Saturday, September 30, 2006
Nadia Mc Caffery talks about her son, Patrick Mc Caffery.
Ann Wright calls Bush a War Criminal, calls for Citizen's Arrest
Ann Wright, retired diplomat and veteran.
Michael Sharpe sings "Eve of Destruction"
Ahmad Daniels, war resister, social justice advocate
Brian Stayton announcements
Tom Turnipseed, SC writer and attorney
Tom Turnipseed, SC writer and attorney: Send Bush and Cheney to jail!
Summer Lipford of Statesville, NC, Gold Star mother.
Joan with Charlotte NOW (I think)
David Swanson, founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, begins about twenty seconds into the piece
Iraq Veterans Against the War-Turn your speakers way up
Punk Music didn't work at all. Cell phone too limited I suppose
Yours truly in Spanish & half way through in English
Since the English got cut off I have posted the text in English. But remember, you won't hear my dulcet tones unless you click to listen too. :-)
Good day Charlotte. Good day Carolinas. Good day mt brothers and sisters. Good day to all the world that wants liberty, justice and a future for the people and the planet.
My name is Gregg Jocoy and I am a member of the York County South Carolina Greens. I lived in Venezuela from when I was ten to thirteen. My Spanish is not very good but I want to talk with you today. My writing is totally mine. Any words that are not right are my problem.
There are Green Parties in Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatelama, Nicaragua, Peru and Uraguay. Clearly there is a Green Party in the United States too.
Why are there Green Parties in these countries? Because we have a similar vision. A vision of a world withour violence. A vision of a world with a better environment than today. A vision of justice for all, and a vision of a world where everyone's voice is important and the opinions of the people is the voice of the government.
Why are there not many Greens in office? We are new, and the concept of a Green Party isn't in the political vocabulary. But, with the help of people like you it is possible. There are some Greens in office in the United States and in many other nations, and will be more with your help.
The thing is this. Our president, George Bush, is a liar. He said to us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that wasn't the truth. He said the generals had the troops they needed, but that's a lie. He says the United States doesn't torture, but the Latins of Central and South America are sure this is a lie because the people of Latin America know that the United States is the teacher of torture for the world.
And Vice President Cheney is the same if not more evil. He has connections to the oil industry and for him it's one lie after another. He doesn't know what the truth is.
When they stole the elections of two thousand and two thousand four, Bush and Cheney stole our democracy. For this and for the other reasons I have said, the Green Party says "Today is the day for the people to say to the government, impeachment for Bush! Impeachment for Cheney! To jail! The criminals here are not the ones who seek an American opportunity, but the people who have killed our democracy, Bush and Cheney!"
Join the Green Party. Help the Green Party and we can win the world for all the people and for the future! Thanmk you and good to meet you.
Good day Charlotte. Good day Carolinas. Good day mt brothers and sisters. Good day to all the world that wants liberty, justice and a future for the people and the planet.
My name is Gregg Jocoy and I am a member of the York County South Carolina Greens. I lived in Venezuela from when I was ten to thirteen. My Spanish is not very good but I want to talk with you today. My writing is totally mine. Any words that are not right are my problem.
There are Green Parties in Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatelama, Nicaragua, Peru and Uraguay. Clearly there is a Green Party in the United States too.
Why are there Green Parties in these countries? Because we have a similar vision. A vision of a world withour violence. A vision of a world with a better environment than today. A vision of justice for all, and a vision of a world where everyone's voice is important and the opinions of the people is the voice of the government.
Why are there not many Greens in office? We are new, and the concept of a Green Party isn't in the political vocabulary. But, with the help of people like you it is possible. There are some Greens in office in the United States and in many other nations, and will be more with your help.
The thing is this. Our president, George Bush, is a liar. He said to us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that wasn't the truth. He said the generals had the troops they needed, but that's a lie. He says the United States doesn't torture, but the Latins of Central and South America are sure this is a lie because the people of Latin America know that the United States is the teacher of torture for the world.
And Vice President Cheney is the same if not more evil. He has connections to the oil industry and for him it's one lie after another. He doesn't know what the truth is.
When they stole the elections of two thousand and two thousand four, Bush and Cheney stole our democracy. For this and for the other reasons I have said, the Green Party says "Today is the day for the people to say to the government, impeachment for Bush! Impeachment for Cheney! To jail! The criminals here are not the ones who seek an American opportunity, but the people who have killed our democracy, Bush and Cheney!"
Join the Green Party. Help the Green Party and we can win the world for all the people and for the future! Thanmk you and good to meet you.
Personal observations of the event & a singer about half ther way through
Personal observations & Roger Moore sings
Friday, September 29, 2006
I explain the plan
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Steffie Loveless is famous
Well, maybe not famous, but the Metro Times did put her on the front page. Her story in sometimes excruciating detail, can be found by clicking here.
IMPEACHMENT RALLY THIS SATURDAY
Freedom Park in Charlotte, NC will buzz with speeches and music this Saturday starting at 1 PM. The goal of all the music and speeches is nothing less than the permanent removal of George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Offering speakers from across the Carolinas and the nation, the rally will call for the impeachment of the President and Vice President based in part on the lies told the Congress and the American people by them in the lead up to the war on Iraq.
Musical acts cover the gamut from individual performers, like Michael Sharpe and Peter Moore to groups like Bellyfull and Hardcore Lounge. Sponsors of the event include the NC, Charlotte and York County (SC) chapters of the Green Party, local branches of Code Pink and NOW, and local activist groups like the Action Center for Justice and the Charlotte Coalition for Peace and Justice.
Speakers will raise the crowd to it's feet time and again as some of the area's most effective speakers will attend. Ed Tant, a rabble rousing editorialist for the Banner-Herald of Athens GA will speak. Tom Turnipseed, a former member of the South Carolina legislature and candidate for Attorney General of SC, will also address the assembly. Gregg Jocoy, Green Party activist from York County SC will address the gathering in Spanish, welcoming some of our most recent Americans to stand up for the values of the US Constitution.
But these are just the appetizers. The main course is expected to make a real impact both on the impeachment effort and in galvanizing a core of support for similar actions in the future.
Nadia McCaffery, mother of Patrick MaCaffery who was killed by the troops he was training, will bring her searing observations to the group. David Swanson, founder of After Downing Street. org, will spell out the case for impeachment, and Ann Wright, a diplomat and Army veteran, will explain her decision to leave her nation's service in protest of the Bush administrations excesses. Speakers from Veterans for Peace and an address by Bill Glass, the Green endorsed Democratic nominee for Congress will wind up the event.
Greens and others who support impeachment are encouraged to attend the event, expected to be one of the largest demonstrations in recent Carolina's history.
Offering speakers from across the Carolinas and the nation, the rally will call for the impeachment of the President and Vice President based in part on the lies told the Congress and the American people by them in the lead up to the war on Iraq.
Musical acts cover the gamut from individual performers, like Michael Sharpe and Peter Moore to groups like Bellyfull and Hardcore Lounge. Sponsors of the event include the NC, Charlotte and York County (SC) chapters of the Green Party, local branches of Code Pink and NOW, and local activist groups like the Action Center for Justice and the Charlotte Coalition for Peace and Justice.
Speakers will raise the crowd to it's feet time and again as some of the area's most effective speakers will attend. Ed Tant, a rabble rousing editorialist for the Banner-Herald of Athens GA will speak. Tom Turnipseed, a former member of the South Carolina legislature and candidate for Attorney General of SC, will also address the assembly. Gregg Jocoy, Green Party activist from York County SC will address the gathering in Spanish, welcoming some of our most recent Americans to stand up for the values of the US Constitution.
But these are just the appetizers. The main course is expected to make a real impact both on the impeachment effort and in galvanizing a core of support for similar actions in the future.
Nadia McCaffery, mother of Patrick MaCaffery who was killed by the troops he was training, will bring her searing observations to the group. David Swanson, founder of After Downing Street. org, will spell out the case for impeachment, and Ann Wright, a diplomat and Army veteran, will explain her decision to leave her nation's service in protest of the Bush administrations excesses. Speakers from Veterans for Peace and an address by Bill Glass, the Green endorsed Democratic nominee for Congress will wind up the event.
Greens and others who support impeachment are encouraged to attend the event, expected to be one of the largest demonstrations in recent Carolina's history.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
So sue me
Think women have it easy when it comes to running for office? If so, what planet are you from? *Grin*
Anyway, Claudia Elqiust, who ran for County Attorney in Pima County AZ has written a short piece about what it's like for female candidates. Take a peek behind the "Read more!" link because, well, we need a lot more female candidates, and Ms. Elquist's words are from the most valuable teacher: experience. Hit the link to get her pearls of wisdom...
As another woman who has run for office, let me add more points.
1. women candidates feel a need to be more welcoming, in the way they run, and, at the same time,
2. have personal safety issues that male candidates do not encounter, or encounter in a different way.
3. Women candidates have a harder time raising money, because they are taken less seriously, and because the folks who take them seriously have less money. More fundraising mailings need to go out, because fewer, smaller checks will come back in. Also people will feel free to tie their generosity to whether you, as a woman candidate, take their advice, in a way they would not consider doing with a male candidate.
4. Women candidates need to carefully word critiques of their opponents, because an audience/ the press will interpret criticism from a woman in a more personalized way than criticism between men. (As "emasculation," if aimed at a man, or as "a catfight," if aimed at a woman.) At the same time, others, obliviously, will complain if she does not "go for the jugular."
5. A woman candidate has a narrower candidate wardrobe, with more changes, and has to fend off "well-meaning" advice to radically change her appearance. This will be disguised in societal norms ("Where do people get their ideas about what a woman prosecutor should look like? From TV! You have to use the TV standard if you want to get elected.")
6. Women candidates are stereotyped about the issues on which they have expertise. The kinds of experience they put on resumes will, usually, be different. For example, they may know a good deal more, as a former volunteer for an agency, than a person who occasionally sat in on it's board and received reports, but the words "volunteer" and "board member" will carry different weights.
7. There is a societal assumption that she was recruited "as a woman" and that this means that she is, somehow, not as qualified as a man, who, presumably, is recruited on criteria other than being male. At one point, on this very list, Greens began brainstorming a list of women who might make good candidates for the GP-US presidential team, and, sure enough, even here, some delegates felt a need, apropos of nothing, to remind us all to look for the "most qualified" candidate. If Greens, at this level, can make that jump of disconnect, then many others will, because we are all trained by our society to do so.
8. The realization about these things can help a woman candidate to be more intentional and reflective as she designs her campaign, and can lead to some very creative and positive campaigning.
9. Men can educate themselves to be sensitive to all of this, as they award money to campaigns, etc. And women have not necessarily unraveled the whole ball of twine in thinking it through. We are taught to be sexist against women, just like you men are, and it gets internalized in us as well. But we have the disadvantage/ advantage, that every day, we wake up female, and get reminded. When women look at how women's campaigns should be funded, and run, it is not just a theoretical justice
issue-- it is intrinsic to the core. And it is sometimes hard to tell men that without getting their backs up.
