state Elections Commission will let them. While it is true that the Natural Law Party did run a Presidential nominee in the election following their filing paperwork, but that nominating period had not ended. With no Presidential ballot this fall, I don't see how either of these new parties is going to be able to run anyone this year, unless a special election is held.
The Labor Party press release is behind the "Read more!" link...
More Than 16,500 South Carolinians Say "Yes" to the Labor Party
When we embarked on our campaign to gain ballot access in South Carolina, our organizers faced the task of building an organization capable of gathering 10,000 valid signatures of registered voters. And we've made it!
On July 11, organizing committee members Willie Legette, Donna Dewitt and Linda Houck submitted 16,500+ signatures to the state election commission. Voters from every county in the state signed the petition.
"This was a major hurdle, but we cleared it with a healthy cushion to spare because of the commitment and dedication of the South Carolinians who see the need for a clear working class politics in the state," says Willie Legette, professor of political science at SC State University. "Now we can turn our attention to broadening and deepening our statewide base and building a strong, fighting organization that can enter the electoral arena on our own terms."
"I am excited," says Donna Dewitt, president of the SC AFL-CIO, "that we have submitted the signatures and am encouraged by the enthusiastic reception from union members and from the general public. And it especially means a lot to me as a trade unionist that the campaign is generating support all across the country. We are well on our way to being the first state in the nation where workers can vote for a real party of our own."
"We need to raise substantial funds to see the party-building process through to completion and to solidify a deeply rooted South Carolina Labor Party that will be strong enough to contend seriously, says National Organizer Mark Dudzic. This will take hard work and great care, but all of us involved in this process, from both the national party and the Palmetto State, are more excited than ever about the potential of what we're doing."
Cart/Horse-Chicken/Egg
Well, we've all heard the expression that we have put the cart before the horse. We have also heard that we need not shut the barn door after the horse has gotten out. Maybe you have wondered, which came first, the chicken, or the egg.
Well, the Green Party has apparently done this, and apparently the chicken came first, at least for the Peace Action Committee of the GPUS.
You see, these folks have behaved as if they were a duly authorized committee in the Green Party. Don't ask me how it happened that a committee was created, peopled, given web space at gp.org, had money (a tiny sum) allocated to it's work by at least one state, if not the national or other states, and gotten into conflicts internally with the Lavender Caucus.
In Proposal 190 the Peace Action Committee is directed to implement Proposal 190. Would someone please explain to me how a non-existent committee is supposed to implement a GP policy?
Now, in an effort to bring the Peace Action Committee (aka GPAX) into compliance, the Green National Committee is considering Proposal 238 which would authorize the committee, which is already engaged in work it is now seeking authorization to do.
This is in the discussion stage. Frankly, if I were a National Committee member, I would be asking a lot of hard questions, such as, Why has the committee been working without permission from the National Committee? Why didn't the Accreditation Committee demand that the Peace Action Committee be accredited before getting to work? Have the other committees all been constituted properly? Eco Action? The caucuses?
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one gang, but I am really trying to get my head wrapped around this one, and to be honest, I am not convinced at this point that the Peace Action Committee is accomplishing whatever goals it's creators had in mind.
Well, the Green Party has apparently done this, and apparently the chicken came first, at least for the Peace Action Committee of the GPUS.
You see, these folks have behaved as if they were a duly authorized committee in the Green Party. Don't ask me how it happened that a committee was created, peopled, given web space at gp.org, had money (a tiny sum) allocated to it's work by at least one state, if not the national or other states, and gotten into conflicts internally with the Lavender Caucus.
In Proposal 190 the Peace Action Committee is directed to implement Proposal 190. Would someone please explain to me how a non-existent committee is supposed to implement a GP policy?
Now, in an effort to bring the Peace Action Committee (aka GPAX) into compliance, the Green National Committee is considering Proposal 238 which would authorize the committee, which is already engaged in work it is now seeking authorization to do.
This is in the discussion stage. Frankly, if I were a National Committee member, I would be asking a lot of hard questions, such as, Why has the committee been working without permission from the National Committee? Why didn't the Accreditation Committee demand that the Peace Action Committee be accredited before getting to work? Have the other committees all been constituted properly? Eco Action? The caucuses?
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one gang, but I am really trying to get my head wrapped around this one, and to be honest, I am not convinced at this point that the Peace Action Committee is accomplishing whatever goals it's creators had in mind.
Going to Tucson? Running for office?
If you are, then have we got a deal for you. It's all behind the "Read more!" link...
Green Party candidates for public office,
Are you coming to Tucson for the 2006 GP-US Annual National Meeting? You probably have already heard how great the campaign school workshops are. And that there will be press conferences here featuring our candidates. But, wait, there is more.
You may, if they notify me now, reserve a free information-only table (or part of one!) throughout the convention, downstairs in the entry hallway of the Paolo Freiere Freedom School, in the same area as the also-free tables for state Green Parties. The area will not be staffed by volunteers, so plan to bring things that you can leave out, or to arrange your own staffing. Also, bring a sheet or other cover for when you want your table "closed."
Also, we have our own professional videographer who will be filming the candidate statements at our GP-US press conferences, in addition to the coverage by world press (C-Span, anyone?) JT Waldron, of Sound & Fury Productions, can make your press statement electronically available back home, so you could distribute it to local press, if you'd like.
But you need to line that up in advance with him.
Your best bet is often to have your TV and radio spots made at home, but if you don't have facilities for that close by, and want to stay an extra day in Tucson to have them done here, by a Green who is a professional, you can arrange that with JT also. Below are his rates.
