Green News and Opinion

Then get your fanny to work! The Democrats are (surprise, surprise) trying to keep the Green Party off the ballot this November.

You can help! Here's how:

Hello fellow Greens,

As many of have likely heard, we in Pennsylvania are in a tough fight for our Senate candidate to remain on the ballot. Due to losing court cases on the constitutionality of the egregious amount of signatures we need to collect to be on the ballot (67,070 compared to the corporate parties' 2,000 signatures), it looks like our gubernatorial ticket will not be on the ballot. That leaves Carl Romanelli as our only standard bearer who can potentially garner us enough votes in this year's statewide election in order to maintain our minor party status for the next 2 years.

We filed almost 100,000 signatures, more than anyone has ever collected in this state, to get us on the ballot. The Democrats are challenging 70,000. 2 years ago when Ralph Nader tried to get on the ballot here, the ensuing petition challenges tied up the state courts so much that they forewent their entire October caseload. Trying to avoid that this year, the courts have ordered that we do petition reviews at the state's Bureau of Elections office, using their new computerized registration system. We need 9 volunteers and the Dems need 9 volunteers everyday until all the petitions have been gone through.

The Democrats would have assumed we would have given up when faced with such a monumental task. Yet we have managed to get people to Harrisburg every day for the past few weeks. If we didn't, we'd be held in contempt of court & automatically lose our case.

All this fighting does not come without a cost. Unlike the Democrats paid staff and interns filling their slots, our volunteers are taking often unpaid time away from their jobs, paying their own travel and lodging, and only receiving lunch from the Romanelli campaign. We'd like to be able to give some more compensation to them. We also need to pay our attorney as well, who has been doing an incredible job keeping us on the ballot so far (Absentee ballots have started going to the printer with Carl on them).

What we desperately need now are volunteers who can come to Harrisburg on weekdays AND donations to keep our senate campaign alive. Volunteers have no qualifications other than being able to read. If there are people from neighboring states, neighboring countries, or elsewhere, we can use your help. Contact Blyden Potts
if you can come to PA, even for just one day.

As this is a U.S. Senate campaign, there are FEC limits on donations and specific reporting requirements. To donate, you can send checks to:
Carl Romanelli for US Senate
308 Spring Street
Hanover Township, PA 18706

or you can make donations to the Party to:
Green Party of Pennsylvania
P.O. Box 11962
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1962

Thank you for your help,
Mike Rosenberg
GP-PA Delegate
Green Party Candidate
188th Legislative District
Pennsylvania General Assembly
www.rosenberg4rep.org
4134 Lancaster Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19104-1727

Read more!

// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 10:44 AM 0 comments

As the lead candidate of the Stop the War Slate on the Green Party ticket, U.S. Senate candidate David Sole, a long-time member of Workers World Party, is already well-known to the anti-war movement throughout Michigan.

Read more!

This is the August edition of my monthly column for YC magazine, published and distributed exclusively in York County, SC. There in nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one.

*****************************************************
“I can’t support the Green Party because the Green Party is pacifist.” When I saw those words I knew I had done a poor job of explaining.

It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

The paragraph above is not mine. It is taken entirely from the party’s Ten Key Values. As you can see, the Green Party is not a pacifist party, but is a party which promotes non-violence. This may be a difference without a distinction for some, but for most Greens it is critical. Just as we would fight to protect our children and families, we understand fighting to protect our nation. As with every party, many Greens are veterans. Those of us who are not veterans give special attention to the words of those who have served not because we think they smarter than the rest of us, but because they have more first hand knowledge than Greens who have not served in the military.

How then are we Greens to respond in what we are told is a “time of war?” We should, and do, respond as patriots.

A patriot has been defined as “A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country, sometimes excessively.” Like everyone else, we Greens can go overboard with out patriotism, but we usually are more even keeled than that. Blind faith in the president or the government is not patriotic to Greens. Quite the opposite. Questioning our leaders as they march our children off to die and kill is our duty as responsible participants in the American Experiment.

When we stand and ask the Pentagon to answer for their abuses of prisoners we do so not to do damage to our country, but to preserve for our children and yours an America worth fighting for. The founders of the nation understood the value of citizen participation and included it directly in the Constitution’s first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, to make it ever clear that the government serves the people and not the other way around. Asking the captains of industry to justify war profiteering is as American as apple pie. Holding military recruiters to the highest standards of honesty is not wrong, but how we protect our children from deceptions which might send an unsuited child to the front. Demanding that the president comply with the Supreme Court and Constitution is not un-American; it is as right as rain.

So, when you think about Israel and the pounding they are inflicting on Lebanon, remember that we Greens believe in self-defense, and in non-violence. When you see American soldiers killed and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan on TV, remember that we Greens believe in defending the defenseless, and in non-violence. When you hear of American soldiers forced to serve long after the end of the term they signed up for, so called “stop loss” orders, remember that we Greens believe in von-violence and justice. The 40,000 American soldiers who have deserted will want to return to society some day. Will we be ready?

The bottom line from our perspective is this: Violence is bad, and should be avoided when possible. The spiriting away of three Israeli military men and the killing of others does not justify the Israeli attacks which have killed untold hundreds of civilians in Lebanon. Israel has violated agreements with the United States. They agreed to not use weapons bought from us to invade another county. They continue, despite constant appeals for peace, to bombard and kill with no apparent end in sight. We Greens have called internationally for the Israeli military to stand down and end this war.

Weak we may be. But we have a spine. That’s more than you can say for either the Democrats or Republicans, who stand always at the ready to support any scheme crafted by pro-military forces in business, academic, or government circles. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. A Patriot’s Standard. A Green Standard. How about you? War in self-defense, or war without end?

Read more!

It is with great sadness that I tell you what no doubt most of you already know. Dean Zimmerman, late of the Minneapolis City Council as a Green, was convicted of accepting bribes. He was found not guilty of one count in the indictment. Various news stories can be found behind the "Read more!" link...

Star Tribune Zimmerman Timeline
Feds:Councilman Took Bribes
Councilman Zimmerman Pleads Not Guilty
KSTP:Zimmerman Appears in Court
KSTP: Zimmerman Fate in Hands of Jury
Zimmerman Guilty on Three Counts
MPR:Zimmerman Admits to Lying to FBI
MPR links to 24 stories about Zimmerman
King...Mandella...Zimmerman?
Links to ten Articles About Zimmerman at City Pages
City Pages:Zimmerman Trial will Wrap up Tomorrow
Many Articles About Dean Zimmerman at Pulse of the Twin Cities
David Tilsen's Blog about Zimmerman
David Tilsen: United States V Zimmerman
Pioneer Press: Jurors Convict Zimmerman on Three Charges
Doug Grow: Zimmermann nonchalant, even after verdict

Read more!

Nan Garrett of Georgia posted a message to a national listserv and gave her version of the Utah events. It's behind the "Read more!" link, and does seem to answer some common sense questions. If you are unsure of your opinion vis-a-vis the Utah question, please take a peek.

Now if only we could get Ms. Garrett to stop hiding behind a lawyer and adequately and honestly address the abuse of Stephanie Loveless by the National Women's Caucus. If you see me and my face is blue, you know what happened.


Although the Secretary can respond to your question, as a member of the Accreditation Committee, I wanted to provide my perspective. Jody Grage provided much of this info to our meeting last week. Karen Shelley is also a member of the AC now, but was not during the time some of this happened. Perhaps her review of the AC list archives might help the situation, but that is up to her.

In December 2004, after some investigation, the AC forwarded a 'determination' statement to this body, then still the CC, about this. The AC took a position. Few if anyone here asked questions. No one here objected. Nada.

Then in summer of 2005, in Tulsa, this issue came up again at the annual meeting. The NC voted on the floor to seat the body recognized in the December 2004 statement / letter.

No one filed a complaint. I realize some in California said they made a formal request, but I thought formal requests appeared in the version of a proposal. Otherwise, we don't have a structure to process the 'request'. If this is a misunderstanding by me as to how our processes work, I'd like some clarity here, but perhaps it was a misunderstanding on the part of the California Greens who made the request.

Some of the Greens associated with the body not currently tied by affiliation with the GP-US filed a complaint against the GP-US in the AC just a week to ten days before this year's meeting, possibly dated July 19. [First version said 2005, but the filer explained that was a typographical error, and should have been 2006.] But the point is that this is obviously not adequate time for the AC to review this new complaint, investigate and make a recommendation.

IMO, if folks are clammering for a more thorough investigation than was done in 2004, or if there are new relevant facts here, it still should either go through AC or DRC. If NC members here have issues or questions about the AC composition or processes, fine, join the committee or rewrite their P & P but either allow them to do a thorough investigation or make a concious decision that our AC serves no bona fide
purpose related to accreditation.

Certainly I have questions about why no one objected to the AC's report in December 2004. I also question why no one filed a complaint and followed through after last summer, yet as our annual meeting rolled around, this suddenly becomes 'urgent'.

We need simple straightforward structure that works, honors due process, and is not subject to forum shopping. It needs to work for all.