--claudia ellquist, AzGP
2004 Green candidate for Pima County Attorney, 23,028 votes
Anyway, Claudia Elqiust, who ran for County Attorney in Pima County AZ has written a short piece about what it's like for female candidates. Take a peek behind the "Read more!" link because, well, we need a lot more female candidates, and Ms. Elquist's words are from the most valuable teacher: experience. Hit the link to get her pearls of wisdom...
As another woman who has run for office, let me add more points.
1. women candidates feel a need to be more welcoming, in the way they run, and, at the same time,
2. have personal safety issues that male candidates do not encounter, or encounter in a different way.
3. Women candidates have a harder time raising money, because they are taken less seriously, and because the folks who take them seriously have less money. More fundraising mailings need to go out, because fewer, smaller checks will come back in. Also people will feel free to tie their generosity to whether you, as a woman candidate, take their advice, in a way they would not consider doing with a male candidate.
4. Women candidates need to carefully word critiques of their opponents, because an audience/ the press will interpret criticism from a woman in a more personalized way than criticism between men. (As "emasculation," if aimed at a man, or as "a catfight," if aimed at a woman.) At the same time, others, obliviously, will complain if she does not "go for the jugular."
5. A woman candidate has a narrower candidate wardrobe, with more changes, and has to fend off "well-meaning" advice to radically change her appearance. This will be disguised in societal norms ("Where do people get their ideas about what a woman prosecutor should look like? From TV! You have to use the TV standard if you want to get elected.")
6. Women candidates are stereotyped about the issues on which they have expertise. The kinds of experience they put on resumes will, usually, be different. For example, they may know a good deal more, as a former volunteer for an agency, than a person who occasionally sat in on it's board and received reports, but the words "volunteer" and "board member" will carry different weights.
7. There is a societal assumption that she was recruited "as a woman" and that this means that she is, somehow, not as qualified as a man, who, presumably, is recruited on criteria other than being male. At one point, on this very list, Greens began brainstorming a list of women who might make good candidates for the GP-US presidential team, and, sure enough, even here, some delegates felt a need, apropos of nothing, to remind us all to look for the "most qualified" candidate. If Greens, at this level, can make that jump of disconnect, then many others will, because we are all trained by our society to do so.
8. The realization about these things can help a woman candidate to be more intentional and reflective as she designs her campaign, and can lead to some very creative and positive campaigning.
9. Men can educate themselves to be sensitive to all of this, as they award money to campaigns, etc. And women have not necessarily unraveled the whole ball of twine in thinking it through. We are taught to be sexist against women, just like you men are, and it gets internalized in us as well. But we have the disadvantage/ advantage, that every day, we wake up female, and get reminded. When women look at how women's campaigns should be funded, and run, it is not just a theoretical justice
issue-- it is intrinsic to the core. And it is sometimes hard to tell men that without getting their backs up.
--claudia ellquist, AzGP
2004 Green candidate for Pima County Attorney, 23,028 votes
Victory for Stephanie Loveless
Steffie Loveless is a pre-operative Male to Female transexual. She is selling a CD to raise cash for her operation. A couple of YEARS ago she applied to the Green Party National Women's Caucus. After dancing around for TWO YEARS, they finally admitted her. To learn more, hit this article here.
There is nothing behind the "Read more! on this one.
There is nothing behind the "Read more! on this one.
Results: Three Green groups signed on
The Pacific Green Party of Oregon, the Charlotte Area Green Party and the York County (SC) Greens signed a letter along with 56 other groups calling for an end to usu=ing plutonium in US reactors. The text of the press release and a link to the PDF of the letter are behind the "Read more!" link...
Groups Call for End of Plan to Use Plutonium as MOX in Nuclear Reactors
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 14, 2006
CONTACTS: Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South (404) 378 - 4263
Dr. Edwin S. Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists (202) 331 - 5445
Louis Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (336) 982 - 2691
Letter to Congress: Groups Call for End of Plan to Use Plutonium as MOX in Nuclear Reactors
Today environmental, energy and nuclear disarmament groups from across the nation called on Congress to stand firm in its commitment to end the US Department of Energy¹s (DOE) plutonium fuel program, also known as "MOX." In a letter to Representative David Hobson (R-OH) signed by 59 groups led by Nuclear Watch South, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Control Institute and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, financial, political and scientific reasons were given to oppose the plan to manufacture and burn atomic warhead material in Duke Energy nuclear power plants.
The letter is from a wide range of groups from all parts of the country, from prominent national organizations to local grassroots citizens groups near the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the reactors proposed to use the MOX fuel near Charlotte, NC. The letter thanks Hobson for leading the House in canceling funding for MOX and reinstating significant funding for plutonium immobilization. Reasons for ending the MOX program listed the escalating cost of the US plutonium fuel factory; unsuitability of much of the plutonium waste for use as reactor fuel; and the US agreement with Russia which remains stalled in the face of technical and political hurdles.
Edwin Lyman with Union of Concerned Scientists said, "DOE's MOX program would greatly increase the safety and security risks associated with disposal of bomb-grade plutonium while sticking taxpayers with an exorbitant bill. It is high time to terminate this misguided and dangerous program. Immobilization of plutonium with radioactive waste is a far safer and more secure option and deserves full funding." Louis Zeller of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League said, "People in the Carolinas have opposed this program from the beginning. We call upon Congress to stem the tide of red ink and end this ill-begotten program."
Even as the letter was being delivered to Congress, it was learned that DOE plans to reopen the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on plutonium disposition. It is expected that the EIS will focus on plutonium immobilization which is currently being tested at SRS using the glassification process to treat millions of gallons of highly radioactive liquid wastes generated in decades of plutonium extraction.
Glenn Carroll with Nuclear Watch South (formerly GANE), which legally opposed construction of the MOX factory at SRS said, "We are optimistic that DOE is finally coming around to embrace plutonium immobilization which is a far more straightforward approach to safeguarding plutonium than MOX. The revised EIS must look at immobilization of all surplus plutonium and public hearings must be held in major cities near SRS in Columbia, Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah."
The plan to dispose of dismantled plutonium warheads was proposed by DOE a decade ago and was to proceed simultaneously in the US and Russia. Technical and legal challenges brought by environmental and energy groups delayed the project, and international funding sought by the US has been lacking.
The letter signed by representatives of 59 groups was hand-delivered on Capitol Hill to key members of the House and Senate subcommittees responsible for financing the MOX program.
Text of the Hobson letter
Groups Call for End of Plan to Use Plutonium as MOX in Nuclear Reactors
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 14, 2006
CONTACTS: Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South (404) 378 - 4263
Dr. Edwin S. Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists (202) 331 - 5445
Louis Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (336) 982 - 2691
Letter to Congress: Groups Call for End of Plan to Use Plutonium as MOX in Nuclear Reactors
Today environmental, energy and nuclear disarmament groups from across the nation called on Congress to stand firm in its commitment to end the US Department of Energy¹s (DOE) plutonium fuel program, also known as "MOX." In a letter to Representative David Hobson (R-OH) signed by 59 groups led by Nuclear Watch South, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Control Institute and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, financial, political and scientific reasons were given to oppose the plan to manufacture and burn atomic warhead material in Duke Energy nuclear power plants.
The letter is from a wide range of groups from all parts of the country, from prominent national organizations to local grassroots citizens groups near the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the reactors proposed to use the MOX fuel near Charlotte, NC. The letter thanks Hobson for leading the House in canceling funding for MOX and reinstating significant funding for plutonium immobilization. Reasons for ending the MOX program listed the escalating cost of the US plutonium fuel factory; unsuitability of much of the plutonium waste for use as reactor fuel; and the US agreement with Russia which remains stalled in the face of technical and political hurdles.
Edwin Lyman with Union of Concerned Scientists said, "DOE's MOX program would greatly increase the safety and security risks associated with disposal of bomb-grade plutonium while sticking taxpayers with an exorbitant bill. It is high time to terminate this misguided and dangerous program. Immobilization of plutonium with radioactive waste is a far safer and more secure option and deserves full funding." Louis Zeller of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League said, "People in the Carolinas have opposed this program from the beginning. We call upon Congress to stem the tide of red ink and end this ill-begotten program."
Even as the letter was being delivered to Congress, it was learned that DOE plans to reopen the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on plutonium disposition. It is expected that the EIS will focus on plutonium immobilization which is currently being tested at SRS using the glassification process to treat millions of gallons of highly radioactive liquid wastes generated in decades of plutonium extraction.
Glenn Carroll with Nuclear Watch South (formerly GANE), which legally opposed construction of the MOX factory at SRS said, "We are optimistic that DOE is finally coming around to embrace plutonium immobilization which is a far more straightforward approach to safeguarding plutonium than MOX. The revised EIS must look at immobilization of all surplus plutonium and public hearings must be held in major cities near SRS in Columbia, Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah."
The plan to dispose of dismantled plutonium warheads was proposed by DOE a decade ago and was to proceed simultaneously in the US and Russia. Technical and legal challenges brought by environmental and energy groups delayed the project, and international funding sought by the US has been lacking.
The letter signed by representatives of 59 groups was hand-delivered on Capitol Hill to key members of the House and Senate subcommittees responsible for financing the MOX program.
Text of the Hobson letter
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Communication by phone
I get a mailing weekly from LabourStart.org.
Have you ever wanted to get everyone across your state on the same call at once, but couldn't afford it? Check behind the "Read more!" link, and you'll read the piece which shows how you and your neighborhood Greens can actually talk to one anotrher in a conference call of up to 100 people...for free! And remember, your "neighborhood Green" may well live across town, across the state, or even acroiss the globe.
Hit the link...learn more about it, and let's make a difference.
In an ideal world, trade unionists would be able to gather for meetings whenever we wanted, anywhere on the planet. Just like corporations do.
We'd have no shortage of funds (and time) to fly ourselves around the globe, and working together at these frequent meetings, we'd build the kind of global trade union movement we can only dream of today.
That world is probably never going to happen, even if the costs of air travel have come down in recent years. In reality, we tend to rely on tools like email, online discussion forums, and good old-fashioned phone calls -- none of which are able to do what a well-organized, face-to-face event can do.
There is always the option of conference calls using the phone network, which are enormously expensive, especially when done internationally. This is not an option for unions with limited resources.
But now a technology has come along which offers unions the possibility to hold international meetings in which up to 100 people can participate. These meetings take place online and they do not involve typing -- they are like conference phone calls where people get the chance to speak.
Not everyone can speak at once, and a moderator (the "host") gives speaking rights to anyone who wishes to make a contribution. This is starting to sound a lot like a meeting in the real world, with the major difference being that you can't actually see who's talking.
This already sounds good and here's the best part: it's free.