--claudia ellquist, AzGP on site coordinator
JT writes: If someone is looking to do a standard Political Commercial where they address the camera, we could put one together with text/graphic overlays for broadcast for $250.00. This is for a 30-second commercial. A 60-second commercial is $350.00. If a customer wants to take with them a hard-copy tape, they can get one for $8.79 plus tax.
We can upload these full screen versions to a devoted page on our website for stations to download. This can be part of their packages.
Radio Ads:
Radio ads can be recorded, mixed with "needle drop music" and uploaded to our server for downloading for $50.00. A CD is 3.00 plus tax.
We'll try to accommodate as many people wanting these services, but our time will be pretty tight with the convention.
If we can steal away time to assemble choice cuts of convention activity, we can upload to a "newsfeed page" so stations can subsequently download raw footage to construct news with.
You can contact him at: J.T. Waldron
Sound and Fury Productions, Inc.
2301 E. Broadway, #111, Tucson, AZ 85719
(866)624-9710 Fax (520)624-3143
Green Party candidates for public office,
Are you coming to Tucson for the 2006 GP-US Annual National Meeting? You probably have already heard how great the campaign school workshops are. And that there will be press conferences here featuring our candidates. But, wait, there is more.
You may, if they notify me now, reserve a free information-only table (or part of one!) throughout the convention, downstairs in the entry hallway of the Paolo Freiere Freedom School, in the same area as the also-free tables for state Green Parties. The area will not be staffed by volunteers, so plan to bring things that you can leave out, or to arrange your own staffing. Also, bring a sheet or other cover for when you want your table "closed."
Also, we have our own professional videographer who will be filming the candidate statements at our GP-US press conferences, in addition to the coverage by world press (C-Span, anyone?) JT Waldron, of Sound & Fury Productions, can make your press statement electronically available back home, so you could distribute it to local press, if you'd like.
But you need to line that up in advance with him.
Your best bet is often to have your TV and radio spots made at home, but if you don't have facilities for that close by, and want to stay an extra day in Tucson to have them done here, by a Green who is a professional, you can arrange that with JT also. Below are his rates.
--claudia ellquist, AzGP on site coordinator
JT writes: If someone is looking to do a standard Political Commercial where they address the camera, we could put one together with text/graphic overlays for broadcast for $250.00. This is for a 30-second commercial. A 60-second commercial is $350.00. If a customer wants to take with them a hard-copy tape, they can get one for $8.79 plus tax.
We can upload these full screen versions to a devoted page on our website for stations to download. This can be part of their packages.
Radio Ads:
Radio ads can be recorded, mixed with "needle drop music" and uploaded to our server for downloading for $50.00. A CD is 3.00 plus tax.
We'll try to accommodate as many people wanting these services, but our time will be pretty tight with the convention.
If we can steal away time to assemble choice cuts of convention activity, we can upload to a "newsfeed page" so stations can subsequently download raw footage to construct news with.
You can contact him at: J.T. Waldron
Sound and Fury Productions, Inc.
2301 E. Broadway, #111, Tucson, AZ 85719
(866)624-9710 Fax (520)624-3143
Monday, July 17, 2006
Greens in Minnesota get on the ballot!
In a press release, the Minnesota Greens announced that they have secured enough signatures to run candidates this fall, and introduces them. Check it out behind the "Read more!" link...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
17 July, 2006
MINNESOTA VOTERS ASK FOR GREEN PARTY CHOICE ON BALLOT, CANDIDATES TO FILE
OVER 15,000 SIGNATURES FOR BALLOT ACCESS IN NOVEMBER
Contact: Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota 651-224-6383,
Minneapolis ** Green Party candidates for US Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Auditor, Attorney General, and US House of Representatives will file over 15,000 signatures with the Secretary of State Tuesday, July 18 at Noon, representing Minnesota voters nominating the Green Party candidates for partisan office. They will be joined by two candidates for the legislature who have also achieved ballot status.
As a minor party in the state of Minnesota, Green Party candidates needed to collect from 500 signatures for state legislative seats, to 2,000 signatures for each of the state constitutional and federal offices, between July 4th and July 18th to appear on the ballot. "Placing seven candidates on the ballot by petition is a huge accomplishment and is more than any other 3rd party has done in recent history." said Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota Politics Chair. An eighth candidate, Farheen Hakeem, who is running for Hennepin County Commissioner, says: "I have been humbled by the amount of support and enthusiasm we as Green party endorsed candidates have received throughout this process."
Candidates filing Tuesday are Michael Cavlan for US Senate, Ken Pentel and Danene Provencher for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Dave Berger for Minnesota State Auditor, Papa John Kolstad for Attorney General, and Jay Pond for US House in District 5.
"This was a truly amazing grassroots effort." said Michael Cavlan, US Senate candidate. "We had a very short amount of time to collect thousands of signatures, and people really came together to make it possible for us to provide a voice for peace, justice, ecology, and democracy to Minnesota voters."
Cavlan's platform focuses on creating a universal single-payer health care system, ending the occupation of Iraq, implementing sustainable energy and agricultural policies, and ensuring transparency and accountability of elections and voting technologies.
"The best part of the whole experience was meeting people from all over the state, one on one, and hearing their concerns. I most enjoyed shaking the hands of young women, telling them that I was running for office and someday they could too," said Danene Provencher, candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
Provencher is running alongside Ken Pentel, Green Party candidate for Governor. "I am honored to be the Green Party's endorsed candidate for Governor, and it is a responsibility I do not take lightly," Pentel said. "My main goal as Governor of Minnesota would be to establish an honest democracy and an economy which is linked to ecological healing."