I obviously don't believe the AC should have jurisdiction over any and all complaints against states and caucuses. But where the complaint directly involves the subject of accreditation, I don't see the positive purpose served or existing process being
followed if we bypass our AC.

Back to Roger Horowitz's question, I believe the NC made a decision by accepting the AC's report and not objecting to it formally via a proposal. But perhaps we need to tighten up that procedure and require us - either via our SC or self, the NC - to formally accept or reject committee statements and recommendations that have a lasting or stare decisis effect on the GP-US. [not their general business reports] Not sure what I think about this, but the comment is offered as food for thought and reflection.

As to the other issues being debated here, I don't see any urgency of adding more Utah Greens to this e-list as this list is no place to conduct an investigation that provides even a semblance of due process. If we can focus on a process or structure to address these type of issues generically, and then actually apply that process to this Utah situation, we might make some progress.

Read more!

This is my 400th post to this blog. Some are long. Some are not.

Proposal 241 is now sponsored by the Fundraising Committee and the Finance Committee, and no longer by the Merchandise Committee. I now support Proposal 241, as if it mattered what I support. *Smile*

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but I can't help but wonder why the creation of GPAX has not been re-submitted to the Green National Committee. As you can see from the Proposal 238 page, the proposal was proposed by the GPAX itself. Proposal 238 was "approved" only because the computer folks didn't catch the error early enough.

Hasn't enough time passed now to expect this to be corrected? GPAX cannot propose it's own creation. That should be clear enough.

Perhaps now that the Merchandise Committee is a standing committee of the USGP, they will propose establishing GPAX.

Until someone authorized to propose the creation of GPAX does so, and until the GNC approves GPAX, GPAX does not exist as a standing committee of the USGP. I don't know if it can be said to be a sub-committee of another committee, as Merchandise was a sub-committee of Fundraising, but if not, GPAX should suspend all official actions until the proper process has gone forward.

Read more!

In reading over old National Committee emails I came across what I think is a great idea. It comes from Morgen D'Arc of Maine. I've made some tiny changes, but the basic idea is hers. I hope someone who can do so will persuade their state, caucus or committee to give this proposal a number and get it into the GNC voting queue.

Every state, when submitting a representative to serve on a committee, should submit a "signed" statement from the applicant that they have:

1. - Read the committee's Policies and Procedures, and agree to abide by them.

B. - Read the Green Party's Netiquette Guidelines (do we have any?), and agree to abide by them.

3rd. - Agree to be removed from a committee if the committee, by a super-majority vote, determines that the committee member is not abiding by the rules.

IV. - No committee will be required to accept any applicant who has been removed from another committee for not abiding by the rules.


OK, so it's not much like Morgen's suggestion but I think the idea is at least worth discussion and refinement. Morgen's basic proposal is hiding behind the "Read more!" link...


I would require her to sign a statement agreeing that she would leave the committee immediately and be taken off the (committee) list if she presented problems or caused disruption and that if she didn't leave on her own, then she would be removed or asked that she resign from the committee. She would also have to agree that she would not invoke any state party authority over the removal or resignation.

I think any Green who comes to a committee with a disruptive and disrespectful reputation should sign such a statement. The state party is not always aware of what their delegates or committee approved people are doing. Some are not even very well known to their state parties. Just because a state party highly recommends someone
is not a reason why national delegates and committee members should not get a say in the state approved person's committee status if that state approved person behaves badly to Greens working on national committees and/or if they cause disruption to the committee.

I think this approach could help solve this problem overall, because it gives more consciousness to both sides, and a chance to learn from the experience. If someone truly wants to be on a committee to be involved in the productive work of a group of people, then they will want to learn how to participate productively together.



IMO Greens really don't want to get rid of anyone. This sentiment could be at the root of why we have such a huge problem with removal. I believe my suggestion above is a middle ground approach that helps in part to address this sentiment while still addressing the problem. Because the potential members have read and signed a statement, I think some will be more conscious of what they are doing which can incline to learning and with some people possibly resolving the difficulty.

Morgen D'Arc
Maine

Read more!

Proposal 241 would, if passed, create the Merchandise Committee.

The same basic proposal was pulled from the voting queue because the first proposal was made by the Merchandise Committee itself.

Well, it would seem that some folks just don't like having their errors pointed out. The current proposal is also sponsored by the Merchandise Committee. The difference is that now the proposal is also co-sponsored by the Finance Committee.

We still have an unestablished committee proposing it's own creation. Maybe this is perfectly legit, but I can't help but thinking that someone is behaving as though someone else was mean to them and they are determined to show us.

Well, OK. If the Finance Committee, which is supposed to be a detail oriented committee, is OK sponsoring a proposal with a committee which does not exist yet, I guess that says something about them, eh?

Then again, maybe I'm the jerk for thinking that we should follow our rules and common sense.

Read more!

While the corporate media is swooning all over itself about one millionaire beating another for the Democratic nomination for US Senate in that state, I see that the CT Greens has announced that they have gathered over 13,000 signatures to put the first state-wide Peace Campaign on the ballot. The full text of their exciting announcement is behind the "Read more!" link...

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT


NEWS RELEASE- for Immediate Release- August 9, 2006
Contact: Tim McKee, CT Green Party National Committee Person, cell (860)860-778-
1304 or (860)-643-2282
Jean DeSmet, State Co-Chair (860) 456-2188
Ralph Ferrucci, U.S. Senate candidate (203) 430-9342
Cliff Thornton, Green Party Candidate for Governor (860) 657-8438-Home or (860)
268-1294-Campaign cell

THORNTON, FERRUCCI TOP 13,000 BALLOT SIGNATURE DRIVE FOR CT. GREENS


Hartford, CT, - GREEN PARTY OFFICIALS SUBMITTED 13,000 SIGNATURES TODAY TO FINISH THEIR DRIVE FOR A FIRST EVER SLATE OF CANDIDATES FOR STATE OFFICES AND THE U.S. SENATE RACE. INDEPENDENT BUSINESS MAN AND TRUCK DRIVER RALPH FERRUCCI WILL LEAD THE TICKET AS THE CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE . RETIRED BUSINESSMAN CLIFF THORNTON, RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR, TOPS A SLATE FOR STATE OFFICERS.

Over 65 volunteers from across the state submitted petitions for Ferrucci, an anti-war activist from New Haven and Thornton?s team of state office seekers. 7,500 valid signatures were need by 4 pm Wednesday, August 9 at 4 pm, and the total of 13,000 was submitted as a buffer for any errors in petitions. Teams of lawyers and notaries with the Green Party carefully inspected each petition before they were submitted to local town hall for validation. The Greens expect confirmation of ballot access from the Sectary of State?s office within days.

Governor: Clifford Thornton, founder of the drug policy reform group Efficacy, who will be CT's first African American candidate for Governor;

Lt. Governor: Robin Schaefer

Attorney General: Nancy Burton, environmental activist and founder of CT Coalition against Millstone;

Secretary of the State: Mike DeRosa, founder of Project V.O.T.E.R. - Voter Opportunity through Election Reform;

State Treasurer: David Bue, Socially Responsible investment adviser with First Affirmative Financial Network;

State Comptroller: Colin Bennett

U.S. Senate: Ralph Ferrucci, New Haven Independent businessman and truck driver.

-30-

web sites(with photos):
Cliff Thornton www.votethornton.com
Mike DeRosa http://www.ctgreens.org/derosa
Ralph Ferrucci http://www.ferrucciforsenate.org
Nancy Burton http://ctgreens.org/candidates/burton2006.html
David Bue http://ctgreens.org/candidates/bue2006.html

Read more!

In a May 25th edition of the Black Commentator, the publishers Glen Ford and Peter Gamble argue that Black Democrats who rise to chair committees and sub-committees after a Democratic take over of the Congress may wind up serving not the Black Voter, but the same Corporate Interests Republican chairs have served so well in recent years.

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, so just hit the link above instead.

Read more!

I am now using Riseup.net as my email provider, but since they are a collective with fairly shallow pockets, the allotment for old email is fairly small.

I am discarding old emails, and running across stuff I want to post here.

Behind this "Read more!" link, for example, is a message to the National Committee in reference to the National Women's caucus and their refusal for more than a year to answer the simple request of a Green to join the caucus. To read his concerns, hit the "Read more!" link...


On Behalf Of Matthew R.Abel
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 6:28 PM
To: Votes list
Subject: [usgp-coo] Annual review of committees

In regard to having some kind of annual review of committee work, would it be appropriate to task the Accreditation Committee with the annual review, or should that be done by some other committee, or by the NC itself?

My view is that it should be in the purview of some committee. The NC seems not to do much itself. The real work is done in committee, it seems, and will be more so in the future as (we hope) our job of building the party structure, rules and processes gets pretty much done.

Seems to me that part of the reason that the NC seems to be treading water, is that we don't well understand our mission, and get sidetracked by poor communication.