Skype, the pioneers of free online telephone calls, have begun offering what they call Skypecasts. Anyone can sign up, so long as you use Skype. As Skype currently has 113 million users, it is likely that many trade unionists already use the service. Those who do not, but who have Internet access, should be encouraged to do so.
All you need is a computer, a (fast) Internet connection, headphones and a microphone (ideally a headset) and Skype's free software.
At any given time, there are currently only about 100 Skypecasts taking place. When I looked, not a single one was being hosted by a union. The number of Skypecasts is low because this software is in its "preview" stage -- you can use it, but Skype's not heavily promoting it. Yet.
To learn more about Skypecasting, go here.
Have you ever wanted to get everyone across your state on the same call at once, but couldn't afford it? Check behind the "Read more!" link, and you'll read the piece which shows how you and your neighborhood Greens can actually talk to one anotrher in a conference call of up to 100 people...for free! And remember, your "neighborhood Green" may well live across town, across the state, or even acroiss the globe.
Hit the link...learn more about it, and let's make a difference.
In an ideal world, trade unionists would be able to gather for meetings whenever we wanted, anywhere on the planet. Just like corporations do.
We'd have no shortage of funds (and time) to fly ourselves around the globe, and working together at these frequent meetings, we'd build the kind of global trade union movement we can only dream of today.
That world is probably never going to happen, even if the costs of air travel have come down in recent years. In reality, we tend to rely on tools like email, online discussion forums, and good old-fashioned phone calls -- none of which are able to do what a well-organized, face-to-face event can do.
There is always the option of conference calls using the phone network, which are enormously expensive, especially when done internationally. This is not an option for unions with limited resources.
But now a technology has come along which offers unions the possibility to hold international meetings in which up to 100 people can participate. These meetings take place online and they do not involve typing -- they are like conference phone calls where people get the chance to speak.
Not everyone can speak at once, and a moderator (the "host") gives speaking rights to anyone who wishes to make a contribution. This is starting to sound a lot like a meeting in the real world, with the major difference being that you can't actually see who's talking.
This already sounds good and here's the best part: it's free.
Skype, the pioneers of free online telephone calls, have begun offering what they call Skypecasts. Anyone can sign up, so long as you use Skype. As Skype currently has 113 million users, it is likely that many trade unionists already use the service. Those who do not, but who have Internet access, should be encouraged to do so.
All you need is a computer, a (fast) Internet connection, headphones and a microphone (ideally a headset) and Skype's free software.
At any given time, there are currently only about 100 Skypecasts taking place. When I looked, not a single one was being hosted by a union. The number of Skypecasts is low because this software is in its "preview" stage -- you can use it, but Skype's not heavily promoting it. Yet.
To learn more about Skypecasting, go here.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Three Green groups have signed on...last chance!
The Charlotte Area Green Party, York County (SC) Greens, and the Pacific Green Party of Oregon have endorsed a letter calling for an end to plutonium fuel projects designed to revitalize the nuclear indiustry and potentially expand the inventory of plutonium available for nuclear proliferation. Dozens of other groups, from national to regional to local, have signed on to the letter. Tomorrow is the deadline for your group to sign on too.
All the details are behind the "Read more!" link...
Hey y'all,
Awesome list of groups! Thanks to everyone who signed on so far. We'll take
more sign-ons 'til end of day Tuesday, September 12. Jodi Dart, ANA, will
deliver to Hobson Wednesday morning. Thursday will be the media advisory
(give Hobson a chance to absorb the letter and be prepared to be contacted).
I'll hope to circulate on Wednesday afternoon and you may feel free to
substitute your contact and circulate at will.
Yours 'til MOX is NIXed!
Glenn
September 13, 2006
Dear Representative Hobson
Chairman, House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
Room 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6020
fax 202-225-1984
Eliminate Funding for SRS MOX Plant, Support Plutonium Immobilization
Dear Representative Hobson:
We are writing to you to thank you for the decision by the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee which led the full House to eliminate funding for the plutonium (mixed oxide, MOX) fuel factory at the Department of Energy¹s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. For a host of cost, non-proliferation, and environmental reasons we fully support the decision to terminate the MOX program as a method to deal with surplus weapons plutonium. We also enthusiastically applaud the House¹s recognition that immobilization of plutonium as waste is the preferred disposition path.
We urge members of the House to insist on the House provision in the upcoming House-Senate conference committee. The MOX program is woefully over-budget and behind schedule and the U.S.-Russian agreement is at a stalemate on key issues, not the least of which is almost total lack of support financially from the G-8 which has not even addressed it on its agenda for the past several years running. We depend on your strong leadership now to achieve a sound and cost-effective approach to manage surplus plutonium.
As you are well aware, after more than a decade of large expenditures and fiscal mismanagement, the DOE¹s MOX program has produced minimal results. As the cost of the MOX plant has rapidly escalated to near $4 billion, the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee¹s decision to cease funding the MOX program will prevent costs from spiraling further out of control if construction of the MOX plant were to begin.
As has been confirmed by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), the plutonium now stored in the old K-Reactor at SRS is too contaminated for use as MOX and must be immobilized in existing high-level waste. The subcommittee¹s substantial increase in funding for a revived plutonium immobilization program is timely and promises to yield positive results in disposing of surplus plutonium now stored at SRS, Hanford and other DOE sites.
The Russians have made it clear that they will not participate in a parallel program to use MOX in their light-water reactors (LWRs). Thus, the basis for the joint U.S.-Russian MOX program has collapsed. Along with termination of the MOX plant funding, we request that it be made very clear to DOE that construction of the MOX plant at SRS shall not go forward given that there is no longer a parallel program in Russia.
DOE is taking a new look at an ³all-immobilization option.² Immobilization yields positive environmental and non-proliferation benefits over the risky commercial plutonium fuel option because it involves less handling and processing of plutonium. It is obvious that immobilization would be much cheaper than the dual disposition track (MOX and immobilization) that DOE is now pursuing. At a recent House Armed Services hearing on plutonium, DOE presented unsubstantiated rough estimates for the cost of immobilization compared with the cost of a dual track. We request that Congress direct DOE to conduct an in-depth cost analysis, involving participation and review independent from DOE, on immobilization and all aspects of DOE¹s plutonium
disposition program. An important dimension of this report must be to review the wisdom of two plutonium programs being managed by two artificially separated entities inside DOE - the Office of Environmental Management and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
As DOE has clearly not given up on MOX, however, we ask you to keep in mind there remain huge obstacles to success with the U.S.-Russia MOX program. In addition to the long-standing unresolved liability issues and the equally long-standing lack of G-8 support for financing Russia¹s MOX infrastructure, Russia simply does not have reactor capacity to burn MOX fuel. Although Russia has said it would use its BN-600 plutonium breeder reactor for plutonium disposition, that aging reactor has a maximum capacity to use only 4-5 metric tons of plutonium during its remaining life, far under the 34 metric tons in the original U.S.-Russia agreement. Now Russia wants outside funding to pay for construction of a massive new plutonium breeder reactor,
the BN-800. That reactor simply does not exist and thus cannot satisfy the bilateral agreement. Further, the BN-800 can be operated in ³breeding² mode to produce yet more weapons-grade plutonium for the Russian stockpile. Given the expense and the stark proliferation risk such a reactor poses, the U.S. must reject this option outright.
Thank you very much, again, for the significant step to terminate the MOX program.
Sincerely,
Glenn Carroll
Coordinator
Nuclear Watch South
(formerly GANE)
Atlanta, GA
Tom Clements
Senior Advisor
Greenpeace International
Washington, DC
Lou Zeller
Executive Director
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Glendale Springs, NC
Dr. Edwin S. Lyman
Senior Staff Scientist
Union of Concerned Scientists
Washington, DC
Paul Leventhal
Nuclear Control Institute
Washington, DC
NATIONAL GROUPS
Daryl G. Kimball
Executive Director
Arms Control Association *
Washington, DC
Tom Carpenter
Director, Nuclear Oversight Program
Government Accountability Project
Washington, DC
Henry Sokolski
Executive Director
The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
Washington, DC
Alice Slater
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
New York, NY
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Takoma Park, MD
Dr. Helen Caldicott
President
Nuclear Policy Research Institute
College Park, MD
Michele Boyd
Legislative Director
Public Citizen
Washington, DC
Susan Shaer
Executive Director
Women¹s Action for New Directions
Arlington, MA
LOCAL & REGIONAL GROUPS
Adele Kushner
Executive Secretary
Action for a Clean Environment
Alto, GA
Bobbie Paul
Director
Atlanta WAND (Women¹s Action for New Directions)
Atlanta, GA
Allison Peeler
Nuclear Issues Coordinator
Carolina Peace Resource Center
Columbia, SC
Charles Johnson
Center for Energy Research
Portland, OR
Anna Shockley
Charleston Peace
Charleston, SC
Kathryn Kuppers
Charlotte Area Green Party
Midlands, NC
Sue Dayton
Director
Citizen Action New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
Peggy Maze Johnson
Executive Director
Citizen Alert
Nevada
Keith Gunter
Citizens¹ Resistance at Fermi Two
Monroe, MI
Michael J. Keegan
Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes
Monroe, MI
Joni Arends
Executive Director
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
Santa Fe, NM
Alice Hirt
Don¹t Waste Michigan
Holland, MI
Chuck Broscious
Executive Director
Environmental Defense Institute
Troy, ID
Ruth Thomas
President
Environmentalists, Inc.
Columbia, SC
Bob Darby
Coordinator
Food Not Bombs
Atlanta, GA
Paige Knight
President
Hanford Watch
Portland, OR
Gerald Pollet
Executive Director
Heart of America Northwest
Seattle, WA
Jennifer O. Viereck
Director
HOME: Healing Ourselves & Mother Earth
Tecopa, CA
Greg Mello
Los Alamos Study Group
Albuquerque, NM
Jay Coghlan
Director
Nuclear Watch of New Mexico
Santa Fe, NM
Joanne Cvar
Secretary
Pacific Green Party of Oregon
State of Oregon
Mavis Belisle
Director
Peace Farm
Panhandle, TX
Vina Colley
Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security
(PRESS)
Portsmouth, OH
Judith Mohling
Nuclear Nexus Program Staff
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center
Boulder, CO
Frank Carl
Executive Director
Savannah Riverkeeper
Augusta, GA
Dell Isham
Director
Sierra Club, South Carolina Chapter
Columbia, SC
Don Hancock
Nuclear Waste Program Director
Southwest Research and Information Center
Albuquerque, NM
Jeremy Maxand
Executive Director
Snake River Alliance
Boise, ID
Brett Bursey
South Carolina Progressive Network
Columbia, SC
Sara Barczak
Safe Energy Director
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE)
Savannah, GA
Merrill Chapman
Thinking People
Mount Pleasant, SC
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
Livermore, CA
Lewis E. Patrie, M.D., M.P.H.