"The Green Party has 10 Key Values." said State Auditor candidate Dave Berger. "These values show that we are interested in fair politics, social and economic justice, environmental stewardship, and many other important issues that appeal to people of many backgrounds." Berger's campaign message includes showing how a single-payer health care system will save millions of dollars for local governments, families, and small businesses in our state and provide coverage for everyone at the same time.
"As a member of the State Board of Investment," he says, "I could encourage the state to divest its $52 billion worth of investment from companies that do not promote equal rights. An objective State Auditor treats all citizens equally regardless of race, class, gender, religious preference, political views, or sexual orientation. The fact that my DFL and Republican opponents have supported the Bachmann Amendment shows that they cannot be fair auditors."
Papa John Kolstad is the Green Party Candidate for Attorney General. "I'm happy to be able to bring some real solutions to the table in the race for Minnesota Attorney General." said Kolstad. A small business owner, and community and civic activist, Kolstad will promote a single payer health plan, strong, enforceable environmental laws, electoral reform, and ending corporate welfare.
As the Green Party candidate for US House of Representatives in the 5th Congressional District, Jay Pond has an exciting vision of how "politics as it was meant to be" could work. Of the signature-gathering process he says: "During this two-week period while the media was covering the political bickering of the major parties, we were asking people for their signatures and thoughts. What a great experience! People are committed to helping create change. For starters they want the war stopped, health care, and the ability to purchase energy that comes from renewable sources. We must ensure equal civil rights and liberties for everyone. That means providing equal rights for everyone to marry, and it means reforming our immigration laws and protecting the rights of immigrants."
Julie Risser, the Green Party endorsed candidate for Minnesota Senate in District 41 collected over 700 signatures and filed last week. "During a week marked by record-setting temperatures Green Party candidates were out petitioning for ballot access so that they can promote basic issues: single-payer universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq, and clean, renewable energy," Risser said. "People want clarity not empty rhetoric."
Jesse Mortenson, the Green Party candidate for Minnesota House in District
64A, agrees. "Gathering signatures was another chapter in our strong grassroots campaign," he said. "We?ve already spoken with folks door-to-door through almost a third of the district."
For more information on the Green Party, see: www.mngreens.org
(http://www.mngreens.org)
For more information on the candidates, see:
Michael Cavlan for US Senate _www.cavlan.org_ (_http://www.cavlan.org_
(http://www.cavlan.org) )
Ken Pentel/Danene Provencher _www.kenpentel.org_
(_http://www.kenpentel.org_ (http://www.kenpentel.org) )
Dave Berger _www.berger4auditor.org_ (_http://www.berger4auditor.org_
(http://www.berger4auditor.org) )
Papa John Kolstad _www.millcitymusic.com_ (_http://www.millcitymusic.com_
(http://www.millcitymusic.com) )
Jay Pond, US House of Representatives, Minnesota?s 5th Congressional
_www.JayPond.com_ (_http://www.JayPond.com_ (http://www.JayPond.com) )
Farheen Hakeem for Hennepin County Commissioner _www.farheenhakeem.org_
(_http://www.farheenhakeem.org_ (http://www.farheenhakeem.org) )
Jesse Mortenson for MN House District 64A _www.jessemortenson.com_
(_http://www.jessemortenson.com_ (http://www.jessemortenson.com) )
Julie Risser for MN Senate District 41 _www.voterisser4senate.com_
(_http://www.voterisser4senate.com_ (http://www.voterisser4senate.com) )
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
17 July, 2006
MINNESOTA VOTERS ASK FOR GREEN PARTY CHOICE ON BALLOT, CANDIDATES TO FILE
OVER 15,000 SIGNATURES FOR BALLOT ACCESS IN NOVEMBER
Contact: Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota 651-224-6383,
Minneapolis ** Green Party candidates for US Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Auditor, Attorney General, and US House of Representatives will file over 15,000 signatures with the Secretary of State Tuesday, July 18 at Noon, representing Minnesota voters nominating the Green Party candidates for partisan office. They will be joined by two candidates for the legislature who have also achieved ballot status.
As a minor party in the state of Minnesota, Green Party candidates needed to collect from 500 signatures for state legislative seats, to 2,000 signatures for each of the state constitutional and federal offices, between July 4th and July 18th to appear on the ballot. "Placing seven candidates on the ballot by petition is a huge accomplishment and is more than any other 3rd party has done in recent history." said Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota Politics Chair. An eighth candidate, Farheen Hakeem, who is running for Hennepin County Commissioner, says: "I have been humbled by the amount of support and enthusiasm we as Green party endorsed candidates have received throughout this process."
Candidates filing Tuesday are Michael Cavlan for US Senate, Ken Pentel and Danene Provencher for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Dave Berger for Minnesota State Auditor, Papa John Kolstad for Attorney General, and Jay Pond for US House in District 5.
"This was a truly amazing grassroots effort." said Michael Cavlan, US Senate candidate. "We had a very short amount of time to collect thousands of signatures, and people really came together to make it possible for us to provide a voice for peace, justice, ecology, and democracy to Minnesota voters."
Cavlan's platform focuses on creating a universal single-payer health care system, ending the occupation of Iraq, implementing sustainable energy and agricultural policies, and ensuring transparency and accountability of elections and voting technologies.
"The best part of the whole experience was meeting people from all over the state, one on one, and hearing their concerns. I most enjoyed shaking the hands of young women, telling them that I was running for office and someday they could too," said Danene Provencher, candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
Provencher is running alongside Ken Pentel, Green Party candidate for Governor. "I am honored to be the Green Party's endorsed candidate for Governor, and it is a responsibility I do not take lightly," Pentel said. "My main goal as Governor of Minnesota would be to establish an honest democracy and an economy which is linked to ecological healing."