There are long-standing issues unresolved within the Black Caucus and the Women's Caucus. On the one hand, since I am in neither group, I feel that hands off as much as possible is better. On the other, my good friend and "constituent" who is transgendered (male to female) has not been able to get an answer (even if the answer is no) from the NWC for well over a year whether she can join. A complaint has been filed and is purportedly pending with the Accreditation Committee, I believe, but there is no evidence of progress being made. I am told there is a "gag order" and so have been unable to learn much more. One of the Michigan delegates to the AC has
become frustrated with lack of process and action.

Perhaps this issue is more properly within the purview of the Dispute Resolution Committee, and it's stalled because the AC does not know what to do with it. Do the rules provide for sanctions against a committee, other than dissolution?

While the issue may be important, the bigger thing is that our process is not working very well.

Could committees be required to make short reports and answer questions during the Annual Meeting?



Think Green, Act Green, Vote Green!

Matthew R. Abel
Detroit, Michigan
www.attorneyabel.com
attorneyabel@riseup.net

Green Party of Michigan State Committee
Green Party U.S. National Delegate

Read more!

Lee Bidgood published the article hiding behind the "Read more!" link in the May 13th edition of The Daytona Beach News-Journal. In the article he calls Florida, and the entire South East a "prime target". I was wondering what those concentric circlews on my back were for...

May 13, 2006

Florida, Southeast region targets in push for nuclear power plants

By LEE BIDGOOD
COMMUNITY VOICE
The nuclear power industry is aiming primarily at the Southeast for more nuclear plants. Florida is a prime target, and Floridians should wake up and organize to repel the assault.

To lobby for new nuclear plants, the industry formed three consortiums. One is NuStart Energy Development, LLC, with 11 mostly southern members, including nine nuclear utilities and two nuclear reactor manufacturers. NuStart consortium enjoys a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement with the U.S. Department of Energy to implement what it calls "one-time, generic activities needed to allow future nuclear investment decisions." Translation: Make permitting and financing new nuclear plants quicker and easier. The Florida Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush are helping by pushing new laws to streamline nuclear plant approval.

Members of the NuStart consortium are flush with $12 billion of promised subsidies in the federal energy bill passed last year. They plan most new nukes in the Southeast, because opposition here hasn't been as well-organized and vigorous as elsewhere. Some small rural southern towns that have lost their textile industry welcome new nuclear plants. For example, The New York Times reported that in Gaffney, S.C. (population 13,000), almost everyone supported plans for a new Duke Power nuclear plant. Gaffney residents expect about 1,500 construction jobs and 1,000 jobs in nuclear plant operations. Some $8.5 million in annual taxes would be split between the county and state.

A few southern organizations have opposed nuclear plants for health reasons. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League mustered compelling evidence about the health hazards of nuclear plants in its fight against one or two new reactors to be built next to an existing nuclear plant in North Anna, Va. In 2004 BREDL released a study by the Radiation and Health Project (RPHP) showing that the infant death rate near North Anna rose 11 percent in the first three years after the nuclear plant began operations, compared to a 9 percent decline nationwide. Death rates for children 1 to 4 years old rose 99 percent near North Anna during the first few years of plant operation, while the rate declined 3 percent during the same period in the rest of Virginia. Nuclear plants are not safe, even without accidents. Here are some reasons:

· All nuclear plants release radioactive isotopes to the air and water in routine operations. Releases are usually (but not always) within prescribed international and national limits. Radiation exposure limits are based on the "standard man," an adult male. Fetuses, infants, children and the ill or elderly are far more susceptible than the theoretical adult man.

· There is no safe radiation dose. All radiation exposure is cumulative, whether from Earth's background radiation, cosmic radiation in high altitude flights or X-rays. In the 1950s, Dr. Alice Stewart found that even one X-ray of a pregnant woman's fetus almost doubled the child's chances of contracting childhood leukemia.

· The cumulative effects of nuclear weapons testing, accidents and routine releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants and weapons plants have about doubled the Earth's background radioactivity.

· Perhaps worse than cancer is irreversible radiation damage to the human gene pool leading to various mental and physical defects. The defects may appear three or four generations later. Greenpeace reports that Nuclear Regulatory Commission records disclose that U.S. nuclear power plants have had nearly 200 "near misses" of a meltdown since the catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. Florida plants have had
their share.

The NRC records that Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point 3 reactor has had a significant near miss event. The NRC defines a significant near miss as greater than one chance in 1,000 of a reactor core meltdown. The NRC records six important near misses in Florida reactors since Chernobyl, two at Turkey Point and four at FPL's St. Lucie plant. The agency defines an important near miss as greater than one chance in 10,000 of a core meltdown. The odds are against a Chernobyl-like meltdown, but it could happen.

Florida Progress Crystal River 3 nuclear plant has avoided near miss citations, but it was fined $100,000 in 1996 and $50,000 in 1997 for various safety and security violations.

An outrageous claim of nuclear proponents is that nuclear power aids the fight against global climate change. Mining and six steps of uranium processing all require copious amounts of fossil fuel energy. Constructing the plant, storing and guarding its hazardous waste output and eventually dismantling it consume more energy. A nuclear plant must run at least 10 or 12 years before it has produced more calories than it has consumed and begins to reduce greenhouse gas output.

The claim of cheap nuclear power is false. Nuclear plants are bad investments. It is a crime against future generations to commit $12 billion, plus liability insurance, to encourage more nuclear plants rather than use that money to accelerate renewable energy output.

Bidgood, an environmental activist and retired chemist, lives in New Smyrna Beach.


DAYTONA BEACH NEWS-JOURNAL

Read more!

In a report issued on May 4th, 2006, Arjun and Annie Makhijani of IEER report that France, a heavy user of nuclear electricity generation, can abandon it's dependence on nuclear power and transition to a safe, sane, and low-carbon energy diet. The press release is behind the "Read more!" link...

For Release on May 4, 2006
Contact: Arjun Makhijani or Annie Makhijani, 301-270-5500
d
P R E S S R E L E A S E

France Can Phase Out Nuclear Power and Achieve Low Carbon Dioxide Emissions

French Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rising Despite Nuclear Power, New Study Finds

Subsidies for Plutonium and Pro-Nuclear Policies Inhibiting Secure,
Low-Carbon Future

Takoma Park, Maryland: A new report,
Low-Carbon Diet without Nukes in France, examines the feasibility of phasing out nuclear power in France while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by about 40 percent in the next few decades. France is considered as exemplary by advocates of nuclear power, which provides almost 80 percent of French electricity generation, because the use of that energy source has been crucial to its relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) report is the first to detail technologies and policies
that could meet the same lifestyle and economic choices as a high-nuclear, high carbon emissions future without nuclear energy and significantly reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

“The nuclear industry has presented itself as part of the solution to global warming” said Annie Makhijani, a co-author of the report and Project Scientist at IEER. “But nuclear power creates serious long-term security issues in the form of risks of proliferation, severe nuclear accidents, and vulnerability to terrorism. It’s not a desirable trade-off. The IEER analysis shows that nuclear power is not necessary even in France to achieve a low-carbon emissions future.”

France obtains 75 to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, making it one of the lowest carbon-emitter countries in Europe per unit of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Because of that, France is not obligated to reduce its CO2 emissions relative to 1990 under the Kyoto protocol, while other European countries have to reduce their emissions to 8 percent (collectively) below their 1990 levels sometime between 2008 and 2012.

Nuclear power has not been the solution to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in France, however. Low-Carbon Diet without Nukes in France shows that, despite the essential elimination of the use of oil in the French electricity sector since 1973 and the reduction of coal use, greenhouse gas emissions are high and have been rising. This is because the main greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector as well as from the use of oil and natural gas in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.

According to the report, the constraint is not a lack of carbon-free energy sources energies but that existing resources are devoted disproportionately to nuclear energy to the detriment of other sources. Official studies of the use of plutonium as a fuel in 20 nuclear reactors in France indicate that this aspect of nuclear power alone gets about $1 billion per year in subsidies. Yet, until the past few years total investment in wind energy in France had not even reached the annual plutonium subsidy.

“It is not possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in France significantly without large efficiency increases in the transportation sector and in residential and commercial heating,” said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of IEER and co-author of the report “The technologies are commercial or nearly so. But the official devotion to nuclear energy, including heavy subsidies for plutonium fuel production,
has sidelined other aspects of energy policy.”

IEER presents two scenarios that use official economic projections of high energy use to show that nuclear power would be phased out over a period of 30 to 40 years while setting a path to much reduced carbon dioxide emissions. The scenarios use existing technology or more advanced technology to achieve 20 percent and 40 percent CO2 reductions with a simultaneous phase out of nuclear power. It acknowledges that nuclear power must be phased out gradually rather than abruptly, because it is such
a large part of France’s electricity sector and because abandoning existing plants prematurely would divert resources that could be used for investments in efficiency and renewable energy sources, notably wind energy.

“There is no question that France will have to dig deeper into the advanced technology basket to produce the same percentage of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as the United States,” said Dr. Arjun Makhijani. “But the country that invests in that future can grab future technological and economic leadership on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

“France has unfortunately chosen its technological leadership in the energy sector to be in nuclear technology,” noted Annie Makhijani. “But France and the world are ignoring warning signs, like the statement of Ichiro Ozawa, the Japanese Labor Party leader, that the commercial nuclear energy sector could provide plutonium for nuclear weapons.”