Chair
Western NC Chapter, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Asheville, NC
Gregg Jocoy
York County (SC) Greens
Fort Mill, SC
To respond to this letter or if you have questions about plutonium
disposition issues and/or concerns about the program in the SRS region,
please contact Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South, P.O. Box 8574, Atlanta,
GA 31106, 404-378-4263, atom.girl@mindspring.com
--
Glenn Carroll
Coordinator
NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH
(formerly GANE - Georgians Against Nuclear Energy)
P.O. Box 8574
Atlanta, GA 31106
PHONE/FAX: 404-378-4263
atom.girl@mindspring.com
STOP PLUTONIUM! GANE ON THE WEB --
http://www.greenpeace.fr/stop-plutonium/en/20050301_en.php3
All the details are behind the "Read more!" link...
Hey y'all,
Awesome list of groups! Thanks to everyone who signed on so far. We'll take
more sign-ons 'til end of day Tuesday, September 12. Jodi Dart, ANA, will
deliver to Hobson Wednesday morning. Thursday will be the media advisory
(give Hobson a chance to absorb the letter and be prepared to be contacted).
I'll hope to circulate on Wednesday afternoon and you may feel free to
substitute your contact and circulate at will.
Yours 'til MOX is NIXed!
Glenn
September 13, 2006
Dear Representative Hobson
Chairman, House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
Room 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6020
fax 202-225-1984
Eliminate Funding for SRS MOX Plant, Support Plutonium Immobilization
Dear Representative Hobson:
We are writing to you to thank you for the decision by the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee which led the full House to eliminate funding for the plutonium (mixed oxide, MOX) fuel factory at the Department of Energy¹s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. For a host of cost, non-proliferation, and environmental reasons we fully support the decision to terminate the MOX program as a method to deal with surplus weapons plutonium. We also enthusiastically applaud the House¹s recognition that immobilization of plutonium as waste is the preferred disposition path.
We urge members of the House to insist on the House provision in the upcoming House-Senate conference committee. The MOX program is woefully over-budget and behind schedule and the U.S.-Russian agreement is at a stalemate on key issues, not the least of which is almost total lack of support financially from the G-8 which has not even addressed it on its agenda for the past several years running. We depend on your strong leadership now to achieve a sound and cost-effective approach to manage surplus plutonium.
As you are well aware, after more than a decade of large expenditures and fiscal mismanagement, the DOE¹s MOX program has produced minimal results. As the cost of the MOX plant has rapidly escalated to near $4 billion, the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee¹s decision to cease funding the MOX program will prevent costs from spiraling further out of control if construction of the MOX plant were to begin.
As has been confirmed by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), the plutonium now stored in the old K-Reactor at SRS is too contaminated for use as MOX and must be immobilized in existing high-level waste. The subcommittee¹s substantial increase in funding for a revived plutonium immobilization program is timely and promises to yield positive results in disposing of surplus plutonium now stored at SRS, Hanford and other DOE sites.
The Russians have made it clear that they will not participate in a parallel program to use MOX in their light-water reactors (LWRs). Thus, the basis for the joint U.S.-Russian MOX program has collapsed. Along with termination of the MOX plant funding, we request that it be made very clear to DOE that construction of the MOX plant at SRS shall not go forward given that there is no longer a parallel program in Russia.
DOE is taking a new look at an ³all-immobilization option.² Immobilization yields positive environmental and non-proliferation benefits over the risky commercial plutonium fuel option because it involves less handling and processing of plutonium. It is obvious that immobilization would be much cheaper than the dual disposition track (MOX and immobilization) that DOE is now pursuing. At a recent House Armed Services hearing on plutonium, DOE presented unsubstantiated rough estimates for the cost of immobilization compared with the cost of a dual track. We request that Congress direct DOE to conduct an in-depth cost analysis, involving participation and review independent from DOE, on immobilization and all aspects of DOE¹s plutonium
disposition program. An important dimension of this report must be to review the wisdom of two plutonium programs being managed by two artificially separated entities inside DOE - the Office of Environmental Management and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
As DOE has clearly not given up on MOX, however, we ask you to keep in mind there remain huge obstacles to success with the U.S.-Russia MOX program. In addition to the long-standing unresolved liability issues and the equally long-standing lack of G-8 support for financing Russia¹s MOX infrastructure, Russia simply does not have reactor capacity to burn MOX fuel. Although Russia has said it would use its BN-600 plutonium breeder reactor for plutonium disposition, that aging reactor has a maximum capacity to use only 4-5 metric tons of plutonium during its remaining life, far under the 34 metric tons in the original U.S.-Russia agreement. Now Russia wants outside funding to pay for construction of a massive new plutonium breeder reactor,
the BN-800. That reactor simply does not exist and thus cannot satisfy the bilateral agreement. Further, the BN-800 can be operated in ³breeding² mode to produce yet more weapons-grade plutonium for the Russian stockpile. Given the expense and the stark proliferation risk such a reactor poses, the U.S. must reject this option outright.
Thank you very much, again, for the significant step to terminate the MOX program.
Sincerely,
Glenn Carroll
Coordinator
Nuclear Watch South
(formerly GANE)
Atlanta, GA
Tom Clements
Senior Advisor
Greenpeace International
Washington, DC
Lou Zeller
Executive Director
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Glendale Springs, NC
Dr. Edwin S. Lyman
Senior Staff Scientist
Union of Concerned Scientists
Washington, DC
Paul Leventhal
Nuclear Control Institute
Washington, DC
NATIONAL GROUPS
Daryl G. Kimball
Executive Director
Arms Control Association *
Washington, DC
Tom Carpenter
Director, Nuclear Oversight Program
Government Accountability Project
Washington, DC
Henry Sokolski
Executive Director
The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
Washington, DC
Alice Slater
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
New York, NY
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Takoma Park, MD
Dr. Helen Caldicott
President
Nuclear Policy Research Institute
College Park, MD
Michele Boyd
Legislative Director
Public Citizen
Washington, DC
Susan Shaer
Executive Director
Women¹s Action for New Directions
Arlington, MA
LOCAL & REGIONAL GROUPS
Adele Kushner
Executive Secretary
Action for a Clean Environment
Alto, GA
Bobbie Paul
Director
Atlanta WAND (Women¹s Action for New Directions)
Atlanta, GA
Allison Peeler
Nuclear Issues Coordinator
Carolina Peace Resource Center
Columbia, SC
Charles Johnson
Center for Energy Research
Portland, OR
Anna Shockley
Charleston Peace
Charleston, SC
Kathryn Kuppers
Charlotte Area Green Party
Midlands, NC
Sue Dayton
Director
Citizen Action New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
Peggy Maze Johnson
Executive Director
Citizen Alert
Nevada
Keith Gunter
Citizens¹ Resistance at Fermi Two
Monroe, MI
Michael J. Keegan
Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes
Monroe, MI
Joni Arends
Executive Director
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
Santa Fe, NM
Alice Hirt
Don¹t Waste Michigan
Holland, MI
Chuck Broscious
Executive Director
Environmental Defense Institute
Troy, ID
Ruth Thomas
President
Environmentalists, Inc.
Columbia, SC
Bob Darby
Coordinator
Food Not Bombs
Atlanta, GA
Paige Knight
President
Hanford Watch
Portland, OR
Gerald Pollet
Executive Director
Heart of America Northwest
Seattle, WA
Jennifer O. Viereck
Director
HOME: Healing Ourselves & Mother Earth
Tecopa, CA
Greg Mello
Los Alamos Study Group
Albuquerque, NM
Jay Coghlan
Director
Nuclear Watch of New Mexico
Santa Fe, NM
Joanne Cvar
Secretary
Pacific Green Party of Oregon
State of Oregon
Mavis Belisle
Director
Peace Farm
Panhandle, TX
Vina Colley
Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security
(PRESS)
Portsmouth, OH
Judith Mohling
Nuclear Nexus Program Staff
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center
Boulder, CO
Frank Carl
Executive Director
Savannah Riverkeeper
Augusta, GA
Dell Isham
Director
Sierra Club, South Carolina Chapter
Columbia, SC
Don Hancock
Nuclear Waste Program Director
Southwest Research and Information Center
Albuquerque, NM
Jeremy Maxand
Executive Director
Snake River Alliance
Boise, ID
Brett Bursey
South Carolina Progressive Network
Columbia, SC
Sara Barczak
Safe Energy Director
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE)
Savannah, GA
Merrill Chapman
Thinking People
Mount Pleasant, SC
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
Livermore, CA
Lewis E. Patrie, M.D., M.P.H.
Chair
Western NC Chapter, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Asheville, NC
Gregg Jocoy
York County (SC) Greens
Fort Mill, SC
To respond to this letter or if you have questions about plutonium
disposition issues and/or concerns about the program in the SRS region,
please contact Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South, P.O. Box 8574, Atlanta,
GA 31106, 404-378-4263, atom.girl@mindspring.com
--
Glenn Carroll
Coordinator
NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH
(formerly GANE - Georgians Against Nuclear Energy)
P.O. Box 8574
Atlanta, GA 31106
PHONE/FAX: 404-378-4263
atom.girl@mindspring.com
STOP PLUTONIUM! GANE ON THE WEB --
http://www.greenpeace.fr/stop-plutonium/en/20050301_en.php3
A Green Future Is Possible
I believe this is true. More importantly, I believe that if the future is not Green, the future will likely be hell on Earth. Wars over oil will seem like a walk in the park when faced with wars over drinkable water and breathable air.
One thing that has gotten in the way of me sucessfully reaching many of my goals is my unwillingness to give in. I feel sure that this is true of many other Greens, but especially so for we men. I react vicerally to calls for action, and don't want to give in.
People with quieter voices are heard less often. Communication takes hours, which I know personally is true for many Green National Committee members. The result is, frankly, that "regular" folks can't, and don't, read their email. With as many as ten emails a day, each covering as many as six messages, it's impossible for someone with "normal" responsibilities to participate fully.
echo steiner of FL is a national party co-chair. Nikolas R. Shiller is a member of the National Committee from Washington DC. In an exchange, hiding behind the "Read more!" link, you will find two long, but excellent posts addressing the party's need to focus on forward looking issues, find long term solutions to log jams which slow the process of getting our work done, and creating a culture that makes our time investment worth the effort.
I don't often ask you to specifically read this or that post, but in this case, please hit the "Read more!" link. I believe that your feedback may make the difference between success and failure.
So sometimes its like deja vu. For years on this list there's always few kids behaving badly in the sand box. And I wonder, do they kiss their mothers with those mouths? Do they sleep well out night after battling with wits those who stand shoulder to shoulder with them, while the empire grows ignored by our incapacity to organize here? But I know they don't sleep well because their actions are screaming for attention and validation. How are we going to deal with these hurting brothers and sisters? We can ignore them. But their screams get louder. We can try to rationalize, fight back, soothe, etc.. But really none of these have worked.
