From larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net Sun Apr 2 12:25:01 2006 From: larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net (Larry Cafiero_Liaison) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:25:01 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South SC County Greens participate in San Benito? Message-ID: <4430250D.9030503@earthlink.net> Santa Clara Greens -- The Green Party of San Benito County has discussed the possibility of Greens residing in the southern Santa Clara County towns of Morgan Hill and Gilroy to participate and vote in the GPSBC meetings. The GPSBC have asked me to present this question to you on their behalf. The GPSBC held their first meeting on March 25, and elected officers and a county council. I attended the meeting and found their election of county council and officers to be valid. As soon as the regional rep for our region, Paul Franklin, reviews the minutes and affirms the process of the election of their county council to the state coordinating committee, they will be considered a functioning GP county, as outlined in the state bylaws at Section 4-1.22. The question had been raised during the course of the organizational meetings of the GPSBC prior to March 25 -- since one Green in particular from Gilroy who owns a home in San Benito and one who has contributed to the discussion of forming San Benito on-line are residents of Gilroy and Morgan Hill respectively -- have said it would be more convenient to travel to the San Benito meetings than traveling to Santa Clara meetings. In fact, a bylaw to that effect had been in the GPSBC bylaws originally submitted for approval to the bylaws committee, but was withdrawn on the bylaws committee's recommendation. There are advantages to this arrangement: Primarily -- and this is my hope going forward -- it gets people involved in the Green Party and makes it easier for them to attend meetings. Also, it provides an incentive for Morgan Hill/Gilroy to start a local in their area, as outlined in Article 5 of the Santa Clara County bylaws. I am confident that San Benito would welcome the formation of such a local, and would sunset any bylaws accordingly should a Morgan Hill/Gilroy local be formed in Santa Clara County. The only hangup I can see is remote possibility "double voting" at meetings -- that is, Greens from Morgan Hill/Gilroy participating in both Santa Clara and San Benito meetings. If anyone sees this as a problem or a hangup -- I don't necessarily see it as either, but I would gladly field concerns or objections, and I'd welcome any suggestions for resolving them. On a state level, this arrangement would not affect the delegate count for plenaries, as those are still calculated solely on the basis of registered Greens in each county from data provided by the Secretary of State's office. This formula for calculating delegates will remain unchanged. I realize that this may be too late for your agenda for the April 4 meeting -- and I cannot make this meeting to make a presentation -- but I believe there should be discussion on this issue for a possible presentation at the May meeting. Larry Cafiero Liaison to the Secretary of State's office Green Party of California From gerrygras at earthlink.net Sun Apr 2 16:43:34 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 15:43:34 -0800 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South SC County Greens participate in San Benito? References: <4430250D.9030503@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <443061A6.4010400@earthlink.net> Larry Cafiero_Liaison wrote: > Santa Clara Greens -- > > The Green Party of San Benito County has discussed the possibility of I am glad to hear that there now is an active Green Party of San Benito County. Some time ago I looked at a map of counties and realized that San Benito County was the closest inactive county. Welcome to GPSBC!! > Greens residing in the southern Santa Clara County towns of Morgan Hill > and Gilroy to participate and vote in the GPSBC meetings. That is kind of them. > The GPSBC have > asked me to present this question to you on their behalf. > > The GPSBC held their first meeting on March 25, and elected officers and > a county council. I attended the meeting and found their election of > county council and officers to be valid. As soon as the regional rep for > our region, Paul Franklin, reviews the minutes and affirms the process > of the election of their county council to the state coordinating > committee, they will be considered a functioning GP county, as outlined > in the state bylaws at Section 4-1.22. > > The question had been raised during the course of the organizational > meetings of the GPSBC prior to March 25 -- since one Green in particular > from Gilroy who owns a home in San Benito and one who has contributed to > the discussion of forming San Benito on-line are residents of Gilroy and > Morgan Hill respectively -- have said it would be more convenient to > travel to the San Benito meetings than traveling to Santa Clara meetings. That does not surprise me. Of course how valid that is would depend on where in San Benito the meetings are. Looking at the map ... If the meetings were in Hernandez, that would not be true. But it seems that the biggest town is Hollister, so I guess the meetings would be in Hollister, and that clearly is more convenient. > > In fact, a bylaw to that effect had been in the GPSBC bylaws originally > submitted for approval to the bylaws committee, but was withdrawn on the > bylaws committee's recommendation. Are you referring to the GPSBC or GPCA bylaws committee? I am guessing the latter. > > There are advantages to this arrangement: Primarily -- and this is my > hope going forward -- it gets people involved in the Green Party and > makes it easier for them to attend meetings. Also, it provides an > incentive for Morgan Hill/Gilroy to start a local in their area, as > outlined in Article 5 of the Santa Clara County bylaws. I am confident > that San Benito would welcome the formation of such a local, and would > sunset any bylaws accordingly should a Morgan Hill/Gilroy local be > formed in Santa Clara County. It would be good to have a local down there. > > The only hangup I can see is remote possibility "double voting" at > meetings -- that is, Greens from Morgan Hill/Gilroy participating in > both Santa Clara and San Benito meetings. If anyone sees this as a > problem or a hangup -- I don't necessarily see it as either, but I would > gladly field concerns or objections, and I'd welcome any suggestions for > resolving them. I agree that double voting might be a problem. But maybe not. Some background ... In Santa Clara County we welcome anyone to our meetings. We do not get many people who aren't Santa Clara County Greens, but we have had at least one Santa Clara County Libertarian and one San Francisco Green and two Santa Cruz Greens. We probably have had others. I don't remember any restrictions on anyone's right to speak, whether Santa Clara County Green or not. We rarely have votes, but I think that when we do, we only allow Santa Clara County Greens to vote. But we almost always reach consensus, so for consensus decisions, all attendees are practically equal. I can't speak for the others, but I can't see a good reason why we should object to San Benito allowing Santa Clara residents to vote in San Benito meetings. But if the GPCA bylaws committee objected to that, then what can you do? Hmm, I suppose that depends on their objection. Also, FWIW, Santa Clara County residents south of San Jose are not very involved in the Santa Clara County Green Party. As far as I know, the one and only south-of-San-Jose resident who participates is Wes Rolley, who is quite active, but does not come to meetings. And Wes sometimes has different interests, because he is sometimes in electoral districts different from the rest of us. He is Pombo's district. And I think he is in a (different) district that extends to San Luis Obispo. Of course, if Wes were to spend more time with San Benito County and less time with Santa Clara County, then we would be disappointed, but of course he and others should be allowed to go where they want. > > On a state level, this arrangement would not affect the delegate count > for plenaries, as those are still calculated solely on the basis of > registered Greens in each county from data provided by the Secretary of > State's office. This formula for calculating delegates will remain > unchanged. I would be quite surprised if it was otherwise. > > I realize that this may be too late for your agenda for the April 4 > meeting -- and I cannot make this meeting to make a presentation -- but Sometimes it would be possible even at this late date to add it to the agenda. But we already have an agenda that is more full than normal, so I don't expect it to happen this meeting. > I believe there should be discussion on this issue for a possible > presentation at the May meeting. I am unclear on what you are asking for here. It seems that you don't have a decision item for Santa Clara County here. Do you just want to know whether it is ok with us for San Benito to allow Santa Clara County Greens to participate in San Benito? Or are you asking for some Santa Clara / San Benito collaberation? Or ...?? Speaking just for myself, I am glad that San Benito is active, and I believe in decentralization, and whatever San Benito County and south Santa Clara County Greens want to do is ok with me, as long as they don't make statements that say "the Green Party of Santa Clara County supports/endorses/etcetera.." without getting our permission first. Gerry From larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net Sun Apr 2 16:50:32 2006 From: larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net (Larry Cafiero_Liaison) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 16:50:32 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South SC County Greens participate in San Benito? In-Reply-To: <443061A6.4010400@earthlink.net> References: <4430250D.9030503@earthlink.net> <443061A6.4010400@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <44306348.6040104@earthlink.net> Gerry -- I can't reply within the text below without confusing people (myself included -- myself especially!), so I'll answer your questions up here. Joe Navarro, one of the newly elected county council members for the GPSBC who is copied in on this e-mail, can help me out here. -- Meetings are held in Hollister, which is the county seat of San Benito County. -- The bylaws committee of the Green Party of California has had a chance to review the GPSBC's bylaws over the past couple of months and has given its wise counsel on making the GPSBC bylaws adhere to the state bylaws and procedures. One of the primary changes was to remove an original clause in the GPSBC bylaws that provided membership privileges to Greens living in Gilroy and Morgan Hill. [I wasn't aware that GPSCC had a bylaws committee -- you guys and gals are good!] Any reference below to a "bylaws committee" refers to the state committee. I think one of the primary concerns about the original bylaw allowing membership by Gilroy/Morgan Hill residents had to do with how Santa Clara County felt about this. Santa Clara had not been asked at the time, and I think that was the primary basis of the withdrawal, with the understanding that it could be brought back later. -- On the issue of a local in Gilroy/Morgan Hill -- I don't think the interest is there at this point to have a Gilroy/Morgan Hill local in Santa Clara County, unfortunately, since we're only dealing with a couple of people. But ideally, if Gilroy/Morgan Hill started having five or more Greens regularly participate in San Benito and they thought, "Hey, we can have our own local and not even leave home," I think that would be great if they took the initiative to form a Santa Clara local. I would strongly encourage that. In that case, San Benito would have to sunset its bylaw once this local was affirmed by Santa Clara County. -- I mention the state delegate count to avert any questions about it. It's pretty obvious, true, but I thought it needed stating, so the first question wouldn't be, "What about delegates?". -- You say you are unclear about what I am asking. I am asking this: That Santa Clara County give its "okay" to San Benito County and state that it has no objection to San Benito County having a county bylaw that allows registered Greens living in Gilroy and Morgan Hill to be members with full membership privileges (i.e., voting, when necessary, and representing the GPSBC at plenaries, if elected) in the Green Party of San Benito County. Let me state the obvious again, as I did with the state delegate count: I am not proposing that San Benito and Santa Clara merge, nor I am proposing any sort of collaboration between the two counties (although I do support more established and experienced counties providing a guiding hand in "support," for lack of a better word, to newer ones). Or if Santa Clara does have an objection to having south county Greens having membership privileges in San Benito, I'd like to know what they are so both Joe and I can address them. Larry Cafiero Liaison to the Secretary of State's office Green Party of California Gerry Gras wrote: > > > Larry Cafiero_Liaison wrote: > >> Santa Clara Greens -- >> >> The Green Party of San Benito County has discussed the possibility of > > > > I am glad to hear that there now is an active Green Party of San Benito > County. Some time ago I looked at a map of counties and realized that > San Benito County was the closest inactive county. Welcome to GPSBC!! > > >> Greens residing in the southern Santa Clara County towns of Morgan >> Hill and Gilroy to participate and vote in the GPSBC meetings. > > > > That is kind of them. > >> The GPSBC have asked me to present this question to you on their behalf. >> >> The GPSBC held their first meeting on March 25, and elected officers >> and a county council. I attended the meeting and found their election >> of county council and officers to be valid. As soon as the regional >> rep for our region, Paul Franklin, reviews the minutes and affirms the >> process of the election of their county council to the state >> coordinating committee, they will be considered a functioning GP >> county, as outlined in the state bylaws at Section 4-1.22. >> >> The question had been raised during the course of the organizational >> meetings of the GPSBC prior to March 25 -- since one Green in >> particular from Gilroy who owns a home in San Benito and one who has >> contributed to the discussion of forming San Benito on-line are >> residents of Gilroy and Morgan Hill respectively -- have said it would >> be more convenient to travel to the San Benito meetings than traveling >> to Santa Clara meetings. > > > > That does not surprise me. Of course how valid that is would depend > on where in San Benito the meetings are. Looking at the map ... > If the meetings were in Hernandez, that would not be true. But it > seems that the biggest town is Hollister, so I guess the meetings > would be in Hollister, and that clearly is more convenient. > > >> >> In fact, a bylaw to that effect had been in the GPSBC bylaws >> originally submitted for approval to the bylaws committee, but was >> withdrawn on the bylaws committee's recommendation. > > > > Are you referring to the GPSBC or GPCA bylaws committee? I am guessing > the latter. > > >> >> There are advantages to this arrangement: Primarily -- and this is my >> hope going forward -- it gets people involved in the Green Party and >> makes it easier for them to attend meetings. Also, it provides an >> incentive for Morgan Hill/Gilroy to start a local in their area, as >> outlined in Article 5 of the Santa Clara County bylaws. I am confident >> that San Benito would welcome the formation of such a local, and would >> sunset any bylaws accordingly should a Morgan Hill/Gilroy local be >> formed in Santa Clara County. > > > > It would be good to have a local down there. > > >> >> The only hangup I can see is remote possibility "double voting" at >> meetings -- that is, Greens from Morgan Hill/Gilroy participating in >> both Santa Clara and San Benito meetings. If anyone sees this as a >> problem or a hangup -- I don't necessarily see it as either, but I >> would gladly field concerns or objections, and I'd welcome any >> suggestions for resolving them. > > > > I agree that double voting might be a problem. But maybe not. > > Some background ... > > In Santa Clara County we welcome anyone to our meetings. We do not > get many people who aren't Santa Clara County Greens, but we have had > at least one Santa Clara County Libertarian and one San Francisco > Green and two Santa Cruz Greens. We probably have had others. > > I don't remember any restrictions on anyone's right to speak, whether > Santa Clara County Green or not. > > We rarely have votes, but I think that when we do, we only allow > Santa Clara County Greens to vote. But we almost always reach > consensus, so for consensus decisions, all attendees are practically > equal. > > I can't speak for the others, but I can't see a good reason why > we should object to San Benito allowing Santa Clara residents to > vote in San Benito meetings. > > But if the GPCA bylaws committee objected to that, then what can > you do? Hmm, I suppose that depends on their objection. > > Also, FWIW, Santa Clara County residents south of San Jose are > not very involved in the Santa Clara County Green Party. As far > as I know, the one and only south-of-San-Jose resident who > participates is Wes Rolley, who is quite active, but does not > come to meetings. And Wes sometimes has different interests, > because he is sometimes in electoral districts different from the > rest of us. He is Pombo's district. And I think he is in a > (different) district that extends to San Luis Obispo. > > Of course, if Wes were to spend more time with San Benito County > and less time with Santa Clara County, then we would be disappointed, > but of course he and others should be allowed to go where they want. > > > >> >> On a state level, this arrangement would not affect the delegate count >> for plenaries, as those are still calculated solely on the basis of >> registered Greens in each county from data provided by the Secretary >> of State's office. This formula for calculating delegates will remain >> unchanged. > > > > I would be quite surprised if it was otherwise. > > >> >> I realize that this may be too late for your agenda for the April 4 >> meeting -- and I cannot make this meeting to make a presentation -- but > > > > Sometimes it would be possible even at this late date to add it to > the agenda. But we already have an agenda that is more full than > normal, so I don't expect it to happen this meeting. > > >> I believe there should be discussion on this issue for a possible >> presentation at the May meeting. > > > > I am unclear on what you are asking for here. It seems that you > don't have a decision item for Santa Clara County here. Do you > just want to know whether it is ok with us for San Benito to allow > Santa Clara County Greens to participate in San Benito? Or are > you asking for some Santa Clara / San Benito collaberation? Or ...?? > > Speaking just for myself, I am glad that San Benito is active, > and I believe in decentralization, and whatever San Benito County > and south Santa Clara County Greens want to do is ok with me, as > long as they don't make statements that say "the Green Party of > Santa Clara County supports/endorses/etcetera.." without getting > our permission first. > > Gerry > > From jims at greens.org Sun Apr 2 18:45:02 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 18:45:02 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South SC County Greens participate in San Benito? References: <4430250D.9030503@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <44307E1E.1FF43826@greens.org> I think we should find some time on our Tuesday agenda for this item. This issue has come up a time or two before. From my bylaws background, I found nothing that prohibits this. The one concern is double-voting on state party issues. We may find that a 'Memorandum of Understanding' between the counties would be useful. If our So. County Greens will become active by going to San Benito, I'm all for it. And, welcome to the San Benito folks! -- Jim Larry Cafiero_Liaison wrote: > > Santa Clara Greens -- > > The Green Party of San Benito County has discussed the possibility of > Greens residing in the southern Santa Clara County towns of Morgan Hill > and Gilroy to participate and vote in the GPSBC meetings. The GPSBC have > asked me to present this question to you on their behalf. > > The GPSBC held their first meeting on March 25, and elected officers and > a county council. I attended the meeting and found their election of > county council and officers to be valid. As soon as the regional rep for > our region, Paul Franklin, reviews the minutes and affirms the process > of the election of their county council to the state coordinating > committee, they will be considered a functioning GP county, as outlined > in the state bylaws at Section 4-1.22. > > The question had been raised during the course of the organizational > meetings of the GPSBC prior to March 25 -- since one Green in particular > from Gilroy who owns a home in San Benito and one who has contributed to > the discussion of forming San Benito on-line are residents of Gilroy and > Morgan Hill respectively -- have said it would be more convenient to > travel to the San Benito meetings than traveling to Santa Clara meetings. > > In fact, a bylaw to that effect had been in the GPSBC bylaws originally > submitted for approval to the bylaws committee, but was withdrawn on the > bylaws committee's recommendation. > > There are advantages to this arrangement: Primarily -- and this is my > hope going forward -- it gets people involved in the Green Party and > makes it easier for them to attend meetings. Also, it provides an > incentive for Morgan Hill/Gilroy to start a local in their area, as > outlined in Article 5 of the Santa Clara County bylaws. I am confident > that San Benito would welcome the formation of such a local, and would > sunset any bylaws accordingly should a Morgan Hill/Gilroy local be > formed in Santa Clara County. > > The only hangup I can see is remote possibility "double voting" at > meetings -- that is, Greens from Morgan Hill/Gilroy participating in > both Santa Clara and San Benito meetings. If anyone sees this as a > problem or a hangup -- I don't necessarily see it as either, but I would > gladly field concerns or objections, and I'd welcome any suggestions for > resolving them. > > On a state level, this arrangement would not affect the delegate count > for plenaries, as those are still calculated solely on the basis of > registered Greens in each county from data provided by the Secretary of > State's office. This formula for calculating delegates will remain > unchanged. > > I realize that this may be too late for your agenda for the April 4 > meeting -- and I cannot make this meeting to make a presentation -- but > I believe there should be discussion on this issue for a possible > presentation at the May meeting. > > Larry Cafiero > Liaison to the Secretary of State's office > Green Party of California > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From wrolley at charter.net Sun Apr 2 21:13:04 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 21:13:04 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South County Message-ID: <4430A0D0.7010502@charter.net> With the discussion about San Benito and South County, I would like to know if there are others on this list besides myself who are from South County. I'm from Moragn Hill. I would not mind talking offline about how we should work. Either email me or call me at (408)-778-3024. Wes -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 From baalavi at yahoo.com Tue Apr 4 07:56:19 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Heavy Message-ID: <20060404145619.61204.qmail@web52114.mail.yahoo.com> http://isahaqi.chris-floyd.com/ --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 4 09:16:00 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:16:00 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] code pink event Message-ID: <44329BC0.9030407@sbcglobal.net> *Thursday, April 13* *Multi-Culture Music and Dance Jubilee ? a benefit for Code Pink ? San Jos? * *TAL ka JADU 8:30 p.m.?12:30 a.m. Avalon Nightclub www.nightclubavalon.com 777 Lawrence Expressway @ Homestead, Santa Clara, CA 95051 Telephone: (408) 241-0777 * Price: presale, $10 online at www.fontainsmuse.com/avaloneventtickets.htm and at the door, $15 Age requirement: 21 + bring ID ~Purpose~ To celebrate and create a culturally and spiritually uplifting event for the sharing of diverse peoples who reside in the South Bay area and welcome all from any corner of the world. ~Performances~ ? HAMSA LILA~Live Hypnotic World Groove~Rich in polyethnic percussion and complex rhythmic grooves, this global trance music draws listeners into the creation of new multicultural, mostly dance-based rituals... Yoga Journal review www.hamsalila.com ? DJ Sep~ KPFA (Dub Mission/KPFA) eclectic dub & global rhythms ? Fontain's M.U.S.E.~... spiritually driven and groove-laden...Indian, Eastern, and Western senses merge to create their hypnotic pulse...earBuzz ? House of Inanna~Enchanting, sacred and playful belly dance: She dances in our feet and sings in our throats! ? Majinga & Magic Genii~ hyperbolic illusion, mesmerizing acro dancing www.magictimeproductions.com Plus: cool stuff like massage, henna, aromatherapy, and opportunities to engage politically with peace and justice groups (including South Bay Mobilization!) BENEFIT for CODE PINK -- welcome their new chapter to Santa Clara! http://www.codepinkalert.org From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 4 09:21:07 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:21:07 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] events at San Jose State Message-ID: <44329CF3.4030608@sbcglobal.net> Thesse events culminate on the day of the Earth Day celebration at San Jose State University, Thursday the 20-th, where we will be tabling. *Monday, April 17 to Thursday, April 20* *S.M.A.R.T. Project (Sustainable Markets And Responsible Trade) Presents ?San Jos?* *San Jose State University 1 Washington Square* *Mon, April 17* 9am-12pm: Fair Trade Movie: Cappuccino Trail: The Global Economy in a Cup Location: MOSAIC, 3rd floor Student Union Center 12:30-1:45pm: Speaker on Fair Trade: Anuradha Mittal Executive Director of The Oakland Institute Location: Martin Luther King Jr. Library, Rm 229A & 225B, 2nd floor 2:15-3:00pm: Speaker on Fair Trade: Jesse Colorado Swanhuyser Director of California Coalition for Fair Trade and Human Rights Location: Martin Luther King Jr. Library, Rm 229A & 225B, 2nd floor 1:30-6:00pm: SJSU Sustainable Agricultural Garden Tours Rachel O'Malley - Chair, Environmental Studies Dept. Location: Exterior courtyard of Washington Square Hall *Tues, April 18* 9am-2pm: Fair Trade Faire - Vendors and Supporting Organizations Sale of Crafts from Ten Thousand Villages Location: 7th Street/Central Plaza 12:30-1:30pm: "Food for Thought...and ACTION!" (Food Panel Discussion with SJSU Faculty): Rachel O'Malley (Chair, Environ. Studies Dept.) Katherine Cushing (Environ. Studies Dept.) Roberto Gonzalez (Anthropology. Dept.) Dan Brook (Sociology Dept.) Elena Dorabji (Political Science Dept.) Location:Almaden Room, 3rd floor Student Union Center 1:30-2:30pm: "Living Fair and Sweat-Free!" (Discussion Panel on Fair Trade/Sweatshops): Various Community Leaders Location: Almaden Room, 3rd floor Student Union Center *Wed, April 19* 9am-11pm: Sweatshop Movie: Behind the Labels: Garment Workers on U.S. Saipan Location: MOSAIC, 3rd floor Student Union Center 12:30-1:30pm: Speaker on Sweatshops: Carmencita "Chie" Abad Location: Umunhum Room, 3rd floor Student Union Center 9-2pm: Fair Trade Faire: Sale of Crafts from Ten Thousand Villages *Thur, April 20* 9am-2pm: Fair Trade Fair during Earth Day Festivities: Sale of Ten Thousand Villages Crafts Location: 7th Street/Central Plaza More infor: www.geocities.com/sjsusmartproject/ From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 4 09:24:24 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:24:24 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] upcoming protest re immigration Message-ID: <44329DB8.5050503@sbcglobal.net> Heads up From South Bay Mobilization: Next Monday April 10-th: *Monday, April 10* *March Against Anti-Immigrant Legislation ? San **Jos?** *Part of national day of action Gather at the Tropicana Center, Story and King, at 4 p.m. (details to follow) From gerrygras at earthlink.net Tue Apr 4 13:13:44 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:13:44 -0800 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Proposed Agenda for County Meeting (2nd draft) Message-ID: <4432D378.2090706@earthlink.net> NOTE: Changes from the first draft, sent 3/31, 2:26 PM: - moved CNA initiative up front - added San Bernardino participation - added Gay Pride Parade and July 4th "weekend" to Tabling - removed Plenary Proposals (packet not available) ================================================================ Proposed Agenda for County Meeting Tuesday, April 4, 2006 Location: Banjara Indian Restaurant - http://banjarainc.com 407 Town & Country Village, Sunnyvale Directions available at above web site 6:30 Socializing and Dinner - 7:30 Meeting -- Preliminary Items -- Choose Facilitator(s), Note-Taker(s), Time Keeper, and Vibes Watcher(s) (5) Introductions and Short Announcements (5) Revise and Affirm Agenda (5) -- Main Part -- 1. Guest speaker(s) CNA public campaign financing initiative (15) Warner / Greg Miller 2. Treasurer's Report (5) Adam 3. State Party Business Plenary Delegate Selection / Meeting (10) 4. Old Business Planning Meeting (no progress) (5) Gerry County Council Election (1) Gerry Peace March Report (2) (whoever was there) Tabling (15) (Jim Doyle) Earth Day Events Junior Statesmen Logistics (suitcase) Gay Pride Parade Fourth of July "weekend" (Su-Tu, 7/2-4) Treasurer Replacement (3) Gerry Regional Rep Election (5) Gerry Impeachment Resolution (3) Gerry 5. New Business Move meeting to San Jose Peace Center (15) Cameron Press Release Authorization (10) Gerry / Jim Doyle / Wes Outreach (Youth and Latino) (10) Jim Doyle Volunteer Participation (5) Gerry San Benito participation (5) Gerry / Jim Stauffer (Total scheduled time: 2 hours, 4 minutes) -- Future Events -- Next GPSCC meeting Tuesday, May 2, 2006 ? (Unless some date change proposal passes) -- Disclaimer -- The items summarized above are agenda suggestions, only. The actual meeting agenda is affirmed at the meeting by those who are present. Additionally, the times allotted to agenda items may be changed during the course of the meeting, and some items may not e reached during the meeting because of time limits. Persons receiving this email are invited to make additional suggestions or corrections regarding potential agenda items, time estimates or the agenda sequence. Please share this information with individuals who do not have email. From gerrygras at earthlink.net Tue Apr 4 13:52:23 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:52:23 -0800 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South SC County Greens participate in San Benito? References: <4430250D.9030503@earthlink.net> <443061A6.4010400@earthlink.net> <44306348.6040104@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4432DC87.7030606@earthlink.net> Larry Cafiero_Liaison wrote: > > -- You say you are unclear about what I am asking. I am asking this: > That Santa Clara County give its "okay" to San Benito County and state > that it has no objection to San Benito County having a county bylaw that > allows registered Greens living in Gilroy and Morgan Hill to be members > with full membership privileges (i.e., voting, when necessary, and > representing the GPSBC at plenaries, if elected) in the Green Party of > San Benito County. Let me state the obvious again, as I did with the > state delegate count: I am not proposing that San Benito and Santa Clara > merge, nor I am proposing any sort of collaboration between the two > counties (although I do support more established and experienced > counties providing a guiding hand in "support," for lack of a better > word, to newer ones). > > Or if Santa Clara does have an objection to having south county Greens > having membership privileges in San Benito, I'd like to know what they > are so both Joe and I can address them. > I did put this on the agenda at Jim Stuaffer's request. We have more time than I expected because the plenary packet is not available yet. I have included the agenda as a text attachment. If you have any last minute comments, reply to the sosfbay-discuss list, I will be away from email from now until after the meeting tonight. Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: 0604.txt URL: From larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net Tue Apr 4 13:35:24 2006 From: larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net (Larry Cafiero_Liaison) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:35:24 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South SC County Greens participate in San Benito? In-Reply-To: <4432DC87.7030606@earthlink.net> References: <4430250D.9030503@earthlink.net> <443061A6.4010400@earthlink.net> <44306348.6040104@earthlink.net> <4432DC87.7030606@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4432D88C.1060106@earthlink.net> Thank you, Gerry. I don't have anything more to say, and I know Jim Stauffer can speak to this issue with authority. Joe Navarro of San Benito County might have something to say -- Joe, reading in copy, is it remotely possible to go to Sunnyvale tonight? If not, can you add anything to this that I may have missed. Thanks again for agendizing this item. Larry Cafiero Gerry Gras wrote: > > > Larry Cafiero_Liaison wrote: > > >> >> -- You say you are unclear about what I am asking. I am asking this: >> That Santa Clara County give its "okay" to San Benito County and state >> that it has no objection to San Benito County having a county bylaw >> that allows registered Greens living in Gilroy and Morgan Hill to be >> members with full membership privileges (i.e., voting, when necessary, >> and representing the GPSBC at plenaries, if elected) in the Green >> Party of San Benito County. Let me state the obvious again, as I did >> with the state delegate count: I am not proposing that San Benito and >> Santa Clara merge, nor I am proposing any sort of collaboration >> between the two counties (although I do support more established and >> experienced counties providing a guiding hand in "support," for lack >> of a better word, to newer ones). >> >> Or if Santa Clara does have an objection to having south county Greens >> having membership privileges in San Benito, I'd like to know what they >> are so both Joe and I can address them. >> > > > > > I did put this on the agenda at Jim Stuaffer's request. > We have more time than I expected because the plenary packet > is not available yet. > > I have included the agenda as a text attachment. > > If you have any last minute comments, reply to the sosfbay-discuss > list, I will be away from email from now until after the meeting > tonight. > > > Gerry > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proposed Agenda for County Meeting > Tuesday, April 4, 2006 > Location: Banjara Indian Restaurant - http://banjarainc.com > 407 Town & Country Village, Sunnyvale > Directions available at above web site > > 6:30 Socializing and Dinner - 7:30 Meeting > > -- Preliminary Items -- > > Choose Facilitator(s), Note-Taker(s), Time Keeper, and > Vibes Watcher(s) (5) > Introductions and Short Announcements (5) > Revise and Affirm Agenda (5) > > -- Main Part -- > > 1. Guest speaker(s) > CNA public campaign financing initiative (15) Warner / Greg Miller > > 2. Treasurer's Report (5) Adam > > 3. State Party Business > Plenary Delegate Selection / Meeting (10) > > 4. Old Business > Planning Meeting (no progress) (5) Gerry > County Council Election (1) Gerry > Peace March Report (2) (whoever was there) > Tabling (15) (Jim Doyle) > Earth Day Events > Junior Statesmen > Logistics (suitcase) > Gay Pride Parade > Fourth of July "weekend" (Su-Tu, 7/2-4) > Treasurer Replacement (3) Gerry > Regional Rep Election (5) Gerry > Impeachment Resolution (3) Gerry > > 5. New Business > Move meeting to San Jose Peace Center (15) Cameron > Press Release Authorization (10) Gerry / Jim Doyle / Wes > Outreach (Youth and Latino) (10) Jim Doyle > Volunteer Participation (5) Gerry > San Benito participation (5) Gerry / Jim Stauffer > > (Total scheduled time: 2 hours, 4 minutes) > > -- Future Events -- > > Next GPSCC meeting Tuesday, May 2, 2006 ? > (Unless some date change proposal passes) > > -- Disclaimer -- > > The items summarized above are agenda suggestions, only. The > actual meeting agenda is affirmed at the meeting by those who are > present. Additionally, the times allotted to agenda items may be > changed during the course of the meeting, and some items may not e > reached during the meeting because of time limits. Persons > receiving this email are invited to make additional suggestions or > corrections regarding potential agenda items, time estimates or > the agenda sequence. Please share this information with > individuals who do not have email. -- Larry Cafiero Liaison to the Secretary of State's office Green Party of California From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 4 23:17:44 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:17:44 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Berryessa art and wine Message-ID: <44336108.5020803@sbcglobal.net> Hi Jim, My name is Mary Bauerle. I work for three community newspapers, the Milpitas Post, the Fremont Bulletin, and the Berryessa Sun. All three of our well-read community newspapers are delivered door-to-door and dropped in bulk to local businesses. I am attaching circulation information. I understand that the Green Party will have a booth at the Berryessa Art and Wine Festival on May 13th. We are building a pull out guide, listing events to take place at this festival. It will be featured in the Berryessa Sun issue of April 14th and the Milpitas Post issue of May 11th. The attached rate card includes an ad in both issues. Let me know if your organization would like to do something to invite the communities to come meet with you. Sincerely, Mary Bauerle (408)262-2454 x22 Fax: (408)263-9710 E-mail: maryb at themilpitaspost.com Ad rate: 1/8 page, $231. From baalavi at yahoo.com Wed Apr 5 07:30:05 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 07:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Perverts hanging in packs to "secure ???" homeland Message-ID: <20060405143005.79145.qmail@web52109.mail.yahoo.com> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_us/press_secretary_arrested --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From baalavi at yahoo.com Wed Apr 5 10:23:48 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: Iran's imploding economy Message-ID: <20060405172348.74982.qmail@web52115.mail.yahoo.com> I had fun doing this minor revision! :) Honestly -- verify it against the original! Appreciate any feedback. ba ============================ America's Imploding Economy Fighting Terrorism: Our best weapon against an increasingly bellicose US-neocon may be its leader, who is scaring off the world community as well as alienating natives and sinking the economy. President George Bush, who has vowed to "wipe off terrorism," needs steady capital to maintain his ambitious war program. Yet America's economy is in serious trouble, in spite of its huge oil revenues. And the American people, suffering from crushing unemployment and inflation, may soon grow weary of his regime sacrificing their butter for guns. The U.N. should take heed. Imposing economic sanctions against Washington would further isolate it and perhaps build enough internal pressure to force Washington to comply with international demands to stop preemptive strikes against sovereign nation. Since George Bush's election, there has been a massive flight of capital from the US. Many investors are nervous about the showdown over the country's anti terrorist program and have chosen to reinvest their funds in more stable markets such as Canada, Europe or the Far East. Thousands of companies previously owned by Americans are now operating in China and elsewhere outside of USA. Even the normally active real estate market in the US has softened. The Guber Institution estimates that more than $200 Trillion has already left the US. Washington, desperate for capital, began selling off infrastructure assets to foreign interests ??? Chicago Freeway System to Bank of Australia, management of US Ports to Dubai of UAE Hong Kong of China, amongst other things. The alleged terrorism crisis isn't the only thing on investors' minds. They're also worried about Bush's Fundamentalist Religious politics. For one, he's stopped cold previous reforms to the Supreme Cout. The White House already runs roughly 80% of the Community-Based-Services, and George Bush has redirected tax dollars to the religious sector under the pretense of ???community Services???. His first budget, approved by the US Congress, ramps up US anti terrorist spending by 25%. Hi-tech, once the core of blazing US business, is in a severe crisis, according to Guber. Since the president decreed Patriot Act, Americans should be a subordinate subject of the state, Washington has been limiting Freedom. There are fears that un-harnessed eavesdropping, already at 14%, could decay the constitution. It's said that Bush wants to outlaw free thinking altogether to comply with neocon plans, barring none. Some free thinking Americans have already already announced a migration to Canada. The president has also suggested the social security is a form of goldmine and also is "too restricted". Not surprisingly, the US stock index has surrendered nearly a quarter of its value since Bush was elected in 2000. America's chronically high unemployment has only worsened under George Bush. It now stands at a 5%. Fully 70% of the US population is under the age of 29, and they have borne the brunt of the military recruiting. In a recent survey by the state-run Fox News Organization, young people cited joblessness as one of the top problems they face. Their prospects are so grim that 55% of American youth have contemplated suicide or joining the armed forces least once, the study found. This is a potential powder keg of discontent that could turn against the ruling regime. Economic sanctions, including restrictions on freedom & unwarranted eavesdroppings, wiretapping, and/or imprisonment without charges, could provide the match that sets off civil unrest. Average Americams should ultimately blame George Bush and the neocons for their worsened plight. If things get bad enough, students might decide to revolt as they did in the 1960s -- only this time they might choose revolution instead of reforms. The world community should pressure holdout members Russia and China of the U.N. Security Council to get on board actions. Domestic support will surely wane for Bush's regime and its saber rattling neocons, especially since its domestic policies are already hurting the economy and the American people. ============================ Iran's Imploding Economy Investor's Business Daily - Analysis Apr 4, 2006 Axis Of Evil: Our best weapon against an increasingly bellicose Iran may be its new hard-line leader, who is scaring off foreign investors and sinking the economy. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map," needs steady capital to maintain his ambitious nuclear program. Yet Iran's economy is in serious trouble, in spite of its huge oil revenues. And the Iranian people, suffering from crushing unemployment and inflation, may soon grow weary of his regime sacrificing their butter for guns. The U.N. should take heed. Imposing economic sanctions against Tehran would further isolate it and perhaps build enough internal pressure to force Tehran to comply with international demands to stop uranium enrichment. Since Ahmadinejad's election last year, there has been a massive flight of capital from Iran. Many investors are nervous about the showdown over the country's nuclear program and have chosen to reinvest their funds in more stable markets such as nearby United Arab Emirates. Thousands of companies owned by Iranians are now operating in Dubai and elsewhere outside of Iran. Even the normally active real estate market in Tehran has softened. The Hoover Institution estimates that more than $200 billion has already left Iran. Tehran, desperate for capital, began withdrawing assets from European banks earlier this year. The nuclear crisis isn't the only thing on investors' minds. They're also worried about Ahmadinejad's anti-market policies. For one, he's stopped cold previous reforms to privatize Iran's economy. Tehran already runs roughly 80% of the economy, and Ahmadinejad has redirected investments to the public sector. His first budget, approved by the Iranian parliament last month, ramps up government spending by 25%. Private banking is in a severe crisis, according to Hoover. Since the president decreed banks should be a monopoly of the state, Tehran has been lowering interest rates. There are fears that inflation, already at 14%, could skyrocket. It's said that Ahmadinejad wants to outlaw interest altogether to comply with Islamic law barring usury. Some orthodox bank managers have already announced a moratorium on lending. The president has also suggested the stock market is a form of gambling and also is "un-Islamic." Not surprisingly, Iran's stock index has surrendered nearly a quarter of its value since Ahmadinejad was elected last June. Iran's chronically high unemployment has only worsened under Ahmadinejad. It now stands at a staggering 30%. Fully 70% of the Iranian population is under the age of 29, and they have borne the brunt of the jobs crunch. In a recent survey by the state-run National Youth Organization, young people cited joblessness as one of the top problems they face. Their prospects are so grim that 55% of Iranian youth have contemplated suicide at least once, the study found. This is a potential powder keg of discontent that could turn against the ruling regime. Economic sanctions, including restrictions on travel, could provide the match that sets off civil unrest. Average Iranians would ultimately blame Ahmadinejad and the mullahs for their worsened plight. If things get bad enough, students might decide to revolt as they did in the 1970s -- only this time they might choose Western-style reforms. Washington should pressure holdout members Russia and China of the U.N. Security Council to get on board sanctions. Domestic support will surely wane for Ahmadinejad's regime and its saber rattling, especially since its domestic policies are already hurting the economy and the Iranian people. --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at greens.org Wed Apr 5 11:42:36 2006 From: tnharter at greens.org (Tian Harter) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:42:36 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe Message-ID: <44340F9C.1030106@greens.org> San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center Original article is at http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1810728.php Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe by Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner Saturday, Mar. 25, 2006 at 10:29 AM Bob.bobnichols at gmail.com The average radioactive dose, according to official government index based calculations, was about 23 million radioactive particles for the average adult male in Britain and Europe. Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe by Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner Nine days after the start of the American president's 2003 "shock and awe" uranium bombing campaign in Baghdad, an invisible radioactive uranium oxide gas cloud swept through Britain's towns and countryside and throughout Europe. Respected scientists reported on the unrevealed gas cloud after conducting research on specialized high volume air filters in England. Dr. Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan stunned Europe in a Sunday Times of London article on Feb. 19, 2006. Their scientific paper, released March 1st, 2006, [1] proved the event. With all the vigor of delusional drunkards, British nuclear and military spokesmen predictably denied the reality of an invisible radioactive cloud. The military claimed that a Chernobyl-like event in the area was probably responsible, but no explosive meltdowns of operating reactor cores have been reported or observed in 2006 anywhere in the world. Evidence of the truth of the gas cloud panicked the military into frantic, irrational, ludicrous denials. The military spin was later refined and the new Chernobyl claim quietly dropped. In America, lightweight wannabe spin doctor Dan Fahey issued the cover up talking points. [2] The "nuke sycophants" will take up these siren call lies as per instructions. Bush's radioactive "shock and awe" gas cloud descended on Britain and Europe like a warm, deadly ticking blanket and stayed throughout the American and British shock and awe bombing campaign in 2003. Bush's radioactive cloud lasted more than five weeks at high radioactive particle concentration levels. There is no gas mask filter fine enough to trap this radioactive gas and protect humans. At Aldermaston, England, where the data was collected and where the British Atomic Weapons Establishment, complete with air monitoring facilities, is located, the deadly uranium oxide gas measured about 48,000 radioactive particles per square meter. The average radioactive dose, according to official government index based calculations, was about 23 million radioactive particles for the average adult male in Britain and Europe. Yes, people breathed this poison gas, absolutely. People throughout England and presumably throughout Europe breathed in large quantities of this radioactive uranium poison gas. What are the effects of the poison gas cloud? After a steady decline for 41 years, the infant death rate has started inching up, many researchers think because of the Central Asian nuclear wars. The infant death rate is the most sensitive measure of the health of the human race. Like the proverbial canaries in a coal mine, the tiniest babies die first. George W. Bush, as the current appointed manager of the senior American political and military establishments, oversees a vast empire that knows exactly what the effect of millions of pounds of deadly weaponized radioactive ceramic uranium oxide gas and tiny aerosols are on the health of people throughout the world. They used uranium munitions in Iraq anyway. The American political and military leaders wanted to use genocidal weapons. You might even say the U.S. military went out of their way to use these radiation-based genocidal weapons in Iraq. Lots of them, too. Indeed, the American permanent war establishment has known the effect of poisonous uranium oxide gas since 1943. A declassified World War II memo to Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the ultra-secretive Manhattan Project to make atomic bombs, listed two reasons to use radioactive gas: One was to kill people, and the other was to contaminate their land. [3] A British newspaper quotes Dr. Busby, a government adviser on radiation, as saying: "This research shows that rather than remaining near the target, as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away." [4] There were and are laws in England that require notification of the government when levels of radioactivity are reached around the nuclear weapons complex at Aldermaston. No notification was made. When the records were requested, the clearly labeled "shock and awe" time frame data was omitted. The Defense Procurement Agency in Bristol supplied the missing data to scientists Busby and Morgan. The real British patriots are the ones who provided the deleted incriminating data to Busby and Morgan. Bush and his faithful followers, the neocon fascists, will be remembered as securing their place in history by exposing hundreds of millions of people to high levels of internal radiation poisoning. Make no mistake about it; this is real radioactive uranium gas. The Americans used this genetics changing and killing weapon on men, women and children. It made no difference to the Americans. The citizen opposition liberal groups in America who only stand on the street corners with signs are misdirecting legitimate citizen outrage and protest. These groups are more than just not effective; they contribute to the protection of the multi-national corporations, senior political and military leaders involved in these pre-planned war crimes. About ineffective protests, the famous author Ward Churchill says: "(N)o one really cares a whit that a sector of the beneficiary population (American protesters) has chosen to bear a sort of perpetual 'moral witness' to the crimes committed against the Third World. What they do care about is whether such witnesses translate their 'professions of outrage' into whatever kinds of actions may be necessary to actually put an end to the horror." [14] When will the protesters awaken and take action to put an end to this horror? Never? Sometime? When? A well planned effort The American military is nothing if not well planned. When the decision was made to go nuclear in conventional warfare with the promiscuous use of radiation dispersing uranium weapons, including land mines, bullets, shells, missiles and bombs, the proper and correct Army rules and regulations for radiological clean-up were created as well. These rules have the force of American law throughout the world. However, the same government that adopted these rules is not following them, even in the United States. Army Rules and Regulations on Radiation Poisoning (AR 700-48 and TB 9-1300-278) [15] unambiguously specify that U.S. troops and local civilians exposed to radiation poisoning will be treated. Radiation casualties exist, and provisions are made for their care as best as can be done for a non-curable bystander affliction: radiation poisoning. Clean and treat rules also apply; they are just not obeyed. In short, the regulations say that if the U.S. military is going to use radioactive weapons, then it must clean up the radiological contamination and treat the casualties. It is consistent with the philosophy of some "if you break it, fix it" former U.S. military leaders. The applicable rules and regulations are a common sense approach and the only responsible radiological warfare position for the only superpower on the planet. The rules are not followed even in the United States itself [5] but are buried away in their mountains of paperwork. Why has this approach been rejected by the senior U.S. political leadership? http://tinyurl.com/bk2yn Marion Fulk, a consultant physicist at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, is one of the original Manhattan Project scientists. When asked if the main purpose for using depleted uranium was for destroying things and killing people, Fulk was more specific: "I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people." [6] Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a respected scientist who serves on a variety of Pentagon committees, says about 1.3 billion people have already been killed, maimed or diseased since the nuclear age started. [7] Is this the Pentagon's purpose for using uranium munitions and rejecting the legally mandated task to treat and clean? Most reasonable people would agree that racking up 1.3 billion people killed or maimed since the beginning of the nuclear age and the American uranium bombing tragedy spreading the gas cloud to Europe and Britain is not the "treat and clean" approach to radioactive warfare set out in the regulations. On the contrary, the Bush radioactive gas cloud is just the opposite. The plain purpose of exposing hundreds of millions of people would seem to be to kill and sicken more people. As a rare Pentagon admission said, "The properties of uranium do not change." Famed former Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab scientist Leuren Moret has spoken about the dangers of so-called "depleted uranium" in 42 countries. In "Exotic Weapons," the author, radio and film celebrity states, "Since 1991, the continued U.S. military use of dirty bombs, dirty missiles and dirty bullets threatens humanity and all living things ... and is turning Planet Earth into a death star." [8] [12] Massive carpet bombing of whole countries with uranium bombs appears to be the current war fighting plan of the U.S. military. Unfortunately, U.S. troops are the first to be sacrificed on the altar of the neocon warfare plan for total global domination. As former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger said, "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." [9] American political and military leaders never asked the "pawns" or troops if that was OK. In the authoritative World Affairs Journal, Moret states: "The Korea Times reported on Dec. 23, 2005, that the U.S. military has 2.7 million depleted uranium bombs [pre-positioned] in South Korea. It is understandable why North Korea wants nuclear weapons." [10] North Korea is just slightly smaller than the American state of Mississippi. Two million seven hundred uranium bombs is enough to carpet bomb with workhorse Air Force B-52s at the rate of 10 bombs per square mile. Some researchers believe that grid bombing with uranium bombs was used in the American war in the former Yugoslavia. There is clear circumstantial evidence that carpet bombing with genocidal weapons is the preferred response of the American military to local resistance efforts. The San Francisco-based humanitarian and war crimes lawyer Karen Parker states unequivocally that the use of depleted uranium in American/U.K. weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia is a war crime. War crimes are punishable by imprisonment or execution, typically by hanging or a firing squad. America's war criminal class of senior politicians and military leaders has a powerful reason to lie about using genocidal weapons for at least 15 years in Central Asia - their very lives depend on it. In Johnny's Dad's words, the senior leaders are "filthy rotten scum." [16] Upcoming war crimes trial The chief Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor speaks knowingly and directly across more than 50 years to resolutely instruct American citizens on exactly what our duty is today, right now: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience ? therefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." [11] The statement was affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and is now international law and, by extension, American law. It is our duty as Americans to prevent crimes against peace and humanity. The fascist administration now controlling America and the U.S. military cannot be allowed to continue these crimes. The world and international law holds us all accountable, and the price is dear. It is time to impeach and imprison members of our government for their war crimes commensurate with their degree of complicity and guilt. If the House will not impeach and the Senate will not put them on trial; then we, all 300 million Americans, have a problem. We all are citizens of this country and the world, and, as such, we must acknowledge the incontrovertible evidence of war crimes by the leaders of the American Expeditionary Forces in Iraq with the use of genocidal weapons. Bush and others crossed the line long ago when they lied to get us into the Iraq War. They continue to lie about the damage being done with uranium weapons. One of the comforts history provides us is a road map out of unthinkable situations, to a more or less tenable, workable future. The injured and maimed and families of the dead are due treatment and/or compensation, the cleanup must be initiated and whole countries rebuilt. That is the true legacy of the neocons, the new American Nazis. What people can do Every single day thousands of American military and government workers handle thousands of "sensitive" papers that "prove" the War Crimes of the American Government's senior political and military leaders. These thousands of people could, if they wanted to, create havoc in the fascist administration by providing these incriminating papers and the "smoking guns" of innumerable crimes they hold to the public: A "paper blizzard" to teach a whole new generation that what's right is right. About 40 years ago, it was thousands of pages of the "Pentagon Papers" that did the trick with the illegal Viet Nam War and President Nixon. Thousands more pages are needed now. The neocon or neolib papers like the disgraced New York Times or the conservative phantom Washington Post no longer will do the right thing. The timid NYT took almost a year to publish the proof of illegal NSA government spying on American citizens. Bush then bragged about the illegal spying on network prime time television. We do not need "timid" now. Far less than that forced Nixon to leave the president's office. Do what you think best. -- Tian http://tianharter.org I'm seeking endorsements for my campaign. Please let me know if you want your name on my list! I would be honored to add you.. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 From tnharter at greens.org Wed Apr 5 13:31:40 2006 From: tnharter at greens.org (Tian Harter) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:31:40 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Anybody want to endorse my Senate Campaign? Message-ID: <4434292C.8020703@greens.org> I'm currently interested in adding the names of people that want to be seen as my friends to my endorser list. Please let me know if you want to be on it! The experience is probably worth about a microsecond of fame... -- Tian http://tianharter.org I'm seeking endorsements for my campaign. Please let me know if you want your name on my list! I would be honored to add you.. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 From gerrygras at earthlink.net Wed Apr 5 15:38:11 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:38:11 -0800 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South SC County Greens participate in San Benito? References: <4430250D.9030503@earthlink.net> <443061A6.4010400@earthlink.net> <44306348.6040104@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <443446D3.3090201@earthlink.net> Larry Cafiero_Liaison wrote: > Gerry -- > > > -- You say you are unclear about what I am asking. I am asking this: > That Santa Clara County give its "okay" to San Benito County and state > that it has no objection to San Benito County having a county bylaw that > allows registered Greens living in Gilroy and Morgan Hill to be members > with full membership privileges (i.e., voting, when necessary, and > representing the GPSBC at plenaries, if elected) in the Green Party of > San Benito County. Let me state the obvious again, as I did with the > state delegate count: I am not proposing that San Benito and Santa Clara > merge, nor I am proposing any sort of collaboration between the two > counties (although I do support more established and experienced > counties providing a guiding hand in "support," for lack of a better > word, to newer ones). > > Or if Santa Clara does have an objection to having south county Greens > having membership privileges in San Benito, I'd like to know what they > are so both Joe and I can address them. > Summary of the discussion in our business meeting: 1) We welcome the Green Party of San Benito County! 2) We have no concerns regarding the Green Party of San Benito County allowing Greens registered in Morgan Hill and Gilroy to have full memberships, including full voting memberships, EXCEPT that we believe that noone should be allowed to vote in BOTH counties. We ask the County Council of the Green Party of Santa Clara County to work with the Green Party of San Benito County to prevent duplicating voting. Gerry Gras From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 5 15:38:50 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:38:50 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] CNA clean money initiative Message-ID: <443446FA.8040107@sbcglobal.net> Here is a copy of comments I sent to Greg Miller who presented the CNA clean money initiative to our monthly meeting last night. Greg, I have looked at the Initiative Measure being sponsored by the CNA. I had to concentrate to pull out the parts I felt were crucial for the participants from the various parties. Here is what I found. I find seven categories of candidates in the definitions in paragraphs 91037 to 91061: independent candidate non participating candidate office qualified candidate (depends on office qualified party) participating candidate party candidate performance qualified candidate qualified candidate I did not achieve complete clarity on the distinctions. To wit independent candidate: does not represent a party that has been granted ballot status question - what about candidates from parties that have not been granted ballot status? qualified candidate: candidate from a party that is not an office qualified party comment - that includes party candidates and independent candidates party candidate: represents a party that has ballot status and holds a primary election question - where do those fit in whose party does not hold a primary? performance qualified candidate: either winner of a primary of an office qualified party or gathers twice the number of qualifying contributions as an office qualified candidate (comment - so much for a level playing field) furthermore, independent candidates may qualify as performance qualified candidates question - does that exclude party candidates or qualified candidates? Section 91071 part a refers to office qualified candidates part b refers to party candidates two qualifying criteria are given 1) deals with filing requirements 2) only mentions participating candidates from office qualified candidates comment - so part b pulls party candidate back into office qualified candidate Section 91073 signatures (doesn't mention qualifying contributions) qualified candidate: half as many as an office qualified candidate performance qualified candidate: twice as many signatures and at the end of the paragraph imposes a condition on non office qualified candidates Now to funding amounts - section 91099 primary election 1) office qualified candidate amounts 2) performance qualified candidate: 20 % of office qualified candidate comment - that leaves out several others completely comment - level playing field? fair? general election 1) office qualified candidate amounts 2) performance qualified candidate: 50 % of office qualified candidate comments - half the pay for twice the work; level playing field? fair? 3) qualified candidate: 25 % of the office qualified candidate comments - third class citizen; 1/4 the pay for 1/2 the work level playing field? fair? party candidates are not mentioned - do they receive any funding? --------------- So, Greg, since office qualified candidates - which from the definition of office qualified means only democrats and republicans in some 99 % or so of the cases - receive at least twice as much as others this is a very biased initiative. On the one hand it is incumbent protection and in light of term limits it is party protection. And Greg, the definitions of candidates altogether leaves something to be desired ------------------ The Green Party is all for public financing of campaigns. The Green Party's concept of public financing would aim to allow all third parties into the race on comparable financial footing. A level playing field would be equal number of signatures and equal funding amounts. Jim Doyle From gerrygras at earthlink.net Wed Apr 5 16:44:17 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:44:17 -0800 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Feinstein supports spying without warrants? Message-ID: <44345651.5080909@earthlink.net> I know Feinstein is not our friend, but this is ridiculous. Gerry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CA Residents: Tell Sen. Feinstein to Just Say "No" to Warrantless Government Spying Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 16:05:20 -0500 (CDT) From: "Anthony D. Romero, ACLU" Reply-To: "Anthony D. Romero, ACLU" Organization: ACLU To: gerrygras at earthlink.net ******************************************************************** >From the Desk of Anthony D. Romero Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union Take Action! Tell Senator Feinstein to Just Say "No" to Warrantless Government Spying http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=pEc2HpRopWnxuNUSOjoNpQ.. ******************************************************************** Dear Friend, Your help is urgently needed. Senator Feinstein has recently suggested she might favor changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would authorize government agents to read our e-mails and listen to our phone calls without any individualized finding by a court that there is probable cause to believe a person is engaged in wrongdoing. Two bills, S. 2453 and S. 2455, have been introduced in the Senate that would basically ratify the president's illegal National Security Agency (NSA) domestic spying program. Both bills would fail to ensure that the public learns how many Americans have had their phone calls or e-mails captured or analyzed by the NSA, and would let the Bush administration off the hook in many other ways too. Call Senator Feinstein now at any of the numbers below: Washington, D.C. (202) 224-3841 Los Angeles (310) 914-7300 San Francisco (415) 393-0707 Ask that she not support or co-sponsor S. 2453 and S. 2455, legislation that would effectively change the law to allow the spying to continue. For more information and talking points for your call, go to action.aclu.org/feinstein. And forward this message to your friends! Senator Feinstein's support of these bills would end much of the congressional debate about President Bush's failure to follow the Fourth Amendment and FISA when he ordered the NSA to spy on American citizens without getting warrants. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution specifically prohibits this kind of government intrusion into our private lives. Senator Feinstein must uphold the Constitution and not allow the government to spy on American citizens without probable cause. Take action! Tell Senator Feinstein that there must be checks on government surveillance of American citizens: http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=0Owf80wh3sGocwBqjlUzGA.. Or to read more about this issue before taking action, visit: http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=nGILEDIMbKh4jmSR44Vlsg.. Sincerely, Anthony D. Romero Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union P.S. As always, we appreciate it when you log the results of your call with us http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=Y8EoHfxCUZsgWmU2k2zTqg.. Tell a friend about the ACLU Action Center: http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=h75AoFmK7U3RI2Za2p5Elg.. Click the link below to login and change your email preferences: http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=7qOVEFr18jNlDuyhb8p7lQ.. You may unsubscribe from our mailing list at any time by visiting here: http://action.aclu.org/site/CO?i=g_sH9qHztU50R6Q5zUk5uL0yXyrkE6eK&cid=0 From andid at cagreens.org Wed Apr 5 17:58:17 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:58:17 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Feinstein supports spying without warrants? In-Reply-To: <44345651.5080909@earthlink.net> References: <44345651.5080909@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Di Fi is maddeningly frustrating at times. It's mind boggling. Andrea On Apr 5, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Gerry Gras wrote: > > > I know Feinstein is not our friend, but this is ridiculous. > > Gerry > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: CA Residents: Tell Sen. Feinstein to Just Say "No" to > Warrantless Government Spying > Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 16:05:20 -0500 (CDT) > From: "Anthony D. Romero, ACLU" > Reply-To: "Anthony D. Romero, ACLU" > Organization: ACLU > To: gerrygras at earthlink.net > > ******************************************************************** >> From the Desk of Anthony D. Romero > Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union > Take Action! Tell Senator Feinstein to Just Say "No" to > Warrantless Government Spying > http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=pEc2HpRopWnxuNUSOjoNpQ.. > ******************************************************************** > > Dear Friend, > > Your help is urgently needed. Senator Feinstein has recently suggested > she might favor changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act > (FISA) that would authorize government agents to read our e-mails and > listen to our phone calls without any individualized finding by a > court that there is probable cause to believe a person is engaged in > wrongdoing. > > Two bills, S. 2453 and S. 2455, have been introduced in the Senate > that would basically ratify the president's illegal National > Security Agency (NSA) domestic spying program. Both bills would fail > to ensure that the public learns how many Americans have had their > phone calls or e-mails captured or analyzed by the NSA, and would let > the Bush administration off the hook in many other ways > too. > > Call Senator Feinstein now at any of the numbers below: > > Washington, D.C. (202) 224-3841 > Los Angeles (310) 914-7300 > San Francisco (415) 393-0707 > > Ask that she not support or co-sponsor S. 2453 and S. 2455, > legislation that would effectively change the law to allow the spying > to continue. > > For more information and talking points for your call, go to > action.aclu.org/feinstein. And forward this message to > your friends! > > Senator Feinstein's support of these bills would end much of the > congressional debate about President Bush's failure to follow > the Fourth Amendment and FISA when he ordered the NSA to spy on > American citizens without getting warrants. > > The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution specifically prohibits this > kind of government intrusion into our private lives. Senator Feinstein > must uphold the Constitution and not allow the government to spy on > American citizens without probable cause. > > Take action! Tell Senator Feinstein that there must be checks on > government surveillance of American citizens: > > http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=0Owf80wh3sGocwBqjlUzGA.. > > Or to read more about this issue before taking action, visit: > http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=nGILEDIMbKh4jmSR44Vlsg.. > > Sincerely, > > Anthony D. Romero > Executive Director > American Civil Liberties Union > > P.S. As always, we appreciate it when you log the results of your call > with us > http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=Y8EoHfxCUZsgWmU2k2zTqg.. > > Tell a friend about the ACLU Action Center: > http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=h75AoFmK7U3RI2Za2p5Elg.. > > Click the link below to login and change your email preferences: > > http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=7qOVEFr18jNlDuyhb8p7lQ.. > > You may unsubscribe from our mailing list at any time by visiting > here: > > http://action.aclu.org/site/CO? > i=g_sH9qHztU50R6Q5zUk5uL0yXyrkE6eK&cid=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > Andrea Dorey Santa Clara County Green Party 408-306-1900 (cell phone: short messages please) Chinese Proverbs: "Serving the powerful is like sleeping with a tiger." and "It is difficult to get off a tiger's back." From andid at cagreens.org Wed Apr 5 18:03:59 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:03:59 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South SC County Greens participate in San Benito? In-Reply-To: <44306348.6040104@earthlink.net> References: <4430250D.9030503@earthlink.net> <443061A6.4010400@earthlink.net> <44306348.6040104@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4A99A0FF-F737-43B8-828D-A183B928CAB5@cagreens.org> I have read Gerry's response to Larry Cafiero's request, and I agree with his conclusions. I see no problem here except possibly with the "double" voting. Andrea On Apr 2, 2006, at 4:50 PM, Larry Cafiero_Liaison wrote: > Gerry -- > > I can't reply within the text below without confusing people (myself > included -- myself especially!), so I'll answer your questions up > here. > Joe Navarro, one of the newly elected county council members for the > GPSBC who is copied in on this e-mail, can help me out here. > > -- Meetings are held in Hollister, which is the county seat of San > Benito County. > > -- The bylaws committee of the Green Party of California has had a > chance to review the GPSBC's bylaws over the past couple of months and > has given its wise counsel on making the GPSBC bylaws adhere to the > state bylaws and procedures. One of the primary changes was to > remove an > original clause in the GPSBC bylaws that provided membership > privileges > to Greens living in Gilroy and Morgan Hill. [I wasn't aware that GPSCC > had a bylaws committee -- you guys and gals are good!] Any reference > below to a "bylaws committee" refers to the state committee. > > I think one of the primary concerns about the original bylaw allowing > membership by Gilroy/Morgan Hill residents had to do with how Santa > Clara County felt about this. Santa Clara had not been asked at the > time, and I think that was the primary basis of the withdrawal, > with the > understanding that it could be brought back later. > > -- On the issue of a local in Gilroy/Morgan Hill -- I don't think the > interest is there at this point to have a Gilroy/Morgan Hill local in > Santa Clara County, unfortunately, since we're only dealing with a > couple of people. But ideally, if Gilroy/Morgan Hill started having > five > or more Greens regularly participate in San Benito and they thought, > "Hey, we can have our own local and not even leave home," I think that > would be great if they took the initiative to form a Santa Clara > local. > I would strongly encourage that. In that case, San Benito would > have to > sunset its bylaw once this local was affirmed by Santa Clara County. > > -- I mention the state delegate count to avert any questions about > it. > It's pretty obvious, true, but I thought it needed stating, so the > first > question wouldn't be, "What about delegates?". > > -- You say you are unclear about what I am asking. I am asking this: > That Santa Clara County give its "okay" to San Benito County and state > that it has no objection to San Benito County having a county bylaw > that > allows registered Greens living in Gilroy and Morgan Hill to be > members > with full membership privileges (i.e., voting, when necessary, and > representing the GPSBC at plenaries, if elected) in the Green Party of > San Benito County. Let me state the obvious again, as I did with the > state delegate count: I am not proposing that San Benito and Santa > Clara > merge, nor I am proposing any sort of collaboration between the two > counties (although I do support more established and experienced > counties providing a guiding hand in "support," for lack of a better > word, to newer ones). > > Or if Santa Clara does have an objection to having south county Greens > having membership privileges in San Benito, I'd like to know what they > are so both Joe and I can address them. > > Larry Cafiero > Liaison to the Secretary of State's office > Green Party of California > > Gerry Gras wrote: >> >> >> Larry Cafiero_Liaison wrote: >> >>> Santa Clara Greens -- >>> >>> The Green Party of San Benito County has discussed the >>> possibility of >> >> >> >> I am glad to hear that there now is an active Green Party of San >> Benito >> County. Some time ago I looked at a map of counties and realized >> that >> San Benito County was the closest inactive county. Welcome to >> GPSBC!! >> >> >>> Greens residing in the southern Santa Clara County towns of Morgan >>> Hill and Gilroy to participate and vote in the GPSBC meetings. >> >> >> >> That is kind of them. >> >>> The GPSBC have asked me to present this question to you on their >>> behalf. >>> >>> The GPSBC held their first meeting on March 25, and elected officers >>> and a county council. I attended the meeting and found their >>> election >>> of county council and officers to be valid. As soon as the regional >>> rep for our region, Paul Franklin, reviews the minutes and >>> affirms the >>> process of the election of their county council to the state >>> coordinating committee, they will be considered a functioning