The French company AREVA, which is majority-owned by the French government, provides reprocessing services to Japanese utilities. Japan has a large stock of separated plutonium as a result, stored partly in Japan and partly in France.

The report notes that a low carbon, zero-nuclear-power future for France by the middle of the 21st century will involve significant technical and policy changes, including

* Regulations requiring new cars to achieve an average fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon by the year 2020 and improvements in efficiency of delivery vehicles and trucks.
* Improvements in heating and cooling in the residential and commercial sector that use existing technologies like co-generation and earth-source heat pumps.
* Government procurement of advanced technologies to stimulate innovation, in place of tax breaks for existing technologies.
* Abandonment of reprocessing and retirement of nuclear power plants when they reach the end of the licensed lifetime (40 to 45 years after start up).
* National policies to put wind, pumped hydro, and natural gas and, in the more advanced technology scenario, solar photovoltaic cells, at the center of the electricity sector.

The report is posted in full at on IEER’s website,
www.ieer.org

---30---

En
Français.
This press
release is also available in French.


Lisa Ledwidge
Outreach Director, United States, and Editor of Science for Democratic Action
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
PO Box 6674 | Minneapolis, MN 55406 USA
tel. 1-612-722-9700 | fax: please call
first | ieer@ieer.org | http://www.ieer.org

IEER's main office: 6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 201 | Takoma Park,
MD 20912 USA | tel. 1-301-270-5500 | fax 1-301-270-3029

Read more!

Have you ordered your local or campaign's stack of the latest copy of Green Pages? If not, get on the stick and write Nick Mellis and get your stack ordered today!

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but if you order a few bundles of Green Pages, you will have "more to read" indeed!

Read more!

The Green Party of New York needs a tiny bit of your money. Why? Well, ballot access. Got your own ballot access issues? I think that those with their own ballot access problems should take care of those obligations first, as much as possible.

If, however, you have money you can give to help the Green Party of New York get on the ballot, remember how valuable that will be for the next few years. Ballot access is likely assured at least through November of 2008 if NY is successful with this drive. How much is having New York's ballot line worth to the national party? I can't begin to put a price on it, but I do know that two weeks, which is their deadline, is far enough away that if you give $20 today, it will make a difference.

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one. Just give if you can.

Read more!

Running for office? Think there is a chance that Organic Consumers might be a good target audience for your message? Then click here to fill out their questionnaire There is no reason not to let these voters know you're out there!

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one.

Read more!

Don't ya love it when Dr. Strangelove drops into your "inbox"? In this case, a note from Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. In the note, hiding behind the "Read more!" link, Gagnon explains that sources have told them that the US is sending experts on targeting cruise missiles to Israel...

U.S. & Israel Selecting Targets for Cruise Missile First-Strike Attack

Multiple military sources have told the Global Network that Pentagon personnel responsible for selecting targets for cruise missile first strike attacks have been sent to Israel. This indicates that U.S. and Israeli military strategists are now likely meeting to plan a join attack on Syria and/or Iran.

The Persian Gulf war and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq both began with cruise missile attacks by the U.S. from Naval ships. It would be wise to recognize that Bush has decided to expand the current war and chaos into the entire Middle East region. The implications for the U.S. will be enormous.

Israel's recent bombing of Lebanon near the Syrian border indicate to me that they are trying to draw a response from Syria. So far Syria has not responded. Look for more such efforts by Israel and the U.S. to provoke Syria.

I would highly recommend local peace groups call on their members of Congress and ask them to speak out against a further widening of this already insane war.

More and larger public protests should be organized immediately.

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (our blog)

Read more!

In an earlier post I complained long and loud (would have removed it, but others had already been to the site and seen it) about the Green National Committee approving the GPAX self-creation.

I posted my letter to Steve Kramer. I was frustrated, and it shows. I am not a diplomat.

Steve has written back to let me know that my objection, forwarded by Marc Sanson, simply came in too late to keep the process from goiung all the way to the end. He assures me that a busy schedule, and not any desire to slip this one by, is at fault. I can, and do, believe this.

I gather that all the ducks are in a row now and the issues will be brought up soon, and using the procedures already established in the party guidelines.

Steve and Holly, I am sorry for imposing on your freely given and uncompensated time. I am thankful that the matter is dealt with, and I hope both committees, if ultimately approved, will be very sucessful.


Gregg

Read more!

I have been exceptionally remiss in not reporting what little I have from Tuscon. I spoke, thanks to JamBoi, to Cliff Thornton, candidate for Governor of CT, and to Bill Holloway, a delegate from Texas. Sadly, my cell phone battery died just as JamBoi was handing the phone off to Scott McClarty.

I will have a full report on those conversatiuons, as well as whatever I can whip up about Tuscon from other sites, soon.

In the meantime, if you want to know all the ins and outs of who was elected to national party leadership and how, the full report (Thanks to Holly Hart I gather) can be found at the national party website by clicking here for the PDF

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, or the previous two.

Read more!

Occasionally someone will spot my blog and write to me (bless you) to offer words of advice or encouragement. Occasionally I'll get a request for help. Occasionally someone writes offering to help us This is one of those occasions.

How would you like to be on TV? On a new network which targets a prime Green Party demographic, older folks.

PLEASE, if you know any (preferably Green) bloggers over the age of 62, won't you encourage them to get in touch with Mr. Collins?

Gregg

*********************************************
Hi, Mr. Jocoy,

I am a producer for a new TV network, Retirement Living. You don't sound like you
are in the demographic (62-plus), but I am doing a story on people 62 and over who
blog, specifically about political issues.

I need to set up interviews for Tues, Aug 8th and am wondering if you know anyone
who fits the bill and lives near Fort Mill or Charlotte that I could contact (or
who could contact me).

Thank you in advance for any direction. Please feel free to ask me any questions.
Meanwhile, to learn more about Retirement Living TV, check out this link:
http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Retirement/6-07-31-RetirementLiving.htm

Yogi Collins
yogicollins313@yahoo.com
828-264-2090 (h)
703-599-7617 (c)

Read more!

As visitors may know, I objected to the Peace Action Committee proposing the creation of the Peace Action Committee. Instead of going through the proper process, GPAX simply began doing it's (very valuable) work, and ignored the niceties of being properly established.

Once this was pointed out, the committee sponsored it's own creation. In other words, GPAX proposed the creation of GPAX. Not a state. Not a caucus. Not an already standing committee. GPAX proposed it's own creation.

Then the Merchandise Committee, which I once chaired as a sub-committee of the Fundraising Committee, apparently decided that sub-committee status was inadequate, and they also proposed their own creation. Instead of having a standing committee, state, or caucus propose the creation of the Merchandise Committee, the Merchandise Committee, like GPAX before, simply proposed their own creation.

I have written Steve Kramer, the floor manager for the GPAX proposal, and Holly Hart, national party secretary, and asked them how GPAX could create itself, and Steve did not reply. Holly wrote back "Good question..."

Now I see that the proposal to establish the Merchandise Committee has been pulled from the voting system and GPAX is listed as approved. So, the committee which helps bring in money is not established and the one that has gotten us into fights and arguments of questionable value was approved, even though neither follows clearly laid out rules for the establishment of standing committees.

I have written again to Steve Kramer, and my letter to him follows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Steve,

I saw that an objection was made on the proposal by GPAX to create itself by a qualified member of the GNC. I see that the same member objected to the proposal to create the Merchandise Committee.

THe proposal to create GPAX was allowed to go to a vote and was apparently "approved". The proposal to create the Merchandise Committee, which has functioned in one form or another much longer than GPAX, was withdrawn.

I can't help but wonder if that's because there are no "power players" involved in the Merchandise Committee, and there are "power players" behind GPAX.

I object to this ignoring of process. There are several committees and states ready and willing to bring the question of creating GPAX to the GNC through **proper** process.

Can you please explain to me why the GPAX proposal was allowed to go forward after Marc Sanson's objection? Also, please tell me which committee I bring a procedural objection to?

If you can't do that, I want to start a blogger's committee, and want the blogger's committee to be able to propose it's own creation, just like GPAX. Please explain to me how we can propose our own creation as a standing committee of the USGP.

Gregg Jocoy
South Carolina

Read more!

We Greens are forever commenting, quite correctly in my estimation, on the media's unwillingness to cover us. I have said before, and say again now, we must create our own news.

The publisher of Politics 1 has an offer for ya. He's looking for folks to write for the site...for free. Shoot, I don't get paid for the writing I do, do you? I doubt it a bunch!

So...I can write here and not participate at Politics 1, or write here and participate at Politics 1.

Think that's what I'll do. How about you? Are you ready to stop complaining about lack of media coverage and do something about it? I hope so!

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, but I really hope some of you will join me in writing at Politics 1.

How many other websites could you write for that get a quarter million hits a week? Somehow I kinda doubt that even the national Green Party website gets that many page views a week, but I don't really know. Just guessing. ~S~

Read more!