We can hope states will take accountability. But with so few volunteers we know that many of our best are busy elsewhere.
I really felt we had something going on in Tuscon. Did you all feel it? The desire from all to work it out. To get through this. To change the way we treat each other and move toward a different way.
What happened to us? Sometimes when I read to many of the messages and the same person flames over and over, I say it must be sabotage. But some of the people who act this way occassionally are people I love. People I can not believe could have those intentions, ones I know who are striking out of pain, frustration, vanity, etc..And I myself have sometimes let loose an email, I wish I would have rethought.
Is it the medium? Certainly most of us had no problem crossing the lines that always seem to divide us when we were in person. And I think many a heart has been healed in this party by dealing face to face with individuals they could not find common ground with here in this virtual world. I know that my eyes have been openned by many of
those I met at our ANMs.
Sometimes I wish our emails all had a picture of us next to it. One of each of us out there campaigning, protesting, speaking, smiling.
I don't know if we will ever get to have photos attached to our messages. But we must either learn how to use this medium or find another fast. This party must find a way to get thru this productivity standstill. We have hundreds of the nations most dedicated activists, brightest intellectuals, and inspired visionaries. Lets not linger here in a place of darkness. Let us create the reality we wish to be in.
Nick from DC, are you out there? Can you set up another online chat for the NC? Can we have an informal discussion about the possibility of creating another method for communication such as the forums. Just a discussion for now.
For those of you who dont know about forums, they can be used just like this elist. You can get an email whenever a message is posted. Or you can read the messages on the web. Organized by subject. So you dont have to jump around. Or follow a thread which has deteriorated. Or bother reading ones from those who have proven themselves unable to behave productively.
We could use smiley faces and maybe even pictures of ourselves next to our posts.
I know some of you are groaning. You dont want to learn a new medium.
BUT I dont want to study war no more. And the time you will spend learning to use forums will be compensated from all the emails that you will not have to deal with.
It is a better system for archiving, following conversations, and working on multiple projects and subjects at the same time.
So does anyone want to have a chat? Or a monthly chat. An informal one. A nice one with smiley faces. Then eventually, if we come up with any great solutions, we could bring back here. Maybe we can even establish a chat room, where we can go to be with Greens. We could have a coordinated hour a month where we come together to brain storm.
I want us to get back to the Tuscon frame of mind. I want to be talking about Camp democracy, our candidates, fundraising, Green Festivals, Organizing for the Dem Pres Convention in 2008, working on being ready for our unity candidate in 2008.
Anyone want to meet me on a chat and we can see if we can find our way back to Tuscon again?
Gpax,
Echo
Echo et all, I don't post often, so please lend me your eyes...
I am quite busy with helping run the DCSGP and my workload on behalf of the National Party is suffering. Wearing the double hat of delegate and state party steering committee member is not the easiest task as many of you well know. This is a reason why I have not joined various committees, and I hope you understand.
However this is only temporal, and come aound November 8th, I'll definitely have more time and hopefully more gusto to focus on my responsibilities with the National Coordinating Committee. This Tuesday is our primary and as noted by the delegate from Deleware, a lot of work tends to be offloaded on to a select few.... But that is life and that is also why we are leaders.
In regards to the having the on-line chat, I was sincerely hoping my chat "experiment" that was conducted earlier this year would empower delegates to organize their own chats on specific issues. However this has not been done since. Why? Was it seen as not worthwhile? I am more than willing to organize one again, however I would like someone else to digitally put their foot down and say, "Hey everyone I was to discuss this issue please join me." Don't be afraid to do this, not one person sent me a negative comment about organizing the first one.
Right now, I'd like to organize one for sometime next week, but I am busy every night this coming week because of our elections. The following week I am open, and I can tentatively say that I am available Tuesday the 19th of September at 7pm EST. If people are interested in having one, lets do it. I can resend the same e-mail I originally sent with the step by step instructions on how to chat.
I already have a few items I would like to discuss.... The first relates to some of the current discourse we've been subjected to in regards to caucuses. If you remember correctly, one of the first things I wanted to do when I joined the NC in December of 2005 was to start some "Creative Caucus" to unite underrepresented artists, authors, and musicians to promote the Green Party in a social apparatus instead of a merely political one. There was little support and I have since let it slide into the digital memory hole (it can always be revisited!). However, the larger issue, to me, is what are the caucuses doing now? Right now? I am 110% for caucuses, yet I am not seeing much action on behalf of them.
Instead I am reading banter that almost reads as if some want to do away with them entirely. In regards to the National Woman's Caucus and Miss Loveless, it seems that the issue so damned overblown that the genuine work of caucus has been undermined. From the get-go it seems as if the entire issue is the work of an intelligent provocateur. Yet because of this, I have seen little action from the NWC (in the form of proposals, events, reports etc,), instead I've had to endure the NWC defending it's important presence within the GPUS. I feel the best thing to do is simply to do something! Something that can put the contentious issues behind us and
honestly maintain the future focus we all espouse. Otherwise, I'll see this
pointless bickering that goes nowhere and makes us less apt to want to read this list.
So, back to what I wanted to discuss.... Right now the United States is one of the few countries in the world that has not ratified the Treaty for the Rights of Women, otherwise known as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). I would like to see the NWC take a leadership role here. While it has an international angle, it's the senate that ratifies treaties. I think it would be nice to have a resolution sponsored by the NWC stating the GPUS stands behind this treaty and to call on law makers to ratify it. Further, I'd like to see the NWC possibly create a candidate pledge of sorts, that candidates can sign on to,
that states in some fashion, that if elected, they will make the ratification a part of their platform. Would members of the NC & NWC like to discuss working on a proposal such as this? In a chat room in a couple weeks?
Delegates Huckleberry & Kramer, would you two be interested in revisiting the last discussion we had in Tucson about having a Green Party animal mascot? It was the turtle we last mentioned right? Again, I am interested in chatting about this as well. Slow but true beats the hare right?
Delegates from Utah & California, would you be interested in discussing what I've been told to be an intentional and coordinated effort by members of the California Green Party to sabotage the work done by the members of the Green Party of Utah that backed Cobb in the 2004 election? I happen to hold the opinion that a national political party is absolutely useless if all states do not have the same presidential candidate in the election. Moreover, I am even brazen enough to state that if you disagree with me on this important issue, I think you should leave the party and start your own. Shall we discuss this further over a chat? I'd rather not have to read 50 e-mails about this intermixed with actual business and proposal discussions... Maybe we should have a special chat dedicated to this instead of creating a fact-finding body that appears to usurp the work of another committee...
Regardless, the more time we spend e-mailing each other about past issues that divide us, the less focus we have on what is needed to be done now to unite us and grow the party. Maybe it reads that I am saying to do away with the past, but my intent is to simply state, we ALL have better things to be doing than discussing issues that will only undermine our collective work.
Lastly, did any of you happen to look at the 10 Key Value Map I made last month? Actually that is a rhetorical question. I know exactly how many did- 11 people. I don't exactly know what to take of this, aside from genuine disappointment.
Was it lost in the static of the linear communication method known as a listserve, or was it that I made something that people felt of little use? Or is the more pointed question, is the reason why the discussions on the NC are usually between about 20 delegates because that is all of the NC who are actively reading? Think about it.
As echo mentioned, I am all for a bulletin board as well, and I honestly feel that once everyone sees merits and future focus of how we can organize our thoughts, feelings, discussion items, amendments, and proposals in a convenient non-linear format, we will be able to get twice as much work done.
Let me just give another example of how I envision this GPUS bulletin board...
You start by folders. They would be based on the current organizational structure:
1: GPUS VOTES
2: GPUS DISCUSS
3: CAUCUSES
4: COMMITTEES
The GPUS VOTES would be a discussion where each time a proposal is created it sits in this folder. Right now if it were to exist, the top folder would probably be Proposal 242 and if you were to click on that folder, you would see ALL the discussion and amendments related to that "topic". Literally, everyone's comments would reside here and never again would a comment related to a proposal be lost to the static of sequential discourse. Also listed in this folder would be ALL of the previous proposals and their respective comments. This would also be the forum where delegates and discuss future proposals with each other.
The GP DISCUSS folder would be a free for all of issues, announcements, and discussions related to issues the delegates feel like sharing. Again, like the votes folder, comments about specific postings would be attached to only the posting and if you don't care to read more about what a delegate from Washington, DC has to say about the march happening tomorrow at the pentagon, you are not forced (as you are now) to read it in order to stay up to date on issues you & your state party might care about.
The Caucuses folder would have sub folders for each of the functioning caucuses. These folders would be open to every NC delegate to look at, but only members will be allowed to post their comments. If a delegate feels strongly about a discussion item within the caucus, they are free to contact those involved in the discussion to state their opinions.
The Committees folder would operate in the exact same fashion.... Of course there would be one for the Steering Committee as well!
This communication apparatus is a win-win for everyone. Those who seek transparency, will get it. Moreover, it will foster buy-in, as in, if a committee or caucus is busy doing exciting work, those not involved are more apt to want to join because they might want to be apart of it. Conversely, it will also allow the curmudgeons the chance to nitpick the issues they personally disagree with-- but it would all be localized, and ohhh, decentralized (in an abstract sense, because the actual creation of omnibus bulletin board is in fact a centralized approach to disparate communications, yet within this apparatus communications discussion are decentralized). What I like the most is that I will not have to search through the e-mails to find the discussion items I care about as I do now.
3 hours later, this e-mail is finished. Was this e-mail a good use of my time? I don't know. I hope what I stated here is read, digested, and taken into consideration. Please do not reply to my opinions to the list, unless you feel that your reply will benefit everyone. I am for transparency, but I honestly feel that one on one communication, in any format, tends to be very constructive and more importantly, it will cut down on listserve static....
More info on CEDAW:
http://www.womenstreaty.org
http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
Respectfully,
Nikolas R. Schiller
DC Statehood Green Party, Steering Committee
DC Statehood Green Party, Delegate
PS
No offense, but Twinkles are static too.
...but not on a bulletin board :)
One thing that has gotten in the way of me sucessfully reaching many of my goals is my unwillingness to give in. I feel sure that this is true of many other Greens, but especially so for we men. I react vicerally to calls for action, and don't want to give in.
People with quieter voices are heard less often. Communication takes hours, which I know personally is true for many Green National Committee members. The result is, frankly, that "regular" folks can't, and don't, read their email. With as many as ten emails a day, each covering as many as six messages, it's impossible for someone with "normal" responsibilities to participate fully.
echo steiner of FL is a national party co-chair. Nikolas R. Shiller is a member of the National Committee from Washington DC. In an exchange, hiding behind the "Read more!" link, you will find two long, but excellent posts addressing the party's need to focus on forward looking issues, find long term solutions to log jams which slow the process of getting our work done, and creating a culture that makes our time investment worth the effort.