"The Green Party has 10 Key Values." said State Auditor candidate Dave Berger. "These values show that we are interested in fair politics, social and economic justice, environmental stewardship, and many other important issues that appeal to people of many backgrounds." Berger's campaign message includes showing how a single-payer health care system will save millions of dollars for local governments, families, and small businesses in our state and provide coverage for everyone at the same time.
"As a member of the State Board of Investment," he says, "I could encourage the state to divest its $52 billion worth of investment from companies that do not promote equal rights. An objective State Auditor treats all citizens equally regardless of race, class, gender, religious preference, political views, or sexual orientation. The fact that my DFL and Republican opponents have supported the Bachmann Amendment shows that they cannot be fair auditors."
Papa John Kolstad is the Green Party Candidate for Attorney General. "I'm happy to be able to bring some real solutions to the table in the race for Minnesota Attorney General." said Kolstad. A small business owner, and community and civic activist, Kolstad will promote a single payer health plan, strong, enforceable environmental laws, electoral reform, and ending corporate welfare.
As the Green Party candidate for US House of Representatives in the 5th Congressional District, Jay Pond has an exciting vision of how "politics as it was meant to be" could work. Of the signature-gathering process he says: "During this two-week period while the media was covering the political bickering of the major parties, we were asking people for their signatures and thoughts. What a great experience! People are committed to helping create change. For starters they want the war stopped, health care, and the ability to purchase energy that comes from renewable sources. We must ensure equal civil rights and liberties for everyone. That means providing equal rights for everyone to marry, and it means reforming our immigration laws and protecting the rights of immigrants."
Julie Risser, the Green Party endorsed candidate for Minnesota Senate in District 41 collected over 700 signatures and filed last week. "During a week marked by record-setting temperatures Green Party candidates were out petitioning for ballot access so that they can promote basic issues: single-payer universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq, and clean, renewable energy," Risser said. "People want clarity not empty rhetoric."
Jesse Mortenson, the Green Party candidate for Minnesota House in District
64A, agrees. "Gathering signatures was another chapter in our strong grassroots campaign," he said. "We?ve already spoken with folks door-to-door through almost a third of the district."
For more information on the Green Party, see: www.mngreens.org
(http://www.mngreens.org)
For more information on the candidates, see:
Michael Cavlan for US Senate _www.cavlan.org_ (_http://www.cavlan.org_
(http://www.cavlan.org) )
Ken Pentel/Danene Provencher _www.kenpentel.org_
(_http://www.kenpentel.org_ (http://www.kenpentel.org) )
Dave Berger _www.berger4auditor.org_ (_http://www.berger4auditor.org_
(http://www.berger4auditor.org) )
Papa John Kolstad _www.millcitymusic.com_ (_http://www.millcitymusic.com_
(http://www.millcitymusic.com) )
Jay Pond, US House of Representatives, Minnesota?s 5th Congressional
_www.JayPond.com_ (_http://www.JayPond.com_ (http://www.JayPond.com) )
Farheen Hakeem for Hennepin County Commissioner _www.farheenhakeem.org_
(_http://www.farheenhakeem.org_ (http://www.farheenhakeem.org) )
Jesse Mortenson for MN House District 64A _www.jessemortenson.com_
(_http://www.jessemortenson.com_ (http://www.jessemortenson.com) )
Julie Risser for MN Senate District 41 _www.voterisser4senate.com_
(_http://www.voterisser4senate.com_ (http://www.voterisser4senate.com) )
Camejo also being pushed aside
A press release from the Peter Camejo campaign for Governor of CA is hiding behind the "Read more!" link. Guess what? The League of Women Voters wants to keep him out of the debates.
I've seen the Ds and Rs in that race. They will need Peter to keep folks thinking at all...
Distributed by the Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
Peter Camejo For Governor 2006
http://www.VoteCamejo.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Contact: Cres Vellucci, press secretary,
916.996-9170
Jo Chamberlain, 650.346-3775
Attention: Daybook/Assignment Desk
Peter Camejo accuses League of Women Voters of violating its own ‘non-partisan' code if he is not invited to gubernatorial debates
SACRAMENTO The League of Women Voters would violate its own "non-partisan" code by excluding from statewide debates all candidates for governor other than Democrat Phil Angelides and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, gubernatorial candidate Peter Miguel Camejo will allege at a major news conference here Friday.
The Green Party candidate will release his letter to the LWV at the news conference FRIDAY, at 10 a.m. at the League's State Office (801 12th Street Suite #220).
The LWV is expected to decide this weekend about how to determine who will participate in the debates.
In the letter, Camejo notes he was excluded from the 2002 debates, even though an ABC poll showed 69 percent of those polled wanted him in the debates. In the 2003 Recall Election, Camejo was allowed in the debates, and a poll by the San Francisco Chronicle found Camejo the "winner" of those debates.
"I respectfully request, in the interest of fairness, that the League conduct a poll asking voters not who they may vote for in November, but who they want to see in the debates. I believe you will find that there will be massive support for my candidacy," said Camejo in his letter to be released Friday.
"I urge you to consider the contradiction that our electoral winner-take-all system has created, and ask that the League maintain that nonpartisanship when it conducts any poll regarding the debates. To do otherwise...the League would, although unintentionally, work against the voters' desires," he said.
On Wednesday, the Camejo campaign filed a Fair Political Practices Commission complaint alleging a poll by San Jose State University was, in fact, a "clear promotion of two partisan candidates" and violated campaign laws because the poll
discriminated against four other ballot-qualified candidates who were not included in the polling.
-30-
Peter Camejo For Governor 2006
http://www.VoteCamejo.com 1710 Broadway #122
Sacramento, CA 95818
I've seen the Ds and Rs in that race. They will need Peter to keep folks thinking at all...