Well, I am absolutely thrilled to tell readers of this blog that Third Party Watch has added links to this blog, Chlorophyll, and to Green Commons to their list of "Other useful sites". Give 'em a click if you would. Can't hurt to let them know we are interested in broader discussion, eh?

OK...I can hear you asking..."What the heck does that have to do with the headline?" Well, here's the story.

I wrote to the fellow at Third Party Watch to ask for the link, and they did it without even asking for a link in return. Well, the folks at Politics 1 have an offer for candidates that I can't **imagine** turning down. The offer is this:

SEND A PIN = GET A FREE PLUG AT POLITICS 1.

Here's my open offer for every campaign (and campaign supporter): send me a button or pin from the Governor, US Senate, Congressional, Statewide Office, etc., campaign you are involved in -- feel free to add a sticker and brochure -- and I'll place a link to official campaign site here on our homepage in a daily "thank you" note. My address: Ron Gunzburger, 409 NE 17 Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Geeze folks, Politics 1 gets more than a quarter million page hits a week. That's several million hits between now and election day. Even if only one out of a thousand visitors hits your link, isn't that worth $2 worth of buttons, pins, bumper stickers and literature? Seems like a no-brainer to me, but hey, I'm not running for nuthin, so if you are, get your link at Politics 1 now!

Read more!

Well, maybe I should just shut up. The National Women's Caucus cointinues to refuse to discuss their inexcusable exclusion of Steffie Loveless, the Black Cazucus is totally irrelevant and inactive, and Utah seems like quicksand.

Well, maybe if we ignore our problems they will go away?

If you're not the "ignore it" sort, maybe a couple of messages, one from Jo Chamberlain of CA and one from Tom King of Utah.

I "know" Dee of Dee's Dotes, as I assume most of you do. As far as I can tell, she and her cohorts in the Desert Greens *are* the legitimate Green Party in Utah. That is the point of the communication hiding behind the "Read more!" link...


Jo Chamberlain joc at pobox.com
Sat Aug 5 12:13:34 EDT 2006

Dean, Jared and All,

The GPUT is the affiliated Green Party I visited as a member of the Steering Committee prior to the 2004 switch to the now named Desert Greens.

I agree that a thorough historic review of the Utah affiliate is in order. But that review must go back to when GPUT originally affiliated which is well before 2004.

I believe that it will be discovered that the GPUT is the original affiliate GP (and should still be) and current affiliate Desert Greens was formed by Cobb supporters who manipulated their splinter group into the position of GPUS affiliate through the Cobb supporters on the AC and GPUS staff. This was done without approval of the NC.

If I can provide supporting testimony and experience please let me know.

*******************************************
Dear NC,
Although the "supporting testimony and experience" which Jo Chamberlain has offered consists entirely of regurgitation of mis-information she has obtained as hearsay from elements of the Anti-GPUS splinter group that now claims to be the "rightful" GPUT, and although Ms. Chamerlain has NOT ONCE attmpted to hear the other side of the story, I am glad she brought up the fact that she attended our Statewide Convention in 2003.

The Statewide Convention which Ms. Chamberlain visited was when the 7 Elected Officer positions of our party were elected.

The results as I am sure Ms. Chamberlain recalls (and if she doesn't then I can provide copies of the results that were Date Stamped by the Utah Elections office) were as follows:

Male Co-Coordinator = Jerry Parsons (Also selected as State Liaison as per our
bylaws)
Female Co-Coordinator = Deanna Taylor
Secretary = Raphael Cordray
Treasurer = Michael Summa
Local Liaison = Patrick Diehl
GPUS Delegates = Annette Rose and Patrick Beecroft

Now, anyone familiar with the bylaws of the GPUT will know that the Secretary of the Party is responsible for maintaining records of Membership, Meeting Minutes, Decisions Made by the GPUT CC etc. Also, for those who have read the GPUT bylaws and understand the responsibilities of the State Liaison to include complying with the Utah Elections Law by notifying the Elections Office within 7 days of any change of officers. Herein is the first example of Jerry Parson's (Former Co-Coordinator and State Liaison) failure to fulfill his responsibilities, since the first time he filed anything with the elections office reflecting changes was in 2004, even though later in 2003 Annette Rose resigned as GPUS Delegate. As has been the customary practice with the GPUT CC when there is a resignation, and in accordance with the Bylaws, at the CC meeting after Annette resigned, the GPUT CC accepted her resignation and appointed a replacement (again, as per our bylaws), then in early 2004, Michael Summa resigned as Treasurer. And, again following our customary practice and in conformance with our bylaws at the next GPUT CC meeting, after asking him to reconsider, the CC accepted his resignation and appointed a replacement treasurer. The replacement for Annette Rose was Linda Parsons as Delegate, and for Michael Summa, the replacement Treasurer was Jon Roesler. All of this is thouroughly documented (except it didn't get reported to the elections office, since Mr. Parsons was derelict in his duties) in the official minutes of the respective CC Meetings. Copies of these minutes are
maintainted by our Secretary.

Please note that the Secretary who maintains our official records is the same individual who Ms. Chamberlain witnessed winning the election to that office when she visited our 2003 Statewide Convention; Rahpael Cordray.

Also our Local Liaison remained Patrick Diehl and our Female Co-Coordinator remained Deanna Taylor.

I am aware that the Anti-GPUS splinter group now operating as a Registered Political Party in Utah under our former Registered name claims that Deanna Taylor (Co-Coordinator) and Jon Roesler (Treasurer replacement for M. Summa)resigned. In fact neither of them had their resignations accepted by the GPUT CC, and both of them rescinded their resignations before the next regular CC meeting, at which as has been our customary practice we would have first asked them to reconsider (except they had already rescinded the resignation) and therefore they both retained their positions in accordance with GPUT bylaws and custom. No replacements have been required except for Treasurer, which Jon Roesler did finally resign from in late November 2004. This time when he resigned, he did not rescind, we asked him to reconsider, then a replacement was appointed by the GPUT Coordinating Council.

For those not familiar with the Bylaws of the GPUT, the Coordinating Council of the GPUT is composed of the 7 elected officer positions listed above along with representatives (up to 2) from each Local.

At the time of the splinter group going against the rest of the GPUT Membership and taking actions that violated our bylaws (refusing to certify our Presidential Candidate) the division within the CC amounted to the following.

4 out of the 7 Elected Officers wanted Cobb on the ballot. Three of these Jo Chamberlain witnessed being elected. 2 out of the 7 Elected Officers DID NOT want Cobb on the Ballot and took actions (since one of these two Jerry Parsons, our State Liaison) to prevent him from being on the balot.

1 out of the 7 Elected Officers refused to take a position either way, this was Patrick Beecroft who stopped attending meetings after August 2004, and was replaced about 6 months later after no participation as Delegate to GPUS, and no participation with his Local or at the CC meetings.

Out of the 7 Locals that were active at the time of the split, 5 of them were unanimous in thir support for having Cobb on the Ballot. The other two, which the members of the Splinter Group were part of were divided (about half and half, those who hated Cobb, and those who wanted him on the ballot)

So, I find it ludicrous to have people now claiming that the small majority as outlined above were somehow the "legitimate" part of the Party. Especially since many of those making such claims are vocal advocates of Democratic process.

As you can see from the above breakdown of how many were on each side of the disagreement, the vast majority of the Members of the GPU at the time wanted Cobb on the Ballot. It was a small minority (which unfortunately for Utah Voters, the GPUS and the majority of our party included Jerry Parsons as state Liaison) that were adamantly opposed to supporting Cobb as per the affiliation agreement by certifying him to the Elections Office.

I really can't understand how Ms Chamberlain, Delegate Woods, Delegate Laiti and a few others can be so adamant in their support of this small splinter group that betrayed not only the Majority of the Members of the GPUT, but also betrayed all Utah Voters by limiting the number of choices on the ballot, and also betrayed the GPUS by taking actions in violation of the Affiliation Agreement. I also can't fathom how they can pretend to have the "actual story" when the only input they have had has come from Linda Parsons, Jerry Parsons, Bob Brister, Diana Hirschi and Whitney Zack (and a couple of other people who had not met the Membership Requirements defined by the GPUT bylaws and therefore really didn't have a say in any GPUT matters at the time since they were not members). I am not aware of ANY ATTEMPT being made by Ms.
Chamberlain, Delegate Woods or Delegate Laiti to obtain information or documentation from the GPUT which continued to function throughout the split, continued to conduct coordinating council meetings with a quorum of the CC, and which took remedial action against Linda Parsons, Jerry Parsons and Diana Hirschi by suspending them from participation in GPUT activities for 1 year.

This suspension was decided upon as the result of Formal Grievances filed in accordance with our Bylaws by our Local Liaison (the one Ms. Chamberlain witnessed being elected) Patrick Diehl.

At any rate, the statements I have made above can be substantiated in a number of independant ways, one of which is by refering to the records of decisions and meeting minutes kept by our Secretary (in accordance with our bylaws).