I don't often ask you to specifically read this or that post, but in this case, please hit the "Read more!" link. I believe that your feedback may make the difference between success and failure.
So sometimes its like deja vu. For years on this list there's always few kids behaving badly in the sand box. And I wonder, do they kiss their mothers with those mouths? Do they sleep well out night after battling with wits those who stand shoulder to shoulder with them, while the empire grows ignored by our incapacity to organize here? But I know they don't sleep well because their actions are screaming for attention and validation. How are we going to deal with these hurting brothers and sisters? We can ignore them. But their screams get louder. We can try to rationalize, fight back, soothe, etc.. But really none of these have worked.
We can hope states will take accountability. But with so few volunteers we know that many of our best are busy elsewhere.
I really felt we had something going on in Tuscon. Did you all feel it? The desire from all to work it out. To get through this. To change the way we treat each other and move toward a different way.
What happened to us? Sometimes when I read to many of the messages and the same person flames over and over, I say it must be sabotage. But some of the people who act this way occassionally are people I love. People I can not believe could have those intentions, ones I know who are striking out of pain, frustration, vanity, etc..And I myself have sometimes let loose an email, I wish I would have rethought.
Is it the medium? Certainly most of us had no problem crossing the lines that always seem to divide us when we were in person. And I think many a heart has been healed in this party by dealing face to face with individuals they could not find common ground with here in this virtual world. I know that my eyes have been openned by many of
those I met at our ANMs.
Sometimes I wish our emails all had a picture of us next to it. One of each of us out there campaigning, protesting, speaking, smiling.
I don't know if we will ever get to have photos attached to our messages. But we must either learn how to use this medium or find another fast. This party must find a way to get thru this productivity standstill. We have hundreds of the nations most dedicated activists, brightest intellectuals, and inspired visionaries. Lets not linger here in a place of darkness. Let us create the reality we wish to be in.
Nick from DC, are you out there? Can you set up another online chat for the NC? Can we have an informal discussion about the possibility of creating another method for communication such as the forums. Just a discussion for now.
For those of you who dont know about forums, they can be used just like this elist. You can get an email whenever a message is posted. Or you can read the messages on the web. Organized by subject. So you dont have to jump around. Or follow a thread which has deteriorated. Or bother reading ones from those who have proven themselves unable to behave productively.
We could use smiley faces and maybe even pictures of ourselves next to our posts.
I know some of you are groaning. You dont want to learn a new medium.
BUT I dont want to study war no more. And the time you will spend learning to use forums will be compensated from all the emails that you will not have to deal with.
It is a better system for archiving, following conversations, and working on multiple projects and subjects at the same time.
So does anyone want to have a chat? Or a monthly chat. An informal one. A nice one with smiley faces. Then eventually, if we come up with any great solutions, we could bring back here. Maybe we can even establish a chat room, where we can go to be with Greens. We could have a coordinated hour a month where we come together to brain storm.
I want us to get back to the Tuscon frame of mind. I want to be talking about Camp democracy, our candidates, fundraising, Green Festivals, Organizing for the Dem Pres Convention in 2008, working on being ready for our unity candidate in 2008.
Anyone want to meet me on a chat and we can see if we can find our way back to Tuscon again?
Gpax,
Echo
Echo et all, I don't post often, so please lend me your eyes...
I am quite busy with helping run the DCSGP and my workload on behalf of the National Party is suffering. Wearing the double hat of delegate and state party steering committee member is not the easiest task as many of you well know. This is a reason why I have not joined various committees, and I hope you understand.
However this is only temporal, and come aound November 8th, I'll definitely have more time and hopefully more gusto to focus on my responsibilities with the National Coordinating Committee. This Tuesday is our primary and as noted by the delegate from Deleware, a lot of work tends to be offloaded on to a select few.... But that is life and that is also why we are leaders.
In regards to the having the on-line chat, I was sincerely hoping my chat "experiment" that was conducted earlier this year would empower delegates to organize their own chats on specific issues. However this has not been done since. Why? Was it seen as not worthwhile? I am more than willing to organize one again, however I would like someone else to digitally put their foot down and say, "Hey everyone I was to discuss this issue please join me." Don't be afraid to do this, not one person sent me a negative comment about organizing the first one.
Right now, I'd like to organize one for sometime next week, but I am busy every night this coming week because of our elections. The following week I am open, and I can tentatively say that I am available Tuesday the 19th of September at 7pm EST. If people are interested in having one, lets do it. I can resend the same e-mail I originally sent with the step by step instructions on how to chat.
I already have a few items I would like to discuss.... The first relates to some of the current discourse we've been subjected to in regards to caucuses. If you remember correctly, one of the first things I wanted to do when I joined the NC in December of 2005 was to start some "Creative Caucus" to unite underrepresented artists, authors, and musicians to promote the Green Party in a social apparatus instead of a merely political one. There was little support and I have since let it slide into the digital memory hole (it can always be revisited!). However, the larger issue, to me, is what are the caucuses doing now? Right now? I am 110% for caucuses, yet I am not seeing much action on behalf of them.
Instead I am reading banter that almost reads as if some want to do away with them entirely. In regards to the National Woman's Caucus and Miss Loveless, it seems that the issue so damned overblown that the genuine work of caucus has been undermined. From the get-go it seems as if the entire issue is the work of an intelligent provocateur. Yet because of this, I have seen little action from the NWC (in the form of proposals, events, reports etc,), instead I've had to endure the NWC defending it's important presence within the GPUS. I feel the best thing to do is simply to do something! Something that can put the contentious issues behind us and
honestly maintain the future focus we all espouse. Otherwise, I'll see this
pointless bickering that goes nowhere and makes us less apt to want to read this list.
So, back to what I wanted to discuss.... Right now the United States is one of the few countries in the world that has not ratified the Treaty for the Rights of Women, otherwise known as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). I would like to see the NWC take a leadership role here. While it has an international angle, it's the senate that ratifies treaties. I think it would be nice to have a resolution sponsored by the NWC stating the GPUS stands behind this treaty and to call on law makers to ratify it. Further, I'd like to see the NWC possibly create a candidate pledge of sorts, that candidates can sign on to,
that states in some fashion, that if elected, they will make the ratification a part of their platform. Would members of the NC & NWC like to discuss working on a proposal such as this? In a chat room in a couple weeks?
Delegates Huckleberry & Kramer, would you two be interested in revisiting the last discussion we had in Tucson about having a Green Party animal mascot? It was the turtle we last mentioned right? Again, I am interested in chatting about this as well. Slow but true beats the hare right?
Delegates from Utah & California, would you be interested in discussing what I've been told to be an intentional and coordinated effort by members of the California Green Party to sabotage the work done by the members of the Green Party of Utah that backed Cobb in the 2004 election? I happen to hold the opinion that a national political party is absolutely useless if all states do not have the same presidential candidate in the election. Moreover, I am even brazen enough to state that if you disagree with me on this important issue, I think you should leave the party and start your own. Shall we discuss this further over a chat? I'd rather not have to read 50 e-mails about this intermixed with actual business and proposal discussions... Maybe we should have a special chat dedicated to this instead of creating a fact-finding body that appears to usurp the work of another committee...
Regardless, the more time we spend e-mailing each other about past issues that divide us, the less focus we have on what is needed to be done now to unite us and grow the party. Maybe it reads that I am saying to do away with the past, but my intent is to simply state, we ALL have better things to be doing than discussing issues that will only undermine our collective work.
Lastly, did any of you happen to look at the 10 Key Value Map I made last month? Actually that is a rhetorical question. I know exactly how many did- 11 people. I don't exactly know what to take of this, aside from genuine disappointment.
Was it lost in the static of the linear communication method known as a listserve, or was it that I made something that people felt of little use? Or is the more pointed question, is the reason why the discussions on the NC are usually between about 20 delegates because that is all of the NC who are actively reading? Think about it.
As echo mentioned, I am all for a bulletin board as well, and I honestly feel that once everyone sees merits and future focus of how we can organize our thoughts, feelings, discussion items, amendments, and proposals in a convenient non-linear format, we will be able to get twice as much work done.
Let me just give another example of how I envision this GPUS bulletin board...
You start by folders. They would be based on the current organizational structure:
1: GPUS VOTES
2: GPUS DISCUSS
3: CAUCUSES
4: COMMITTEES
The GPUS VOTES would be a discussion where each time a proposal is created it sits in this folder. Right now if it were to exist, the top folder would probably be Proposal 242 and if you were to click on that folder, you would see ALL the discussion and amendments related to that "topic". Literally, everyone's comments would reside here and never again would a comment related to a proposal be lost to the static of sequential discourse. Also listed in this folder would be ALL of the previous proposals and their respective comments. This would also be the forum where delegates and discuss future proposals with each other.
The GP DISCUSS folder would be a free for all of issues, announcements, and discussions related to issues the delegates feel like sharing. Again, like the votes folder, comments about specific postings would be attached to only the posting and if you don't care to read more about what a delegate from Washington, DC has to say about the march happening tomorrow at the pentagon, you are not forced (as you are now) to read it in order to stay up to date on issues you & your state party might care about.
The Caucuses folder would have sub folders for each of the functioning caucuses. These folders would be open to every NC delegate to look at, but only members will be allowed to post their comments. If a delegate feels strongly about a discussion item within the caucus, they are free to contact those involved in the discussion to state their opinions.
The Committees folder would operate in the exact same fashion.... Of course there would be one for the Steering Committee as well!
This communication apparatus is a win-win for everyone. Those who seek transparency, will get it. Moreover, it will foster buy-in, as in, if a committee or caucus is busy doing exciting work, those not involved are more apt to want to join because they might want to be apart of it. Conversely, it will also allow the curmudgeons the chance to nitpick the issues they personally disagree with-- but it would all be localized, and ohhh, decentralized (in an abstract sense, because the actual creation of omnibus bulletin board is in fact a centralized approach to disparate communications, yet within this apparatus communications discussion are decentralized). What I like the most is that I will not have to search through the e-mails to find the discussion items I care about as I do now.
3 hours later, this e-mail is finished. Was this e-mail a good use of my time? I don't know. I hope what I stated here is read, digested, and taken into consideration. Please do not reply to my opinions to the list, unless you feel that your reply will benefit everyone. I am for transparency, but I honestly feel that one on one communication, in any format, tends to be very constructive and more importantly, it will cut down on listserve static....
More info on CEDAW:
http://www.womenstreaty.org
http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
Respectfully,
Nikolas R. Schiller
DC Statehood Green Party, Steering Committee
DC Statehood Green Party, Delegate
PS
No offense, but Twinkles are static too.
...but not on a bulletin board :)
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Rebuilding the Labor Movement in the United States
Howie Hawkins is a member of Teamsters Local 317 and active in the national Teamster rank-and-file reform caucus, Teamsters for a Democratic Union. Howie presently works unloading trucks and rail cars at UPS. He is the former Director of CommonWorks, a federation of cooperatives working for an economy that is cooperatively owned, democratically controlled, and ecologically sustainable.