Distributed by the Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
Peter Camejo For Governor 2006
http://www.VoteCamejo.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Contact: Cres Vellucci, press secretary,
916.996-9170
Jo Chamberlain, 650.346-3775
Attention: Daybook/Assignment Desk
Peter Camejo accuses League of Women Voters of violating its own ‘non-partisan' code if he is not invited to gubernatorial debates
SACRAMENTO The League of Women Voters would violate its own "non-partisan" code by excluding from statewide debates all candidates for governor other than Democrat Phil Angelides and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, gubernatorial candidate Peter Miguel Camejo will allege at a major news conference here Friday.
The Green Party candidate will release his letter to the LWV at the news conference FRIDAY, at 10 a.m. at the League's State Office (801 12th Street Suite #220).
The LWV is expected to decide this weekend about how to determine who will participate in the debates.
In the letter, Camejo notes he was excluded from the 2002 debates, even though an ABC poll showed 69 percent of those polled wanted him in the debates. In the 2003 Recall Election, Camejo was allowed in the debates, and a poll by the San Francisco Chronicle found Camejo the "winner" of those debates.
"I respectfully request, in the interest of fairness, that the League conduct a poll asking voters not who they may vote for in November, but who they want to see in the debates. I believe you will find that there will be massive support for my candidacy," said Camejo in his letter to be released Friday.
"I urge you to consider the contradiction that our electoral winner-take-all system has created, and ask that the League maintain that nonpartisanship when it conducts any poll regarding the debates. To do otherwise...the League would, although unintentionally, work against the voters' desires," he said.
On Wednesday, the Camejo campaign filed a Fair Political Practices Commission complaint alleging a poll by San Jose State University was, in fact, a "clear promotion of two partisan candidates" and violated campaign laws because the poll
discriminated against four other ballot-qualified candidates who were not included in the polling.
-30-
Peter Camejo For Governor 2006
http://www.VoteCamejo.com 1710 Broadway #122
Sacramento, CA 95818
So, you want access, ehh.....
As we all know, access to debates for non-corporate parties is difficult from time to time. Even so, often times we are able to have access to various groups, from newspaper editorial boards to labor union committees. This access is what helps make endorsements possible, and when our candidates are denied access to those groups, they are denied access to those group's members, and they are denied assess to us.
Jill Bussiere is running for the state senate from Wisconsin's First District, and the state teacher's union has refused to even hear from her. Her press release is behind the "Read more!" link, and remember, if you want to help folks like Jill, or influence the Green Party internally to keep us on course with the Ten Key Values, join the Green News and Opinion Yahoo Group by signing up in the yellow box at the bottom of the page.
Remember, the press release is behind the link...
For Immediate Release July 16th, 2006
Contact:
Jill Bussiere, candidate for Wisconsin State Senate, District 1
920 388-0529, 920 255-2175, jdt@itol.com
Bussiere asks WEAC for equal access to endorsement process
(Kewaunee) On Friday a candidate for Wisconsin State Senate District 1 learned that she would be excluded from endorsement interviews for Wisconsin Education association Council (WEAC), while the other two candidates, the Republican incumbent and the Democratic candidate will be included.
"It feels pretty bad to be excluded from this process," said Jill Bussiere, Wisconsin Green Party candidate for Wisconsin State Senate District 1. "WEAC will be recommending a candidate for Senate District 1 to its members as the best advocate for education without having interviewed all of us. I am asking WEAC to reconsider."
"Like WEAC,"Â said Bussiere, "Greens advocate for equal access for all to the educational system. We also advocate for equal access for all to the political system. Both are necessary to fulfill the promise of a democratic society. I invite WEAC to work with us for such equal access. Our democratic society will be stronger if all voices are heard."
WEAC states on their website: âÂÂTo fulfill the promise of a democratic society, the mission of the Wisconsin Education Association Council is to promote respect and support for quality public education and to provide for the professional and personal growth and economic welfare of members.
"I have a strong background in education, and am well qualified to address state educational issues," said Bussiere.
Bussiere, former Co-Chair of the Wisconsin Green Party, holds a BS degree in Elementary Education from Penn State University, and an MS in Educational
Policy Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In graduate school, she studied child-rearing and educational systems across different cultures, including fieldwork in schools in Otovalo, Ecuador. For her master's thesis, she examined Maine's Even Start program, a federal pilot program designed to help poor elementary students and parents be successful in school.
Employed over the years in public and private schools, in both rural and urban settings, Bussiere's direct work experience in education includes the following positions: school librarian, assistant teacher, first/second grade teacher, and enrichment math teacher.
She has also served as a nursery school board member in Waterville, Maine, and home schooled her children when her family moved to Kewaunee County in 1992. She now works as a line therapist, in her fourth year of working with autistic children in their homes.
A WEAC official told Bussiere that she would be excluded because "at the present time the WEAC practice is to invite candidates in the major parties to participate in the WEAC PAC recommendation process. The major parties are defined as those who have received enough votes to have a seat on the state elections board. At the present time the Green Party does not have a seat atthe state elections board."Â
She was also told that WEAC would "take her request under consideration."
"Often Greens are excluded from the political process by the established entities in the political system because we are not members of the major parties,"Â said Bussiere. "It is good to be reminded of how bad it feels to be excluded, just as those students that are not members of the majority culture are excluded from full participation in society. Just as we fight for their inclusion, we fight for our own. I hope that WEAC will change their minds, and be inclusive."
WEAC did interview Rae Vogeler, Wisconsin Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, this election cycle.
WEAC goals: http://www.weac.org/GreatSchools/gssap.htm
* A revised
system of school funding that ensures that every child has access to an adequately funded public education.