GP >>> county, as outlined in the state bylaws at Section 4-1.22. >>> >>> The question had been raised during the course of the organizational >>> meetings of the GPSBC prior to March 25 -- since one Green in >>> particular from Gilroy who owns a home in San Benito and one who has >>> contributed to the discussion of forming San Benito on-line are >>> residents of Gilroy and Morgan Hill respectively -- have said it >>> would >>> be more convenient to travel to the San Benito meetings than >>> traveling >>> to Santa Clara meetings. >> >> >> >> That does not surprise me. Of course how valid that is would depend >> on where in San Benito the meetings are. Looking at the map ... >> If the meetings were in Hernandez, that would not be true. But it >> seems that the biggest town is Hollister, so I guess the meetings >> would be in Hollister, and that clearly is more convenient. >> >> >>> >>> In fact, a bylaw to that effect had been in the GPSBC bylaws >>> originally submitted for approval to the bylaws committee, but was >>> withdrawn on the bylaws committee's recommendation. >> >> >> >> Are you referring to the GPSBC or GPCA bylaws committee? I am >> guessing >> the latter. >> >> >>> >>> There are advantages to this arrangement: Primarily -- and this >>> is my >>> hope going forward -- it gets people involved in the Green Party and >>> makes it easier for them to attend meetings. Also, it provides an >>> incentive for Morgan Hill/Gilroy to start a local in their area, as >>> outlined in Article 5 of the Santa Clara County bylaws. I am >>> confident >>> that San Benito would welcome the formation of such a local, and >>> would >>> sunset any bylaws accordingly should a Morgan Hill/Gilroy local be >>> formed in Santa Clara County. >> >> >> >> It would be good to have a local down there. >> >> >>> >>> The only hangup I can see is remote possibility "double voting" at >>> meetings -- that is, Greens from Morgan Hill/Gilroy participating in >>> both Santa Clara and San Benito meetings. If anyone sees this as a >>> problem or a hangup -- I don't necessarily see it as either, but I >>> would gladly field concerns or objections, and I'd welcome any >>> suggestions for resolving them. >> >> >> >> I agree that double voting might be a problem. But maybe not. >> >> Some background ... >> >> In Santa Clara County we welcome anyone to our meetings. We do not >> get many people who aren't Santa Clara County Greens, but we have had >> at least one Santa Clara County Libertarian and one San Francisco >> Green and two Santa Cruz Greens. We probably have had others. >> >> I don't remember any restrictions on anyone's right to speak, whether >> Santa Clara County Green or not. >> >> We rarely have votes, but I think that when we do, we only allow >> Santa Clara County Greens to vote. But we almost always reach >> consensus, so for consensus decisions, all attendees are practically >> equal. >> >> I can't speak for the others, but I can't see a good reason why >> we should object to San Benito allowing Santa Clara residents to >> vote in San Benito meetings. >> >> But if the GPCA bylaws committee objected to that, then what can >> you do? Hmm, I suppose that depends on their objection. >> >> Also, FWIW, Santa Clara County residents south of San Jose are >> not very involved in the Santa Clara County Green Party. As far >> as I know, the one and only south-of-San-Jose resident who >> participates is Wes Rolley, who is quite active, but does not >> come to meetings. And Wes sometimes has different interests, >> because he is sometimes in electoral districts different from the >> rest of us. He is Pombo's district. And I think he is in a >> (different) district that extends to San Luis Obispo. >> >> Of course, if Wes were to spend more time with San Benito County >> and less time with Santa Clara County, then we would be disappointed, >> but of course he and others should be allowed to go where they want. >> >> >> >>> >>> On a state level, this arrangement would not affect the delegate >>> count >>> for plenaries, as those are still calculated solely on the basis of >>> registered Greens in each county from data provided by the Secretary >>> of State's office. This formula for calculating delegates will >>> remain >>> unchanged. >> >> >> >> I would be quite surprised if it was otherwise. >> >> >>> >>> I realize that this may be too late for your agenda for the April 4 >>> meeting -- and I cannot make this meeting to make a presentation >>> -- but >> >> >> >> Sometimes it would be possible even at this late date to add it to >> the agenda. But we already have an agenda that is more full than >> normal, so I don't expect it to happen this meeting. >> >> >>> I believe there should be discussion on this issue for a possible >>> presentation at the May meeting. >> >> >> >> I am unclear on what you are asking for here. It seems that you >> don't have a decision item for Santa Clara County here. Do you >> just want to know whether it is ok with us for San Benito to allow >> Santa Clara County Greens to participate in San Benito? Or are >> you asking for some Santa Clara / San Benito collaberation? Or ...?? >> >> Speaking just for myself, I am glad that San Benito is active, >> and I believe in decentralization, and whatever San Benito County >> and south Santa Clara County Greens want to do is ok with me, as >> long as they don't make statements that say "the Green Party of >> Santa Clara County supports/endorses/etcetera.." without getting >> our permission first. >> >> Gerry >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > Andrea Dorey Santa Clara County Green Party 408-306-1900 (cell phone: short messages please) Chinese Proverbs: "Serving the powerful is like sleeping with a tiger." and "It is difficult to get off a tiger's back." From andid at cagreens.org Wed Apr 5 18:28:17 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <442242BB.307@earthlink.net> References: <442242BB.307@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <66E3ECE6-0A60-4905-85D1-341DFED80E1F@cagreens.org> At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, does *not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. We got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. Andrea On Mar 22, 2006, at 10:39 PM, Gerry Gras wrote: > > > Here is an article, that I think merits Green attention, about > how some progressives sabotage their own campaigns, and suggestions > about how to do better. > > This is adressed to all progressives, but ... > > The first 2 links are to Green candidates, Pat LaMarche in Maine > and Bob Fitrakis in Ohio, both running for Governor. > > And there is a link to the 10KV on the GPUS site. > > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0322-25.htm > > Gerry > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > From jims at greens.org Wed Apr 5 18:43:48 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 18:43:48 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Berryessa art and wine References: <44336108.5020803@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <44347254.965E1C3D@greens.org> $231 for an 1/8 page ad? I think we should pass on this offer. I'm sure enough people will find our booth. -- Jim Jim Doyle wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > My name is Mary Bauerle. I work for three community newspapers, the > Milpitas Post, the Fremont Bulletin, and the Berryessa Sun. All three > of our well-read community newspapers are delivered door-to-door and > dropped in bulk to local businesses. I am attaching circulation > information. > > I understand that the Green Party will have a booth at the Berryessa > Art and Wine Festival on May 13th. > > We are building a pull out guide, listing events to take place at this > festival. It will be featured in the Berryessa Sun issue of April 14th > and the Milpitas Post issue of May 11th. The attached rate card > includes an ad in both issues. Let me know if your organization would > like to do something to invite the communities to come meet with you. > > Sincerely, > Mary Bauerle > (408)262-2454 x22 > Fax: (408)263-9710 > E-mail: maryb at themilpitaspost.com > > Ad rate: 1/8 page, $231. > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Wed Apr 5 22:18:44 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:18:44 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <66E3ECE6-0A60-4905-85D1-341DFED80E1F@cagreens.org> Message-ID: >From: Andrea Dorey >Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 >To: Green South Bay Discussion >Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" >At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition >that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known >major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, does >*not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. We >got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. >Andrea I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in "safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. The facts don't support that allegation, though. As far as I know, David was talked out of that "strategy" at the 2003 convention in DC, along with almost all of its proponents at the time, and he campaigned in every state where he was on the ballot. I've been asking the people who make that allegation for a verifiable quote in a news story in a real newspaper, or perhaps a video interview that wasn't cut down to short phrases and reassembled for broadcast. It's been a couple of years now and they still haven't produced one. Not one. The closest they can get is a dramatized opinion piece on MSNBC's Web site. It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the "safe states" strategy that the corporate media *projected* onto it. It's one of those things that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. And the belief has done more damage to our party and movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. Cameron From baalavi at yahoo.com Wed Apr 5 22:55:53 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 22:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060406055554.71776.qmail@web52102.mail.yahoo.com> Amen Cameron! I am much less involved in the mainstream of Greens than most of you. But the simple question inevitably crossed my mind when encountering that obscure and esoteric premise of "safe state"! Which of the "Ten Key Value[s]" did it accomodate or enhance? ba "Cameron L. Spitzer" wrote: >From: Andrea Dorey >Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 >To: Green South Bay Discussion >Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" >At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition >that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known >major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, does >*not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. We >got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. >Andrea I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in "safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. The facts don't support that allegation, though. As far as I know, David was talked out of that "strategy" at the 2003 convention in DC, along with almost all of its proponents at the time, and he campaigned in every state where he was on the ballot. I've been asking the people who make that allegation for a verifiable quote in a news story in a real newspaper, or perhaps a video interview that wasn't cut down to short phrases and reassembled for broadcast. It's been a couple of years now and they still haven't produced one. Not one. The closest they can get is a dramatized opinion piece on MSNBC's Web site. It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the "safe states" strategy that the corporate media *projected* onto it. It's one of those things that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. And the belief has done more damage to our party and movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. Cameron _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at greens.org Thu Apr 6 10:55:11 2006 From: tnharter at greens.org (Tian Harter) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:55:11 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <443555FF.7030506@greens.org> Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: >>From: Andrea Dorey >>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 >>To: Green South Bay Discussion >>Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" >> >> > > > > >>At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition >>that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known >>major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, does >>*not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. We >>got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. >>Andrea >> >> > >I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in >"safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. >The facts don't support that allegation, though. >As far as I know, David was talked out of that "strategy" >at the 2003 convention in DC, along with almost all of its >proponents at the time, and he campaigned in every >state where he was on the ballot. > >I've been asking the people who make that allegation >for a verifiable quote in a news story in a real >newspaper, or perhaps a video interview that wasn't >cut down to short phrases and reassembled for broadcast. >It's been a couple of years now and they >still haven't produced one. Not one. The closest they can >get is a dramatized opinion piece on MSNBC's Web site. > >It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default >that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the >"safe states" strategy that the corporate media >*projected* onto it. It's one of those things >that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. >And the belief has done more damage to our party and >movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. > > I think that safe states strategy was a brainchild of John Rensenbrink of Maine. He's good enough at putting a message out that people took up the call. There was plenty of demand for the idea. When he spoke in San Jose, David Cobb said something like "I haven't voiced support for that strategy since last year but it's still following me around." It's very hard for a candidate with little access to the public eye to change perceptions. I myself told quite a few people that Cobb was running a safe states campaign. Sorry about that... -- Tian http://tianharter.org I'm seeking endorsements for my campaign. Please let me know if you want your name on my list! I would be honored to add you.. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 From baalavi at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 11:21:39 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <443555FF.7030506@greens.org> Message-ID: <20060406182139.44448.qmail@web52105.mail.yahoo.com> If someone has an answer to the question: "How does the concept of *safe state* relate to 10 Key Values", I appreciate hearing it. I can't quote Cobb, but I too went to his lunchtime presentation on the Campus of Stanford in 2004. Then, at least I came off feeling that he did support something like a "safe state". ba Tian Harter wrote: Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: >It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default >that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the >"safe states" strategy that the corporate media >*projected* onto it. It's one of those things >that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. >And the belief has done more damage to our party and >movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. > > I think that safe states strategy was a brainchild of John Rensenbrink of Maine. He's good enough at putting a message out that people took up the call. There was plenty of demand for the idea. When he spoke in San Jose, David Cobb said something like "I haven't voiced support for that strategy since last year but it's still following me around." It's very hard for a candidate with little access to the public eye to change perceptions. I myself told quite a few people that Cobb was running a safe states campaign. Sorry about that... -- --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Thu Apr 6 13:20:06 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:20:06 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" Message-ID: >Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:55:11 -0700 >From: Tian Harter >User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20051002) >To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" >Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: >>>From: Andrea Dorey >> >>>At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition >>>that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known >>>major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, does >>>*not* "dare to win," >> >>I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in >>"safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. >>The facts don't support that allegation, though. >> >I think that safe states strategy was a brainchild of >John Rensenbrink of Maine. He's good enough at >putting a message out that people took up the call. >There was plenty of demand for the idea. Rensenbrink couldn't be talked out of it. I believe he got my mathematical argument that the spoiler effect isn't real, but he thought the risk of being accused of spoiling was too great anyway. And he waved away my point, perhaps the most persuasive in that physical consensus session, that we would be accused of that no matter what we did, so it didn't matter. Once you start considering effects of superstition, the biggest factor compelling Safe States is that hardly any vovers actually believe they live in a "safe state" or district. There's ego invested in the liberal's belief that his vote counts and is counted, and that only happens in swing states. The belief that they live in a swing district conflicts directly with their understanding of gerrymandering, but it's superstition, not rationality, so the contradiction doesn't dissuade. The other Green proponents of Safe States that I saw were Ted Glick and Steve Hill. Glick has been working for a grand progressive coalition for so long that he believes in the imaginary "progressive Democrats." Hill has been using Spoiler Effect as a boogyman to motivate his argument for IRV for so long that he just can't consider that it might not be real or even destructive to talk about. But I don't think Ted and John and Steve had much of anything to do with publicizing the Big Lie that Cobb was doing Safe States. I think it came out of the corporate press and its punditocracy, and its satellites at progressive but hardly radical outlets like Mother Jones and The Nation, reinforced by opinion leaders like Medea Benjamin and Noam Chomsky. Being terrified of the Spoiler Effect and imagining progressive Democrats, they wished so hard that Cobb was doing Safe States that they started believing it. The shameful thing is that so many Greens believed the Big Lie, which was nothing more than a persistent rumor promoted by our adversaries, with no direct evidence, instead of checking for themselves, that it caused a paralyzing rift in the national party and many state parties. We need to learn to trust each other, and to distrust the people who wish to destroy us. Or at least distrust what they say about us. Cameron From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Apr 6 13:48:25 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:48:25 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" References: Message-ID: <44357E99.8020204@earthlink.net> Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: >>From: Andrea Dorey >>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 >>To: Green South Bay Discussion >>Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" >> > > >>At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition >>that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known >>major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, does >>*not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. We >>got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. >>Andrea >> > > I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in > "safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. > The facts don't support that allegation, though. > As far as I know, David was talked out of that "strategy" > at the 2003 convention in DC, along with almost all of its > proponents at the time, and he campaigned in every > state where he was on the ballot. > > I've been asking the people who make that allegation > for a verifiable quote in a news story in a real > newspaper, or perhaps a video interview that wasn't > cut down to short phrases and reassembled for broadcast. > It's been a couple of years now and they > still haven't produced one. Not one. The closest they can > get is a dramatized opinion piece on MSNBC's Web site. > > It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default > that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the > "safe states" strategy that the corporate media > *projected* onto it. It's one of those things > that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. > And the belief has done more damage to our party and > movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. > > > Cameron > David Cobb came to Stanford less than a month before Election Day, 2004. He said he had just come from Pennsylvania and Ohio, both of which were "swing" states. Also, Cobb and the Libertarian Presidential candidate were suing Ohio over its results, long before Kerry ever got involved in the suit (assuming that he eventually did, I don't know. Despite the fact that in terms of who got to be President, it only mattered to Kerry. Gerry From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Apr 6 14:31:29 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:31:29 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" References: <44357E99.8020204@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <443588B1.7000408@earthlink.net> Hmm, it appears that Earthlink may have swallowed this message, so here it is again. Gerry Gerry Gras wrote: > > > Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > >>> From: Andrea Dorey >>> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 >>> To: Green South Bay Discussion >>> Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" >>> >> >> >>> At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition >>> that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known >>> major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, >>> does *not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. >>> We got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. >>> Andrea >>> >> >> I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in >> "safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. >> The facts don't support that allegation, though. >> As far as I know, David was talked out of that "strategy" >> at the 2003 convention in DC, along with almost all of its >> proponents at the time, and he campaigned in every >> state where he was on the ballot. >> >> I've been asking the people who make that allegation >> for a verifiable quote in a news story in a real >> newspaper, or perhaps a video interview that wasn't >> cut down to short phrases and reassembled for broadcast. >> It's been a couple of years now and they >> still haven't produced one. Not one. The closest they can >> get is a dramatized opinion piece on MSNBC's Web site. >> >> It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default >> that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the >> "safe states" strategy that the corporate media >> *projected* onto it. It's one of those things >> that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. >> And the belief has done more damage to our party and >> movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. >> >> >> Cameron >> > > > David Cobb came to Stanford less than a month before Election > Day, 2004. He said he had just come from Pennsylvania and > Ohio, both of which were "swing" states. > > Also, Cobb and the Libertarian Presidential candidate were > suing Ohio over its results, long before Kerry ever got > involved in the suit (assuming that he eventually did, I > don't know. Despite the fact that in terms of who got to > be President, it only mattered to Kerry. > > Gerry > > > > From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Apr 6 14:46:07 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:46:07 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" References: Message-ID: <44358C1F.1000604@earthlink.net> Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > > Once you start considering effects of superstition, > the biggest factor compelling Safe States is that > hardly any vovers actually believe they live in a > "safe state" or district. > There's ego invested in the liberal's belief that > his vote counts and is counted, and that only > happens in swing states. > The belief that they live in a swing district conflicts > directly with their understanding of gerrymandering, > but it's superstition, not rationality, so the > contradiction doesn't dissuade. One example. California is enough "left of center" that it does not matter, in spite of its size. If California votes for a Republican Presidential candidate, then so many other states will vote for him, that he does not need California. I knew someone who was reasonably intelligent about this, and said in 2000 that he would vote for Nader only if it did not matter in California. For most days before the election the Zogby poll showed Gore leading by 8% in California. But in the last few days that poll difference went to 0. So this fellow voted for Gore. And then it turned out that California did go for Gore with an 8% difference. > > The other Green proponents of Safe States that I saw > were Ted Glick and Steve Hill. Glick has been > working for a grand progressive coalition for so long > that he believes in the imaginary "progressive Democrats." > Hill has been using Spoiler Effect as a boogyman to > motivate his argument for IRV for so long that he > just can't consider that it might not be real or > even destructive to talk about. > > But I don't think Ted and John and Steve had much of > anything to do with publicizing the Big Lie that > Cobb was doing Safe States. I think it came out of > the corporate press and its punditocracy, and its > satellites at progressive but hardly radical > outlets like Mother Jones and The Nation, reinforced > by opinion leaders like Medea Benjamin and Noam Chomsky. > Being terrified of the Spoiler Effect and imagining > progressive Democrats, they wished so hard that > Cobb was doing Safe States that they started believing it. > > The shameful thing is that so many Greens believed > the Big Lie, which was nothing more than a persistent > rumor promoted by our adversaries, with no direct > evidence, instead of checking for themselves, that > it caused a paralyzing rift in the national party > and many state parties. We need to learn to trust > each other, and to distrust the people who wish to > destroy us. Or at least distrust what they say > about us. > I think at some level we all know that we can't really trust the mainstream media. But it is hard to filter out what we see and read. Gerry From tnharter at greens.org Thu Apr 6 15:36:47 2006 From: tnharter at greens.org (Tian Harter) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:36:47 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] A Green Senate Campaign Message-ID: <443597FF.9000701@greens.org> > >Tian Harter > >A Green Senate Campaign > > >The Green Party is an international party with strong positions against pollution, >war, and many colonial behaviors. Silicon Valley, being where many forms of >exploitation meet the limits imposed on oversight by the laws of physics, is the >ideal background to examine the political implications of such old sayings as >"think globally act locally." This is particularly true in light of the fact that >Corporations got human rights starting with a Supreme Court opinion on Santa >Clara County vs. Pacific railroad, and the remarkably well trained workforce here >that continues to innovate in many fields of endeavor. > >Tian Harter has been a Green Party activist since 1991, when the Party was >working on getting on the ballot in California. He has been involved with >Technology and Society groups since the mid 1980s, and will talk about the >relationship between changing technology, climate change, and his political >campaign. > Tian began by talking about the summer before the first Gulf War, when he had talked the IEEE-SSIT society (Silicon Valley Chapter) into holding a conference on how to make the Bay Area economy more energy efficient, and his father into holding a conference on Oil and Foreign Affairs at the State Department in Washington, DC. It had been pure beginners luck that the Gulf War had come along at that moment. Even so, it was quite a thrill to be in the audience at an event on the top floor of the State Department where government and industry wonks were talking to each other about oil thinking "I had something to do with making this happen" while bombs were falling in Iraq just before the invasion of Kuwait. Highlights from that conference included one consultants recommendation that we think in terms of the structural linkages between "energy, the environment, and the economy", and a steady drumbeat that our energy supplies are going to continue to be imported from volatile regions for the foreseeable future. The fact that domestic oil production in the lower 48 states of the USA has been in decline since the 1970s and will continue to decline was also discussed. Because of the excellent program put together by David Arctur, at the SSIT event we learned about hybrid cars and telecommuting for the first time Tian could remember. The benefits of urban planning at the density of San Francisco's Mission District were also explained in some detail, as were synchronizing train and bus schedules so commuters don't have to spend much time waiting. The many ways we subsidize the use of cars through paying for roads and bridges via taxes on land and income that could be used for other things were also discussed. Tian's other anti war project that year was pushing stickers that said MEND YOUR FUELISH WAYS at public events. He made a thousand of the things, and by the time he took a job in Sacramento at System Integrators he still had 700 left. Since there wasn't any group like the SSIT in Sacramento to put his hobby time into, he joined the group working to put the Green Party on the ballot. When they succeeded nobody wanted to be a Green Party Candidate, but Tian was opposed to political parties without Candidates, so he put his name in the hat as a Candidate in the 5th Congressional district. His main job qualification was that he had a pile of stickers to make oil use into an issue with. System Integrators is a company that sells newspaper publishing systems to major metro dailies like the Sacramento Bee, Washington Post, and San Jose Mercury News. Tian's day job was further automating the news business, and his hobby was learning about the social implications of this process as a Green Party activist. What he learned was that large staffs of reporters were being (or had been) replaced by small staffs of editors pasting wire service copy into the newshole. The net effect was that the Bee didn't cover local interest stories like his campaign. It was much easier for them to just print AP stories about Presidential news conferences or whatever the New York Times was putting on its front page. Later in the '90s Tian worked at AOL in their information compression lab in Orange County. When he joined the company its main revenue stream was the subscription fees it got from users, and the focus was on giving them an experience so good they would bring in their friends. Unfortunately, during that time a new management team was brought in, and they shifted to more of an advertiser based revenue stream. This had the net effect of making the company a lot more like newspapers, as far as whose opinion they cared about went. During that time his hobby was helping Christina Avalos campaign for Congress in the 47th District, a safe Republican seat. She was running as a Democrat. What he learned from that was that she generated about as much interest '98 as he had in '92, but because of the large institutional inertia of the Democratic Party she got many more votes (about 30% instead of about 2%). Since coming back to Santa Clara County in '99, Tian has continued to work on the role of media in change. He has a photo blog where he "shares the reality he sees." His main goal in this Senate campaign is to get as many people as possible to think about buying gas as a democracy issue. Since the oil companies paid good money for the Republican Party, he asks that we "stop voting for oil companies at the gas pump." During Q&A the following came up: Q: What message to you want the Democrats to take mainstream from your Campaign? Tian replied he thought that "if they had wanted to steal his thunder they would have done it by now. They have had plenty of opportunity. I would rather see green politics to become a "per capita" thing. After all, it's not much you get for turning off the lights, but it's better than thinking there is nothing you can do. Also, if you really want to vote against climate change and nuclear waste, that is the way to do it." Q: Around here we put a lot of thought into saving water. In Sacramento they don't even seem to care at all. It's disgusting. Tian: When I met Rod Donald, who at the time was co-leader of the New Zealand Green Party and an elected member of their Parliament I gave him a Tennessee quarter. You know that old saying "politics stops at the waters edge?" Please notice I got through that whole anecdote without saying "water." One of the things I learned in my travels was that the kind of people that work on legislation in Washington, DC work on product placements in Hollywood. You can have just as much impact on tofu sales getting Sandra Bullock to eat the stuff in a restaurant scene as you can getting a tax break for soybean producers. We need to let justice go through us like water (as water?) on a per captia basis. Is the Green Party doing anything about their own primary? Tian: So far I've been to a candidate forum in San Francisco put on by the San Francisco Green Party. Upcoming next week is one in Santa Cruz. The Fresno Greens are doing something on April 19th. I expect there will be more later. Tian Harter -- Tian http://tianharter.org I'm seeking endorsements for my campaign. Please let me know if you want your name on my list! I would be honored to add you.. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 From wrolley at charter.net Fri Apr 7 08:28:20 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:28:20 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Information about upcoming immigrant rights protests, please forward] Message-ID: <44368514.9060208@charter.net> I picked this up today from Joe Navarro of the San Benito Green Party. The organization, LULAC, mentioned in the notice is the League of United Latin Amcerican Citizens. The Stockton Chapter was leading the demonstrations there a couple of weeks ago working closely with the campaign of Pete McCloskey vs. Richard Pombo who voted for 4437. -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: San Benito County Green Party Subject: Information about upcoming immigrant rights protests, please forward Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Size: 14105 URL: From workoutwellforall at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 13:56:00 2006 From: workoutwellforall at gmail.com (Christian Pecaut) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:56:00 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <44358C1F.1000604@earthlink.net> References: <44358C1F.1000604@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <58f8ab140604071356l66954be6hf261960a3edb3f95@mail.gmail.com> Cameron and Gerry, Appearances don't matter. It's all about ideology. Either you, serve the more powerful and their interests, first and foremost - [CONSERVATIVE] or whether you are first loyal to more vulnerable, first and foremost - [PROGRESSIVE]. In the current context, the CONSERVATIVE candidates will be helped into power by the big money powers and their connections in the media / voting machine industry. These same big money powers KNOW who can be relied upon to serve their interests, and KNOW who will remain loyal to the less powerful and most vulnerable. The Democrats that are helped into power by these big money powers are the ones who can most cleverly _appear_ PROGRESSIVE, while remaining loyal to the big money powers, first and foremost. The more clever, subtle, and convincing that the _actually_ CONSERVATIVE, but _apparently_ PROGRESSIVE candidate can be, the more help they will receive from the media, the corporate paymasters, and dirty tricksters. Almost no Greens are allowed into higher office because they CANNOT be relied on to provide PROGRESSIVE _appearances_ to _actually_ CONSERVATIVE actions. Once the big money manipulators succeed in filling the Green Party with _fake_ PROGRESSIVES, then they will start winning elections faster than Democrats. The veneer of PROGRESSIVE politics, with overall CONSERVATIVE loyalty, doesn't shine as convincingly as it did prior to Katrina, Iraq, or 9/11. The 'Safe States' hoax was the Big Lie aimed at the Green Party, just like the 'Al Qaeda' hoax was the Big Lie aimed at the Democrats who could not be relied on to stay loyal to the big bullies in power. It is media manipulation and voter fraud, carried out on the orders of the big money interests, that determine who wins and loses elections nowadays. You can see that appearances are NOT decisive, because no matter how nice you make your hair or your website, if you threaten to expose the harmful and deceptive activity of the biggest money powers, you will be THWARTED, one way or the other by their henchmen. It's the ruling powers that call the shots -- and _how much_ PROGRESSIVE politics they PERMIT has been narrowing, more and more. The perception that _apperances_ determine elections is deliberately encouraged and enforced by the same big media money men, of course. If we succeed in teaching Green and Democrats this decisive, IDEOLOGICAL distinction, between, first loyalty to the most powerful (CONSERVATIVE), and first loyalty the the most vulnerble (PROGRESSIVE), then we will win, no matter what manipulations the big bad guys pull. Ideological distinctions are forbidden from overt discussion in the media. Which makes sense, because with an accurate political 'measuring stick' generally understood by the population, then media manipulations would no longer work. The closer I look, the LESS appearances matter. Getting us to spend all our time projecting our image, rather than refining the political intelligence of our party and populace, is fine with the big media, spy, and money boys. Spin and manipulating appearances is the heart of their job description. Get the ideas right, along with an intelligent analysis of the overall political context, then come what may at the ballot box, you and all you have reached with your campaign will be that much more hip to what is real. TRUST is the same as appearances. TRUST is all about believing in someone. Straight, overt ideological distinctions, that can be made by ANYONE with the capabilities of the own brains, do not rely on TRUST at all. Sure, you can rely on the judgment of someone who consistently, over time, shows that they are PROGRESSIVE through accurate political analysis and actions -- we all do that all the time. Unless eveyone is constantly checking, with their own brains, what and who accurately represents their intentions and understanding, then TRUST is wafer-thin and vulnerable to any and all media manipulations that come down from above. Creating a solution to the manipulability of the general population is even more difficult than 'filtering out what we see and read', because the DECISIVE manipulations are specifically designed to influence people's judgments outside the realm of conscious evaluation. And only by creating such a solution, will our PROGRESSIVE goals of helping the most vulnerable be attained -- however the elections go, and no matter how much worse the overall political context becomes. Christian Pecaut From alexcathy at aol.com Fri Apr 7 14:23:08 2006 From: alexcathy at aol.com (alexcathy at aol.com) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:23:08 -0400 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <44358C1F.1000604@earthlink.net> References: <44358C1F.1000604@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8C828A09983F1F5-1224-303@MBLK-M17.sysops.aol.com> I finally downloaded and read the "Dare to Win" article that Gerry originally linked to. I thought it was a nice nuts 'n bolts piece. I don't know why this thread went off into this direction. We spent much of 2001 through 2004 arguing over the 2000 election. We spent much of 2005 arguing over the 2004 election. I do hope we don't spend 2006 the same way. Accordingly, I am going to devote just one brief e-mail to this subject. The so-called Safe States strategy is only relevant to quadrennial presidential elections, thanks to the grossly undemocratic effects of the Electoral College system. Now, this is one of those time when we must heed Orwell's statement about needing to restate the obvious: elections for president of the United States are unlike any other elections in the world. Though clearly not the intent of the founders, U.S. presidents have become elected *emperors*. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and I am proud of that vote, but it is understandable why some people were frantic to get rid of Bush in 2004. With that one caveat ... I have always said that Greens should "Dare to Win" for every office everywhere. The problem is that, truth to tell, most registered Greens still consider the party a "protest" vehicle and do not really believe we can actually "win" anywhere. Now, let me stick my neck out with a prediction. It is not going to be me, it may not be any of you, and it may not happen this year, but eventually some Green candidate is gonna win a major election. Peter Camejo has said more than once that he thinks Matt Gonzalez could be that person, perhaps by winning Nancy Pelosi's seat in the U.S. Congress. Mark my words, on that great day, all the bullshit MSM pundits and all the bullshit professors of history and political science and all the bullshit political "consultants" will be chattering about how it was "inevitable" and how "everyone" cold plainly see that this Green Party thing was a "phenomenon." And then every time you turn around you'll see ambitious opportunists showing up at GP meetings telling teary-eyed stories about being "born again" into the 10 key values. Don't worry. That day is coming unless by some miracle the Democratic and Republican parties somehow manage to get their acts together. I really don't see that happening. Nader and Camejo are right. They *ARE* the two corporate political parties and at this stage of the game they cannot change even if they wanted to. Look at this amazing "explosion" over immigration with millions of Latinos marching in the streets. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party that "bleeds" for the poor, right? The Republican Party is supposed to be the party that "bleeds" for the supposedly "forgotten" man who does "hard work," gets married, supports "family values," right? Bullshit! Clearly *BOTH PARTIES* and most of the So-Called-Liberal-Media are completely clueless. Just goes to show how out of touch they are about matters every Milpitas cab driver can see. Alex Walker From andid at cagreens.org Fri Apr 7 10:09:11 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:09:11 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: AMV's Annual Solidarity Open House--FYI References: <20060407004957.59419.qmail@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In case this has not turned up yet on our lists. Andrea Begin forwarded message: > From: Samina Faheem > Date: April 6, 2006 5:49:56 PM PDT > To: ALindahl at acmedctr.org, amoskowitz at sbcglobal.net, > andid at cagreens.org, arnoldrubin at igc.org, bcjaynes at earthlink.net, > cfporcupine at yahoo.com, cmbaker420 at sbcglobal.net, > derekwhitworth at earthlink.net, heringer-swarr at freehayward.com, > munco1inca at yahoo.com, nestorcuellas at comcast.ne > Subject: AMV's Annual Solidarity Open House, It is time to nurture > the seeds of friendship. > > Please circule this invitation to all your family and friends. > > Dear all, > > I hope that you can all join us. Please help us spread the word so > every one feels welcome. Samina > America Muslim Voice > > Justice for all. > > Phone: 650-387-1994 > Website: www.amuslimvoice.org > > AMV's Annual Solidarity Open House > > It is time to nurture the seeds of > friendship > > Last year hundreds of our old, new and future friends helped us sow > the seeds of friendship at AMV's open houses. We held these open > houses at many locations throughout our nation. Some people were > surprised when they realized that the open house was actually at > our homes. AMV is very serious about creating the atmosphere of > acceptance, mutual respect, understanding, kindness, peace, harmony > and friendship and we need all of you to nurture these seeds of > friendship through out the world. > > We have started a new movement "The Miracle Movement" where we all > care about only one race, the human race. Just at my home in Palo > Alto over sixteen countries, forty organizations and many faith > communities were represented. My home was filled with aromatic > food, joy, warmth, laughter and the beauty of diversity. For that I > am forever thankful to all of you. > > Please forward this invitation to all humans who are our friends. > People who are interested in helping us make this nation a safe > home for all with dignity and equality. > > When: Sunday May 7Th 2006 > > Time: 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM > Where: 120 Park Avenue, Palo Alto, CA > > Please bring family, friends and chairs, we will provide free > ethnic lunch, kids activities and cultural experience. > PS: Last year so many of you wanted to contribute towards food > but I wanted to do it as my great religion teaches me to be > hospitable. So I said may be next year you can do that but I am > having hard time to do away with my traditions and nature. So if > you must contribute, you can do so by donating to AMV or AMV- > Foundation( 501-C3) > > Please RSVP by April 29Th 2006 @samina_faheem at yahoo.com, so we can > serve you better. > > At AMV we believe in the power of human connection and thought we > can sow the seeds of friendship even under the current political > climate of fear, hate, anger and division and we will call it "The > Miracle Movement" We are paving the path for this movement and need > your help. > > > To co- sponsor "The Miracle Movement" please let us know ASAP. > Thanks, samina_faheem at yahoo.com > > American Muslim Voice was founded in July 2003 is a grassroots, > nonviolent, inclusive, civil, immigrant and human rights > organization building alliances and genuine partnership with like > minded groups and individuals to protect and preserve civil > liberties and constitutional rights for ALL. Our goal is to bridge > the gap between all communities and unite us all under the umbrella > of our common humanity. > Last year AMV was nominated for peace award by our fellow Americans. > > 39675 Cedar Blvd., Ste. 295-D, Newark, California 94560 (650) > 387-1994. www.amuslimvoice.org > > AMV is all about Shared leadership Shared responsibilities and > Shared ownership. > > "The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The > last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must > become a servant and a debtor. That sums up the progress of an > artful leader" - Max DePree > > > > > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. > Great rates starting at 1?/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fredd at freeshell.org Fri Apr 7 18:13:57 2006 From: fredd at freeshell.org (Fred Duperrault) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:13:57 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: "A health care solution?"] Message-ID: <44370E55.4020405@freeshell.org> Although the "Editor" did print two "Letters" in reponse to an April 6 SF Chronicle editorial, he or she ignored mine that scolded the Chronicle and the general media for keeping Single Payer Health Care behind an iron curtain. Anyway, what follows is what I submitted' Fred Duperrault -------- Original Message -------- Subject: "A health care solution?" Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:43:21 -0700 From: Fred Duperrault To: SF Chronicle Letters Editor - Whoever wrote the "A health care solution" (SF Chron.,Pg. B8. 04/06/06) editorial and the aside, "...a...'single payer system which is politically unfeasible,'" should be plugging single payer health care rather than making it seem impossible. The single payer health care system will continue to be "politically unfeasible" until the mainstream media finds the courage to buck the controlling health insurance industry that is the real problem. The media has not realistically informed the public on how the single payer health concept works and how it has successfully served other wealthy industrialized nations. The contrast between the universal single payer health systems and our prohibitive and inequitable system is dramatic. Without a proven system that could replace the powerful greed based health insurance industry, Massachusetts and California will not experience a just and efficient universal system of health care. When will the Chronicle and other media rightly serve the public by unmasking the dominant, fleecing American health care industry and by assertively informing the public of the single payer system that has been proven to be effectual, universal and affordable? Fred Duperrault 500 W. Middlefield Road, #45 Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 691-1215 fredd at freeshell.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Sat Apr 8 20:24:57 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:24:57 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: [G-C-F] Fwd: [CAClean] Come to the Senate Elections Committee meeting April 19] Message-ID: <44387E89.9040509@charter.net> -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Jo Chamberlain Subject: [G-C-F] Fwd: [CAClean] Come to the Senate Elections Committee meeting April 19 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:10:59 -0700 Size: 4593 URL: From wrolley at charter.net Sun Apr 9 21:04:06 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 21:04:06 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Pay it Back Pombo!] Message-ID: <4439D936.1060702@charter.net> -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Kevin Keefe" Subject: Pay it Back Pombo! Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:27:34 -0400 Size: 8004 URL: From tnharter at greens.org Sun Apr 9 22:08:27 2006 From: tnharter at greens.org (Tian Harter) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:08:27 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4439E84B.8070002@greens.org> Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > (snip) > >Once you start considering effects of superstition, >the biggest factor compelling Safe States is that >hardly any vovers actually believe they live in a >"safe state" or district. >There's ego invested in the liberal's belief that >his vote counts and is counted, and that only >happens in swing states. >The belief that they live in a swing district conflicts >directly with their understanding of gerrymandering, >but it's superstition, not rationality, so the >contradiction doesn't dissuade. > > I think the best place to sort out the role of superstition is baseball. Basically, the starting premise is that it's okay to do anything that will help the home town team win. Everybody knows that winning at Baseball takes way more resources than anybody can imagine, so if you have to wear an orange shirt to the game to help, so be it. If the team wins, who is going to complain about your superstition? There are lots of fans that do things that strike me as silly, but if it adds to the fun for them, whatever. Anyhow, the superstition that you can help you city succeed by "not voting for oil companies at the gas pump" should be looked at in the same way. If it means that more dollars do circulate, and some of those get spent on orange shirts worn at Giants games, and the Giants do well, so much the better. The point is, thinking changing the way people look at things will change the way they do things is a superstition of mine. It's not clear to me that safe states did any good, but it's not clear it did any harm. Anyhow, that was two years ago. Now we are in another election cycle. -- Tian http://tianharter.org I'm seeking endorsements for my campaign. Please let me know if you want your name on my list! I would be honored to add you.. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 From cbrouillet at igc.org Sun Apr 9 23:56:38 2006 From: cbrouillet at igc.org (Carol Brouillet) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:56:38 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] GPSCC Meeting Notes 4-4-06 Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060409235534.047472d0@igc.org> GPSCC April 4, 2006 Timekeeper-Fred Notetaker-Carol Vibes?Tian Facilitator?Jim 12 attendees Intros?3 new people Review of our Green Party processes Treasury balance: $1651.35 $100 + $30 in expenses $15 contribution $79 donations from Palo Alto event Plenary delegates?Gerry (will post delegates on website), Warner, Jim, Cameron; Tian as alternate Extra meeting to go over proposals Sunday April 16th at Warner's house 3 p.m. No time to discuss at County meeting. Email discussion CNA public financing initiative-- Greg: Need single payer for health care reform, run up against the $ power. Try to get legislation passed changing the way elections are funded and then push for single payer. Just have a month to gather signatures 1961 Pruneridge Ave, Suite B Santa Clara, CA 95050 91045 ?Office-qualified party? means no money for Green Party candidates. Old Business: planning meeting postponed County Council elections ? 2 people Peace March?Tian, Jim, and Carol were there. Good turnout, press FREE CODE PINK good cause 10 am 3 pm Thursday Earth Day, Avalon Club Stanford Latino Medical School Conference 4/22 Doubletree Hotel -- Junior Statesmen 5/13 Berryessa Art and Wine Festival 5/14 Mothers' Day Tamale Cook-out Prusch Park, San Jose (101 and 280) June?outreach for youth $225 Gay Pride 2,34--4th of July $25 8 hours Labor Day $150 tabling-- September 4?voted for Cameron volunteered to be treasurer. Regional Representative?Mitch Smith alternate--Gerry Can move meeting to San Jose Peace Center Press?Wes Rolley volunteering to be Press/Media Committee (spokesperson for Santa Clara County) Policy Need detailed proposal for next meeting: Eric, Carol, Warner, Tian, Jim 5th May outreach for youth Volunteer participation?Gerry wants ideas --door hangers, canvassing-- San Benito participation?Gilroy/Morgan Hill-- welcomes us to meetings in Hollister Warner's suggestion: send greetings, affirm grassroots participation,democracy, decentralization. OK what they do with their bylaws (within the boundary of the state laws) There is no problem with the state bylaws. There has to be an agreement that they can't have ?double voting? on state issues. Gerry will send message. Mike Honda considering investigation into death of Pat Tillman?from the Green Party Council Events at Stanford?Mitch Smith Mountain View Post Office, April 17th tax protest. _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From Mjsmith55 at aol.com Mon Apr 10 10:01:32 2006 From: Mjsmith55 at aol.com (Mjsmith55 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:01:32 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: Leland Yee to speak at this Wednesday's Green Talk Message-ID: <327.1a82dff.316be96c@aol.com> Green Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County: Leland Yee, Democrat running for California State Senate, speaking on Progressive Politics in San Mateo County Also, discussion of Ballot Propositions: 81 - presented by Jonathan Lundell; 82 - presented by Pat Gray; Measure S - presented by Coastside Greens; Measure U - presented by Menlo Park Greens When: Wednesday April 12 at 7-9pm. Preceded by free refreshments 6-7pm. Where: Green Party Office, 212A Miller St, South San Francisco, 94080 Cost: free. Public is invited Contacts: For more info contact the GPSMC Email: _gpsmc at cagreens.org_ (mailto:gpsmc at cagreens.org) Phone: 650-366-6603 Website: greens.org/cal/sanmateo/calendar.html Event coordinator: Mitch Smith Email: _mjsmith55 at aol.com_ (mailto:mjsmith55 at aol.com) Downloadable flyer at _http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060412.pdf_ (http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060412.pdf) . Please distribute widely. Speaker Bio, from his website: Democrat Leland Y. Yee, PhD, is an educator, child psychologist, husband and father of four who has dedicated his career to strengthening our schools and colleges, protecting our families, and working creatively to improve the quality of life in our communities. In 2002, Leland was elected as the first Chinese American Assemblymember in the history of San Francisco. In Sacramento, Leland has continued to fight for our priorities including quality schools, affordable health care, environmental protection and civil rights. He has passed landmark legislation protecting children from sexual predators and prohibiting the sales of ultra-violent video games to minors. The first Asian American to serve as Speaker Pro Tempore, Leland has been a powerful voice for underserved communities. He has earned 100% ratings from the Sierra Club, the California Congress of Seniors and the Children?s Advocacy Institute. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that all Californians have equal rights and that state services are guaranteed to all, no matter what language we speak. *****This event is wheelchair accessible***** Every month, the Green Party of San Mateo County hosts lectures on topics important to residents of our region.Speakers may be local residents discussing their area of expertise or nationally-recognized activists Whether thesubject is taxes, health care, public transportation or airport expansion, you will find something at the Green Talksthat impacts you and your neighbors. Everyone is welcome! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Mon Apr 10 12:17:53 2006 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:17:53 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: Leland Yee to speak at thisWednesday's Green In-Reply-To: <327.1a82dff.316be96c@aol.com> Message-ID: Leonard Yee has also signed the statement of World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime, as have Cindy Sheeha, Martin Sheen, Howard Zinn, Kurt Vonnegut, Harold Pinter, Camilo Mejia, Dave Berenson, David Cobb, Aimee Allison, Tom Ammiano, Mark Leno, Chris Daley, Grace Paley, Carol Brouillet, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Ann Wright, Susan Sarandon, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Bobby Rush, Gloria Steinem, Michael Ratner, Leonard Weinglass, Cornel West, Kurt Vonnegut, Alice Walker, Ed Asner, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, and Wavy Gravy. http://www.worldcantwait.net/ >From: Mjsmith55 at aol.com >To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: Leland Yee to speak at >thisWednesday's Green Talk >Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:01:32 EDT > >Green Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County: > >Leland Yee, Democrat running for California State Senate, speaking on >Progressive > >Politics in San Mateo County > >Also, discussion of Ballot Propositions: 81 - presented by Jonathan >Lundell; >82 - > >presented by Pat Gray; Measure S - presented by Coastside Greens; Measure U >- presented > >by Menlo Park Greens > >When: Wednesday April 12 at 7-9pm. Preceded by free refreshments 6-7pm. > >Where: Green Party Office, 212A Miller St, South San Francisco, 94080 > >Cost: free. Public is invited > >Contacts: For more info contact the GPSMC > >Email: _gpsmc at cagreens.org_ (mailto:gpsmc at cagreens.org) > >Phone: 650-366-6603 > >Website: greens.org/cal/sanmateo/calendar.html > >Event coordinator: Mitch Smith > >Email: _mjsmith55 at aol.com_ (mailto:mjsmith55 at aol.com) > >Downloadable flyer at >_http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060412.pdf_ >(http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060412.pdf) . >Please distribute widely. > >Speaker Bio, from his website: Democrat Leland Y. Yee, PhD, is an educator, >child > >psychologist, husband and father of four who has dedicated his career to >strengthening > >our schools and colleges, protecting our families, and working creatively >to >improve > >the quality of life in our communities. > >In 2002, Leland was elected as the first Chinese American Assemblymember in >the history > >of San Francisco. In Sacramento, Leland has continued to fight for our >priorities > >including quality schools, affordable health care, environmental protection >and civil > >rights. He has passed landmark legislation protecting children from sexual >predators > >and prohibiting the sales of ultra-violent video games to minors. > >The first Asian American to serve as Speaker Pro Tempore, Leland has been a >powerful > >voice for underserved communities. He has earned 100% ratings from the >Sierra Club, the > >California Congress of Seniors and the Children???s Advocacy Institute. He >has >worked > >tirelessly to ensure that all Californians have equal rights and that state >services > >are guaranteed to all, no matter what language we speak. > >*****This event is wheelchair accessible***** > >Every month, the Green Party of San Mateo County hosts lectures on topics >important to > >residents of our region.Speakers may be local residents discussing their >area of > >expertise or nationally-recognized activists Whether thesubject is taxes, >health care, > >public transportation or airport expansion, you will find something at the >Green > >Talksthat impacts you and your neighbors. Everyone is welcome! >_______________________________________________ >sosfbay-discuss mailing list >sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org >http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From wrolley at charter.net Mon Apr 10 12:56:09 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:56:09 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Farm Regulations Message-ID: <443AB859.5070801@charter.net> *Send your e-mail to win permanent heat regulations for farm workers! * We have written to you about the issue of heat regulations many times before. Thousands of supporters responded and sent e-mails to help us prevent further tragedies in the fields. *These temporary heat regulations are set to expire on April 21,* and we again need your help to protect farm workers. Please *urge CalOSHA to make these vital regulations permanent when they meet on April 20.* Last summer six Central Valley farm workers died due to extreme heat. We can never let this happen again. Some of these deaths occurred after management ordered work speed-ups when temperatures were above 100 degrees. We asked Gov. Schwarzenegger for assistance. He responded by issuing the nation?s first temporary emergency heat regulation in the nation. *Please send your e-mail today calling on Cal-OSHA, the state work safety agency, to adopt a permanent rule to save workers? lives.* -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WB4D23 at aol.com Mon Apr 10 19:36:35 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:36:35 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] Plenary Travel Assistance Available Message-ID: <30f.27f249e.316c7033@aol.com> Here is a message that was sent to the GPSCC County Council (and others) on the County Contacts list. Warner In a message dated 4/6/06 6:45:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, contacts2 at marla.cagreens.org writes: This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions listed at the end of the email. A travel fund has been created by the GPCA CC for the upcoming plenary, which will take place on April 28-29 at Moorpark College in Ventura County. - Funds are for low-income GP delegates, CC members, and co-coordinators of GPCA working groups and committees. Members are asked to honor this system and only make fund requests if they are in need. Members who receive funds from a working group or committee are required to disclose the dollar figure they will receive. - Requests for funds must be submitted to the Treasurer in writing, which includes email. GPCA Treasurer Kenny Mostern can be reached by email at kenny at kennymostern.net, or by snail mail at PO Box 1632, Merced, CA 95341. Please be sure to include your full name; confirmation that you are a delegate, CC member, or SC/WG coco; your mailing address; and the amount of money you are requesting. Allocation of funds: - Individuals coming from the regions Monterey and north may receive up to $125. - Individuals coming from the regions between San Luis Obispo to LA, may receive up to $50. - Individuals coming from the regions south and east of LA, may receive up to $75. - Allocations will be made on a first-come, first-serve basis. You will be notified if we are unable to fulfill your request. - Requests should be submitted by April 17, 2006. People requesting checks on time will receive them by mail that week. If there are left over travel funds after the 17th, the Treasurer will honor requests made until April 27th, but no later. Late requests, if granted, will be distributed at the plenary. However, no checks will be written at the plenary. - Green Party county and local organizations are encouraged to help their delegates with funds if possible. _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WB4D23 at aol.com Mon Apr 10 19:46:11 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:46:11 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Plenary Agenda Review Meeting Sunday Afternoon; Unofficial Plenary Info Message-ID: <376.188377b.316c7273@aol.com> At the last GPSCC membership meeting delegates agreed to meet at my house next Sunday afternoon at 3 pm to review items in the agenda packet for the upcoming Ventura County General Assembly April 29th-30th. As of this writing, there is no formally announced agenda packet. Michael Feinstein has posted a tentative schedule with links to agenda items at: http://www.cagreens.org/lacounty/agenda_moorpark.html GPSCC members are welcome to attend the discussions whether or not they plan to attend the plenary. Please rsvp by email or phone (408/295-9353) so I can plan for number of chairs and snacks. Please try to look over the unofficial agenda information. Warner Bloomberg 867 North Fifth Street San Jose (just south of Hedding St) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andid at cagreens.org Tue Apr 11 18:41:34 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:41:34 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63C23D73-A6C2-4C50-9A64-52CD59B901FE@cagreens.org> Cameron, Then I'm glad to hear that. He certainly had every intention to do so, and THAT in itself caused a loss of face for the GP. Sorry, but I still think the guy was not the candidate we should have run. No star quality. No ability to force election discussion to subjects the majors didn't want to discuss. Andrea On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > >> From: Andrea Dorey >> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 >> To: Green South Bay Discussion >> Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" > > >> At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition >> that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known >> major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, does >> *not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. We >> got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. >> Andrea > > I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in > "safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. > The facts don't support that allegation, though. > As far as I know, David was talked out of that "strategy" > at the 2003 convention in DC, along with almost all of its > proponents at the time, and he campaigned in every > state where he was on the ballot. > > I've been asking the people who make that allegation > for a verifiable quote in a news story in a real > newspaper, or perhaps a video interview that wasn't > cut down to short phrases and reassembled for broadcast. > It's been a couple of years now and they > still haven't produced one. Not one. The closest they can > get is a dramatized opinion piece on MSNBC's Web site. > > It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default > that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the > "safe states" strategy that the corporate media > *projected* onto it. It's one of those things > that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. > And the belief has done more damage to our party and > movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. > > > Cameron > > From andid at cagreens.org Tue Apr 11 18:43:17 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:43:17 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <20060406055554.71776.qmail@web52102.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060406055554.71776.qmail@web52102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ask the candidate who proposed it, without reference to the platform. I heard him (Cobb) propose it and I saw the confusion it caused among Greens. Andrea On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Bob Alavi wrote: > Amen Cameron! > > I am much less involved in the mainstream of Greens than most of you. > > But the simple question inevitably crossed my mind when > encountering that obscure and esoteric premise of "safe state"! > > Which of the "Ten Key Value[s]" did it accomodate or enhance? > > ba > > "Cameron L. Spitzer" wrote: > > >From: Andrea Dorey > >Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 > >To: Green South Bay Discussion > >Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" > > > >At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition > >that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known > >major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, does > >*not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. We > >got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. > >Andrea > > I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in > "safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. > The facts don't support that allegation, though. > As far as I know, David was talked out of that "strategy" > at the 2003 convention in DC, along with almost all of its > proponents at the time, and he campaigned in every > state where he was on the ballot. > > I've been asking the people who make that allegation > for a verifiable quote in a news story in a real > newspaper, or perhaps a video interview that wasn't > cut down to short phrases and reassembled for broadcast. > It's been a couple of years now and they > still haven't produced one. Not one. The closest they can > get is a dramatized opinion piece on MSNBC's Web site. > > It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default > that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the > "safe states" strategy that the corporate media > *projected* onto it. It's one of those things > that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. > And the belief has done more damage to our party and > movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. > > > Cameron > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > > New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC > and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andid at cagreens.org Tue Apr 11 18:46:23 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:46:23 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <20060406182139.44448.qmail@web52105.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060406182139.44448.qmail@web52105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8356D579-3ED3-4ED9-8DE1-FE15ABAC6A8F@cagreens.org> Cobb also announced it at the plenary in San Diego (I believe) that allowed the presidential candidates to express their ideas. Too many witnesses to deny it. Andrea On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Bob Alavi wrote: > If someone has an answer to the question: "How does the concept of > *safe state* relate to 10 Key Values", I appreciate hearing it. > > I can't quote Cobb, but I too went to his lunchtime presentation > on the Campus of Stanford in 2004. Then, at least I came off > feeling that he did support something like a "safe state". > > ba > > Tian Harter wrote: > Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > > > >It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default > >that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the > >"safe states" strategy that the corporate media > >*projected* onto it. It's one of those things > >that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. > >And the belief has done more damage to our party and > >movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. > > > > > I think that safe states strategy was a brainchild of > John Rensenbrink of Maine. He's good enough at > putting a message out that people took up the call. > There was plenty of demand for the idea. > > When he spoke in San Jose, David Cobb said > something like "I haven't voiced support for that > strategy since last year but it's still following me > around." It's very hard for a candidate with little > access to the public eye to change perceptions. > > I myself told quite a few people that Cobb was > running a safe states campaign. Sorry about that... > > -- > > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. > Great rates starting at 1?/min. > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andid at cagreens.org Tue Apr 11 18:49:05 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:49:05 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <44357E99.8020204@earthlink.net> References: <44357E99.8020204@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2A43A5C9-E2B6-43EA-A2DD-F6443E55C8A3@cagreens.org> Nader got into these issues long before anyone else thought of it, Kerry or no Kerry--Cobb or no Cobb. And this, in spite of the media freeze against him. Andrea On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Gerry Gras wrote: > > > Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > >>> From: Andrea Dorey >>> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:28:17 -0700 >>> To: Green South Bay Discussion >>> Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" >>> >> >> >>> At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who runs with the admonition >>> that he will not run in any state (county, city) that a well-known >>> major party does not have a big lead over the other major party, >>> does >>> *not* "dare to win," and is costing his party its credibility. We >>> got the government we deserve, if we're really honest about it. >>> Andrea >>> >> >> I often hear an allegation that David Cobb ran only in >> "safe" states, or at least said that's what he was gonna do. >> The facts don't support that allegation, though. >> As far as I know, David was talked out of that "strategy" >> at the 2003 convention in DC, along with almost all of its >> proponents at the time, and he campaigned in every >> state where he was on the ballot. >> >> I've been asking the people who make that allegation >> for a verifiable quote in a news story in a real >> newspaper, or perhaps a video interview that wasn't >> cut down to short phrases and reassembled for broadcast. >> It's been a couple of years now and they >> still haven't produced one. Not one. The closest they can >> get is a dramatized opinion piece on MSNBC's Web site. >> >> It seems to me that's pretty close to proof by default >> that the Cobb campaign didn't actually pursue the >> "safe states" strategy that the corporate media >> *projected* onto it. It's one of those things >> that "everybody knows" that just isn't true. >> And the belief has done more damage to our party and >> movement than anything since the GPUSA chicanery. >> >> >> Cameron >> > > > David Cobb came to Stanford less than a month before Election > Day, 2004. He said he had just come from Pennsylvania and > Ohio, both of which were "swing" states. > > Also, Cobb and the Libertarian Presidential candidate were > suing Ohio over its results, long before Kerry ever got > involved in the suit (assuming that he eventually did, I > don't know. Despite the fact that in terms of who got to > be President, it only mattered to Kerry. > > Gerry > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > From andid at cagreens.org Tue Apr 11 18:55:27 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:55:27 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <44358C1F.1000604@earthlink.net> References: <44358C1F.1000604@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8FA8A33B-D869-4172-8437-09C284FD769E@cagreens.org> On Apr 6, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Gerry Gras wrote: > > > I think at some level we all know that we can't really > trust the mainstream media. But it is hard to filter out > what we see and read. > > Gerry > And sometimes we can't trust the candidate. He may have changed his mind, but it was a late change, probably in reaction to the reality that a lot of Greens, along with other disaffected voters, were determined to vote for Nader/Camejo, no matter what ticket they ran on. The results show that that was exactly what happened--at least, the last numbers I saw. Nader had the greater numbers of voters when compared with Cobb. Andrea > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > From andid at cagreens.org Tue Apr 11 19:04:29 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:04:29 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: <8C828A09983F1F5-1224-303@MBLK-M17.sysops.aol.com> References: <44358C1F.1000604@earthlink.net> <8C828A09983F1F5-1224-303@MBLK-M17.