His piece, well worth the reading as Labor Day approaches, is behind the "Read more!" link...
Rebuilding the Labor Movement in the United States
By Howie Hawkins, Green Party candidate for US Senate
Unions need to offer a vision of how a just society should be organized. We need to organize for real solutions like fair trade, national health insurance, labor law reform, internal union democratic reforms to re-engage the rank and file, and a multi-year, multi-trillion dollar public works program to create millions of new jobs building an ecologically sustainable infrastructure for our future.
Between the lack of room to grow for the old-line, high-wage construction and manufacturing unions of the AFL-CIO and the lack of power of the new, low-wage service unions of Change To Win to help their members, union membership is falling. From the high point 35 percent of American workers organized at the time of the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1953, we are now down to 12.5 percent (and less than 8 percent in the private sector). The business unionism of today has the culture of an insurance company, where the workers are clients and the officers are managers taking in our payments and doling out our benefits.
The recent split nationally among the labor union movement avoids the real issues confronting us as workers: declining real wages, jobs lost to outsourcing, the erosion of pension security and health benefits, legal barriers to union organizing, top-down union bureaucracies, and the mounting environmental and energy crises.
We know from talking to our parents and grandparents and from reading history that labor once was a spirited social movement with high ideals. The emancipation of labor was to be founded on a tripod: the union, the cooperative, and the independent labor party. I believe these are still causes worth fighting for.
The purpose of the union was to advance workers' wages and working conditions in their jobs in the existing society by direct action. But unions have become very hard to organize over the last 25 years when employers have been able to break labor laws with impunity and fire tens of thousands of workers for trying to organize because the National Labor Relations Board acts too slowly and with too much bias in favor of the bosses.
And nonviolent direct action by workers in many of its forms was outlawed by the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. For example, Taft-Harley outlawed sympathy and solidarity strikes and "secondary boycotts" where workers refuse to cross picket lines when they were not directly party to a labor dispute or refuse to handle "hot cargo" coming from or going to a struck enterprise. The major result of the Taft-Hartley restrictions on labor action has been to divert unions from direct action to cautious administrators of contracts with no-strike clauses so the company cannot sue the union for violating the contract. Unions now devote most of their resources to handling grievances through "proper channels" and defending themselves from lawsuits by corporations with far more resources to go to court.
The purpose of the cooperative was to organize economic enterprises that did not exploit workers. Workers would jointly and democratically own and manage their businesses without parasitic absentee owners. Each member of the cooperative would have one vote and would receive a patronage dividend: a refund of net earnings in proportion to purchases in a consumer cooperative and a share of the net earnings in proportion to labor contributed in a worker cooperative.
The purpose of the independent labor party was to organize the working class majority to take political power and exercise it for the benefit of the working class majority. If we are ever going repeal the Taft-Hartley amendments and have public policies that favor cooperatives instead of corporate welfare for absentee owners, it is going to come from a new political party.
The Democrats had repeal of Taft-Hartley in their national platform between 1948 and 1992, but never moved to repeal it when they had congressional majorities under Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Instead, the Democrats worked with the Republicans to limit labor's ability to organize. The turning point was the busting of PATCO, the air traffic controllers union, which was planned under the Carter administration and executed under the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration pushed through anti-labor polices such as NAFTA and WTO and the repeal of federal welfare guarantees after the Bush and Reagan administrations failed to do so. Robert Reich, Clinton's Labor Secretary and his cabinet's most liberal member,
pushed job training instead of labor law reform to help unions organize.
The Change To Win coalition has criticized the AFL-CIO for "throwing money at Democrats" who then take them for granted. Change To Win has a point. Since 1980 when the anti-union offensive began in earnest, unions have spent $8-12 billion supporting Democrats through direct contributions to candidates, the Democratic Party, and pro-Democratic political action committees and internal mobilization of the union vote, according to Jonathon Tasini, president emeritus of the National Writers Union and the Democratic primary challenger to incumbent US Senator Hillary Clinton.
But rather than building an independent labor party, Change To Win unions like the Teamsters and SEIU are throwing money at Republicans, too. The Teamsters gave 11 percent of their federal contributions to Republicans in the 2004 elections cycle. SEIU spent 15 percent in 2004 on Republicans, from a $500,000 contribution to the Republican Governors Association to a $7500 contribution to my local Republican congressman in Syracuse, James Walsh. Worse, SEIU spent considerable resources to stymie Ralph Nader's pro-labor independent candidacy in 2004, from sending SEIU staffers to counter-leaflet and heckle Nader speeches in New York to hiring lawyers in Oregon who threatened Nader petitioners in house visits with prosecution for fraud for any mistakes they made on petitions they witnessed.
Imagine if labor had responded to the anti-union offensive over the last 25 years by spending $8-12 billion building an independent labor party and movement, as the labor movement has done in every other industrial nation. We would have scores of labor party organizers in every state supporting a broadly based, grassroots democratic party of working people. We would have blocks of independent labor representatives in municipal, county, state, and the national legislatures. We would have a national labor daily newspaper and a labor news network on radio and cable presenting the public with an alternative to the corporate media's slant. The two corporate financed
parties, the Democrats and Republicans, would no longer monopolize US politics. Public policy would undoubtedly be more pro-labor and the majority of working people would not have seen their real wages and living standards decline over the last 25 years.
The Green Party is best known for its environmental and peace advocacy. But in the absence of a labor party, the Green Party has also taken on the role of an independent labor party and taken up the labor demands the Democrats won't, from fair trade to labor law reform. We are trying to bring the old emancipatory program of labor as a social movement back into the public debate: the union, the cooperative, and the independent labor party.
Thus, I support project labor agreements on public projects and oppose contracts, tax breaks, and corporate welfare for companies with a record of union busting and labor law violations. I support targeting public economic incentives to cooperatives and other forms of democratic local ownership so public investments are anchored to our community by ownership structures for the long-term benefit of the community. And I believe it is time for working people to break away from the corporate-dominated Democrats and start electing their own representatives to public office.
His piece, well worth the reading as Labor Day approaches, is behind the "Read more!" link...
Rebuilding the Labor Movement in the United States
By Howie Hawkins, Green Party candidate for US Senate
Unions need to offer a vision of how a just society should be organized. We need to organize for real solutions like fair trade, national health insurance, labor law reform, internal union democratic reforms to re-engage the rank and file, and a multi-year, multi-trillion dollar public works program to create millions of new jobs building an ecologically sustainable infrastructure for our future.
Between the lack of room to grow for the old-line, high-wage construction and manufacturing unions of the AFL-CIO and the lack of power of the new, low-wage service unions of Change To Win to help their members, union membership is falling. From the high point 35 percent of American workers organized at the time of the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1953, we are now down to 12.5 percent (and less than 8 percent in the private sector). The business unionism of today has the culture of an insurance company, where the workers are clients and the officers are managers taking in our payments and doling out our benefits.
The recent split nationally among the labor union movement avoids the real issues confronting us as workers: declining real wages, jobs lost to outsourcing, the erosion of pension security and health benefits, legal barriers to union organizing, top-down union bureaucracies, and the mounting environmental and energy crises.
We know from talking to our parents and grandparents and from reading history that labor once was a spirited social movement with high ideals. The emancipation of labor was to be founded on a tripod: the union, the cooperative, and the independent labor party. I believe these are still causes worth fighting for.
The purpose of the union was to advance workers' wages and working conditions in their jobs in the existing society by direct action. But unions have become very hard to organize over the last 25 years when employers have been able to break labor laws with impunity and fire tens of thousands of workers for trying to organize because the National Labor Relations Board acts too slowly and with too much bias in favor of the bosses.
And nonviolent direct action by workers in many of its forms was outlawed by the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. For example, Taft-Harley outlawed sympathy and solidarity strikes and "secondary boycotts" where workers refuse to cross picket lines when they were not directly party to a labor dispute or refuse to handle "hot cargo" coming from or going to a struck enterprise. The major result of the Taft-Hartley restrictions on labor action has been to divert unions from direct action to cautious administrators of contracts with no-strike clauses so the company cannot sue the union for violating the contract. Unions now devote most of their resources to handling grievances through "proper channels" and defending themselves from lawsuits by corporations with far more resources to go to court.
The purpose of the cooperative was to organize economic enterprises that did not exploit workers. Workers would jointly and democratically own and manage their businesses without parasitic absentee owners. Each member of the cooperative would have one vote and would receive a patronage dividend: a refund of net earnings in proportion to purchases in a consumer cooperative and a share of the net earnings in proportion to labor contributed in a worker cooperative.
The purpose of the independent labor party was to organize the working class majority to take political power and exercise it for the benefit of the working class majority. If we are ever going repeal the Taft-Hartley amendments and have public policies that favor cooperatives instead of corporate welfare for absentee owners, it is going to come from a new political party.
The Democrats had repeal of Taft-Hartley in their national platform between 1948 and 1992, but never moved to repeal it when they had congressional majorities under Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Instead, the Democrats worked with the Republicans to limit labor's ability to organize. The turning point was the busting of PATCO, the air traffic controllers union, which was planned under the Carter administration and executed under the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration pushed through anti-labor polices such as NAFTA and WTO and the repeal of federal welfare guarantees after the Bush and Reagan administrations failed to do so. Robert Reich, Clinton's Labor Secretary and his cabinet's most liberal member,
pushed job training instead of labor law reform to help unions organize.
The Change To Win coalition has criticized the AFL-CIO for "throwing money at Democrats" who then take them for granted. Change To Win has a point. Since 1980 when the anti-union offensive began in earnest, unions have spent $8-12 billion supporting Democrats through direct contributions to candidates, the Democratic Party, and pro-Democratic political action committees and internal mobilization of the union vote, according to Jonathon Tasini, president emeritus of the National Writers Union and the Democratic primary challenger to incumbent US Senator Hillary Clinton.
But rather than building an independent labor party, Change To Win unions like the Teamsters and SEIU are throwing money at Republicans, too. The Teamsters gave 11 percent of their federal contributions to Republicans in the 2004 elections cycle. SEIU spent 15 percent in 2004 on Republicans, from a $500,000 contribution to the Republican Governors Association to a $7500 contribution to my local Republican congressman in Syracuse, James Walsh. Worse, SEIU spent considerable resources to stymie Ralph Nader's pro-labor independent candidacy in 2004, from sending SEIU staffers to counter-leaflet and heckle Nader speeches in New York to hiring lawyers in Oregon who threatened Nader petitioners in house visits with prosecution for fraud for any mistakes they made on petitions they witnessed.