* A fair collective bargaining law for teachers and education support professionals.
Green Party Platform: http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/
"We call for equitable state and national funding for education and the creation of schools controlled by parent-teacher governing bodies."
"We support the irreducible right of the working people, without hindrance,to form a union and to bargain collectively with their employer."
For more information, visit Bussiere for State Senate www.votejill.org
Delete Reply
Jill Bussiere is running for the state senate from Wisconsin's First District, and the state teacher's union has refused to even hear from her. Her press release is behind the "Read more!" link, and remember, if you want to help folks like Jill, or influence the Green Party internally to keep us on course with the Ten Key Values, join the Green News and Opinion Yahoo Group by signing up in the yellow box at the bottom of the page.
Remember, the press release is behind the link...
For Immediate Release July 16th, 2006
Contact:
Jill Bussiere, candidate for Wisconsin State Senate, District 1
920 388-0529, 920 255-2175, jdt@itol.com
Bussiere asks WEAC for equal access to endorsement process
(Kewaunee) On Friday a candidate for Wisconsin State Senate District 1 learned that she would be excluded from endorsement interviews for Wisconsin Education association Council (WEAC), while the other two candidates, the Republican incumbent and the Democratic candidate will be included.
"It feels pretty bad to be excluded from this process," said Jill Bussiere, Wisconsin Green Party candidate for Wisconsin State Senate District 1. "WEAC will be recommending a candidate for Senate District 1 to its members as the best advocate for education without having interviewed all of us. I am asking WEAC to reconsider."
"Like WEAC,"Â said Bussiere, "Greens advocate for equal access for all to the educational system. We also advocate for equal access for all to the political system. Both are necessary to fulfill the promise of a democratic society. I invite WEAC to work with us for such equal access. Our democratic society will be stronger if all voices are heard."
WEAC states on their website: âÂÂTo fulfill the promise of a democratic society, the mission of the Wisconsin Education Association Council is to promote respect and support for quality public education and to provide for the professional and personal growth and economic welfare of members.
"I have a strong background in education, and am well qualified to address state educational issues," said Bussiere.
Bussiere, former Co-Chair of the Wisconsin Green Party, holds a BS degree in Elementary Education from Penn State University, and an MS in Educational
Policy Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In graduate school, she studied child-rearing and educational systems across different cultures, including fieldwork in schools in Otovalo, Ecuador. For her master's thesis, she examined Maine's Even Start program, a federal pilot program designed to help poor elementary students and parents be successful in school.
Employed over the years in public and private schools, in both rural and urban settings, Bussiere's direct work experience in education includes the following positions: school librarian, assistant teacher, first/second grade teacher, and enrichment math teacher.
She has also served as a nursery school board member in Waterville, Maine, and home schooled her children when her family moved to Kewaunee County in 1992. She now works as a line therapist, in her fourth year of working with autistic children in their homes.
A WEAC official told Bussiere that she would be excluded because "at the present time the WEAC practice is to invite candidates in the major parties to participate in the WEAC PAC recommendation process. The major parties are defined as those who have received enough votes to have a seat on the state elections board. At the present time the Green Party does not have a seat atthe state elections board."Â
She was also told that WEAC would "take her request under consideration."
"Often Greens are excluded from the political process by the established entities in the political system because we are not members of the major parties,"Â said Bussiere. "It is good to be reminded of how bad it feels to be excluded, just as those students that are not members of the majority culture are excluded from full participation in society. Just as we fight for their inclusion, we fight for our own. I hope that WEAC will change their minds, and be inclusive."
WEAC did interview Rae Vogeler, Wisconsin Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, this election cycle.
WEAC goals: http://www.weac.org/GreatSchools/gssap.htm
* A revised
system of school funding that ensures that every child has access to an adequately funded public education.
* A fair collective bargaining law for teachers and education support professionals.
Green Party Platform: http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/
"We call for equitable state and national funding for education and the creation of schools controlled by parent-teacher governing bodies."
"We support the irreducible right of the working people, without hindrance,to form a union and to bargain collectively with their employer."
For more information, visit Bussiere for State Senate www.votejill.org
Delete Reply
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The case for a boycott / divestment of Israel
As I have mentioned in an earlier post, the Green Party National Committee adopted Proposal 190, which calls for a boycott of Israeli products and divestment from companies with business connections to Israel. It further calls on the various state chapters to pursue the boycott/divestment campaign and for the Campus Greens to do likewise. Finally it directs the International and Peace Action committees to use their committee structure to promote the goals of Proposal 190.
Now, again, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been some rather ugly stuff said in recent National Committee listserv emails. I have done some poking around, and I think the national Green Party, including the Media Committee I am a member of, had better think about a few things now.
One of the sponsors of a website that is trying to push the Green Party to overturn Proposal 190 is the Jewish Community Relations Council of Tucson. While there is nothing to indicate that they, or anyone else, have plans to attempt to use what little media attention there may be at the convention to make the Green Party look evil, it may make sense to prepare and hope the preparations were unnecessary.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we make plans to silence these folks if they do attempt to access the media while we are in convention. Far from it, I think we should simply be prepared to explain why we took the position we did, how the process worked, and how the proposal can be amended or reversed by following internal Green Party procedures.
Do not get me wrong. I agree with Proposal 190, and with the goal of making it effective. There is no value to us adopting positions, especially one that is as specific as Proposal 190, unless we intend to follow through. To that end, I say this:
I will post a list of companies to boycott. If someone will find me a list of companies which would be effected by this boycott, including companies which buy from or distribute them here in the US or elsewhere, I will post it here so visitors can see it and decide to participate or not.