One thing I should remind everyone of is that Jerry Parsons was recalled in an Emergencey Statewide Convention, which everyone was invited to take part in (including the Anti GPUS minority) and which was conducted with an email ballot along with a Signed Paper ballot. 33 of the 48 members (those who had met the requirements for membership defined by the bylaws) participated. 5 of those who refused to participate were those AntiCobb, anti GPUS individuals listed above). The result of this ballot was the recall and replacement of Jerry Parsons as both Male Co-Coordinator and as State Liaison. Actual copies of the membership records, the SIGNED paper ballots from that statewide Convention of the Membership and other documents are available on request.

Also, we will be publishing them all on the web as time permits (within the next couple of weeks).

Again, it is mind boggling that Ms. Chamberlain would continue to regurgitate a one sided mis-representation of what occured here in Utah and who the "real" affiliated party is, without making even a token effort to HONESTLY evaluate ALL of the testimony and evidence from BOTH SIDES.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041010100322/www.greenpartyofutah.org/dispute.htm

The link pasted above is to a "Snap-Shot" of a page from the GPUT website in September of 2004. There are links to some of the supporting documentation including the Grievances, the Statewide Convention Ballot and Results and more. I urge all objective and HONEST parties who would like a balanced perspective on this issue to review those web archives, as well as to become familiar with the Bylaws of our Utah Party.

I join with others who have stated that they want a resolution to this dispute, and look forward to having those who are interested review all of the testimony and documentation on both sides of the issue.

Sincerely,
Tom King
Delegate, GPUT (currently registered as the Utah Political Party "Desert Greens" but still the affiliated Green Party of Utah.

Read more!

Votes determine the outcome of elections...well, if you're lucky. That's assuming that we are not being cheated, an assumption I don't think we can always justify.

Either way, win lose or draw, political action takes cash, and we ain't got enough of it.

Nicholas R. Schiller of the DC Statehood Green Party has some iseds, and they are behind the "REad more!" link. Take a look, add your thoughts, and maybe we will be able to swing enough cash to keep the lights burning and the staff off the unemployment lines...



Fellow Greens,

I've been brainstorming some different ideas to raise money for the GPUS

1) "Ask me about my Green Card" t-shirt - given to those who donate $72 or more. As I stated at the annual meeting, a tiered donation approach might sell more green cards. Those who give 2X more than what the Green Card "costs" will receive the shirt. It markets the green card program while at the same time has the potential to bring about discussions related to the immigration issue. I mentioned this double entendre back in March. I see it as fundraising and outreach merged.

2) Voluntary State donations. At the national meeting Pat Elder brought up the idea of having state parties, if the resources exist, donate 1 penny per registered voter. The DC Statehood Green Party could theoretically give about $50 back to the National Office through this voluntary yearly donation (I know that ain't much). Since not all states have voter registration this plan would have to be developed on the state party level. It could also be 10 cents or a dollar per registered voter...Let your state party decide...but if the resources exist, $100 to $1000 paid back to the National Office will definitely help.

3) Funneling up your state party e-mails up to the National Office to be used in Democracy in Action. I used Democracy in Action for organizing Operation Ceasefire last fall and found it to be one of the best proven means to raise money on the internet. E-mails can be sent by geographic locations (states or even zips)- so state parties can target their e-mails and customize their content. Illinois needs help reviewing petitions? Send an action alert to everyone in Illinois requesting help. New York needs petition gathers- send an action alert through DIA. Want to raise money for your campaign? DIA could be used with such precision that only those in the area of your candidacy will be contacted. But this all rests on state parties feeding their e-mail addresses up to the national office. I think this is crucial for us to build a strong national party.



Cheers,
Nikolas R. Schiller
DC Statehood Green Party, National Delegate
DC Statehood Green Party, Steering Committee

Read more!

Well, let's see. A small state. Two "Green" parties. Both have a ballot slot.

Can anyone actually dispassionately explain exactly what happened? Jo Chamberlain says that members of the National Party staff and the accreditation committee conspired to kick Utah Greens out of the USGP. Dean Meyerson, staff himself at the time I believe, says that Chamberlin is wrong. Chamberlain says "Just wait and see. I'll prove it."

Have we lost our collective minds? There is NO POWER inside the Green Party in Utah, so why not kill ourselves by arguing ad-nauseum on the topic? Maybe we can piss off enough Greens to drive ourselves right into dust.

Will someone explain what the fuck is going on here? Geeze.

Read more!

Mato Ska of New Mexico sent a note to the Green National Committee, copied behind the "Read more!" link, in which he says that supporters of Islamic fundamentalists must accept the truth about their agendas and tactics. What do you think?

As the recent events in Lebanon demonstrate, the GPUS is hardly in a position to define for the US a diplomatic solution. The provocations and assaults by Hezbollah and the Israeli responses are oblivious to any and all efforts in international diplomacy. The reactionary Islamic Republic of Iran continues to feed the fires of religious war and continues to lead the world closer to an international conflict in the region. We could stand to learn from the international statements of the Green Party of Iran and the Green Party of Israel, but instead many prefer to make this issue the keystone issue in defining the GPUS. This is fraught with many consequences for the future. Aligning with non-Greens politically re-defines our own role and unity with Greens around the world, and presumes greater wisdom and common values with political parties other then Greens in the world. The current positions being promoted by the GPUS on the Middle East are clearly at variance with the position approved by the Global Greens in 2002 put forward by the GPUS .

For one it promotes an Islamist political agenda on the GPUS, without analyses or definition of the political forces in the region. For another, it does not define a position that is clearly reflective of Green voters, but succumbs to the positions of a few activists and the positions of advocacy groups. Finally, it does not attempt to define what the role of the US should be in the current situation in a comprehensive manner. The US has delivered weapons but has not intervened in the conflict. It appears as though there are some who are advocating US military intervention in defense of Hezbollah, or at the least fail to address the issue with a premise that
the most recent provocations were in fact initiated by Hezbollah. There is no question that there is much to be said about Israel's over-reaction. But, there is in the unstated premise of a one-state solution an underlying agreement with the rejection of the state of Israel. I have worked to support the Palestinian struggle long enough to recognize the justice of its demands for land, democratic rights and national independence. I have also been able to see in recent years the array of agendas and personalities within political Islamism and have willingly accepted the imperative to make decisions based on their program and agenda.

It is not only naive to disregard the political character of those who promote a religious war between Jews and Moslems, it irresponsible to feign ignorance as to the consequences of a victory for the warlords and mullahs. No, this is not Islamo-fascism. It is Shari'a and it deserves not an ounce of support, critical or otherwise from Greens. The effort to define an underdog or to oppose the imperial policies of the US are all well and good. Unless the proposition becomes the support for tyrannical despots, whether Franco in Spain or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In that case, it is consistent with our struggle to promote human rights around the world to include in all our public conversations and positions the critique of political Islamists and a more considered appraisal of the consequences of international support for them.

Reflexive responses opposing US foreign policy cannot begin to adequately address the complexities in the region. The statement by Joschka Fischer has delineated a vision of a Green policy in the diplomatic arena. The response of some to just write off Fischer's statement because it does not match up to their preconceived configuration of the region simply negates the willingness to move beyond a sect mentality in which PC obfuscates any conversation. One need not agree with all elements to it, but to negate its contribution to the international discussion is to go back to a period when the "left" sects dominated discussions in the US on international policies and negated the development of any opposition political party and to fail to look at both the situation in the Middle East and the Green Party's own bases of support as guides to our policy formulation. Somehow, the EU Greens felt sufficiently confident of Fischer's credentials, as a former Foreign Minister of Germany, and abilities that they recommended him as a mediator in the conflict. And our wisdom and experience in the international arena comes from ....where exactly?

It is time to pull back and stay within our own reach. We are moving closer to the precipice of the party's demise with our presumptions and erroneous characterizations. Is it really worth the damage now being wrought? What will it do to resolve the conflict? What will it do to promote peace? What will it do to demonstrate the capacity of the GPUS to lead the American government for a better future for the world?

Mato Ska
Delegate
NMGP

On a personal note, Mato Ska used to answer my email when I was supporting his positions. Not so much now.

Read more!

Well, Pat LaMarche thinks she has a plan to save Mainers tax dollars. So much for the "Tax and spend Greens" idea, eh?

Her latest newsletter is hiding behind the "Read more!" link, so, read more, OK?


Pat LaMarche for Governor

Online Newsletter — Volume 1, No. 12, August 4, 2006
For more, visit www.pat2006.com
Send comments to the campaign by clicking here


Contents

Calling all E-Precinct Captains!
Pat Goes on T.V.
LaMarche: Only Candidate Opposing LNG Facility
Join Us at a Supporter Meeting
Quote of the Week


Calling all E-Precinct Captains!

Do you want to help Pat win? And would you like to be featured on Pat's website?

Well, you can do both if you reach out to your family and friends as an E-Precinct Captain of the LaMarche for Governor campaign.

How does it work? Just go to Pat's website and sign up as a volunteer. Once you sign up, you will be prompted to send an email to your friends. If you do this, and ten of your friends sign on as volunteers, then you become an official LaMarche E-Precinct Captain.