Imagine if labor had responded to the anti-union offensive over the last 25 years by spending $8-12 billion building an independent labor party and movement, as the labor movement has done in every other industrial nation. We would have scores of labor party organizers in every state supporting a broadly based, grassroots democratic party of working people. We would have blocks of independent labor representatives in municipal, county, state, and the national legislatures. We would have a national labor daily newspaper and a labor news network on radio and cable presenting the public with an alternative to the corporate media's slant. The two corporate financed
parties, the Democrats and Republicans, would no longer monopolize US politics. Public policy would undoubtedly be more pro-labor and the majority of working people would not have seen their real wages and living standards decline over the last 25 years.
The Green Party is best known for its environmental and peace advocacy. But in the absence of a labor party, the Green Party has also taken on the role of an independent labor party and taken up the labor demands the Democrats won't, from fair trade to labor law reform. We are trying to bring the old emancipatory program of labor as a social movement back into the public debate: the union, the cooperative, and the independent labor party.
Thus, I support project labor agreements on public projects and oppose contracts, tax breaks, and corporate welfare for companies with a record of union busting and labor law violations. I support targeting public economic incentives to cooperatives and other forms of democratic local ownership so public investments are anchored to our community by ownership structures for the long-term benefit of the community. And I believe it is time for working people to break away from the corporate-dominated Democrats and start electing their own representatives to public office.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Sign here to stop plutonium fuel
Well, guess what. I now have cable internet service, which means I can put out useless information all the faster now. :-)
In truth, my dial-up was so slow that is became a burden to even try to do anything online. Perhaps I should have taken the hint, eh?
At any rate, this is my first post after getting faster service, so maybe I will be able to get more done now.
Here's the deal. Duke Power has agreed to use a blend of uranium (the "regular" radioactive stuff) and plutonium (the bomb stuff) and use it in our local power plants. I won't go into all the ins and outs of why this is a bad idea. Check out The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service or your favorite nuclear proliferation or environmental group to find out if ya just can't trust me. ~Grin~ Imagine that!
Nuclear Watch South and Greenpeace International have started a "sign on" letter to Rep. Hobson, which is below. They are seeking as many signatures as possible, and that includes you and any group you are associated with. If you can get your bowling league to sign on, please do!
All the details are below. No need to peek behind the "Read more!" link, as there is nothing there.
Sign on, forward, pass along, and generally spread the word please. My local frogs, who prefer two eyes to five, thank you!
Gregg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September x, 2006
Dear Representative Hobson
Chairman, House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
Room 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6020
fax 202-225-1984
Eliminate Funding for SRS MOX Plant, Support Plutonium Immobilization
Dear Representative Hobson:
We are writing to you to thank you for the decision by the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee which led the full House to eliminate funding for the plutonium fuel (mixed oxide fuel, MOX) plant at the Department of Energy¹s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. For a host of cost, non-proliferation, and environmental reasons we fully support the decision to terminate the MOX program as a method to deal with surplus weapons plutonium. We also enthusiastically applaud the House¹s recognition that immobilization of plutonium as waste is the preferred disposition path.
As you are well aware, after more than a decade of large expenditures and fiscal mismanagement, the DOE¹s MOX program has produced minimal results. As the cost of the MOX plant has rapidly accelerated to near $4 billion, the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee¹s decision to cease funding the MOX program will prevent costs from spiraling further out of control if construction of the MOX plant were to begin.
As has been confirmed by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), the plutonium now stored in the old K-Reactor at SRS is too contaminated for use as MOX and must be immobilized in existing high-level waste. The subcommittee¹s substantial increase in funding for a revived plutonium immobilization program is timely and promises to yield positive results in disposing of surplus plutonium now stored at SRS, Hanford and other DOE sites.
The Russians have made it clear that they will not participate in a parallel program to use MOX in their light-water reactors (LWRs). Thus, the basis for the joint U.S.-Russian MOX program has collapsed. Along with termination of the MOX plant funding, we request that it be made very clear to DOE that construction of the MOX plant at SRS shall not go forward given that there is no longer a parallel program in Russia.
DOE is taking a new look at an ³all-immobilization option.² Immobilization yields positive environmental and non-proliferation benefits over the risky commercial plutonium fuel option because it involves less handling and processing of plutonium. It is obvious that immobilization would be much cheaper than the dual disposition track (MOX and immobilization) that DOE is now pursuing. At a recent House Armed Services hearing on plutonium, DOE presented unsubstantiated rough estimates for the cost of immobilization compared with the cost of a dual track. We request that Congress direct DOE to conduct an in-depth cost analysis, involving participation and review independent from DOE, on immobilization and all aspects of DOE¹s plutonium
disposition program. An important dimension of this report must be to review the wisdom of two plutonium programs being managed by two artificially separated entities inside DOE - the Office of Environmental Management and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
As DOE has clearly not given up on MOX, however, we ask you to keep in mind there remain huge obstacles to success with the U.S.-Russia MOX program. In addition to the long-standing unresolved liability issues and the equally long-standing lack of G-8 support for financing Russia¹s MOX infrastructure, Russia simply does not have reactor capacity to burn MOX fuel. Although Russia has said it would use its BN-600 plutonium breeder reactor for plutonium disposition, that aging reactor has a maximum capacity to use only 4-5 metric tons of plutonium during its remaining life, far under the 34 metric tons in the original U.S.-Russia agreement. Now Russia wants
outside funding to pay for construction of a massive new plutonium breeder reactor, the BN-800. That reactor simply does not exist and thus cannot satisfy the bilateral agreement. Further, the BN-800 can be operated in ³breeding² mode to produce yet more weapons-grade plutonium for the Russian stockpile. Given the expense and the stark proliferation risk such a reactor poses, the U.S. must reject this option outright.
To respond to this letter or if you have questions about plutonium disposition issues and/or concerns about the program in the SRS region, please contact Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South, 404-378-4263, atom.girl@mindspring.com
We thank you very much for the significant step to terminate the MOX program. In the upcoming House-Senate conference committee we look to your leadership for a more sound and cost-effective approach to managing surplus plutonium.
Sincerely,
Glenn Carroll
Coordinator
Nuclear Watch South
(formerly GANE Georgians Against Nuclear Energy)
Atlanta, GA
Tom Clements
Senior Advisor
Greenpeace International
Washington, DC
Your Name
Your Title
Your Organization
City, State
In truth, my dial-up was so slow that is became a burden to even try to do anything online. Perhaps I should have taken the hint, eh?
At any rate, this is my first post after getting faster service, so maybe I will be able to get more done now.
Here's the deal. Duke Power has agreed to use a blend of uranium (the "regular" radioactive stuff) and plutonium (the bomb stuff) and use it in our local power plants. I won't go into all the ins and outs of why this is a bad idea. Check out The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service or your favorite nuclear proliferation or environmental group to find out if ya just can't trust me. ~Grin~ Imagine that!
Nuclear Watch South and Greenpeace International have started a "sign on" letter to Rep. Hobson, which is below. They are seeking as many signatures as possible, and that includes you and any group you are associated with. If you can get your bowling league to sign on, please do!
All the details are below. No need to peek behind the "Read more!" link, as there is nothing there.
Sign on, forward, pass along, and generally spread the word please. My local frogs, who prefer two eyes to five, thank you!
Gregg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September x, 2006
Dear Representative Hobson
Chairman, House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
Room 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6020
fax 202-225-1984
Eliminate Funding for SRS MOX Plant, Support Plutonium Immobilization
Dear Representative Hobson:
We are writing to you to thank you for the decision by the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee which led the full House to eliminate funding for the plutonium fuel (mixed oxide fuel, MOX) plant at the Department of Energy¹s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. For a host of cost, non-proliferation, and environmental reasons we fully support the decision to terminate the MOX program as a method to deal with surplus weapons plutonium. We also enthusiastically applaud the House¹s recognition that immobilization of plutonium as waste is the preferred disposition path.
As you are well aware, after more than a decade of large expenditures and fiscal mismanagement, the DOE¹s MOX program has produced minimal results. As the cost of the MOX plant has rapidly accelerated to near $4 billion, the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee¹s decision to cease funding the MOX program will prevent costs from spiraling further out of control if construction of the MOX plant were to begin.
As has been confirmed by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), the plutonium now stored in the old K-Reactor at SRS is too contaminated for use as MOX and must be immobilized in existing high-level waste. The subcommittee¹s substantial increase in funding for a revived plutonium immobilization program is timely and promises to yield positive results in disposing of surplus plutonium now stored at SRS, Hanford and other DOE sites.
The Russians have made it clear that they will not participate in a parallel program to use MOX in their light-water reactors (LWRs). Thus, the basis for the joint U.S.-Russian MOX program has collapsed. Along with termination of the MOX plant funding, we request that it be made very clear to DOE that construction of the MOX plant at SRS shall not go forward given that there is no longer a parallel program in Russia.
DOE is taking a new look at an ³all-immobilization option.² Immobilization yields positive environmental and non-proliferation benefits over the risky commercial plutonium fuel option because it involves less handling and processing of plutonium. It is obvious that immobilization would be much cheaper than the dual disposition track (MOX and immobilization) that DOE is now pursuing. At a recent House Armed Services hearing on plutonium, DOE presented unsubstantiated rough estimates for the cost of immobilization compared with the cost of a dual track. We request that Congress direct DOE to conduct an in-depth cost analysis, involving participation and review independent from DOE, on immobilization and all aspects of DOE¹s plutonium
disposition program. An important dimension of this report must be to review the wisdom of two plutonium programs being managed by two artificially separated entities inside DOE - the Office of Environmental Management and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
As DOE has clearly not given up on MOX, however, we ask you to keep in mind there remain huge obstacles to success with the U.S.-Russia MOX program. In addition to the long-standing unresolved liability issues and the equally long-standing lack of G-8 support for financing Russia¹s MOX infrastructure, Russia simply does not have reactor capacity to burn MOX fuel. Although Russia has said it would use its BN-600 plutonium breeder reactor for plutonium disposition, that aging reactor has a maximum capacity to use only 4-5 metric tons of plutonium during its remaining life, far under the 34 metric tons in the original U.S.-Russia agreement. Now Russia wants
outside funding to pay for construction of a massive new plutonium breeder reactor, the BN-800. That reactor simply does not exist and thus cannot satisfy the bilateral agreement. Further, the BN-800 can be operated in ³breeding² mode to produce yet more weapons-grade plutonium for the Russian stockpile. Given the expense and the stark proliferation risk such a reactor poses, the U.S. must reject this option outright.
To respond to this letter or if you have questions about plutonium disposition issues and/or concerns about the program in the SRS region, please contact Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South, 404-378-4263, atom.girl@mindspring.com
We thank you very much for the significant step to terminate the MOX program. In the upcoming House-Senate conference committee we look to your leadership for a more sound and cost-effective approach to managing surplus plutonium.
Sincerely,
Glenn Carroll
Coordinator
Nuclear Watch South
(formerly GANE Georgians Against Nuclear Energy)
Atlanta, GA
Tom Clements
Senior Advisor
Greenpeace International
Washington, DC
Your Name
Your Title
Your Organization
City, State