For example, if XYZ Computers does not have any manufacturing or distribution in Israel, but ABC Components does, then I want visitors to know this.
I am not willing to take the time to develop this list. If someone else will, I will post it. I will also make it available, as I do every word here, to anyone who wants to take it. In other words, if it's posted here, anyone will be able to not only link to it here, but take it and post it wherever they wish.
The Advocates for Israel has set up a petition to the Green Party, which I assume has not been presented to us formally as yet. Their goal is 10,000 international signatures. They stand at this point at 8183. I am not sure, but I think they may be planning to present the petition at the convention, and again, if that happens, I think we should be prepared to reasonably respond.
Which brings up a point. We should, I hope, have someone from each of the effected committees, that is, Peace Action and the International Committee, to explain how they see their role in implementing Proposal 190. Specifically, in their petition, the group "Stand With US" calls on the Green Party to seek council from the Israeli Green Party (There were two, not sure today) and the Israeli and Palestinian peace groups to see how they feel about Proposal 190.
I know that one Israeli Green Party has in fact called on the USGP to reverse itself on Proposal 190. I have no idea what the various peace groups might say. I think they raise a somewhat valid point there, but we shouldn't limit it to Israeli Greens and Palestinian and Israeli peace groups, but to the Green Party community Internationally. In other words, the Greens in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia are all aware of what is going on in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, and they are as smart as we. Perhaps it would benefit us to know what Colombian Greens, or New Zealand Greens or Irish Greens have had to say about this. The next International Green Conference is set for Africa, and that may be a good opportunity to craft a program which will help bring Israel in compliance with accepted standards of both domestic and international behavior.
If you have not seen the text of both Proposal 190 and the Stand With US petition, both are behind the "Read more!" link.
I would appreciate it if some of you would comment on ways to be successful with this project, and by successful I don't mean inflicting pain, but bringing about the change we desire. I understand that pain may be part of the process, just as I am sure there was suffering as a result of resistance to apartheid in South Africa.
One final point I would like to make, and I am not looking for a fight here with anyone. Frankly, some folks do seem to have a lot of words at hand when motivated, and I don't care to get into a back-and-forth on the topic with someone better at debating than I am. ~Grin~
I believe that Israel exists. I believe that at some point in the relative near future it will be inside internationally recognized and accepted borders. I believe the leaders of Israel would use their nuclear weapons to "win" any war they were "losing". I believe that every war is fought by the poor at the demand of the rich, and therefore, I don't support war of any sort, including wars of liberation or civil wars, including wars against occupation. There are peaceful ways, and regardless of the inherent racism in saying so, the people who populate that part of the world must find a democratic way to seek peace, as must people in conflict anywhere.
Don't forget, Proposal 190 and the Advocates For Israel / Stand With US petition is behind the "Read more!" link...
Green Party Resolution to Divest from Israel
Proposal 190
Adopted by the Green Party of the United States,
November 21, 2005
1. The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) publicly calls for divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized
To maximize the effect of the Green Party's support for divestment and boycott of Israel:
2. The party calls on all civil society institutions and organizations around the world to implement a comprehensive divestment and boycott program. Further, the party calls on all governments to support this program and to implement state level boycotts.
3. The party urges the Campus Greens network to work in cooperation with other campus organizations to achieve institutional participation in this effort.
4. The GPUS National Committee directs the Green Peace Action Committee (GPAX) to encourage the larger anti-war movement to promote the divestment/boycott effort.
5. The GPUS National Committee directs the International Committee to work with our sister Green parties around the world in implementing an international boycott.
The Stand With US / Advocates for Israel petition.
The undersigned urge the Green Party to reverse its resolution in support of Divestment from Israel and to eliminate that resolution from its platform.
As with any conflict, the Israel-Arab conflict requires bilateral peace negotiations and joint agreements in order for a real and lasting peace to be achieved. Divestment is an aggressively coercive tool that is counterproductive due to the presumption that only one party (Israel) is to blame for the conflict.
The issues behind the conflict are complex; and all require negotiation with an honest peace partner. Reducing the conflict to a simplistic accusation against one side only serves to confuse people and demonize one side in the conflict. It is absurd to expect one side to concede critical issues prior to negotiations; yet that is what divestment demands.
The Green Party's entry into this realm of international conflict resolution is at variance with its own stated mission. By specifically punishing Israeli businesses, divestment in effect condones the PLOÂs use of violence to bring about political change. More in keeping with the Green Party's mission would be support for a peacefully negotiated settlement without preconditions and after the cessation of terrorist activities.
We, the undersigned, call upon The Green Party to replace their resolution against Israel with one that advocates the cessation of terror and the resumption of peaceful negotiations.
Sponsor:
StandWithUs
Co-sponsors:
The Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life of Southern California ( www.CoejlSC.org)
The David Project (davidproject.org)
The Green Zionist Alliance (www.greenzionism.org)
Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC)
of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
Jewish Community Relations Council of Tucson
American Jewish Congress, Western Region
Blue Star PR
The Jewish Action Team (JAT)
Total Signatures: 8183
Goal: 10,000 International signatures
Deadline: 5/1/2006
Now, again, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been some rather ugly stuff said in recent National Committee listserv emails. I have done some poking around, and I think the national Green Party, including the Media Committee I am a member of, had better think about a few things now.
One of the sponsors of a website that is trying to push the Green Party to overturn Proposal 190 is the Jewish Community Relations Council of Tucson. While there is nothing to indicate that they, or anyone else, have plans to attempt to use what little media attention there may be at the convention to make the Green Party look evil, it may make sense to prepare and hope the preparations were unnecessary.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we make plans to silence these folks if they do attempt to access the media while we are in convention. Far from it, I think we should simply be prepared to explain why we took the position we did, how the process worked, and how the proposal can be amended or reversed by following internal Green Party procedures.