You will be eligible to have your picture posted on Pat's website, along with a few words about why you support Pat. And, you will be eligible for sneak peeks of audios, videos, and other campaign information before it goes to the public at large.

Interested? Welcome aboard!

MORE: www.pat2006.com

Pat Goes on T.V.

This past week marked the start of Pat's new television campaign, "My Healthcare Plan Can Lower Your Taxes." If you have not yet seen it, you can go to www.pat2006.com/issues/lower_taxes/

Pat LaMarche has a common sense solution to high property taxes and the 135,000 Mainers without health insurance. Her Universal Healthcare Plan lowers property taxes by reducing the amount each town and county pays to insure its employees. Everyone gets healthcare, and Maine businesses and property owners get tax relief.

Pat LaMarche: Common Sense Leadership for Maine!

MORE: www.pat2006.com

LaMarche: Only Candidate Opposing LNG Facility

On July 30, Associated Press writer Glenn Adams wrote a story that shows why we need Pat LaMarche as the next governor of Maine. Pat is the only gubernatorial candidate who comes out clearly opposing a liquified natural gas (L.N.G.) facility Down East. Gov. Baldacci does not take a position, but would form a "working group" to study the issue. All other gubernatorial candidates oppose it, except if local residents near the proposed facilities favor it.

As stated in the AP story: "[Only] Green Independent candidate Pat LaMarche dismissed liquefied natural gas as "not a long-term solution" and said a terminal in Maine has more to do with supplying other states than keeping Maine homes warm and lighted."

"A finite fuel source, with long- and short-range negative environmental impact, foisted on our state's poorest communities and headed to consumers outside Maine...doesn't make very much sense for the people of Maine," said LaMarche.

[In conclusion,] LaMarche said, "Further jeopardizing our environment for a vanishing resource solves nothing. We need solutions. Wind, hydro, solar, organic fuels and conservation are solutions."

MORE: www.pat2006.com

LaMarche Supporters Are Meeting

Following up on successful supporter meetings in Brunswick and Bangor, Team LaMarche will be meeting in the following cities at the following times: Saco (8/9), Belfast (8/15), Auburn (8/22), Waterville/Augusta (8/29), Westbrook (9/5) and Pownal (9/12). Call the office at 221-0263 for exact times and dates, or check our website.

Pat has pulled together a great team, and you will have a lot of fun while meeting new people and discussing important issues.

Bring a friend or family member, and get involved in this historic campaign. Everyone is welcome!

MORE: Call 221-0263, email us at contact@pat2006.com or visit www.pat2006.com

Quote of the Week

"At this point, Maine's gridlocked state government needs the infusion of a progressive agenda. If things are going to be as bad as Democrats claim if Woodcock wins and vice versa, a new alternative can't have anything but upside. I'll vote for the fresh thinking, pro-economic growth and sensible tax policy candidate, Green Independent nominee Pat LaMarche."

— Mark Tardif, from "Baldacci, Woodcock Don't Have All Answers," July 27, 2006, Morning Sentinel read more

Read more!

I live in a small town of about 8000 folks. I live in tha 'burbs I guess you could say. I live in what once was called the "Deep South", aka Klan Kountry. The founder of the town, "Col." Springs, "owned" enslaved Africans and the town has a statue to "Loyal Slaves" who fought for their oppressors, or as we Crackers prefer, their "Masters". In other words, living here leaves me with plenty of battles to fight right here in my own back yard.

So, why should I care if New York Greens get ballot access this year? Well, because it's New Freaking York, that's why! Goodness gracious, how in the world can we not secure ballot status in New York and risk having no Green candidates in 2008? Simply put, we cannot.

Craig Seeman sent a note to the National Committee to reiterate their need for volunteers to help them get on the ballot. IF you can help AT ALL, please do get in touch. I know we all have local things we can't get to because we are so very busy, but if you can squeeze even a few hours to help, please do so. More details are behind the "Read more!" link...



It's rare that I post to this list but as former Chair of Green Party of NY I can attest to the importance of Jason's and Rebecca's appeal.

Keep in mind if we get on the ballot (and we can with your help) we have a very good chance of getting 50,000 votes with Malachy McCourt as our candidate (and 50,000 votes is typically about 1%, a much lower number than many states require for ballot access).

If we get the ballot line it means NO PETITIONING will be needed to put a Green on the ballot in the next presidential race. That will be a significant obstacle removed.

While only a registered voter in New York can Witness the signature, anyone can assist as long as they get the attention of the actual witness and point that out to the voter.

Just in case I'll also mention if someone holds a notary license in New York they can also Affirm signatures.

Often people in neighboring states (New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania) do work in New York and may have New York Notary licenses.

Craig Seeman
NY

Read more!

The Green Party is, as we all know, a global political party. The Global Greens have issued a statement on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It's dated April 10th, 2002. Look behind the "Read more!" link for all the details...


Statement of the Global Green Coordination on the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict.

This press release/statement was endorsed by the Global Green Coordination that consists of 3 elected delegates from each Green Federation (European Federation of Green Parties, Federation of Green Parties of the Americas, African Federation of Green Parties, Alliance of Asia/Pacific Greens). It is being circulated worldwide.


Following the crisis that ended the Oslo agreement process, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a point of no return.

After the 11th of September, the government of the United States of America publicly admitted the necessity of building an independent Palestinian State, yet so far it has openly supported the Sharon government in the conflict, even if we take good note of Colin Powell's intervention in recent hours thanks to international pressure.

The Arab League has, on its side, recognized the right for Israel to have an independent State, yet it is not giving it the necessary guarantees.

We Greens and citizens cannot remain inactive in this state of open war. Furthermore, the war in the Middle East is leading to dangerous confusions and increases the tensions between the various communities in all countries leading to daily acts of violence, against religious places for instance. Destroying all democratic forces, the war is giving a voice only to the extremists of both sides.

Peace needs the denunciation of the Ariel Sharon government's policy. Its purpose is a systematic destruction of the Palestinian Authority and its elected President Yasser Arafat, and a systematic destruction of civil society and political actors, so that at the end of the day all counterparts for peace talks will have disappeared.

Yet, the horror of kamikazes thrown against civilians is not an answer and we cannot accept any Palestinian terrorist attacks against civilians.

As Greens we reassert the need for a UN mandated international peace-keeping force to protect populations and we congratulate peace activists who have come from everywhere in the world, such as Jos? Bov? and many others from Italy and many other countries, amongst whom several are Greens, to support their Israeli and Palestinian friends. We also congratulate the Israeli Officers who are brave enough to refuse to intervene in the occupied territories.

We Greens support the Palestinians and the Israelis who refuse to jeopardize the future, such as the members of the Peace Israeli and Palestinian Coalition and lots of others, who fight for the recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people and the creation of an independent Palestinian State with Jerusalem East as capital, who fight for a durable peace between the two states of Israel and Palestine, based upon justice, security and reciprocity.

We ask for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories and for the establishment of a UN mandated and long lasting peace keeping force to implement protection of civilians, disarmament on both sides and implementation of all UN resolutions.

We will work as Greens to urge governments in our own countries to support these positions.

Contact:
Annie Goeke
Green Party of the United States Delegate for Global Green Coordination.

News Release - Wednesday, April 10, 2002

Read more!

Greens in the Great State of New York are working their fannies off to get a few top notch candidates on their ballot. Do you want to help out? I'm going to help, and won't have to give money nor leave the comfort of my South Carolina home. What am I going to do? Check behind the "Read more!" link and you'll see how I am going to help, and how you can too...


Fellow Green National Committee delegate, friends, and Green Party activists. We are writing to you today because the Green Party needs your help getting candidates on the ballot in New York. Compared to the ballot access requirements in other states the goal is very attainable, but we need your help! We need to collect 20,000 signatures in the next 2 weeks.

This is a ballot access campaign, 50,000 votes for Governor will secure our ballot line for the next four years and our candidate for President will appear on the NY ballot in 2008, As the state with the second largest Green enrollment, this election will affect us all in 2008 and greatly enhance our chances of getting major NYC press coverage.

If we fail to get on the ballot, we will not be recognized in New York State, and 36,000 of us will no longer be registered as Greens. With 6 elected Greens in New York State, we need to maintain that status!

To witness (collect signatures) a petition or to sign a person must be registered to vote in the State of New York, and you can not witness your own signature on a petition. If from another state you can assist petitioners by carrying clipboards providing the NY voter witnesses the signature and signs as the witness.

There are approximately 36,000 registered Greens in New York, we have addresses for approximately 20,000 Greens and phone numbers for approximately 10,000 Greens. We need your help to contact everyone!

Here is how you can help:

-If you are willing to come to NY for a few days contact Jerry Kann
(718)728-1092 (home) or (212)240-0501 (GP Office).

-If you have friends or family in New York please ask them to download a petition and collect signatures, make sure they have someone else witness their signature on a separate petition, too! For more visit the GPNY website

-If you can make phone calls to registered Greens in New York State contact Jason Nabewaniec, and him know how many phone calls you pledge to make, we will provide you with a list and a script.