Do not get me wrong. I agree with Proposal 190, and with the goal of making it effective. There is no value to us adopting positions, especially one that is as specific as Proposal 190, unless we intend to follow through. To that end, I say this:
I will post a list of companies to boycott. If someone will find me a list of companies which would be effected by this boycott, including companies which buy from or distribute them here in the US or elsewhere, I will post it here so visitors can see it and decide to participate or not.
For example, if XYZ Computers does not have any manufacturing or distribution in Israel, but ABC Components does, then I want visitors to know this.
I am not willing to take the time to develop this list. If someone else will, I will post it. I will also make it available, as I do every word here, to anyone who wants to take it. In other words, if it's posted here, anyone will be able to not only link to it here, but take it and post it wherever they wish.
The Advocates for Israel has set up a petition to the Green Party, which I assume has not been presented to us formally as yet. Their goal is 10,000 international signatures. They stand at this point at 8183. I am not sure, but I think they may be planning to present the petition at the convention, and again, if that happens, I think we should be prepared to reasonably respond.
Which brings up a point. We should, I hope, have someone from each of the effected committees, that is, Peace Action and the International Committee, to explain how they see their role in implementing Proposal 190. Specifically, in their petition, the group "Stand With US" calls on the Green Party to seek council from the Israeli Green Party (There were two, not sure today) and the Israeli and Palestinian peace groups to see how they feel about Proposal 190.
I know that one Israeli Green Party has in fact called on the USGP to reverse itself on Proposal 190. I have no idea what the various peace groups might say. I think they raise a somewhat valid point there, but we shouldn't limit it to Israeli Greens and Palestinian and Israeli peace groups, but to the Green Party community Internationally. In other words, the Greens in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia are all aware of what is going on in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, and they are as smart as we. Perhaps it would benefit us to know what Colombian Greens, or New Zealand Greens or Irish Greens have had to say about this. The next International Green Conference is set for Africa, and that may be a good opportunity to craft a program which will help bring Israel in compliance with accepted standards of both domestic and international behavior.
If you have not seen the text of both Proposal 190 and the Stand With US petition, both are behind the "Read more!" link.
I would appreciate it if some of you would comment on ways to be successful with this project, and by successful I don't mean inflicting pain, but bringing about the change we desire. I understand that pain may be part of the process, just as I am sure there was suffering as a result of resistance to apartheid in South Africa.
One final point I would like to make, and I am not looking for a fight here with anyone. Frankly, some folks do seem to have a lot of words at hand when motivated, and I don't care to get into a back-and-forth on the topic with someone better at debating than I am. ~Grin~
I believe that Israel exists. I believe that at some point in the relative near future it will be inside internationally recognized and accepted borders. I believe the leaders of Israel would use their nuclear weapons to "win" any war they were "losing". I believe that every war is fought by the poor at the demand of the rich, and therefore, I don't support war of any sort, including wars of liberation or civil wars, including wars against occupation. There are peaceful ways, and regardless of the inherent racism in saying so, the people who populate that part of the world must find a democratic way to seek peace, as must people in conflict anywhere.
Don't forget, Proposal 190 and the Advocates For Israel / Stand With US petition is behind the "Read more!" link...
Green Party Resolution to Divest from Israel
Proposal 190
Adopted by the Green Party of the United States,
November 21, 2005
1. The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) publicly calls for divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized
To maximize the effect of the Green Party's support for divestment and boycott of Israel:
2. The party calls on all civil society institutions and organizations around the world to implement a comprehensive divestment and boycott program. Further, the party calls on all governments to support this program and to implement state level boycotts.
3. The party urges the Campus Greens network to work in cooperation with other campus organizations to achieve institutional participation in this effort.
4. The GPUS National Committee directs the Green Peace Action Committee (GPAX) to encourage the larger anti-war movement to promote the divestment/boycott effort.
5. The GPUS National Committee directs the International Committee to work with our sister Green parties around the world in implementing an international boycott.
The Stand With US / Advocates for Israel petition.
The undersigned urge the Green Party to reverse its resolution in support of Divestment from Israel and to eliminate that resolution from its platform.
As with any conflict, the Israel-Arab conflict requires bilateral peace negotiations and joint agreements in order for a real and lasting peace to be achieved. Divestment is an aggressively coercive tool that is counterproductive due to the presumption that only one party (Israel) is to blame for the conflict.
The issues behind the conflict are complex; and all require negotiation with an honest peace partner. Reducing the conflict to a simplistic accusation against one side only serves to confuse people and demonize one side in the conflict. It is absurd to expect one side to concede critical issues prior to negotiations; yet that is what divestment demands.
The Green Party's entry into this realm of international conflict resolution is at variance with its own stated mission. By specifically punishing Israeli businesses, divestment in effect condones the PLOÂs use of violence to bring about political change. More in keeping with the Green Party's mission would be support for a peacefully negotiated settlement without preconditions and after the cessation of terrorist activities.
We, the undersigned, call upon The Green Party to replace their resolution against Israel with one that advocates the cessation of terror and the resumption of peaceful negotiations.
Sponsor:
StandWithUs
Co-sponsors:
The Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life of Southern California ( www.CoejlSC.org)
The David Project (davidproject.org)
The Green Zionist Alliance (www.greenzionism.org)
Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC)
of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
Jewish Community Relations Council of Tucson
American Jewish Congress, Western Region
Blue Star PR
The Jewish Action Team (JAT)
Total Signatures: 8183
Goal: 10,000 International signatures
Deadline: 5/1/2006