Mail Jason here (585)442-4305

-Donate to our candidates so that we can afford to do a mailing to our registered Greens. Donate online at www.gpny.org or checks can be made payable to make checks out to:

"Green Party Peace Slate"
PO Box 8297
New York, NY 10116

Additionally, Judy Einach, our Petition Coordinator can be contacted at this address and this phone number:(716) 316-5839

-Forward this email on to your Green Party emails lists, and other progressive contacts.

Thank you for your help, together we can reach our goal!

Sincerely Yours,
Rebecca Rotzler
Jason Nabewaniec

Read more!

Rena, the incomparable Green Blogger and coordinator of Green Commons as well as many other websites of value, was concerned that my blog was not as appealing as it could be in it's older iteration. I told her that I was way cool with her making any changes she thought worthwhile. I can't imagine rejecting her advice when it comes to blogging. That would be like telling Bill Gates that he doesn't know squat when it comes to making money.

So, she very kindly poked around and made me look all pretty. *Big happy smile* I love the new look, and if you folks do too, we all have her to thank.

Thank you Rena, and may all your Green endeavors be as successful as your re-make of Green News and Opinions has been.

By the way folks, remember that there are no regulations on who posts replies here, and no control over what you say. All you must do is prove that you're a human and not a spam machine. So, if you think I'm full of Lebanese Bologna (had some for the first time recently...mmmm...), feel free to hit the comment link and tell me to go bugger off. If Kurt Vonnegut can tell that to Bush, surely you can do the same to me!

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, but one last Thank You! to Rena.

Read more!

I have published this at Green Commons and also atChlorophyll. I know that some of you will have already read this, but if not, please go behind the "Read more!" link, because I really think we need to address this issue....



Imagine that you have an idea for a committee for the Green Party. Maybe you think the Greens are not doing enough to advance the cause of decentralization. You and some friends design the "Green Decentralization Committee" and give it an acrnonym, say "GDEC". Then you populate the committee with party activists and ask for money and web space from the national party.

Then someone points out that the committee has never really been established by the National Committee. What to do now?

The National Committee should reject the application by GPAX to establish the Peace Action Committee, and if you look behind the "read more" link you will read why I think so, and why I am encouraging you to contact your NC reps and ask them to vote against this improper move...

Here's the situation as it stands.

According to the National Committee website itself, Proposal 238 creates the Peace Action Committee, and is proposed by the Peace Action Committee, so in effect, the committee has proposed it's own creation. This is not the way GP rules are set up, and the vote should be stopped immediately.

All proposals brought before the National Committee must be proposed by a recognized and accredited state party or by a recognized and accredited caucus.

There is no excuse for this sloppy ham fisted attempt to do Green business without proper process. One of the two people listed as being involved in the process of establishing this committee has written back to say that I raise an interesting point, but to date nothing has been done to address this failure to follow proper process.

I am ALL FOR ignoring proper process when there are serious reasons or severe time constraints, but the establishment of GPAX fills neither of these requirements.

A state or caucus must vote to present this to the NC for a vote before it is presented to the National Committee for consideration. There is no other mechanism for the creation of a national level Green Party committee, and the National Committee should reject the GPAX application until they re-submit it following it's presentation by a state or caucus.

Please consider contacting your representative and asking them to vote no on Proposal 238.

From the Proposal 238 page at gp.org:

Proposal Details
Proposal ID 238
Proposal Formal Recognition of GPUS Peace Action Committee GPAX
Presenter Green Party of the US Peace Action Committee
Floor Manager Steve Kramer
Phase Voting
Discussion 07/17/2006 - 07/30/2006
Voting 07/31/2006 - 08/06/2006

Read more!

I have written in support of Carl Romanelli's decision to accept contributions from Republicans in his US Senate race. Now the national party has stepped into the fray with a defense of Carl's campaign, and the broader right of US citizens, Greens in particular, to participate in the electoral process. In my opinion, if we are allowed access to the political process on a level playing field with Dems and Pubs, great, we can be purists and hold every dollar up to the lightbulb to be sure it doesn't carry Dem or Pub fingerprints.

Until then, fuck 'em in my opinion. ~Smile~ See, it's so much nicer when I smile.

The media committee has released a press release, which is right behind the "Read more!" link, is clear, specific, and carries our position forward forcefully and intelligently. No doubt the corporate media will ignore it...



GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

For Immediate Release:

Friday, August 4, 2006

Contacts:

Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624,
mclarty@greens.org

Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805,
starlene@greens.org


Greens respond to Democrats' slurs against Pennsylvania candidate

• Allegations come from Dems trying to discredit Carl Romanelli, Green for U.S. Senate, and limit choice on the ballot for Pennsylania voters; Greens note that Rick Santorum (R) and Bob Casey (D) both support the Iraq War and oppose women's reproductive rights

• Greens running for Governor and Lt. Governor also get on Pennsylvania ballot

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders across the U.S. responded to misinformation and panicky accusations by Democrats against Carl Romanelli, a Green candidate running in Pennsylvania for the U.S. Senate .

Mr. Romanelli, competing for imcumbent Rick Santorum's (R) seat, will be placed on the ballot after his supporters submitted over 95,000 petition signatures (67,070 were required) to the state's Bureau of Elections on August 1.

Supporters of Mr. Romanelli's Democratic opponent in the race, Bob Casey, have objected to Mr. Romanelli's acceptance of campaign contributions from registered Republicans, and have falsely accused Mr. Romanelli of accepting money from the Pennsylvania Green Party in violation of contribution limits.

"This is a craven and dishonest ploy by Democrats who seem to believe that the field should be limited to two parties," said Marakay Rogers, Green candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. "The Democratic Party apparently needs a lesson in civics and democracy."

Carl Romanelli joins two other Greens seeking statewide office in Pennsylvania, Ms. Rogers for Governor and Christina Valente for Lieutenant Governor. Pennsylvania Greens are awaiting a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Constitutionality of Pennsylvania's ballot access law filed by Ms. Rogers, a lawyer, earlier this year.

Greens responded point by point to Democrats' allegations:

• Greens accept campaign contributions from Greens, Democrats, Republicans, and others all the time, just as Democrats and Republicans accept contributions from registered members of each others' parties. There is nothing illegal or improper about such contributions.

Greens, however, refuse money from corporations -- unlike Democrats and Republicans -- and have called for corporate contributions to be outlawed.

• Contrary to the Casey campaign's accusations that the Luzerne County Green Party violated contribution limits in contributing to Mr. Romanelli's petition drive, the contribution was completely legal, under the coordinated expenditure limits between party committees and federal candidates, according to rules written by Democrats and Republicans.

Furthermore, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has spent $80,000 in in-kind "coordinated expenditures" to benefit the Casey Campaign and Pennsylvania Democratic Party has spent $25,000 in in-kind "coordinated expenditures" to benefit the Casey campaign.

• The Green Party provides voters with an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. If Mr. Romanelli were not in the race, voters would be limited to Mr. Casey and Mr. Santorum, both of whom support the war on Iraq, oppose women's reproductive rights and equality for gay Americans, and accept contributions from powerful corporations seeking to influence their votes in the U.S. Senate.

"Voters in Pennsylvania who want to bring our troops home from Iraq and support a woman's right to choose deserve a choice on Election Day. With Carl Romanelli on the ballot, Pennsylvanians have that choice," said Nan Garrett, spokesperson for the Green Party's National Women's Caucus.

• Despite accusations repeated in an August 1 Associated Press story, a Green candidate cannot "steal" or "siphon" votes away from a Democratic candidate, because a Democratic candidate doesn't own anyone's votes (except his or her own). Voters in Pennsylvania and everywhere else in the U.S. are free to vote for whomever represents their interests and ideals.

• Greens urge Democrats and Republicans to stop distracting the electorate with insinuations that only Democrats and Republicans are entitled to be on the ballot and receive votes, and instead to enact reforms like Instant Run Off Voting (IRV). IRV allows voters to rank their choices in the order of their preference, ensures that winners have majority support, and eliminates accusations like 'vote-splitting' and 'spoiling' from our political lexicon.

"Until Democrats take steps to bring IRV to Pennsylvania, we can only assume they'd rather see a Republican victory than tolerate Greens and other parties on the ballot," said Paul Teese, chair of the Green Party of Pennsylvania.

For more information about IRV, visit
Fair Vote.

"Our electoral system has been corrupted -- not by the participation of third parties and third party candidates, but by two-party rule," said Liz Arnone, New Jersey Green and co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. "Elections have been ruined by the influence of corporate money on Democratic and Republican politicians; by tampering with computer voting machines, obstruction of votes, and other irregularities, all of which were evident in the 2000 and 2004 national elections; and by Democratic and Republic attempts to hinder other parties through restrictive ballot access laws."

For more on 2004 election irregularities and the Green response, visit I Want My Vote. For Green campaign listings, news, photos, and web sites, visit the Green Party's candidate spotlight page and the Green elections database, which lists all 2006 candidates.


MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org
1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404
Washington, DC 20009.
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193

Green Party of Pennsylvania
http://www.gpofpa.org/


~ END ~

Read more!