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4E590D8B-5C85-4AB6-845A-C566C7BC98E7@cagreens.org> Alex, I agree with you about Matt Gonzales. He made the most incredible run for San Francisco mayor and, I think, he did it by running an all- out tough campaign that was not derailed or slowed by any considerations but those that led to his election to the office. A magnificent candidate for the Greens. He's one that makes me proud and not embarrassed to be a Green. Andrea On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:23 PM, alexcathy at aol.com wrote: > I finally downloaded and read the "Dare to Win" article that Gerry > originally linked to. I thought it was a nice nuts 'n bolts piece. I > don't know why this thread went off into this direction. > > We spent much of 2001 through 2004 arguing over the 2000 election. > > We spent much of 2005 arguing over the 2004 election. > > I do hope we don't spend 2006 the same way. > > Accordingly, I am going to devote just one brief e-mail to this > subject. > > The so-called Safe States strategy is only relevant to quadrennial > presidential elections, thanks to the grossly undemocratic effects of > the Electoral College system. Now, this is one of those time when we > must heed Orwell's statement about needing to restate the obvious: > elections for president of the United States are unlike any other > elections in the world. Though clearly not the intent of the founders, > U.S. presidents have become elected *emperors*. I voted for Ralph > Nader > in 2000 and I am proud of that vote, but it is understandable why some > people were frantic to get rid of Bush in 2004. > > With that one caveat ... > > I have always said that Greens should "Dare to Win" for every office > everywhere. The problem is that, truth to tell, most registered Greens > still consider the party a "protest" vehicle and do not really believe > we can actually "win" anywhere. > > Now, let me stick my neck out with a prediction. > > It is not going to be me, it may not be any of you, and it may not > happen this year, but eventually some Green candidate is gonna win a > major election. Peter Camejo has said more than once that he thinks > Matt Gonzalez could be that person, perhaps by winning Nancy Pelosi's > seat in the U.S. Congress. > > Mark my words, on that great day, all the bullshit MSM pundits and all > the bullshit professors of history and political science and all the > bullshit political "consultants" will be chattering about how it was > "inevitable" and how "everyone" cold plainly see that this Green Party > thing was a "phenomenon." And then every time you turn around you'll > see ambitious opportunists showing up at GP meetings telling teary- > eyed > stories about being "born again" into the 10 key values. > > Don't worry. That day is coming unless by some miracle the Democratic > and Republican parties somehow manage to get their acts together. I > really don't see that happening. Nader and Camejo are right. They > *ARE* > the two corporate political parties and at this stage of the game they > cannot change even if they wanted to. > > Look at this amazing "explosion" over immigration with millions of > Latinos marching in the streets. The Democratic Party is supposed > to be > the party that "bleeds" for the poor, right? The Republican Party is > supposed to be the party that "bleeds" for the supposedly "forgotten" > man who does "hard work," gets married, supports "family values," > right? > > Bullshit! > > Clearly *BOTH PARTIES* and most of the So-Called-Liberal-Media are > completely clueless. Just goes to show how out of touch they are about > matters every Milpitas cab driver can see. > > > Alex Walker > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > From andi at wrytor.com Tue Apr 11 19:23:00 2006 From: andi at wrytor.com (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:23:00 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [SC-SM] [Fwd: [Fwd: Regional Rep Election]] In-Reply-To: <110.5d5fd643.3165f6dc@aol.com> References: <110.5d5fd643.3165f6dc@aol.com> Message-ID: <86EF67C2-E680-4F6F-8650-38E4C81B2EA8@wrytor.com> Take a guess, Warner. I've brought up the issue of the problems with the regular meeting place, the lack of diversity in the food, and the poor sound and service. Nothing was done, so I saw no reason to go, when the agenda is discussed at the SCC cc meeting which I *do* attend and participate in regularly. I have attended several plenaries; I resisted continuing to do this into eternity, as I believe that new blood should get a chance to go to these and meet the fine people that belong to GP across the state. I note that this year, several of the same names appear and that there is *no* gender balance. Your recent campaign for office benefited from my activities when you were running and, I believe, you were asked to speak once again in Milpitas on the ballot measures; was this your fourth invitation to do so? My emails are often delayed, as much of what we discuss on the chat line is often of little relevance. When an interesting issue finally appears, I get involved and give my opinion, without concern about what the prevailing thought is. I see no problem with honesty in dissent, although I have in the past shown my willingness to step aside or to abide by the majority decision that finally emerges. I can be available for teleconferences any time I am *needed,* which in my capacity of SCC cc I have not been to date. Anything else you'd like to ask? Andrea On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:45 PM, WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/5/06 6:33:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > andi at wrytor.com writes: > I am interested in running as the alternate rep. > Andrea Dorey > > Please explain why you did not attend last night's GPSCC regular > membership meeting where this was discussed? Please explain why > you do not attend these meetings in general? Please describe your > participation in state party committees or working groups. Please > explain why your replies to emails seem delayed and how you would > work around that if you became an alternate Regional > Representative. Also, will you be available for the monthly (or > more) Coordinating Council teleconferences? Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at greens.org Wed Apr 12 23:58:29 2006 From: tnharter at greens.org (Tian Harter) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:58:29 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] I took a bunch of pictures at the Immigrants rights march in San Jose on Monday.... Message-ID: <443DF695.2030200@greens.org> This was the biggest march I've ever seen in San Jose. Check out my pictures at: http://tian.greens.org/SanJose/ImigrantsRightsMarch/index.html Tuesday the environmental justice community marched on the power plant at Hunters Point in San Francisco. I couldn't take any pictures of that one because the rain was too much for me to want to risk my camera in. I talked about what I saw the previous day with a number of people though... -- Tian http://tianharter.org I'm seeking endorsements for my campaign. Please let me know if you want your name on my list! I would be honored to add you.. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 From tnharter at greens.org Thu Apr 13 11:36:41 2006 From: tnharter at greens.org (Tian Harter) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:36:41 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Tabling this evening at the Code Pink Benefit Message-ID: <443E9A39.4050602@greens.org> I need a list of people that are going. I need someone besides me to sit behind the table. Jim Doyle said a number of people volunteered. Fontain says we need to be at the Avalon (777 Lawrence Expy.) by 8 PM, and we need to help with setup to qualify for the $10 entry. (If there are at least two of us that means putting stuff on the Green Party table) Otherwise it will be $15. A good time will be had by all! Please let me know if you will be there! -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: Added Imigrants Rights March pictures taken Monday. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 From andid at cagreens.org Thu Apr 13 16:29:06 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:29:06 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Cameron, I wasn't at the National convention, so I don't know about what Nader did or didn't do. I have to depend for information on those of you who attended. But I WAS THERE AT THE PLENERY WHEN COBB ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO RUN "SAFE STATES" AND I ALSO READ HIS HANDOUT AT THAT PLENARY. When and where he backed off from that intention, I don't know, but that plan was his at the plenary, and it was his way to present himself as different from the other presidential candidates. If it was just a temporary ploy, then I have even less respect for him than before. Andrea On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > >> From: Andrea Dorey >> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:41:34 -0700 >> To: Green South Bay Discussion >> Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" > >> He certainly had every intention to do >> so, > > That's just not true. I believe you have been persuaded of > that damaging lie by the corporate media, the Democrats, > and gullible Greens who were also persuaded. > > We do not know what was happening inside David's head. > Nobody knows what's happening inside someone else's head. > All we know is their actions and statements, and > David's actions and statements were "run all-out," > not "safe states." > > >> and THAT in itself caused a loss of face for the GP. > > WHAT caused a loss of face? The lies broadcast by > Democrats? Or David's lack of media access to counter them? > > > >> Sorry, but I still think the guy was not the candidate we should have >> run. No star quality. No ability to force election discussion to >> subjects the majors didn't want to discuss. > > I agree, but that's a different issue. Nader declined > our nomination. He was *not available to be our candidate* > in 2004. Our choices as a party were to stop being > a national political party in 2004, by not nominating > anyone, or run someone besides Nader. The strategic > decision was about which course would do more damage, > not being a political party and wishing that would > be only a temporary setback, or nominating a weak > candidate as a placeholder. Nominating Nader was not > an option for us. "Endorsing" Nader was the same course, > legally and tactically, as not being a political party. > We'd be trying to become a low-budget Public Citizen > type organization instead. ("Greens/Green Party USA" > is trying to do that right now. It's a total failure.) > It came down to which course would lose us fewer state-level > ballot lines. I wish more people realized that. > > > Cameron > > From WB4D23 at aol.com Thu Apr 13 17:19:19 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:19:19 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [GPCA Official Notice] PLENARY INFORMATION Message-ID: <3a3.4e4f3c.31704487@aol.com> This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions listed at the end of the email. Hello, California Greens! A Preliminary Proposal Packet for our upcoming Plenary at Moorpark College in Ventura is now online. Please join us in Ventura on April 29-30, 2006. This Proposal Packet contains the decision and discussion items for consideration by the General Assembly. All Counties and their Plenary delegates are urged to review the items in preparation for decision-making at the Plenary. Here's the link: _http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/preview/_ (http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/preview/) (You may need the standard GPCA password for some of the pages. If you do not have the password, please ask your County Council, or send a note to _agenda-team at cagreens.org_ (mailto:agenda-team at cagreens.org) .) PLEASE NOTE: This is a -preliminary- Packet. All times given are subject to change! Please check your e-mail. A link to the -final- Packet will be sent as soon as possible. We apologize for the delay. ALSO COMING SOON: The -final- Meeting Schedule and the Meetings/Logistics Packet, which will provide information on the venue, lodging and transportation. Please watch your e-mail! You can also check out _http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/_ (http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/) for updates. See you in Ventura! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Apr 13 19:40:58 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:40:58 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Green Focus? How many? Message-ID: <443F0BBA.7080408@earthlink.net> I got a call from Robyn Ardez wanting to know how many bundles of the state newspaper GPSCC wants. So how many do we want? $18/bundle, 250 papers / bundle. Gerry From fredd at freeshell.org Fri Apr 14 00:02:32 2006 From: fredd at freeshell.org (Fred Duperrault) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:02:32 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <443F4908.3090809@freeshell.org> I may have been the only GPSCC delegate at last year's national convention who stuck with Nader. I think it would have been to the Green Party's advantage to endorse the Nader-Camejo ticket. Both of them were known nationally, especially Nader. Peter was a Green Party member who made a respectable run for Governor. Together, and especially with the Green Party's backing, they would have reached many more people and made enough waves to attract much more media attention. Although the majority of Greens wanted David to represent the party because he did more grass roots campaigning with and for Green candidates before the convention, he wasn't pulling in many new members, it seemed to me. I don't think the Green Party would have become less of a national party if the Nader-Camejo ticket would have gotten the Green green light to represent the values of the party. In fact, I think with two unintimidated campaigners like Ralph and Peter representing the spirit of the Green Party, we would have grown much more during and after the election. The hard core Greens who were loyal to Cobb felt that nominating Cobb would be a big step in grooming an in-party prospect to become a national Green leader and a stronger candidate for the 2008 presidential campaign. In three years we will find out if it worked. I think both Peter and Ralph could have gained the support of the Greens if they had done much more to cultivate the delegates' support. Peter was overconfident and apparently lost the friendship of some delegates who then electioneered much more intensely for David. Also, I think it should have been on top of Nader's priorities to be present in Milwaukee. Not only did I end up in the minority during the vote, I also failed to find a Friday Night Fish Fry (so popular in Wisconsin) that wasn't overflowing with local fried perch addicts. Although I have been critical of Peter Camejo in a couple of instances, I think he can be the ideal candidate to stir the imagination of Greens and other independent progressives in the state. With adequate support from the Green Party, he could duplicate, or exceed, the success he attained in the last election. For those who felt angered by him, I suggest that they forgive and forget. I believe he is an honorable person who will make the Greens proud while representing the party as well as the hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of "disenfranchised" who are so deeply frustrated with the many two faced, status quo milk toasts that tow the corporate-military-Wall Street-executive complex line. Camejo knows how to expose the deception of Schwarzenegger and others with pork laden baggage and whose pockets are crammed with special interests' bribes. He also comes up with some outside-of-the-box ideas of his own. In the spirit of good government, good discussion and goodwill. Fred D. Cameron, I wasn't at the National convention, so I don't know about what Nader did or didn't do. I have to depend for information on those of you who attended. But I WAS THERE AT THE PLENERY WHEN COBB ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO RUN "SAFE STATES" AND I ALSO READ HIS HANDOUT AT THAT PLENARY. When and where he backed off from that intention, I don't know, but that plan was his at the plenary, and it was his way to present himself as different from the other presidential candidates. If it was just a temporary ploy, then I have even less respect for him than before. Andrea On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > >> From: Andrea Dorey >> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:41:34 -0700 >> To: Green South Bay Discussion >> Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" > >> He certainly had every intention to do >> so, > > That's just not true. I believe you have been persuaded of > that damaging lie by the corporate media, the Democrats, > and gullible Greens who were also persuaded. > > We do not know what was happening inside David's head. > Nobody knows what's happening inside someone else's head. > All we know is their actions and statements, and > David's actions and statements were "run all-out," > not "safe states." > > >> and THAT in itself caused a loss of face for the GP. > > WHAT caused a loss of face? The lies broadcast by > Democrats? Or David's lack of media access to counter them? > > > >> Sorry, but I still think the guy was not the candidate we should have >> run. No star quality. No ability to force election discussion to >> subjects the majors didn't want to discuss. > > I agree, but that's a different issue. Nader declined > our nomination. He was *not available to be our candidate* > in 2004. Our choices as a party were to stop being > a national political party in 2004, by not nominating > anyone, or run someone besides Nader. The strategic > decision was about which course would do more damage, > not being a political party and wishing that would > be only a temporary setback, or nominating a weak > candidate as a placeholder. Nominating Nader was not > an option for us. "Endorsing" Nader was the same course, > legally and tactically, as not being a political party. > We'd be trying to become a low-budget Public Citizen > type organization instead. ("Greens/Green Party USA" > is trying to do that right now. It's a total failure.) > It came down to which course would lose us fewer state-level > ballot lines. I wish more people realized that. > > > Cameron > > _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Fri Apr 14 10:06:21 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:06:21 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" Message-ID: Fred wrote: >Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:02:32 -0700 >From: Fred Duperrault >User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20051002) >To: Green South Bay Discussion >Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win" >I may have been the only GPSCC delegate at last year's national >convention who stuck with Nader. I was in the same delegation to the 2004 convention. We NEVER HAD THE OPTION to "stick with Nader." Nader had declined our nomination half a year before. Nader gave every indication that he didn't think the Green Party did him any good in 2000 and would hurt his candidacy in 2004. Our choices were among NO CANDIDATE (represented by Peter Camejo), Cobb, or two others who hadn't campaigned. > I think it would have been to the >Green Party's advantage to endorse the Nader-Camejo ticket. Fred seems to be discounting the LEGAL consequences the national party faced if it chose NO CANDIDATE. We stood to lose our ballot lines in TWO THIRDS of the states where we had them. Through the first round of voting, many of us felt losing two thirds of our states would be worth it, sacrificing our status as a national political party to raise our movement's visibility. But the person who was going to lead that effort for us followed that vote with a red-faced screaming temper tantrum. Some of us were dissuaded from supporting him at that point just because he was so personally insulting. But I believe more of us were thinking practically. If he could lose all composure so easily AMONG FRIENDS, how might he embarrass us on national television when a Tim Russert or a Bill O'Reilly sprung the kind of trap on him that Russert sprung on Nader in 2000? (Nader kept his cool when Russert surprised him with the G/GPUSA's "anti-platform." *Nobody* else could have done as well. Camejo demonstrated that he could be provoked into an embarrassing fit of pique by far less.) > Both of >them were known nationally, especially Nader. Unfortunately, Nader wasn't going to run as a Green. Those of us who remembered his '92 and '96 campaigns had seen him do that twice before. He made campaign appearances in '96 where he spoke for over an hour and NEVER MENTIONED the Green Party. In fact, Ralph Nader's entourage made us TAKE DOWN OUR GREEN PARTY BANNERS before Nader would enter the room, because Mr. Nader did not want any photographs with his face and "Green Party" in them. One of those appearances was at the CNA office in San Jose. We were not allowed to table at that event. Fred, did you know that? Andrea, did you know Ralph Nader's people ordered us to take down Green Party banners and banned Green Party literature from his campaign apperances in '96? So I believe it was wishful thinking unsupported by history that Nader was going to run "as a Green" in 2004. He was running an independent, promoting no political party. Remember that the Reform Party's endorsement of Nader in '04 did absolutely nothing for them. They lost ballot status everywhere and disappeared. >Peter was a Green Party >member who made a respectable run for Governor. He did indeed. But that was when he was running his own campaign, with no control by Nader's staff. And Peter was a Green Party nominee. We were never offered that option in 2004. It was never on the table. >Although the majority of Greens wanted David to represent the party >because I only met a couple of Greens in Milwaukee who felt that way. Many times more were lukewarm about it, or really didn't want David Cobb representing us at all. We knew a Cobb campaign would be a threadbare placeholder of a campaign, attracting no attention, and its only function would be to retain several state ballot lines. >I don't think the Green Party would have become less of a national party > if the Nader-Camejo ticket would have gotten the Green green light Well, you can think that, but it's an opinion unsupported by the legal facts which existed in 2004 or the history of Nader's three previous presidential campaigns. Ralph Nader really isn't that interested in the Green Party. It's a sidelight for him, at best, and a lot of his staffers, who completely controlled his '96 and '00 campaigns, are openly hostile to us. They're embarrassed to be seen with political amateurs. They're beltway insiders and the Green Party isn't in their picture. The legal fact was that failing to NOMINATE (not "endorse") a candidate would guarantee losing half the ballot lines. >The hard core Greens who were loyal to Cobb No "hard core Greens" were loyal to Cobb. Cobb was an embarrassment. Nobody liked his chitauqua pitch-man style. We just couldn't get any of the candidates the search committee had identified, with Nader at the top of that list. >felt that nominating Cobb >would be a big step in grooming an in-party prospect to become a >national Green leader. I'd like to know who said that silly thing. Everybody who actually considered the tactical situation that existed knew the Green Party was going to keep shrinking in 2004, due to the Democrats' successful "spoiler effect" publicity and our refusal to confront that big lie head on. The question in Milwaukee was whether NO CANDIDATE would shrink us less than a nobody placeholder candidate would. Ralph Nader, by his own decision, was not on the table in Milwaukee. David Cobb's intended campaign strategy was irrelevant also, since everyone knew he was going to attract zero publicity. >I think both Peter and Ralph could have gained the support of the Greens >if they had done much more to cultivate the delegates' support. I have talked about the fallacy of false assumption here already. Ralph Nader REFUSED our nomination. Our nomination was the only significant "support" we had to offer. Cameron From tnharter at ispwest.com Fri Apr 14 11:23:53 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:23:53 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Green Focus? How many? In-Reply-To: <443F0BBA.7080408@earthlink.net> References: <443F0BBA.7080408@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <443FE8B9.8050903@ispwest.com> Gerry Gras wrote: >I got a call from Robyn Ardez wanting to know how >many bundles of the state newspaper GPSCC wants. > >So how many do we want? > >$18/bundle, 250 papers / bundle. > >Gerry > >_______________________________________________ >sosfbay-discuss mailing list >sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org >http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > > I got a call from her to. I called back and said we want one bundle. We still have a lot left over from the X-mas issue bundle we got. I don't think we should get more than one bundle. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: Added Imigrants Rights March pictures taken Monday. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.actgreen.com/ <-- Page worth visiting at least once. From WB4D23 at aol.com Fri Apr 14 13:46:56 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:46:56 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] What the heck is going on with the plenary scheduling? Cancel Sunday's meeting? Message-ID: <1bb.26760b2.31716440@aol.com> The following is a noted posted with a "Preliminary" agenda at cagreens.org/plenary Note: On 13 APRIL 2006, Adrienne Prince (Ventura) has requested, on behalf of the host committee, that the General Assembly meeting currently scheduled for April 29-30 be cancelled, primarily for logistical reasons. The Coordinating Committee will presumeably vote on this request in the near future. The registration page is still not activated. The directions page refers to travel to the Yolo plenary. Gerry: What is going on in terms of Coordinating Committee (non)decision-making??? Jim, Cameron, Tian (and others): I do not want to spend time on discussing a tentative draft of a plenary agenda that may not happen as scheduled April 29-30th. We had scheduled an agenda packet review meeting at 3 pm at my house. There also is (I think) an ERWG teleconference scheduled for 4-6 pm in which I would otherwise participate. Have the meeting? Cancel the meeting? Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Sat Apr 15 01:43:17 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:43:17 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] What the heck is going on with the plenary scheduling? Cancel Sunday's meeting? References: <1bb.26760b2.31716440@aol.com> Message-ID: <4440B225.8020607@earthlink.net> WB4D23 at aol.com wrote: > The following is a noted posted with a "Preliminary" agenda at > cagreens.org/plenary > > > > Note: On 13 APRIL 2006, Adrienne Prince (Ventura) has requested, on > behalf of the host committee, that the General Assembly meeting > currently scheduled for April 29-30 be cancelled, primarily for > logistical reasons. The Coordinating Committee will presumeably vote on > this request in the near future. > > > > The registration page is still not activated. The directions page > refers to travel to the Yolo plenary. > > > > Gerry: What is going on in terms of Coordinating Committee > (non)decision-making??? There is a lot. And the whole picture is fuzzy. I hope this helps: 1) even though the host committee filed paperwork over a month ago, Moorpark has apparently not informed the host committee yet if the venue is available 2) there is some concern about how many delegates will show up, because of the actions planned at the Democratic State Convention (note: when this plenary was originally scheduled, it was not clear whether there would be any action) 3) there is some concern about the state of the agenda packet and the schedule, and there are multiple factors to that - the affereffects of the mass resignation from the PlenPlanCom just before the last plenary - the packetmaker has been out of town on a business trip (i hear that she has just come back, so we'll see) - the problem of what to do when there are too many requests for plenary time has never been resolved - the packet is now later than the bylaw mandated deadline of 3 weeks before - I bet there is more 4) ??? FWIW, in my opinion, a significant part of this is due to not finding host committees early enough. I think the search for a host committee should begin AT LEAST 6 months before a plenary, and a venue nailed down 4.5 months before a plenary. (Professional conference planning usually takes a year, I think). Why that is not happening I don't know. I could speculate, but I won't. I suppose that does not really answer your question. If not, please restate it. Gerry > > > > Jim, Cameron, Tian (and others): I do not want to spend time on > discussing a tentative draft of a plenary agenda that may not happen as > scheduled April 29-30th. We had scheduled an agenda packet review > meeting at 3 pm at my house. There also is (I think) an ERWG > teleconference scheduled for 4-6 pm in which I would otherwise > participate. Have the meeting? Cancel the meeting? > > > > Warner > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > From larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net Sat Apr 15 07:56:39 2006 From: larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net (Larry Cafiero_Liaison) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 07:56:39 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] What the heck is going on with the plenary scheduling? Cancel Sunday's meeting? In-Reply-To: <4440B225.8020607@earthlink.net> References: <1bb.26760b2.31716440@aol.com> <4440B225.8020607@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <444109A7.30505@earthlink.net> Gerry Gras wrote: > 2) there is some concern about how many delegates will show up, > because of the actions planned at the Democratic State > Convention (note: when this plenary was originally scheduled, > it was not clear whether there would be any action) Actually, planning for this action at the state Democratic convention predates the decision to hold a plenary hundreds of miles away on the same weekend. Why it wasn't either changed, or why the plenary wasn't held in Sacramento, remains a mystery. For what it's worth, I will be at the plenary as a party official, but we really should be on the streets of Sacramento. Ventura has a legitimate -- and if it were my county, an enormous -- concern about how many people are coming because it could affect how much money they take in. Sorry to say it, but that's a big consideration in taking on the huge task of hosting a plenary. Larry Cafiero Liaison to the Secretary of State's office Green Party of California From cbrouillet at igc.org Sat Apr 15 11:26:37 2006 From: cbrouillet at igc.org (Carol Brouillet) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:26:37 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Bush at San Jose/Cisco next Friday Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060415112536.047dc768@igc.org> Bush at Cisco in San Jose next Friday(April 21) seems like a protest opportunity not to be missed. Carol From jims at greens.org Sat Apr 15 15:43:33 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:43:33 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] SUNDAY'S MEETING CANCELED References: <1bb.26760b2.31716440@aol.com> Message-ID: <44417715.ADDE3AD9@greens.org> I've talked with Warner and Gerry and I think we should consider tomorrow's agenda packet meeting CANCELED. There still is no official agenda packet. A collection of all proposals subitted to the agenda team is available, but it's not that easy to collect them into a printed document, and it's not clear if all those proposals will really be on the agenda. There are serious discussions about postponing the plenary until June. This idea is being pushed by the host committee, and several others. Let's wait a week and see where we are. -- Jim From tnharter at ispwest.com Sat Apr 15 20:13:16 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:13:16 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: [peace-council] Call for protest, Need your response **ASAP** Add your organization's name] Message-ID: <4441B64C.702@ispwest.com> -------- Original Message -------- *_Please forward _ * *California Unwelcome War Criminal G. W Bush Friday, April 21st, 4:00-7:00 PM Cisco System 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 *http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=170+West+Tasman+Drive&csz=san+jose%2C+ca&country=us&new=1&name=&qty= *Mass Protest Against George W. Bush, War Criminal** Say to Bush In Person! Stop the Spying, Stop the Lying, Stop the Dying! No WAR - On Immigrants - On Iraq - On Iran* Money for Jobs, Health Care & Education *NOT* War & Occupation! *_Friday, April 21st 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM_* *Initiated by:* South Bay Mobilization International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition--S.F. Bay Area Peninsula Peace & Justice Center, San Jose Peace Center Students for Justice, WILPF TRANSPORTATION INFO: *Carpools*: If you can provide a ride or need a ride, please call 415-821-6545 (North Bay) or 408-998-8504 (South Bay). *Driving Directions: *_From San Francisco_, take 101 South to the Great America Parkway exit. Go East onto Great America Parkway (a left turn). Follow for 2 miles to Tasman Drive _From San Jose_, take 101 North to the Great America Parkway exit. Go East onto Great America Parkway (a right turn). Follow for 2 miles to Tasman Drive. T _From Oakland_, take 880 South, then take Tasman exit. *Public Transportation: *_From San Francisco_, you can take CalTrain to Mountain View. At CalTrain's Mountain View Station, take the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Light Rail to Tasman (cisco) Station. _From San Jose_, take the VTA Light Rail to the Tasmin Station(Cisco) . *Parking: *Parking on surrounding streets. The Santa Clara Convention Center has a big parking lot on the south side of Tasman which is 1 mile away. *California Says No to Bush! * *This protest is being organized by:* South Bay Mobilization, 408-998-8504, http://www.southbaymobilization.org Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, 650-326-8837, http://www.peaceandjustice.org International ANSWER, 415-821-6545, http://www.internationalanswer.org Direct Action to Stop the War, http://www.actagainstwar.org Global Exchange, 415-575-5555, http://www.unitedforpeace.org California Peace Action, 510-849-2272, http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/ and ...... * * *Join with thousands* of Bay Area residents to protest Bush?s pro-war and anti-people policies on Friday, May 2nd. For more information please call 408-998-8504. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "peace-council " on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: peace-council-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: Added Imigrants Rights March pictures taken Monday. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.actgreen.com/ <-- Page worth visiting at least once. From WB4D23 at aol.com Sat Apr 15 20:37:06 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:37:06 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] CNA clean money (various emails reposted) Message-ID: <2dc.6184699.317315e2@aol.com> Folks: Below are several emails regarding the California Nurses Association's public financing of campaigns initiative proposal which is being circulated for ballot qualification signatures. Note the comment that copies distributed at the last GPSCC meeting are NOT the correct version and should NOT be circulated. If you want to read the emails in roughly chronological order, start at the bottom with Jim Doyle's inquiry, and the response to it above Jim's post. Hopefully, some clarity about this will develop in discussions at the ERWG teleconference Sunday April 16th. Warner ************************************************************ In a message dated 4/14/06 3:35:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, brogregm at sbcglobal.net writes: Warner, I hope this explanation will suffice to gain support for the Clean Money Initiative from you and the SCC Greens. Let me know what you think. If you want to help us gather signatures, give me a ring and I will get you materials---the deadline for turning in petitions is May 1. By the way, all the petitions I brought to the meeting last week are invalid---they contain errors, so please don't use them. Greg Miller California Nurses Association (408) 254-3311 Note: forwarded message attached. Thread-Topic: CNA clean money From: "Michael Lighty" To: "Jim Doyle" Cc: "greg miller" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2006 18:45:30.0997 (UTC) FILETIME= Jim -- Greg Miller asked me to respond to your email, as I am the Director of Public Policy for CNA and worked on drafting the initiative. As you may know, our initiative is based on AB 583, which was drafted by California Clean Money and Assembly member Loni Hancock with input from state Green Party activists. The bill and the initiative balance the legitimate needs of independent and smaller parties to get public funding with a reasonable threshold to obtain that public financing. In fact, under our initiative Green Party candidates would receive more money, and be more competitive, than in any other state electoral system in the US. The levels of funding are comparable, based upon demonstrated support. The bias is toward inclusion. To try to answer your questions in a simplified way, the essence of the structure is that for political parties that hold primaries and whose candidate for Governor got 10% or more of the votes in the previous election, their candidates are eligible for full-funding. Other candidates can qualify for minimum public funding based on getting qualifying signatures and contributions, or becoming "performance-qualified" by getting double the minimums, and thus eligible for 50% of full-funding. Since our initiative overturns Prop 34 limits and its loop holes for political parties, and enables challengers to have funding equal to incumbents, it is the opposite of incumbent and party protection. I hope this is helpful. Michael Lighty -----Original Message----- From: Jim Doyle [mailto:j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:35 PM To: Greg Miller (BOD) Subject: CNA clean money Greg, I have looked at the Initiative Measure being sponsored by the CNA. I had to concentrate to pull out the parts I felt were crucial for the participants from the various parties. Here is what I found. I find seven categories of candidates in the definitions in paragraphs 91037 to 91061: independent candidate non participating candidate office qualified candidate (depends on office qualified party) participating candidate party candidate performance qualified candidate qualified candidate I did not achieve complete clarity on the distinctions. To wit independent candidate: does not represent a party that has been granted ballot status question - what about candidates from parties that have not been granted ballot status? qualified candidate: candidate from a party that is not an office qualified party comment - that includes party candidates and independent candidates party candidate: represents a party that has ballot status and holds a primary election question - where do those fit in whose party does not hold a primary? performance qualified candidate: either winner of a primary of an office qualified party or gathers twice the number of qualifying contributions as an office qualified candidate (comment - so much for a level playing field) furthermore, independent candidates may qualify as performance qualified candidates question - does that exclude party candidates or qualified candidates? Section 91071 part a refers to office qualified candidates part b refers to party candidates two qualifying criteria are given 1) deals with filing requirements 2) only mentions participating candidates from office qualified candidates comment - so part b pulls party candidate back into office qualified candidate Section 91073 signatures (doesn't mention qualifying contributions) qualified candidate: half as many as an office qualified candidate performance qualified candidate: twice as many signatures and at the end of the paragraph imposes a condition on non office qualified candidates Now to funding amounts - section 91099 primary election 1) office qualified candidate amounts 2) performance qualified candidate: 20 % of office qualified candidate comment - that leaves out several others completely comment - level playing field? fair? general election 1) office qualified candidate amounts 2) performance qualified candidate: 50 % of office qualified candidate comments - half the pay for twice the work; level playing field? fair? 3) qualified candidate: 25 % of the office qualified candidate comments - third class citizen; 1/4 the pay for 1/2 the work level playing field? fair? party candidates are not mentioned - do they receive any funding? --------------- So, Greg, since office qualified candidates - which from the definition of office qualified means only democrats and republicans in some 99 % or so of the cases - receive at least twice as much as others this is a very biased initiative. On the one hand it is incumbent protection and in light of term limits it is party protection. And Greg, the definitions of candidates altogether leaves something to be desired ------------------ The Green Party is all for public financing of campaigns. The Green Party's concept of public financing would aim to allow all third parties into the race on comparable financial footing. A level playing field would be equal number of signatures and equal funding amounts. Jim Doyle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cbrouillet at igc.org Mon Apr 17 09:36:17 2006 From: cbrouillet at igc.org (Carol Brouillet) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:36:17 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Protest Bush, Friday April 21 Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060417093210.061ac7f8@igc.org> This is what is going out from the official unwelcome committee. Often there is a bait and switch at the last minute- to thwart protesters and to block us from view of Bush- so I don't know if he will show here or not. However, Cisco has a lot of buildings- for a map see http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac156/downloads/campus_mapAug04.pdf and I did learn that it would be likely that he would be speaking in building #9 where the main conference center is located. Please forward California Unwelcome War Criminal G. W Bush Friday, April 21st, 4:00-7:00 PM Cisco System 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=170+West+Tasman+Drive&csz=san+jose%2C+ca&country=us&new=1&name=&qty= Mass Protest Against George W. Bush, War Criminal Say to Bush In Person! Stop the Spying, Stop the Lying, Stop the Dying! No WAR - On Immigrants - On Iraq - On Iran Money for Jobs, Health Care & Education NOT War & Occupation! Friday, April 21st 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Initiated by: South Bay Mobilization International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition--S.F. Bay Area Peninsula Peace & Justice Center, San Jose Peace Center Students for Justice, WILPF TRANSPORTATION INFO: Carpools: If you can provide a ride or need a ride, please call 415-821-6545 (North Bay) or 408-998-8504 (South Bay). Driving Directions: From San Francisco, take 101 South to the Great America Parkway exit. Go East onto Great America Parkway (a left turn). Follow for 2 miles to Tasman Drive From San Jose, take 101 North to the Great America Parkway exit. Go East onto Great America Parkway (a right turn). Follow for 2 miles to Tasman Drive. T From Oakland, take 880 South, then take Tasman exit. Public Transportation: From San Francisco, you can take CalTrain to Mountain View. At CalTrain's Mountain View Station, take the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Light Rail to Tasman (cisco) Station. From San Jose, take the VTA Light Rail to the Tasmin Station(Cisco) . Parking: Parking on surrounding streets. The Santa Clara Convention Center has a big parking lot on the south side of Tasman which is 1 mile away. California Says No to Bush! This protest is being organized by: South Bay Mobilization, 408-998-8504, http://www.southbaymobilization.org Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, 650-326-8837, http://www.peaceandjustice.org International ANSWER, 415-821-6545, http://www.internationalanswer.org Direct Action to Stop the War, http://www.actagainstwar.org Global Exchange, 415-575-5555, http://www.unitedforpeace.org California Peace Action, 510-849-2272, http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/ and ...... Join with thousands of Bay Area residents to protest Bush???s pro-war and anti-people policies on Friday, May 2nd. For more information please call 408-998-8504. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Mon Apr 17 15:34:59 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:34:59 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: [GPCA-CC] Plenary Date is Postponed - date TBA] Message-ID: <44441813.6050101@earthlink.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [GPCA-CC] Plenary Date is Postponed - date TBA Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:52:36 -0700 From: "Adrienne Prince" Reply-To: GPCA Coordinating Committee To: "GPCA Coordinating Committee" OK, Guys: I am so glad we had this dialogue, updated version is below. Due to many scheduling conflicts, especially of candidates, we of the Ventura County Greens are deciding to postpone the plenary event until a weekend in June, to be announced early this week. We are very sorry for any inconvenience or expense this causes for anyone. It's important for you to know that this decision to reschedule did not come lightly, nor did our decision to host a plenary in the first place. I'm sorry I even mentioned our personal needs, for although we did have personal needs conflicts, we were willing and planning to just "motor" though them, doing everything at once, in order to make this event happen. The fact that the College had not responded to our scheduling request was disturbing, but not that daunting. We were and are completely committed to creating a high-quality event for everyone, and we did not feel this would happen with the valid statewide scheduling conflicts regarding the April date, which our CC supermajority voting process did not allow us to alter. Some have said the agenda release date goes against the requirements set out in the bylaws - all we knew was that we had to hurry up and order food without having any pre-registration figures to indicate how much to order. We asked for this discussion in order to find out what the will of the participants really was, as we in the CC really are just representatives and don't always know what our locals need. So thank you all SO much for allowing this dialogue to occur. It is our hope that some items can be handled before the new date, electronically, and that the locals will have plenty of time to review the packet and pre-register. Our best to you all - Adrienne and the Ventura County Council County Person Allotted Attending +Alts Preferred Date Why Alameda Sharon P. 9 6/7 June A.Allison Campaign Sacto Event Central Marybeth, Cat W. ? 0 ? June Fresno, Butte can?t attend Contra Costa Sharon P. 3 Either Emerald Region 6 5-6 Los Angeles Michael F. 17 13-17 April Don?t inconvenience delegates; expect 50 ? 70 total as it?s a SoCal plenary Marin Cat W. 1-2 1 1 Orange Matt L. 5 4-5 1 Either San Francisco Bruce W. 9 6-9 Santa Clara 4 4 1 Santa Cruz Paul F. 3 2 San Mateo Mitch S. 3 2 June Sacto & May 1 events Solano Sharon P. 1 ? June Local Work Sonoma 4 ? ? June TOTALS (as of 4/16/06) 59-60 43-53 3+ June=5, April=1, Either=2 Individuals Weighing in: Carol Brouillet (Santa Clara) ? Prefers June, more possible for her to attend (candidate) also discuss agenda w/local. Tom Bolema ? Don?t postpone plenary unless quorum can?t be established. Agenda Committee worked hard. Michael Borenstein ? The lateness of agenda and pkt. goes against bylaws; Sacto event is a major consideration. Larry Cafiero ? Would accommodate any schedule ? postponing is probably wise. Peter Camejo ? Wrote letter urging rescheduling of plenary in order to attend Sacto. Event. Don Eichelberger ? Budget issues can be done online. Regrouping could be a good thing. June date would not be a terrible thing. Paul Encimer ? Let?s go around the host committee, create a Floating Host Committee. Emerald Region may host a September plenary. Mike Feinstein ? It?s more important to hold the plenary and reimburse for any losses. Paul Franklin - Host committee has failed us. We should motor ahead, finding a venue, etc. without their help. Comments (4/14 11:42 pm) also included a very cogent analysis of the agenda, consent, voting and bylaws issues and says we shouldn?t bluster ahead. Gerry Gras ? Sonoma and his home county both prefer postponement until June. Pat Gray ? Will not be able to attend an April plenary due to Sacramento event. Strongly prefers June date to elect rep and have regional mtg. first Greg Jan ? June 24-25 will be better. (source?) Jared Laiti ? Hold now, or backlog of work gets worse. Wishes host committee were more prepared. Undecided, all in all. A Standing GA could take up the weight of time-sensitive decision items, now and in future. But we have to develop the procedures. Matt Leslie ? An April date will not give enough agenda review time to the locals. Jonathan Lundell ? Later date will ensure better preparation from CC and host committee. Tim Morgan ? Try for April, it is inconvenient to refund plane tickets. Bill Patterson ? Plenaries are hard work. Let the host committee have breathing room, support. Shane Que Hee ? Try for April, because we need a good number of plenaries this year for max. candidate exposure. Tim Smith ? 2 emails said delay to help host comm.; Tim M, Jared L., Cat W. disagree Jim Stauffer ? (Santa Clara) Delay in order to review the agenda and help the host committee Bruce Wolfe ? Do not delay, or if it is delayed, put it in September. Summer is busy for many reasons, for many people. Cat Woods ? Agenda is fine as is, why delay all the way to June? Host committee should be better prepared. Cat, Marybeth and Mike W or his alt will need homestays. Update: Plenary packet needs work before released. Perhaps postpone 1 week? Mike Wyman ? The April plenary will be tepid and conflicted, whereas a June plenary would be a resounding success. Cres Vellucci ? June is good, he will be covering the Sacto. Event. (accd. to Mark Barney/Media Committee call). Genuine Concerns ? That this plenary will be ill-attended and useless, perhaps even ?gamed? Vs. The need for consistency, to obey processes (however flawed) and scheduling needs for the year as a whole. General Totals from Individuals Weighing in: Don?t Postpone: 7 Please Postpone: 16+ Total: 23 Host Committee Sucks! 4 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: nsmail.txt URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Mon Apr 17 17:11:38 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:11:38 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] PLENARY CANCELED] Message-ID: <44442EBA.6020402@earthlink.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] PLENARY CANCELED Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:31:03 -0700 From: "New contacts list 10 Apr '04" Reply-To: ginnycase at greens.org, contacts2 at marla.cagreens.org To: This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions listed at the end of the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: nsmail-2.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: nsmail-3.txt URL: From WB4D23 at aol.com Tue Apr 18 12:05:03 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:05:03 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fws Msg ALERT: $8.75 PETITION GATHERERS! Message-ID: <2b6.8bb10cd.3176925f@aol.com> In a message dated 4/18/06 11:50:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, WSB3ATTYCA writes: In a message dated 4/18/06 12:37:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, civillib at cwnet.com writes: (PLEASE FORWARD TO $8.75 PETITION GATHERERS) ALERT: Each county coordinator/rep should IMMEDIATELY gather all petitions, not only the ones they have circulated but those they have given to others to circulate in their county. DO NOT TURN THEM IN. Only one designated person from each county can turn them in, and they can do so only once, per the Sec. of State. Please do not turn anything in...it would invalidate every single signature gathered in your county if you do so. For now, let's see what total we can come up with the end of the coming weekend - April 23. Just get some kind of (even) rough total of petitions/signatures and email me back when you have that total. Again, thanks for all your hard work. I know it's been very difficult this Spring with the bad weather, and the growing pains of a new, progressive electoral statewide coalition. But, we've added major sponsors in the past months, and we are growing. Peace, Cres CFW Everyone circulating the $8.75 version of the increase minimum wage petitions, please contact me ASAP to coordinate. Warner (408/295-9353) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Tue Apr 18 14:31:17 2006 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:31:17 GMT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Anyone know of a nonprofit organization that needs binders? Message-ID: <20060418.143123.706.894519@webmail49.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From WB4D23 at aol.com Tue Apr 18 21:42:08 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:42:08 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: [ppjc] Bush in San Jose Friday! Come and protest! Message-ID: <36a.2bb049c.317719a0@aol.com> In a message dated 4/18/06 3:56:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ppjc at peaceandjustice.org writes: George Bush in San Jose this week! Come and Protest! Stop the spying. Stop the lying. Stop the dying. Friday, April 21 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm Note time! A different time was previously announced. Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose Sponsored by: South Bay Mobilization, Peninsula Peace & Justice Center, International A.N.S.W.E.R.-San Francisco, Students for Justice, Not In Our Name, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Global Exchange, The World Can't Wait, Progressive Alliance of Contra Costa County, Students for Justice, Code Pink, Northern California 9-11 Truth Alliance, Peninsula Raging Grannies Action League, Gold Star Families Speak Out, California Peace Action, Bay Area Iranian American Democrats and others... ____________________________________ TRANSPORTATION INFO: Carpools: Peninsula: Drivers and riders meet at Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, 457 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto starting at 12:00 noon. South Bay: If you can provide a ride or need a ride, please call (415) 821-6545 (North Bay) or (408) 998-8504 (South Bay). Driving Directions: >From the north, take 101 South to the Great America Parkway exit. Turn LEFT onto Great America Parkway (going North). Follow for 2 miles to Tasman Drive. Turn RIGHT onto Tasman Drive and follow for a mile or so crossing over both the Caltrain tracks and the Guadalupe River. Building "170" is on your right, set back from the road, on the South side of Tasman Drive across from the Champion Light Rail Station. >From the south, take 101 North to the Great America Parkway exit. Turn RIGHT onto Great America Parkway (going North). Follow for 2 miles to Tasman Drive. Turn RIGHT onto Tasman Drive and follow for a mile or so crossing over both the Caltrain tracks and the Guadalupe River. Building "170" is on your right, set back from the road, on the South side of Tasman Drive across from the Champion Light Rail Station. Public Transportation: >From San Francisco, you can take CalTrain to Mountain View. At CalTrain's Mountain View Station, take the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Light Rail to the Champion Station (at Cisco Systems). _See the Light Rail map here..._ (http://www.vta.org/schedules/SC_LRT_MAP.GIF) _Click here for further information..._ (http://www.vta.org/schedules/schedules.html) >From San Jose, take the VTA Light Rail North to the Champion Station (at Cisco Systems). Parking: - The vicinity of Cisco Systems is mostly corporate parking. - 1/2 mile west of the Champion Light Rail Station is Lick Mill Blvd, which has plenty of parking available on the street. - 1 mile west of the Champion Station is the Santa Clara Convention Center, which has a big parking lot on the south side of Tasman Dr. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Subject: Fwd: [ppjc] Bush in San Jose Friday! Come and protest! Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:56:45 EDT Size: 23292 URL: From WB4D23 at aol.com Tue Apr 18 21:44:11 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:44:11 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: Earth Day event for Greens in Bay Area/Aimee Allison for Oakland Council Message-ID: <1bf.2d3877f.31771a1b@aol.com> In a message dated 4/18/06 4:27:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, funking at mindspring.com writes: Hi all, If you are in or near the Bay Area for Earth Day weekend, please feel free to join Greens from around the Bay Area in helping to elect Aimee Allison to Oakland's City Council. SATURDAY, APRIL 22 and SUNDAY, APRIL 23: EARTH DAY MOBILIZATION: WHEN: Saturday, April 22 and Sunday, April 23 TIME: Starting at 11:00, going until 3:00 WHERE: Aimee Allison HQ: 3208 Grand Ave (next to the Grand Lake Theater) WHAT: delivering our *New* tabloid Aimee Allison literature piece to D 2 voters Because absentee and walk-in voting starts in less than four weeks, WE NEED HELP NOW -- so that we can elect Aimee Allison to Oakland's City Council! Join Aimee Allison, candidate for Oakland City Council, on April 15, 22 amd 23 as we walk the neighborhoods to promote Aimee's candidacy to thousands of voters! This is a grassroots campaign effort, so we need as many volunteers as possible to get the word out about Aimee. Also, former Oakland City Council member Wilson Riles will be joining us for the 11:00 am shift on April 22 -- make a commitment to help us out then, if you can! Aimee is committed to: * Advocating for a future for Oakland's youth: resources for excellent schools and after school programs, and job and college placement opportunties; * Creating economic development that lasts: balancing housing and industrial growth to create real economic development; * Developing affordable housing for working families: mandating the creation of affordable homes to help all Oakland residents; * Making Oakland safer for all: demanding a responsive, accountable police force, directing resources to addressing violent crime, and implementing programs to address the root causes of violence in our community. Please confirm that you can join us. For more info, or to RSVP, please call: (510) 986-1125. For more info about Aimee Allison and the campaign, go to: _www.aimeeallison.org_ (http://www.aimeeallison.org/) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Subject: Fwd: [G-C-F] Earth Day event for Greens in Bay Area Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:58:00 EDT Size: 11588 URL: From tnharter at ispwest.com Tue Apr 18 23:52:48 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:52:48 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Want to see a Green running for City Council in San Jose? Message-ID: <4445DE40.6030106@ispwest.com> Campus Community hosts a District 3 Council Candidates Forum on the evening of Wednesday, April 19. Our event will be held in the multi-purpose room at the Horace Mann Middle School, and will start at 7 PM, ending at 8:30 PM. We request that you arrive at least 15 minutes early. Our event will be moderated by the League of Women Voters. The evening will open with some short CCA announcements. We will then spend the bulk of our time on the Candidates Forum. Each Candidate will be asked to make an very short opening statement regarding their qualifications for the position, and vision for our community. Horace Mann school is on the corner of 7th Street and Santa Clara Street. Up the street from the San Jose Peace Center and across the cross corner from the NEW city hall. Hope you can make it, Peace Kyne for council www.denniskyne.com For those of you looking for a peaceful event here in San Jose this Saturday, visit www.carrythevision.net Arun Ghandi will be present. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org "The biggest win in the environmental movement comes from using less energy to acheve the same outcome" - Carl Pope, Sierra Club. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.actgreen.com/ <-- Page worth visiting at least once. From fredd at freeshell.org Wed Apr 19 09:13:39 2006 From: fredd at freeshell.org (Fred Duperrault) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:13:39 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: Earth Day event for Greens in Bay Area/Aimee Allison for Oakland Council Message-ID: <444661B3.1050303@freeshell.org> If you won't be able to travel to Oakland to help Aimee, you could help the Open Space Initiative get on to the ballot by gathering signatures at the Mountain View Family Spring Parade or somewhere in the county. From 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on April 22 (Earth Day) there will be many participants and viewers in downtown Mountain View before and during the parade. Also, there are Farmers' Markets in Sunnyvale and Palo Alto from about 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. 52,000 signatures by May 1st is the P.L.A.N. goal. Fred D. In a message dated 4/18/06 4:27:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, funking at mindspring.com writes: Hi all, If you are in or near the Bay Area for Earth Day weekend, please feel free to join Greens from around the Bay Area in helping to elect Aimee Allison to Oakland's City Council. SATURDAY, APRIL 22 and SUNDAY, APRIL 23: EARTH DAY MOBILIZATION: WHEN: Saturday, April 22 and Sunday, April 23 TIME: Starting at 11:00, going until 3:00 WHERE: Aimee Allison HQ: 3208 Grand Ave (next to the Grand Lake Theater) WHAT: delivering our *New* tabloid Aimee Allison literature piece to D 2 voters Because absentee and walk-in voting starts in less than four weeks, WE NEED HELP NOW -- so that we can elect Aimee Allison to Oakland's City Council! Join Aimee Allison, candidate for Oakland City Council, on April 15, 22 amd 23 as we walk the neighborhoods to promote Aimee's candidacy to thousands of voters! This is a grassroots campaign effort, so we need as many volunteers as possible to get the word out about Aimee. Also, former Oakland City Council member Wilson Riles will be joining us for the 11:00 am shift on April 22 -- make a commitment to help us out then, if you can! Aimee is committed to: * Advocating for a future for Oakland's youth: resources for excellent schools and after school programs, and job and college placement opportunities; * Creating economic development that lasts: balancing housing and industrial growth to create real economic development; * Developing affordable housing for working families: mandating the creation of affordable homes to help all Oakland residents; * Making Oakland safer for all: demanding a responsive, accountable police force, directing resources to addressing violent crime, and implementing programs to address the root causes of violence in our community. Please confirm that you can join us. For more info, or to RSVP, please call: (510) 986-1125. For more info about Aimee Allison and the campaign, go to: _www.aimeeallison.org_ (http://www.aimeeallison.org/) -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Subject: Fwd: [G-C-F] Earth Day event for Greens in Bay Area Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:58:00 EDT Size: 11589 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: file:///tmp/nsmail-1.txt URL: From pmengstrom at macreviewzone.com Wed Apr 19 22:50:03 2006 From: pmengstrom at macreviewzone.com (Paul & Mary Engstrom) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:50:03 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: <200604190651.k3J6pLbJ031611@ylpvm12.prodigy.net> Message-ID: <7FEAE684-C6E7-4AFD-92F9-FC02F46D5E2A@macreviewzone.com> I hope this forwarded message can reach Valerie and thus help our schoolchildren Thanks one and all Paul Engstrom Begin forwarded message: > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem > Date: April 18, 2006 11:51:21 PM PDT > To: > Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details > > The original message was received at Wed, 19 Apr 2006 02:51:20 -0400 > from pimout6-int.prodigy.net [207.115.4.22] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > (reason: 550 vdf at uno.com is not a valid user) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to mx.nyc.untd.com.: >>>> RCPT To: > <<< 550 vdf at uno.com is not a valid user > 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown > Reporting-MTA: dns; ylpvm12.prodigy.net > Received-From-MTA: DNS; pimout6-int.prodigy.net > Arrival-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 02:51:20 -0400 > > Final-Recipient: RFC822; vdf at uno.com > Action: failed > Status: 5.1.1 > Remote-MTA: DNS; mx.nyc.untd.com > Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 vdf at uno.com is not a valid user > Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 02:51:21 -0400 > > From: Paul & Mary Engstrom > Date: April 18, 2006 11:48:00 PM PDT > To: vdf at uno.com > Cc: Paul & Mary Engstrom > Subject: Fwd: [Sosfbay-discuss] Anyone know of a nonprofit > organization that needs binders? > > > Hi Valerie: Good for you to save landfill and recycle. > wwwRAFT.net a non-profit organization accepts surplus item > donationss for use by teacher for school children. > > Thanks for your efforts. Paul Engstrom > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Valerie D. Face" >> Date: April 18, 2006 9:31:17 PM PDT >> To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >> Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Anyone know of a nonprofit organization >> that needs binders? >> >> Today my department at work (Genentech) is going through an annual >> records retention and purge exercise -- getting rid of documents >> that are no longer useful, sending things to off-site storage, >> etc. A lot of paper is recycled as part of this process, and they >> also end up with a lot of binders that are no longer being used. >> They would like to donate excess binders to a nonprofit >> organization instead of throwing them away, and they have asked >> for suggestions. >> >> If anyone on this list knows of specific organizations that could >> use binders (a variety of sizes and colors), please let me know. >> The main restriction is that it has to be a not for profit >> organization (charity, school, adult classes, etc.). Although my >> group is up in South San Francisco, it would be OK if the >> organization is in the South Bay, or the Bay Area in general. >> It's impossible to estimate how many binders there will be -- some >> groups operate with very little paper while others generate a lot. >> >> Thanks, >> Valerie Face >> Santa Clara >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sosfbay-discuss mailing list >> sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org >> http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Apr 20 09:58:44 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:58:44 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] The Worst President in History? Message-ID: <4447BDC4.9040504@earthlink.net> An article by a historian. Apparently many historians think that Bush might be the worst president ever. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0419-06.htm Gerry From vdf at juno.com Thu Apr 20 11:34:42 2006 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:34:42 GMT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] I got Paul Engstrom's email when he re-sent it to this list... Message-ID: <20060420.113450.6284.57073@webmail12.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From wrolley at charter.net Thu Apr 20 11:43:54 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:43:54 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Immigration Facts Message-ID: <4447D66A.9050905@charter.net> I have just submitted the following to the Morgan Hill times. I think that it brings up two issues on immigration that are not well covered. I was touted on to the second one re: growth, after a brief conversation with Camejo who uses the same facts to indicate that the entire issue is bogus. __ For the last month, immigration has rivaled the Iraq War as topic number one in the news. Hardly a day goes by without reading or watching something about immigration in the news. We see the size of the protest. We hear about the number of ?illegal? immigrants. We watch the immigration marches. We are asked to consider whether high school students should be suspended for skipping class to engage in protest. There are some very basic issues, keys to understanding what is going on, that rarely make it into the news. Most basic is the fact that there will be no stopping the influx of immigrants, especially from Latin America, as long as they can earn 15 to 20 times as much here as they could at home. Ask yourself. Whether you would cross the border is you could earn as much in 2 days as you could in an entire month staying at home. I think that the answer is that you would, preferably by legal means, but by illegal methods if necessary. You would not even consider yourself to be a criminal. You are doing this so that your family might live a better life. Most would not want to be away from their families for such a long time under such conditions of uncertainty. But still you would come. I think that we have to accept this as a fact. We could spend billions constructing a fence on the Mexican border, and still people will come. Until something is done that will raise the standard of living in Latin America to a level closer to that of the United States, we will not have an end to the stream of immigrants coming here for a better life. NAFTA was touted as being the mechanism to accomplish this. When she was Attorney General, Janet Reno recognized that she could ?protect our borders with the most personnel and the best technology, but let us also face facts: A richer, more stable, more competent Mexico is the only solution to real immigration reform. With NAFTA in place, I can work far more effectively with my Mexican counterparts to insure tough enforcement of our anti drug laws.? Unfortunately, NAFTA has been a failure at accomplishing this. True, some manufacturing has moved to Mexico, but it is all assembly work where the components have to be imported and the product exported. As a result, Mexico sees very little financial benefit. I ask whether it is better to spend billions of dollars for a wall or to spend similar amounts helping Mexico develop the economic base such that workers will not have to leave to seek employment elsewhere. At least we have the Day Worker Center in Morgan Hill. It provides services to as many as 25 or 30 workers per day depending on the particular program that they are running. This community has recognized the facts of immigration and has committed to providing support to those who need it most. Then, I ask what would we be doing without immigrants? I am not talking about having day laborers work on our yards, farm laborers in the 110 degree heat of the Imperial Valley summer or cleaning staff for our motels. It is much more fundamental. This is about growth. Even the City of Morgan Hill bases all of it's planning on the idea that growth is good. Our Chamber of Commerce says that growth is good. We build projects that we can not afford now, secure in the knowledge that with growth will come the necessary funding to run those facilities. In a way, growth is a part of the American Dream, along with a place of one's own with a back yard for children to play and a good school within walking distance. If you examine the birth rate in the United States, you will see that it has been dropping steadily for the last 20 years. We are now approaching the rate of 2.07 births per woman. That is the rate which is needed to sustain a population. Once the rate drops below that, the population will decline. So, if growth is good, if we need growth to keep the construction industry moving, if we need growth for real estate developers, if we need the revenue from new construction fees to finance local government, then we need immigration. Without the annual influx of immigration the demand for new housing would drop precipitously. Removing 11 million residents from the United States, as some would have us do, could send this nation spiraling into a long recession cycle based solely on the fact that new housing construction would absolutely stop, laying off many construction workers. Maybe we should be careful about what we ask for. We may get it. If the House of Representatives gets it's way we may see an end to the increasing home prices, an end to new construction jobs. Even Congressmen like our own Richard Pombo voted for these changes in spite of having strong financial support from developer interests. Sometimes, I just don't understand politicians or their supporters. -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Apr 20 13:55:52 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:55:52 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Airport Looking for Community Suggestions Message-ID: <4447F558.70907@earthlink.net> This might be of interest to San Jose residents. Gerry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SVBC] Fwd: FW: Airport Looking for Community Suggestions Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT) To: svbc mailing list > To: > cc: > Subject: Airport Looking for Community Suggestions > > > > Dear Community Leader, > > Mineta San Jos??? International Airport is presenting the community > with an opportunity to submit their ideas and suggestions for the use > of Airport Curfew Funds. As such, we would appreciate your > assistance in spreading the word about this program. Please feel > free to forward this email to your community contacts. > > Below is a brief write-up that explains the program background and > how residents can submit their ideas and suggestions. Should you > have any questions, please contact the Airport Neighborhood Services > Group at 408-501-0979 or communityinput at sjc.org > . > > Sincerely, > Airport Neighborhood Services Group > > > BACKGROUND & SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS > > In October 2003, Mineta San Jos??? International Airport (SJC), with > the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), revised > the curfew portion of its noise control program from a weight-based > curfew to a noise-based curfew. The revised noise control program > also included enforcement provisions where operators are fined $2,500 > for every curfew intrusion. To date, the Airport Curfew Fund has > collected $202,500. > > As a part of SJC's Good Neighbor Policy, the Airport is inviting the > local community to submit their recommendations for the use of these > funds. The following criteria should be included within all proposed > recommendations. The Airport Curfew Fund Program(s) should: > * Offer some benefit to the community > * Be related to operations at the Airport > * Enhance the interaction of the Airport with the community > * Enhance the relationship between neighbors and the Airport > > (Under Federal Law, the Airport Curfew Funds may be used only for > expenditures that are directly and substantially related to the > operation of the Airport.) > > Ultimately, the Airport Curfew Fund Program(s) should benefit the > surrounding communities, enhance Airport/community relations, and > support responsiveness on Airport issues of community interest. > > To submit your recommendation, please fill out the official "Airport > Curfew Fund Program" form. The form, along with submission > instructions, can be found on the Airport's website, www.sjc.org > . Submissions are due May 15, 2006. > > Selected proposals that meet the criteria and Federal Law > requirements will be presented to the San Jos??? Airport Commission for > review at their June 5, 2006, meeting and then go before San Jos??? > City Council for final approval in August 2006. For more > information, please call 408-501-0979 or email > communityinput at sjc.org. > > From baalavi at yahoo.com Thu Apr 20 14:22:42 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] The Worst President in History? In-Reply-To: <4447BDC4.9040504@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060420212242.97571.qmail@web52108.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Gerry for the article. He's going to be in the Bay Area tomorrow (Fri 21st) in the Cisco Complex (Tasman & Champion -- take light rail :) from 1 - 4 PM. See you there. Also, the article should warn us about what they may have up their sleeves for the nation when they sense unpopularity and public rejection! Check these out: 911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 The power of Nightmares: Three part series part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=power+of+nightmares&pl=true part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7930933565201168&q=power+of+nightmares&pl=true part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3378107729331676799&q=power+of+nightmares&pl=true Also, if you have not seen "Why We Fight", you should do it. Here is the trailer: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/ And finally, check out: http://www.mediaed.org/ For some outstanding documentaries and perhaps try to convince your local school/libraries to get copies of some of these documentaries ... Much more constructive way of using tax dollars than spending it on wars and bombing people into democracy. Gerry Gras wrote: An article by a historian. Apparently many historians think that Bush might be the worst president ever. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0419-06.htm Gerry --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kiehle at apple.com Thu Apr 20 17:20:14 2006 From: kiehle at apple.com (Erik Kiehle) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:20:14 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Free Community e-Waste recycling on Saturday. Message-ID: Community Recycling Event Saturday, April 22 - Cupertino Apple is also sponsoring a public eWaste recycling event on April 22 from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the parking lot behind De Anza 3 (10500 De Anza Blvd Cupertino CA.). All employees are encourage to tell their friends and neighbors about the Saturday event so that they can take advantage of this free recycling opportunity. All are invited to drop off and recycle their unwanted home computers, monitors, related computer peripherals, TVs, stereos and other small home electronics such as fax machines, printers, DVD players and cell phones (no home appliances please). Note - Local, state and federal hazardous waste laws prohibit us from taking computer or TV monitors with cracked or broken screens and batteries of any type that are not integral to a computer system. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Apr 20 19:39:10 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:39:10 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet] Message-ID: <444845CE.4090608@earthlink.net> Cameron, what about this one? Gerry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Congress is selling out the Internet Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:46:45 -0700 From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Civic Action" To: "Gerald S. Gras" Google, Amazon, MoveOn. All these entities are fighting back as Congress tries to pass a law giving a few corporations the power to end the free and open Internet as we know it. Tell Congress to preserve the free and open Internet today. Click Here Dear MoveOn member, Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet. Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer. If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality1?and you can do your part today. The free and open Internet is under seige?can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7356-824573-l4GFppNVRtMREk8ULvBTPQ&t=4 Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting the free and open Internet is fundamental?it affects everything. When you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next week. MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Just last week, AOL blocked any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's proposed "email tax."2 And last year, Canada's version of AT&T?Telus?blocked their Internet customers from visiting a website sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating.3 Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, "The internet can't be free."4 Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet Evangelist," who recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.4 The essence of the Internet is at risk?can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7356-824573-l4GFppNVRtMREk8ULvBTPQ&t=5 Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks for all you do. -Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team Thursday, April 20th, 2006 P.S. If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected? * Advocacy groups like MoveOn?Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their websites and online features to work correctly. * Nonprofits?A charity's website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't pay dominant Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet service. * Google users?Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer. * Innovators with the "next big idea"?Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete. * Ipod listeners?A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned. * Online purchasers?Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices?distorting your choice as a consumer. * Small businesses and tele-commuters?When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office. * Parents and retirees?Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc. * Bloggers?Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips?silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets. To sign the petition to Congress supporting "network neutrality," click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7356-824573-l4GFppNVRtMREk8ULvBTPQ&t=6 P.P.S. This excerpt from the New Yorker really sums up this issue well. In the first decades of the twentieth century, as a national telephone network spread across the United States, A.T. & T. adopted a policy of "tiered access" for businesses. Companies that paid an extra fee got better service: their customers' calls went through immediately, were rarely disconnected, and sounded crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder time making calls out, and people calling them sometimes got an "all circuits busy" response. Over time, customers gravitated toward the higher-tier companies and away from the ones that were more difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s policy turned it into a corporate kingmaker. If you've never heard about this bit of business history, there's a good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by a "common carriage" rule: it provided the same quality of service to all, and could not favor one customer over another. But, while "tiered access" never influenced the spread of the telephone network, it is becoming a major issue in the evolution of the Internet. Until recently, companies that provided Internet access followed a de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called "network neutrality," which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. Network neutrality was considered so fundamental to the success of the Net that Michael Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described it as one of the basic rules of "Internet freedom." In the past few months, though, companies like A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been trying to scuttle it. In the future, Web sites that pay extra to providers could receive what BellSouth recently called "special treatment," and those that don't could end up in the slow lane. One day, BellSouth customers may find that, say, NBC.com loads a lot faster than YouTube.com, and that the sites BellSouth favors just seem to run more smoothly. Tiered access will turn the providers into Internet gatekeepers.4 Sources: 1. "Telecommunication Policy Proposed by Congress Must Recognize Internet Neutrality," Letter to Senate leaders, March 23, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1653 2. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1649 3. "B.C. Civil Liberties Association Denounces Blocking of Website by Telus," British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Statement, July 27, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1650 4. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November 7, 2002 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1648 5. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1646 6. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle editorial, April 17, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1645 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subscription Management: This is a message from MoveOn.org Civic Action. To change your email address, update your contact info, or remove yourself (Gerald S. Gras) from this list, please visit our subscription management page at: http://moveon.org/s?i=7356-824573-l4GFppNVRtMREk8ULvBTPQ From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Thu Apr 20 21:22:01 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:22:01 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet] Message-ID: I've been hearing an awful lot of gobbledygook about this recently. The trouble is, what I've been hearing just doesn't make any sense. Maybe there is a real issue here. Maybe it's being simplified beyond recognition to rile up the populace. I'd never heard of "Network Neutrality" until this publicity campaign began, a couple of months ago. Network users pay for bandwidth, and they pay different rates depending on where they are and how much they're buying, and the numbers are all over the place. The Internet is held together by contracts called "peering agreements." Network "peers" agree to carry data from one place to another, even though it wasn't generated by and won't be received by their customers. It's *unfortunate* that peering has been completely neutral for so long, because it means you can't convince a criminal network's peers to cut them off. I *suspect* we're hearing a muddle of two completely different issues. AOL and other consumer-facing access providers want to charge "legitimate" (corporate) spammers to get past their spam filters. Well guess what, THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR YEARS. They figure most AOL users are so complacent they'll put up with a pile of spam as long as it's from Safeway and Yahoo and not some Russian selling counterfeit software. I'll bet they finally asked BIG TIME SPAMMER Moveon.Org to pay what the other "legitimate" spammers pay, and Wes Boyd's undies are in a bunch about it. He's such a whiner. So that's issue number one. Issue number two is bandwidth hogs. Bandwidth costs money, and right now Vonage and Tomatovine and Blockbuster and Apple Itunes are externalizing their costs. And they're using more bandwidth than email and old fashioned Web browsing ever did. Why should well behaved email users pay those corporations' expenses? Maybe there's really a grand plot to "privatize" routing and give big media corporations some kind of advantage. Well, "death of the Internet predicted, film at 11," as they say. We've heard it before. THE INTERNET ROUTES AROUND DAMAGE. It's now well known that the Internet regards censorship as just another kind of damage and routes around that too. If there's an Internet that favors Sony's and Blockbuster's packets over ours, it's damaged. The Internet I use will still be here. It might take a few months or a year or two to find those new routes, and (gasp!) we might have to PAY WHAT IT COSTS TO OPERATE, but find them it will. And if things work out right the spammers will be stuck on the damaged side. Show me an account of this crisis that hasn't been filtered through Moveon.org or Democracy Inaction or some other spamming operation and I'll rethink this. But right now I'm not impressed. Cameron From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Apr 21 10:16:50 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:16:50 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Request for Agenda Items Message-ID: <44491382.8020300@earthlink.net> Please submit your agenda items for Tuesday May 2nd's meeting. Deadline for submissions is Tuesday 4/25, 6:00 PM. I would appreciate it if you would include time estimate(s) and presenter(s). Thanks, Gerry From Mjsmith55 at aol.com Fri Apr 21 13:20:20 2006 From: Mjsmith55 at aol.com (Mjsmith55 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:20:20 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: May 10 Green Talk with Camejo, Chretien, and others Message-ID: <382.154b07c.317a9884@aol.com> Forwarded from the gpsmc-news, the occasional online newsletter of the Green Party of San Mateo County. ========================================= Green Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County What: Green Candidates Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County Who: Peter Miguel Camejo, Todd Chretien, Mehul Thakkar, Forrest Hill and Jo Chamberlain. When: Wednesday May 10 at 7-9pm. Preceded by free refreshments 6-7pm. Where: Green Party Office, 212A Miller St, South San Francisco, 94080 Cost: free. Public is invited Contacts: For more info contact the GPSMC Email: _gpsmc at cagreens.org_ (mailto:gpsmc at cagreens.org) Phone: 650-366-6603 Website: _http://www.cagreens.org/_ (http://www.cagreens.org/) sanmateo/calendar.html Event coordinator: Mitch Smith Email: _mjsmith55 at aol.com_ (mailto:mjsmith55 at aol.com) Speaker Bios: Peter Miguel Camejo is our Green Party candidate for Governor (votecamejo.com), Todd Chretien is our candidate for US Senate (against Dianne Feinstein, todd4senate.org), Mehul Thakkar is our candidate for State Treasurer (votethakker.com), Forrest Hill is our candidate for Secretary of State (voteforrest.org), and our own Jo Chamberlain is running for San Mateo County Board of Supervisors (votejo.org). Downloadable flyer at _http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060510.pdf_ (http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060510.pdf) . Please distribute widely. *****This event is wheelchair accessible***** Every month, the Green Party of San Mateo County hosts lectures on topics important to residents of our region.Speakers may be local residents discussing their area of expertise or nationally-recognized activists Whether thesubject is taxes, health care, public transportation or airport expansion, you will find something at the Green Talksthat impacts you and your neighbors. Everyone is welcome! ========================================= You'll find all this information, as well as directions and links to maps, at our online calendar: <_http://cagreens.org/sanmateo/calendar.html_ (http://cagreens.org/sanmateo/calendar.html) >. Most calendar items have contact persons noted, but you can always inquire at _gpsmc at cagreens.org_ (mailto:gpsmc at cagreens.org) or 650-366-6603 for more information on anything concerning GPSMC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Fri Apr 21 13:56:27 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:56:27 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: May 10 Green Talk with Camejo, Chretien, and others In-Reply-To: <382.154b07c.317a9884@aol.com> References: <382.154b07c.317a9884@aol.com> Message-ID: <444946FB.8090803@charter.net> Mitch, I think that you are getting ahead of yourself. Tod Chretien is not "our" candidate, unless you mean the particular Slate that is backed by Camejo, et. al. To send this to the Santa Clara list with this annointing of Todd is frankly an insult to Tian and Kent. Personally, from what I have seen, I would prefer either of the latter to to Todd and will not be voting for "your" candidate. Wes > Forwarded from the gpsmc-news, the occasional online newsletter of the > Green > Party of San Mateo County. > ========================================= > Green Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County > > What: Green Candidates Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County > > Who: Peter Miguel Camejo, Todd Chretien, Mehul Thakkar, Forrest Hill > and Jo Chamberlain. > > When: Wednesday May 10 at 7-9pm. Preceded by free refreshments 6-7pm. > > Where: Green Party Office, 212A Miller St, South San Francisco, 94080 > > Cost: free. Public is invited > > Contacts: For more info contact the GPSMC > Email: gpsmc at cagreens.org > Phone: 650-366-6603 > Website: http://www.cagreens.org/ > sanmateo/calendar.html > Event coordinator: Mitch Smith > Email: mjsmith55 at aol.com > > Speaker Bios: Peter Miguel Camejo is our Green Party candidate for > Governor (votecamejo.com), Todd Chretien is our candidate for US > Senate (against Dianne Feinstein, todd4senate.org), Mehul Thakkar is > our candidate for State Treasurer (votethakker.com), Forrest Hill is > our candidate for Secretary of State (voteforrest.org), and our own Jo > Chamberlain is running for San Mateo County Board of Supervisors > (votejo.org). > > Downloadable flyer at > http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060510.pdf. > Please distribute widely. > > *****This event is wheelchair accessible***** > > Every month, the Green Party of San Mateo County hosts lectures on > topics important to residents of our region.Speakers may be local > residents discussing their area of expertise or nationally-recognized > activists Whether thesubject is taxes, health care, public > transportation or airport expansion, you will find something at the > Green Talksthat impacts you and your neighbors. Everyone is welcome! > > > ========================================= > You'll find all this information, as well as directions and links to > maps, at our online calendar: > . Most calendar items > have contact persons noted, but you can always inquire at > gpsmc at cagreens.org or 650-366-6603 for > more information on anything > concerning GPSMC. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >sosfbay-discuss mailing list >sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org >http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 From Mjsmith55 at aol.com Fri Apr 21 14:23:06 2006 From: Mjsmith55 at aol.com (Mjsmith55 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:23:06 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: May 10 Green Talk with Camejo, Chretien, ... Message-ID: <39a.1374bd3.317aa73a@aol.com> I send San Mateo Green Talk announcements to this list every month. It's not an argument--just a sharing of information on what our county is doing, which of course reflects "our" perspective here. But then the urge for Greens to turn everything into an online argument springs eternal. Mitch In a message dated 4/21/2006 1:57:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, wrolley at charter.net writes: Mitch, I think that you are getting ahead of yourself. Tod Chretien is not "our" candidate, unless you mean the particular Slate that is backed by Camejo, et. al. To send this to the Santa Clara list with this annointing of Todd is frankly an insult to Tian and Kent. Personally, from what I have seen, I would prefer either of the latter to to Todd and will not be voting for "your" candidate. Wes > Forwarded from the gpsmc-news, the occasional online newsletter of the > Green > Party of San Mateo County. > ========================================= > Green Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County > > What: Green Candidates Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County > > Who: Peter Miguel Camejo, Todd Chretien, Mehul Thakkar, Forrest Hill > and Jo Chamberlain. > > When: Wednesday May 10 at 7-9pm. Preceded by free refreshments 6-7pm. > > Where: Green Party Office, 212A Miller St, South San Francisco, 94080 > > Cost: free. Public is invited > > Contacts: For more info contact the GPSMC > Email: gpsmc at cagreens.org > Phone: 650-366-6603 > Website: http://www.cagreens.org/ > sanmateo/calendar.html > Event coordinator: Mitch Smith > Email: mjsmith55 at aol.com > > Speaker Bios: Peter Miguel Camejo is our Green Party candidate for > Governor (votecamejo.com), Todd Chretien is our candidate for US > Senate (against Dianne Feinstein, todd4senate.org), Mehul Thakkar is > our candidate for State Treasurer (votethakker.com), Forrest Hill is > our candidate for Secretary of State (voteforrest.org), and our own Jo > Chamberlain is running for San Mateo County Board of Supervisors > (votejo.org). > > Downloadable flyer at > http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060510.pdf. > Please distribute widely. > > *****This event is wheelchair accessible***** > > Every month, the Green Party of San Mateo County hosts lectures on > topics important to residents of our region.Speakers may be local > residents discussing their area of expertise or nationally-recognized > activists Whether thesubject is taxes, health care, public > transportation or airport expansion, you will find something at the > Green Talksthat impacts you and your neighbors. Everyone is welcome! > > > ========================================= > You'll find all this information, as well as directions and links to > maps, at our online calendar: > . Most calendar items > have contact persons noted, but you can always inquire at > gpsmc at cagreens.org or 650-366-6603 for > more information on anything > concerning GPSMC. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >sosfbay-discuss mailing list >sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org >http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MLause at cinci.rr.com Fri Apr 21 14:51:30 2006 From: MLause at cinci.rr.com (Mark Lause) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: May 10 Green Talk with Camejo, Chretien, ... In-Reply-To: <39a.1374bd3.317aa73a@aol.com> Message-ID: <000501c6658d$bf869460$3fc64847@downstairspc> Say, if you're not going to run Todd, can you please send him to those of us stranded in the Midwest where we'd love to have him as a candidate. ML -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Apr 21 15:24:40 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:24:40 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: May 10 Green Talk with Camejo, Chretien, ... References: <39a.1374bd3.317aa73a@aol.com> Message-ID: <44495BA8.7050603@earthlink.net> Mjsmith55 at aol.com wrote: > I send San Mateo Green Talk announcements to this list every month. It's > not an argument--just a sharing of information on what our county is > doing, which of course reflects "our" perspective here. But then the > urge for Greens to turn everything into an online argument springs eternal. Hmm, where did I see a sign that said something like "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"? Mitch, I agree with Wes that your email was an insult to Kent and Tian. In Tian's case, more so because he is in our county. Gerry > > > > Mitch > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 1:57:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > wrolley at charter.net writes: > > Mitch, I think that you are getting ahead of yourself. Tod Chretien is > not "our" candidate, unless you mean the particular Slate that is > backed > by Camejo, et. al. To send this to the Santa Clara list with this > annointing of Todd is frankly an insult to Tian and Kent. Personally, > from what I have seen, I would prefer either of the latter to to Todd > and will not be voting for "your" candidate. > > Wes > > > Forwarded from the gpsmc-news, the occasional online newsletter > of the > > Green > > Party of San Mateo County. > > ========================================= > > Green Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County > > > > What: Green Candidates Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County > > > > Who: Peter Miguel Camejo, Todd Chretien, Mehul Thakkar, Forrest Hill > > and Jo Chamberlain. > > > > When: Wednesday May 10 at 7-9pm. Preceded by free refreshments 6-7pm. > > > > Where: Green Party Office, 212A Miller St, South San Francisco, 94080 > > > > Cost: free. Public is invited > > > > Contacts: For more info contact the GPSMC > > Email: gpsmc at cagreens.org > > Phone: 650-366-6603 > > Website: http://www.cagreens.org/ > > sanmateo/calendar.html > > Event coordinator: Mitch Smith > > Email: mjsmith55 at aol.com > > > > Speaker Bios: Peter Miguel Camejo is our Green Party candidate for > > Governor (votecamejo.com), Todd Chretien is our candidate for US > > Senate (against Dianne Feinstein, todd4senate.org), Mehul Thakkar is > > our candidate for State Treasurer (votethakker.com), Forrest Hill is > > our candidate for Secretary of State (voteforrest.org), and our > own Jo > > Chamberlain is running for San Mateo County Board of Supervisors > > (votejo.org). > > > > Downloadable flyer at > > http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060510.pdf. > > Please distribute widely. > > > > *****This event is wheelchair accessible***** > > > > Every month, the Green Party of San Mateo County hosts lectures on > > topics important to residents of our region.Speakers may be local > > residents discussing their area of expertise or > nationally-recognized > > activists Whether thesubject is taxes, health care, public > > transportation or airport expansion, you will find something at the > > Green Talksthat impacts you and your neighbors. Everyone is welcome! > > > > > > ========================================= > > You'll find all this information, as well as directions and links to > > maps, at our online calendar: > > . Most calendar items > > have contact persons noted, but you can always inquire at > > gpsmc at cagreens.org or 650-366-6603 for > > more information on anything > > concerning GPSMC. > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >sosfbay-discuss mailing list > >sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > >http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > > > > > > -- > "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you > don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente > > Wes Rolley > 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 > http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > From Mjsmith55 at aol.com Fri Apr 21 15:45:33 2006 From: Mjsmith55 at aol.com (Mjsmith55 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:45:33 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Announcement: May 10 Green Talk with Camejo, Chretien, ... Message-ID: <322.2c284ef.317aba8d@aol.com> As I just wrote to Wes, when I am writing from the GPSMC perspective, Todd is our candidate, not Tian or Kent. We endorsed Todd: _http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/endorsements.html_ (http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/endorsements.html) . In a message dated 4/21/2006 3:23:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, gerrygras at earthlink.net writes: Mjsmith55 at aol.com wrote: > I send San Mateo Green Talk announcements to this list every month. It's > not an argument--just a sharing of information on what our county is > doing, which of course reflects "our" perspective here. But then the > urge for Greens to turn everything into an online argument springs eternal. Hmm, where did I see a sign that said something like "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"? Mitch, I agree with Wes that your email was an insult to Kent and Tian. In Tian's case, more so because he is in our county. Gerry > > > > Mitch > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 1:57:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > wrolley at charter.net writes: > > Mitch, I think that you are getting ahead of yourself. Tod Chretien is > not "our" candidate, unless you mean the particular Slate that is > backed > by Camejo, et. al. To send this to the Santa Clara list with this > annointing of Todd is frankly an insult to Tian and Kent. Personally, > from what I have seen, I would prefer either of the latter to to Todd > and will not be voting for "your" candidate. > > Wes > > > Forwarded from the gpsmc-news, the occasional online newsletter > of the > > Green > > Party of San Mateo County. > > ========================================= > > Green Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County > > > > What: Green Candidates Talk with the Green Party of San Mateo County > > > > Who: Peter Miguel Camejo, Todd Chretien, Mehul Thakkar, Forrest Hill > > and Jo Chamberlain. > > > > When: Wednesday May 10 at 7-9pm. Preceded by free refreshments 6-7pm. > > > > Where: Green Party Office, 212A Miller St, South San Francisco, 94080 > > > > Cost: free. Public is invited > > > > Contacts: For more info contact the GPSMC > > Email: gpsmc at cagreens.org > > Phone: 650-366-6603 > > Website: http://www.cagreens.org/ > > sanmateo/calendar.html > > Event coordinator: Mitch Smith > > Email: mjsmith55 at aol.com > > > > Speaker Bios: Peter Miguel Camejo is our Green Party candidate for > > Governor (votecamejo.com), Todd Chretien is our candidate for US > > Senate (against Dianne Feinstein, todd4senate.org), Mehul Thakkar is > > our candidate for State Treasurer (votethakker.com), Forrest Hill is > > our candidate for Secretary of State (voteforrest.org), and our > own Jo > > Chamberlain is running for San Mateo County Board of Supervisors > > (votejo.org). > > > > Downloadable flyer at > > http://www.greens.org/cal/sanmateo/files/GT20060510.pdf. > > Please distribute widely. > > > > *****This event is wheelchair accessible***** > > > > Every month, the Green Party of San Mateo County hosts lectures on > > topics important to residents of our region.Speakers may be local > > residents discussing their area of expertise or > nationally-recognized > > activists Whether thesubject is taxes, health care, public > > transportation or airport expansion, you will find something at the > > Green Talksthat impacts you and your neighbors. Everyone is welcome! > > > > > > ========================================= > > You'll find all this information, as well as directions and links to > > maps, at our online calendar: > > . Most calendar items > > have contact persons noted, but you can always inquire at > > gpsmc at cagreens.org or 650-366-6603 for > > more information on anything > > concerning GPSMC. > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >sosfbay-discuss mailing list > >sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > >http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > > > > > > -- > "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you > don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente > > Wes Rolley > 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 > http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Sat Apr 22 10:10:25 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:10:25 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] San Francisco endorsements Message-ID: <444A6381.9070208@charter.net> The GP of San Francisco is sending out their endorsement list today. It is interesting in that (1) it does not convey endorsements for Peter Camjo or anyone of the Senate Candidates and (2) that they do endorse Carol Brouillet, even though her district does not include San Francisco. -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 From larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net Sat Apr 22 10:43:29 2006 From: larrycafiero_liaison at earthlink.net (Larry Cafiero_Liaison) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:43:29 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] San Francisco endorsements In-Reply-To: <444A6381.9070208@charter.net> References: <444A6381.9070208@charter.net> Message-ID: <444A6B41.1060507@earthlink.net> What's of further interest (and of a degree personal annoyance) is that they also didn't endorse me, an unopposed candidate for Insurance Commissioner. In addition, I think I may have been ambushed during the forum they held in March at which I was asked "You're a member of GDI (this is true). Do you condone their behavior?" [Their behavior? What am I, GDI's Mom?] In retrospect, I could have handled the answer better than I did, and will in the future. Rather than saying that I am more interested in getting things done for people than wasting time on an internal debate (another truth), I said I didn't know what was meant by "their behavior" -- an explanation of what "their behavior" was not forthcoming (surprise!) -- and that my involvement in GDI did not span too much further than advocating their principles (which I do). Further, the SFGP asked me in an e-mail recently that they were making their final decision on endorsement, and would I forward them my position on SB840 (the single-payer health care). In my original questionnaire answers (which I had to send them twice, since one apparently got lost) I had stated very clearly that I was for SB840 and in their later "request," I explained further that a Green Insurance Commissioner unfettered by insurance campaign contributions would be best to administer and oversee this law once it's on the books. I stated my support for SB840 twice -- twice -- in the questionnaire, and I stated it once at the forum. Yet, I had to answer that question a third time. Bitter? Not really, but I'm just hugely disappointed that San Francisco prefers to play petty games with its endorsement, and that should be known. I would have thought that the SFGP would conduct its process better than this, but personally I'll just take the chalk and mark one up to experience. Larry Cafiero Wes Rolley wrote: > The GP of San Francisco is sending out their endorsement list today. It > is interesting in that (1) it does not convey endorsements for Peter > Camjo or anyone of the Senate Candidates and (2) that they do endorse > Carol Brouillet, even though her district does not include San Francisco. > From tnharter at ispwest.com Sat Apr 22 11:12:30 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:12:30 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] San Francisco endorsements In-Reply-To: <444A6381.9070208@charter.net> References: <444A6381.9070208@charter.net> Message-ID: <444A720E.7050100@ispwest.com> I was grateful they didn't do an endorsement in the Senate Race. That turned up the volume on the contest a bit. They wanted the voters to decide. I wish San Mateo County had done something similar. Since then I have seen Todd at many more events than ever before. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org "The biggest win in the environmental movement comes from using less energy to acheve the same outcome" - Carl Pope, Sierra Club. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.actgreen.com/ <-- Page worth visiting at least once. From anniejimy at ispwest.com Sat Apr 22 21:05:54 2006 From: anniejimy at ispwest.com (Anne Moreno) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:05:54 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] political protests Message-ID: <444AFD22.7030603@ispwest.com> Hello everybody, I just read the notice on protesting agianst the president. Everyone should be aware that a feceral law was passed about 3 or 4 years ago that limit protests to more than 1000 feet AWAY FROM the president and other officials. ( I'm not sure of the exact number of feet, but it is so the president, or reporters, cannot see or hear the protesters. There is a way around this law, if you are a supporter. hum? Jim Moreno From andid at cagreens.org Sun Apr 23 15:50:31 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:50:31 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <781978F0-9436-4ECB-85E0-AB22931F949C@cagreens.org> Cameron, You might send this POV to KPFA who recently did a "chicken little" on this subject and got their listeners all in an uproar. I also received a mailing from the media-alliance organization that is concerned about public access as the last bastion of free speech on TV. The website for their POV on the issue you discussed is http:// www.media-alliance.org. Andrea On Apr 20, 2006, at 9:22 PM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > > I've been hearing an awful lot of gobbledygook about this > recently. The trouble is, what I've been hearing just doesn't > make any sense. Maybe there is a real issue here. > Maybe it's being simplified beyond recognition to rile > up the populace. > > I'd never heard of "Network Neutrality" until this publicity > campaign began, a couple of months ago. Network users > pay for bandwidth, and they pay different rates depending on > where they are and how much they're buying, and the numbers > are all over the place. The Internet is held together by > contracts called "peering agreements." Network "peers" > agree to carry data from one place to another, even though > it wasn't generated by and won't be received by their customers. > It's *unfortunate* that peering has been completely neutral > for so long, because it means you can't convince a criminal > network's peers to cut them off. > > I *suspect* we're hearing a muddle of two completely different > issues. AOL and other consumer-facing access providers want > to charge "legitimate" (corporate) spammers to get past their > spam filters. Well guess what, THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR YEARS. > They figure most AOL users are so complacent they'll > put up with a pile of spam as long as it's from Safeway > and Yahoo and not some Russian selling counterfeit software. > > I'll bet they finally asked BIG TIME SPAMMER Moveon.Org > to pay what the other "legitimate" spammers pay, and Wes Boyd's > undies are in a bunch about it. He's such a whiner. > > So that's issue number one. Issue number two is bandwidth > hogs. Bandwidth costs money, and right now Vonage and > Tomatovine and Blockbuster and Apple Itunes are externalizing > their costs. And they're using more bandwidth than email > and old fashioned Web browsing ever did. Why should well > behaved email users pay those corporations' expenses? > > Maybe there's really a grand plot to "privatize" routing > and give big media corporations some kind of advantage. > Well, "death of the Internet predicted, film at 11," as they say. > We've heard it before. THE INTERNET ROUTES AROUND DAMAGE. > It's now well known that the Internet regards censorship > as just another kind of damage and routes around that too. > If there's an Internet that favors Sony's and Blockbuster's > packets over ours, it's damaged. The Internet I use will > still be here. It might take a few months or a year or > two to find those new routes, and (gasp!) we might have to > PAY WHAT IT COSTS TO OPERATE, but find them it will. > And if things work out right the spammers will be stuck > on the damaged side. > > Show me an account of this crisis that hasn't been filtered > through Moveon.org or Democracy Inaction or some other > spamming operation and I'll rethink this. But right now > I'm not impressed. > > > Cameron > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Sun Apr 23 17:28:39 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:28:39 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] stanford protest of bush's appearance Message-ID: <444C1BB7.90400@sbcglobal.net> Common Dreams picked up on a Stanford Daily story that includes mention of Carol Brouillet as a Green Party candidate: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0422-03.htm From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Sun Apr 23 17:34:51 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:34:51 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet] Message-ID: >From: Andrea Dorey >Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:50:31 -0700 >To: Green South Bay Discussion >Cameron, >You might send this POV to KPFA Ha ha ha that's a funny joke. KPFA has their experts, the same way See Nothing Network and Faux have theirs. I'm not in their rolodex. If I question their experts, even around the edges, I'm just one of the zillions of dittoheads that heckle them all the time. KPFA's rolodex includes spam advocates EFF, ACLU, and Movon.org. I disagree with those organizations' pro-spam positions. That makes me a heckling dittohead as far as KPFA is concerned. > who recently did a "chicken little" >on this subject Well, that's the problem. What subject? AOL's "email tax" where corporate spammers pay to bypass AOL's spam filters? Bandwidth hogs? Telco mergers? It's all muddled together. > and got their listeners all in an uproar. >I also received a mailing from the media-alliance organization that >is concerned about public access as the last bastion of free speech >on TV. That's related, to the extent that that synchronous television (broadcast and cable content that you watch at the instant they are transmitted) is already being replaced by Internet traffic streams of various kinds. There's no equivalent of public access in that medium, never has been. No need, because the network isn't time-constrained the way broadcast and live cable are. Network owners have always been free to block anything they like, to the extent their customers don't object or don't know. Eventually the right wingers who run Comcast and AT&T/SBC are going to figure out that 99.9% of their customers won't care when they block access to Democracy Now's podcasts. And EFF and Media Alliance will be too busy fighting for the "right to spam" (doing the Direct Marketing Association's dirty work of destroying the public email system) to do anything about that. The Internet routes around damage quite automatically, but only when that damage is noticed. When physical links go down, the routers at each end notice automatically. But an *intentional outage* like blocking Democracy Now is something only Democracy Now's viewers would notice, and they might not be interested in "just a technology issue" like that. Or confine their response to utterly useless and futile actions like calling "technical support." The bad guys are counting on the left's well known, stylish helplessness around computers and related systems. We might very well put up with quite draconian censorship, because "we're not technical." That's what public access activists should be worried about. Cameron From tnharter at ispwest.com Mon Apr 24 01:19:29 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 01:19:29 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] The Worst President in History? In-Reply-To: <4447BDC4.9040504@earthlink.net> References: <4447BDC4.9040504@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <444C8A11.4050909@ispwest.com> Gerry Gras wrote: >An article by a historian. Apparently many historians think that >Bush might be the worst president ever. > > http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0419-06.htm > >Gerry > > >_______________________________________________ >sosfbay-discuss mailing list >sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org >http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > > There was a segment on 60 Minutes this evening where the guy explained that the decision was made to attack Iraq and then the supporting documentation was looked for. This former senior CIA staffer to great pains to explain that no effort was made to pay attention to information that was rubbed under administration noses. He said the administration line was "they would discount information because it didn't come from mulitple sources." Then the same people saying that would listen to outrageous lies like "Iraq is going for a nuclear bomb" that they could only find one person to say. Sounded like the workings of the most incompetant administration in history to me. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org "The biggest win in the environmental movement comes from using less energy to acheve the same outcome" - Carl Pope, Sierra Club. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.actgreen.com/ <-- Page worth visiting at least once. From tnharter at ispwest.com Mon Apr 24 11:45:56 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:45:56 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Making Cell Phones sound scary Message-ID: <444D1CE4.7060801@ispwest.com> http://www.eldoradosun.com/Archives/01-06_issue/Firstenberg.htm The Largest Biological Experiment Ever by Arthur Firstenberg In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally becomes ill if a cell phone is brought within about four meters (13 feet) of her. Mrs. Brundtland is a medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway. This sensational news, published March 9, 2002 in Dagbladet, was ignored by every other newspaper in the world. The following week Michael Repacholi, her subordinate in charge of the International EMF (electromagnetic field) Project, responded with a public statement belittling his boss?s concerns. Five months later, for reasons that many suspect were related to these circumstances, Mrs. Brundtland announced she would step down from her leadership post at the WHO after just one term. Nothing could better illustrate our collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about electromagnetic radiation. We respond to those who are worried about its dangers ? hence the International EMF Project ? but we ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland, who have already succumbed to its effects. As a consultant on the health effects of wireless technology, I receive calls that can be broadly divided into two main groups: those from people who are merely worried, whom I will call A, and those from people who are already sick, whom I will call B. I sometimes wish I could arrange a large conference call and have the two groups talk to each other ? there needs to be more mutual understanding so that we are all trying to solve the same problems. Caller A, worried, commonly asks what kind of shield to buy for his cell phone or what kind of headset to wear with it. Sometimes he wants to know what is a safe distance to live from a cell tower. Caller B, sick, wants to know what kind of shielding to put on her house, what kind of medical treatment to get, or, increasingly often, what part of the country she could move to to escape the radiation to save her life. The following is designed as a sort of a primer: first, to help everybody get more or less on the same page, and second, to clear up some of the confusions so that we can make rational decisions toward a healthier world. Fundamentals The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base units, and all other wireless devices. If it?s a communication device and it?s not attached to the wall by a wire, it?s emitting radiation. Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers are always radiating. Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into ?ionizing? and ?non-ionizing.? Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation, causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe. This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell?s Animal Farm: ?Four legs good, two legs bad.? ?Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad? is as little to be trusted. An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of microwave radiation. An increasing number of scientists speculate that our own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like jackhammers, interfere with their signaling. In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded, day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s. As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in. And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature. Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that ?hot spots? are produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level. Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model. One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC?s regulations are based, that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour. Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a ?phantom? consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a head. Presto, no hot spots! But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their brain. The FCC?s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors. The Blood-Brain Barrier The second effect that I want to focus on, which has been proven in the laboratory, should by itself have been enough to shut down this industry and should be enough to scare away anyone from ever using a cell phone again. I call it the ?smoking gun? of cell phone experiments. Like most biological effects of microwave radiation, this has nothing to do with heating. The brain is protected by tight junctions between adjacent cells of capillary walls, the so-called blood-brain barrier, which, like a border patrol, lets nutrients pass through from the blood to the brain, but keeps toxic substances out. Since 1988, researchers in the laboratory of a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, have been running variations on this simple experiment: they expose young laboratory rats to either a cell phone or other source of microwave radiation, and later they sacrifice the animals and look for albumin in their brain tissue. Albumin is a protein that is a normal component of blood but that does not normally cross the blood-brain barrier. The presence of albumin in brain tissue is always a sign that blood vessels have been damaged and that the brain has lost some of its protection. Here is what these researchers have found, consistently for 18 years: Microwave radiation, at doses equal to a cell phone?s emissions, causes albumin to be found in brain tissue. A one-time exposure to an ordinary cell phone for just two minutes causes albumin to leak into the brain. In one set of experiments, reducing the exposure level by a factor of 1,000 actually increased the damage to the blood-brain barrier, showing that this is not a dose-response effect and that reducing the power will not make wireless technology safer. And finally, in research published in June 2003, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, just once during its lifetime, permanently damaged the blood-brain barrier and, on autopsy 50 days later, was found to have damaged or destroyed up to 2 percent of an animal?s brain cells, including cells in areas of the brain concerned with learning, memory and movement.1 Reducing the exposure level by a factor of 10 or 100, thereby duplicating the effect of wearing a headset, moving a cell phone further from your body, or standing next to somebody else?s phone, did not appreciably change the results! Even at the lowest exposure, half the animals had a moderate to high number of damaged neurons. The implications for us? Two minutes on a cell phone disrupts the blood-brain barrier, two hours on a cell phone causes permanent brain damage, and secondhand radiation may be almost as bad. The blood-brain barrier is the same in a rat and a human being. These results caused enough of a commotion in Europe that in November 2003 a conference was held, sponsored by the European Union, titled ?The Blood-Brain Barrier ? Can It Be Influenced by RF [radio frequency]-Field Interactions?? as if to reassure the public: ?See, we are doing something about this.? But, predictably, nothing was done about it, as nothing has been done about it for 30 years. America?s Allan Frey, during the 1970s, was the first of many to demonstrate that low-level microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier.2 Similar mechanisms protect the eye (the blood-vitreous barrier) and the fetus (the placental barrier), and the work of Frey and others indicates that microwave radiation damages those barriers also.3 The implication: No pregnant woman should ever be using a cell phone. Dr. Salford is quite outspoken about his work. He has called the use of handheld cell phones ?the largest human biological experiment ever.? And he has publicly warned that a whole generation of cell-phone-using teenagers may suffer from mental deficits or Alzheimer?s disease by the time they reach middle age. Radio-Wave Sickness Unfortunately, cell phone users are not the only ones being injured, nor should we be worried only about the brain. The following brief summary is distilled from a vast scientific literature on the effects of radio waves (a larger spectrum which includes microwaves), together with the experiences of scientists and doctors all over the world with whom I am in contact. Organs that have been shown to be especially susceptible to radio waves include the lungs, nervous system, heart, eyes, testes and thyroid gland. Diseases that have increased remarkably in the last couple of decades, and that there is good reason to connect with the massive increase in radiation in our environment, include asthma, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, autism, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer?s disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, cataracts, hypothyroidism, diabetes, malignant melanoma, testicular cancer, and heart attacks and strokes in young people. Radiation from microwave towers has also been associated with forest die-off, reproductive failure and population decline in many species of birds, and ill health and birth deformities in farm animals. The literature showing biological effects of microwave radiation is truly enormous, running to tens of thousands of documents, and I am amazed that industry spokespersons are getting away with saying that wireless technology has been proved safe or ? just as ridiculous ? that there is no evidence of harm. I have omitted one disease from the above list: the illness that Caller B has, and that I have. A short history is in order here. In the 1950s and 1960s workers who built, tested and repaired radar equipment came down with this disease in large numbers. So did operators of industrial microwave heaters and sealers. The Soviets named it, appropriately, radio wave sickness, and studied it extensively. In the West its existence was denied totally, but workers came down with it anyway. Witness congressional hearings held in 1981, chaired by then Representative Al Gore, on the health effects of radio-frequency heaters and sealers, another episode in ?See, we are doing something about this,? while nothing is done. Today, with the mass proliferation of radio towers and personal transmitters, the disease has spread like a plague into the general population. Estimates of its prevalence range up to one-third of the population, but it is rarely recognized for what it is until it has so disabled a person that he or she can no longer participate in society. You may recognize some of its common symptoms: insomnia, dizziness, nausea, headaches, fatigue, memory loss, inability to concentrate, depression, chest discomfort, ringing in the ears. Patients may also develop medical problems such as chronic respiratory infections, heart arrhythmias, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, uncontrolled blood sugar, dehydration, and even seizures and internal bleeding. What makes this disease so difficult to accept, and even more difficult to cope with, is that no treatment is likely to succeed unless one can also avoid exposure to its cause ? and its cause is now everywhere. A 1998 survey by the California Department of Health Services indicated that at that time 120,000 Californians ? and by implication 1 million Americans ? were unable to work due to electromagnetic pollution.4 The ranks of these so-called electrically sensitive are swelling in almost every country in the world, marginalized, stigmatized and ignored. With the level of radiation everywhere today, they almost never recover and sometimes take their own lives. ?They are acting as a warning for all of us,? says Dr. Olle Johansson of people with this illness. ?It could be a major mistake to subject the entire world?s population to whole-body irradiation, 24 hours a day.? A neuroscientist at the famous Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr. Johansson heads a research team that is documenting a significant and permanent worsening of the public health that began precisely when the second-generation, 1800 MHz cell phones were introduced into Sweden in late l997.5,6 After a decade-long decline, the number of Swedish workers on sick leave began to rise in late 1997 and more than doubled during the next five years. During the same period of time, sales of antidepressant drugs also doubled. The number of traffic accidents, after declining for years, began to climb again in 1997. The number of deaths from Alzheimer?s disease, after declining for several years, rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. This two-year delay is understandable when one considers that Alzheimer?s disease requires some time to develop. Uncontrolled Proliferation If cell phones and cell towers are really deadly, have the radio and TV towers that we have been living with for a century been safe? In 2002 ?rjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson coauthored a paper titled ?Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,? which examined one aspect of that question.7 They found, in the United States, Sweden and dozens of other countries, that mortality rates for skin melanoma and for bladder, prostate, colon, breast and lung cancers closely paralleled the degree of public exposure to radio waves during the past hundred years. When radio broadcasting increased in a given location, so did those forms of cancer; when it decreased, so did those forms of cancer. And, a sensational finding: country by country ? and county by county in Sweden ? they found, statistically, that exposure to radio waves appears to be as big a factor in causing lung cancer as cigarette smoking! Which brings me to address a widespread misconception. The biggest difference between the cell towers of today and the radio towers of the past is not their safety, but their numbers. The number of ordinary radio stations in the United States today is still less than 14,000. But cell towers and Wi-Fi towers number in the hundreds of thousands, and cell phones, wireless computers, cordless telephones and two-way radios number in the hundreds of millions. Radar facilities and emergency communication networks are also proliferating out of control. Since 1978, when the Environmental Protection Agency last surveyed the radio frequency environment in the United States, the average urban dweller?s exposure to radio waves has increased 1,000-fold, most of this increase occurring in just the last nine years.8 In the same period of time, radio pollution has spread from the cities to rest like a ubiquitous fog over the entire planet. The vast human consequences of all this are being ignored. Since the late 1990s a whole new class of environmental refugees has been created right here in the United States. We have more and more people, sick, dying, seeking relief from our suffering, leaving our homes and our livelihoods, living in cars, trailers and tents in remote places. Unlike victims of hurricanes and earthquakes, we are not the subject of any relief efforts. No one is donating money to help us, to buy us a protected refuge; no one is volunteering to forego their cell phones, their wireless computers and their cordless phones so that we can once more be their neighbors and live among them. The worried and the sick have not yet opened their hearts to each other, but they are asking questions. To answer caller A: No shield or headset will protect you from your cell or portable phone. There is no safe distance from a cell tower. If your cell phone or your wireless computer works where you live, you are being irradiated 24 hours a day. To caller B: To effectively shield a house is difficult and rarely successful. There are only a few doctors in the United States attempting to treat radio wave sickness, and their success rate is poor ? because there are few places left on Earth where one can go to escape this radiation and recover. Yes, radiation comes down from satellites, too; they are part of the problem, not the solution. There is simply no way to make wireless technology safe. Our society has become both socially and economically dependent, in just one short decade, upon a technology that is doing tremendous damage to the fabric of our world. The more entrenched we let ourselves become in it, the more difficult it will become to change our course. The time to extricate ourselves, both individually and collectively ? difficult though it is already is ? is now. --------- NOTES 1. Leif G. Salford et al., ?Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones,? Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 7 (2003): 881?883. 2. Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, ?Neural Function and Behavior,? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433?439. 3. Allan H. Frey, ?Evolution and Results of Biological Research with Low-Intensity Nonionizing Radiation,? in Modern Bioelectricity, ed. Andrew A. Marino (New York: Dekker, 1988), 785?837, at 809?810. 4. California EMF Program, The Risk Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances (2002), app. 3. 5. ?rjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, ?1997 ? A Curious Year in Sweden,? European Journal of Cancer Prevention 13, no. 6 (2004): 535?538. 6. ?rjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, ?Does GSM 1800 MHz Affect the Public Health in Sweden?? in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop ?Biological Effects of EMFs,? Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004, 361?364. 7. ?rjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, ?Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,? Journal of Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 21, no. 1 (2002): 3?8. 8. David E. Janes Jr., ?Radiofrequency Environments in the United States,? in 15th IEEE Conference on Communication, Boston, MA, June 10?14, 1979, vol. 2, 31.4.1?31.4.5. ============== ***NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.*** ============== From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Mon Apr 24 12:37:05 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:37:05 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Making Cell Phones sound scary Message-ID: "Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense." Cell phones are indeed scary. I've worked with some of the real experts in a field known as "electromagnetic compatibility", where we measure and control the E-M emissions from electronic systems. None of them was evangelical about it, but none of them would use a cell phone nor let his (they were all men) family use one. Holding a four watt microwave emitter one inch from your brain is, intutively, a really bad idea. But we have something in EMC known as "the square law." The intensity of an E-M field falls off with the square of the distance from the emitter. So if you hold the phone two inches from your brain, the field is a quarter as strong. Two feet from your brain and it's less than 2% of the intensity compared to how most people use the damn things. If I had to use a cell phone I'd place it three feet away from my body and use a headset with a cord and not worry too much. The other "EMF" hazard I'd be concerned about in daily life isn't cell towers, it's cell *non*-towers. Cell phone companies don't put up a tower where they can rent space on an existing structure. You see their emitters on water towers and office buildings. If there's one tall building in a small town, there's a pretty good chance it's got cell phone emitters bolted to the outside wall at the top floor. I don't think I'd want the office just inside from one of those things. Microwaves *are* dangerous at high intensity. Sailors are killed every year working too close to shipboard radars, and the Navy covers it up. Stand in front of a weather radar or next to a commercial UHF TV transmitting antenna and you'll die instantly. I suspect cops get cancer and strokes every year from using radar guns. But none of the other emitters mentioned in the article really emit significant fields. Living near a power line is not going to hurt you. Nor is the wireless Ethernet box in your house or your cordless base-station phone. Finally, any advocacy group claiming scientific knowledge that confuses *heat* with *temperature* in its publications has no credibility with me. So much for the "International EMF Project." Cameron From gerrygras at earthlink.net Tue Apr 25 12:07:06 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:07:06 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Americans in Iraq vs. New Yorkers on 9/11/01 Message-ID: <444E735A.1030808@earthlink.net> - # deaths in New York was about 3,000 - # American deaths in Iraq is about 2,400, (80% of 3000) At the current rate, the number of American deaths in Iraq will exceed the 9/11 deaths in a few months (4-6?). Gerry I don't know if I should mention this or not, but I have heard that currently - 3000 die in automobile "accidents" every month - 3000 die from tobacco every 3 days From baalavi at yahoo.com Tue Apr 25 12:22:09 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Americans in Iraq vs. New Yorkers on 9/11/01 In-Reply-To: <444E735A.1030808@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060425192209.47060.qmail@web52104.mail.yahoo.com> Gerry, Thank you for mentioning it. Couple of points: 1. In February 2005, the NYC "911" Chief of Police (then a candidate for Homeland Security); in a TESTIMONY before US Senate quoted a "2300" number -- not 3000 as commonly believed. 2. Assuming the worst of the two cases, taking 3000 casualties, they weren't all US Citizens. Many tourists and immigrants were amongst them. Therefore "American" casualties of war may have already exceeded the 911 count. If you add "ally casualties" to that, you may easily exceed the 911 high casualty count. Not counting a single Iraqi casualty. 3. The prez "accepted responsibility" for all that? What's that supposed to mean? A high-terror performer with lies, chetas, and deceptions worse than Osama? ===== I'd say time for a MILITARY TRIBUNAL FOR THE WAR CRIMINAL. ===== ba Gerry Gras wrote: - # deaths in New York was about 3,000 - # American deaths in Iraq is about 2,400, (80% of 3000) At the current rate, the number of American deaths in Iraq will exceed the 9/11 deaths in a few months (4-6?). Gerry I don't know if I should mention this or not, but I have heard that currently - 3000 die in automobile "accidents" every month - 3000 die from tobacco every 3 days _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danasg at greens.org Tue Apr 25 15:16:34 2006 From: danasg at greens.org (Dana St. George) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:16:34 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Making Cell Phones sound scary References: <444D1CE4.7060801@ispwest.com> Message-ID: <444E9FC2.4030407@greens.org> Tian Harter wrote: > http://www.eldoradosun.com/Archives/01-06_issue/Firstenberg.htm > The Largest Biological Experiment Ever > by Arthur Firstenberg > Hi Tian, Thanks for your posting on electromagnetic radiation and hypersensitivity. I just heard Dr. Olle Johansson interviewed of KPFA (Lena Berman's Your Own Health and Fitness). It was really disturbing. Of course you will doubtless get severe flack for this post! Dana St. George From andid at cagreens.org Tue Apr 25 16:10:06 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:10:06 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Superhighway vs. the dirt road--Another POV? Message-ID: A Democratic Internet Art Brodsky April 25, 2006 ?Art Brodsky is communications director for Public Knowledge , a public interest group working at the intersection of information and technology policy. Right now, you?re reading TomPaine.com because you want to, and because you can. Those two principles have been the reason the Internet as we know it has been so successful for almost 20 years. The Internet as we know it provides infinite choice to those who use it, and easy access to customers and consumers for those who have a service to provide. No printing presses are needed, no buying of paper, no distribution. Those major expenses, which for years had to be borne by publications, have all disappeared with the World Wide Web. All TomPaine.com ?or any website?needs (technically speaking, of course) are computers, servers and access to the Internet. The result has been the most unique explosion of creativity in history. This was all made possible because the Internet was open to anyone who wanted to go looking for interesting material or who wanted to create interesting material, and because anyone with a good idea could put it out there and see what happens. Google happens. Yahoo happens. YouTube happens. At the heart of what the Internet used to be was a law, the Communications Act, which had in it the basic principle of what is called ?common carriage.? This means that telephone companies had no control over which traffic flowed through their networks. The network was merely the carrier between the two ends. The ability of people creating text or music or video as either consumer or company was enhanced because the network in the middle had no say about how the material would be handled. Now, that could all be lost, destroyed by a coalition of the entire telecom industry. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and all the assorted smaller telecom companies want to insert themselves between you and where you go on the Web, and between service providers and what they put online. The Bell Behemoths and their Cable Companions can do this because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided last year that high-speed broadband services like the Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) provided by telephone companies or cable modem services from the telephone companies aren?t subject to any regulations. The FCC decision eliminated the rules that allowed users in the dial- up era to go online without any interference or influence from telephone companies about where users go on the Web or how well services would work. Under the new non-regulatory regime, anything is possible. Before, it was up to the consumer to determine how much to spend on Internet access, a little for dial-up, more for broadband. It was never a choice between a service that worked better or worse at the discretion of the telephone company. As we enter the high- speed Internet age, it will be a game without rules, with both consumers and service providers at the mercy of the telecom giants. The Big Boys want to keep it that way, and are working the congressional game with their usual combination of expertise and brute force to make sure it happens. On the other side is a coalition of public interest groups and non-profits bolstered by a coalition of large, but very inexperienced, online companies. Yahoo, Google and Amazon may be the darlings of the e-commerce world, but they are rookies when it comes to playing the Hill. The venue for this contest will be the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday, April 26, when the competing visions of the Internet will collide. On one hand, there is the industry view of the Internet, which would create what telephone and cable industry representatives have called the ?public Internet? and the ?private Internet.? The ?public Internet? is what we have now. The ?private Internet? would consist of proprietary connections into the home. These connections would be reserved for the telephone company or cable company, or for other content or services owned by those companies, or content or services in which they have a financial interest. In other words, industry would like to build the toll-road superhighway of Internet access. It would also be more expensive for service providers if telephone companies loaded on extra costs on top of regular communications lines, as AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proposed last fall. Shortly after Whitacre?s statements, other telecom officials started talking about offering preferred classes of service to some customers over others. So, if you are a service provider that wants to get to your audience, which do you choose?the superhighway or the dirt road? Do you pay the protection money or not? Choose your metaphor. Without rules, both apply. Of course, companies like Google and Yahoo could afford any extra charges that telecom suppliers demand. But that?s not the point. Google and Yahoo! got big precisely because they had the freedom to develop without being either held hostage by telecom companies or relegated to the dirt road. They did it on the Internet that serves everyone equally. And they want to keep it that way. The big Internet companies recognize they wouldn?t exist if the scheme the telephone and cable companies want to put in place now had existed in the days when those companies were just getting started. The successful Internet companies of today know that a healthy, vibrant Internet benefits everyone. That's the other view of the world, the one to which I and others subscribe. Supporters of equal access to the Internet appreciate the technical improvements in the Internet, and realize that telecom companies should be able to recoup their investments in the architecture of the Internet. But we want these achieved without discrimination against users. This is the ?Net Neutrality? argument. It?s very simple. Companies that own the network should not discriminate against services and products in which they do not have a financial interest. If one company is able to have access to a telephone company or cable service with certain technical advantages, such as having its content stored (or cached) close to the consumer by a telephone or cable company, then other companies should be able to buy the same service. The legislation to be considered Wednesday in the Commerce Committee will give the telecom companies what they want?the appearance of Net Neutrality only. The legislation has provisions on net neutrality that are weak at best. The legislation only requires that the FCC enforce some generally vague and unenforceable principles originally conceived as philosophy and not as law. Those principles have a significant omission. They say nothing about discrimination by service providers. In addition, the legislation restricts the Commission to examining net neutrality to a case-by-case complaint basis. Normally, when faced with an industry-wide issue like net neutrality, the Commission conducts a wide-ranging proceeding called a rulemaking, and comes up with an overarching policy. That comprehensive approach is prohibited by the legislation. A band of members of Congress who want to protect the Internet have a different vision and proposed strong anti-discrimination methods. Reps. Ed Markey, Rick Boucher, Anna Eshoo, and Jay Inslee tried at an earlier subcommittee markup to have strong anti-discrimination language inserted into the bill. Their effort was not successful. All the Republicans but one voted against their amendment, as did six Democrats. We hope it will turn out differently this time. We hope members of Congress decide the Internet belongs to everyone, not just to those who happen to own a network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: spacer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wrolley at charter.net Wed Apr 26 11:21:42 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:21:42 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] IRV Message-ID: <444FBA36.2030402@charter.net> The following has been in the Letters to the Editor at the Mercury News this week. Maybe it is time for a followup from someone else in San Jose. Agree with Cook. Who can get that out? Wes __ San Jose should try instant run-off Now that we have 10 candidates running for mayor of San Jose, isn't it time we talked about instituting instant run-off voting for our mayoral elections? Also known as ranked-choice voting, it lets residents vote for their first choice for mayor, but then list their second, third, fourth and so on in the race. If no candidate wins more than 50 percent of first choices, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choices of those voters are counted. The aim is to settle highly competitive contests with a single trip to the voting booth, saving the city thousands of dollars on run-off elections. And with San Jose's budget deficit, we can use every penny we can save. /Joseph Cook/ /San Jose/ -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 From gerrygras at earthlink.net Wed Apr 26 15:04:38 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:04:38 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Wangarai Mathai in town Message-ID: <444FEE76.7040802@earthlink.net> Dana tried to send an email about this yesterday, but it seems it did not get sent, apparently her computer is flaky at the moment. So I am sending this for her. Gerry ====================================================== Wangarai Mathai, Green Nobel Prize winner in 2004, will make 2 local appearances on Sunday, April 30. At 2:00 PM, she will take part in a tree planting ceremony in East Palo Alto at the intersection of Bay and Newbridge Roads, sponsored by Canopy of Palo Alto. At 6:00 PM, there will be a fundraising dinner ($200 per person) at the Crowne Plaza Cabana Hotel on El Camino in Palo Alto (not far from San Antonio). For dinner tickets call Katherine Martineau at 650-964-6110. I think it would be good if a few Greens showed up to greet her at the tree planting (free). The website for Canopy is http://www.canopy.org Dana St. George From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 26 15:12:12 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:12:12 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] register latino voters Message-ID: <444FF03C.1040907@sbcglobal.net> This came by way of working assets *** VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITY *** Help Register Latino Voters Enormous public demonstrations in recent days -- inspired by H.R. 4437, the punitive immigration "reform" proposed by conservatives -- have shown the potential organizing power of Latinos. However, this movement has not yet transformed into political power; while Latinos make up about 36% of California's population, they comprise only about 14% of California's registered voters. Throughout 2006, Working Assets will be working to register and mobilize Latino voters to address this disparity, with a special focus on the Central Valley and the outskirts of the Bay Area. We're working with local community partners to have a presence at community events, as well as canvass neighborhoods and educate new voters on their rights and mobilize them to vote. We could really use your help at two Earth Day festivals this weekend. Click here to help register voters at the Earth Day festival in Gilroy on Saturday: http://values.workingassets.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emfF0JlqPD0S5x0BFQw0ER Click here to help register voters at the Earth Day festival in Stockton on Sunday. http://values.workingassets.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emfF0JlqPD0S5x0BFQx0ES Spanish speakers are especially needed! Working with our friends at the League of Women Voters of San Joaquin County, and Clean Water Fund, we'll be setting up in two locations this weekend -- at the Earth Day Festivals in Gilroy and Stockton. More community outreach events are being planned in the upcoming events, including the Cinco de Mayo farmers market in Stockton next Friday, May 5th. If you'd like to get involved in those, please drop a note to Brett Richer of Clean Water Fund at bricher at cleanwater.org Click here to register voters at the Earth Day festival in Gilroy on Saturday: http://values.workingassets.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emfF0JlqPD0S5x0BFQw0ER Click here to register voters at the Earth Day festival in Stockton on Sunday. http://values.workingassets.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emfF0JlqPD0S5x0BFQx0ES *** Can't join us this weekend? Please forward this email to your friends in and around the Bay Area -- especially anyone who speaks Spanish -- who could help out at these events!!! From tnharter at ispwest.com Wed Apr 26 16:58:49 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:58:49 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] What I saw last Friday when Bush came to town... Message-ID: <44500939.5040803@ispwest.com> http://tian.greens.org/SantaClara/April06BushVisit/index.html -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: Added pictures from Bush's vist to Santa Clara County. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.actgreen.com/ <-- Page worth visiting at least once. From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 27 15:51:18 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:51:18 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] march and rally may 1-st Message-ID: <44514AE6.2040305@sbcglobal.net> Here is a notice from the Diocese of San Jose giving details on the time and location of a march and rally on May 1-st as well as a statement of their positions on immigration. * March and Rally* Gathering at 3:00 pm at King and Story March begins at 4:00 pm and will end with a Rally at Arena Green Park at Santa Clara and Autumn ---- Full text ----- Attached is information in reference to the upcoming National Day of Action for immigration reform on May 1-st . Flyers are attached with all the details for March and Rally on May 1^st and also the Prayer Vigil and Blessing on Sunday, April 30. Also attached are talking points from the Human Concerns Commission of the Diocese of San Jose regarding the events as well a Prayer. All these materials are provided in Spanish and English. The information on the flyers is included below in case you are not able to open the attachments. *Please distribute this information and plan to attend. * *Prayer Vigil and Blessing* Gathering at 6:00 pm outside the Cathedral With Procession to Cesar Chavez Plaza for a Candlelight Vigil and Blessing of Workers and Tools *March and Rally* Gathering at 3:00 pm at King and Story March begins at 4:00 pm and will end with a Rally at Arena Green Park at Santa Clara and Autumn ----* * *HUMAN CONCERNS COMMISSION Diocese of **San Jose*** NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM May 1, 2006 Feast Day of St. Joseph 1. We stand in solidarity with the thousands of migrant workers in San Jose and throughout our nation who demand just immigration reform on the Day of the Worker, May 1^st . 2. We support comprehensive immigration reform that includes: ? Earned legalization for the undocumented and their families, a temporary worker program and timely reunification policies; ? Restoration of due process protections for immigrants; ? Policy directions that address the root causes ? so that migrants can remain in their home countries and support themselves and their families; and, ? Reform that does not include sanctions for those who provide humanitarian aid for the undocumented. 3. We do not support a work stoppage, economic boycott, or students leaving school. ? We invite people to use this opportunity to remember the important role of workers in our community and to advocate for immigration reform that is just and humane. ? We encourage students to attend school on May 1^st and to use this day as a learning opportunity. We encourage teachers and administrators to use the educational material available on the websites, www.justiceforimmigrants.org , www.archdiocese.la and other such materials. 4. In our Catholic tradition, May 1^st is the Feast Day of St. Joseph the Worker, the patron of working people throughout the world. 5. In support of all workers in our community and in honor of the Feast Day of St. Joseph the Worker, we are planning an Interfaith Vigil and Blessing of Workers and Tools on the evening of Sunday, April 30^th . 6. In the spirit of St. Joseph the Worker, we encourage employees to celebrate the Feast Day by remaining in their workplace on May 1^st and to attend a rally and march organized by the San Jose Coalition for Immigrant Rights in the afternoon after work. From tnharter at ispwest.com Fri Apr 28 10:40:03 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:40:03 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Neil Young has a protest album on his website. Message-ID: <44525373.2090909@ispwest.com> Click Here: Check out "Neil's Garage" In case the above link doesn't work, it's at neilyoung.com -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: Added pictures from Bush's vist to Santa Clara County. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.actgreen.com/ <-- Page worth visiting at least once. From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Apr 28 11:59:54 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:59:54 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] House members sue Bush and others over budget Message-ID: <4452662A.1090106@earthlink.net> Short version: Bush has signed a budget bill passed only by the Senate, and has begun to implement it. Long version (from the AP): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/ap/politics/mainD8H8L2MGI.shtml Statement by John Conyers (Ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee): http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060428/cm_huffpost/019943;_ylt=A86.I14fqVFE5rAALiP9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA-- If you have trouble with the long URL's, you might try searching the web for "House president budget conyers" (without the quotes). Gerry From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Apr 28 12:41:44 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:41:44 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] House members sue Bush and others over budget References: <4452662A.1090106@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <44526FF8.2050704@earthlink.net> Gerry Gras wrote: > > > Short version: > > Bush has signed a budget bill passed only by the Senate, and has > begun to implement it. > > > Long version (from the AP): > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/ap/politics/mainD8H8L2MGI.shtml > > > Statement by John Conyers (Ranking member of the House Judiciary > Committee): > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060428/cm_huffpost/019943;_ylt=A86.I14fqVFE5rAALiP9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA-- > > > If you have trouble with the long URL's, you might try searching the web > for "House president budget conyers" (without the quotes). > > Gerry > > After reading both items above, I noticed that in the CBS article, someone had said that difference between the 2 bills was a minor clerical error, and nowhere did it say what the actual difference was. But this article does ($2,000,000,000 difference): http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=8787 Gerry From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Apr 28 15:33:08 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:33:08 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Proposed Agenda for County Meeting Message-ID: <44529824.3070208@earthlink.net> Proposed Agenda for County Meeting Tuesday, May 2, 2006 Location: Banjara Indian Restaurant - http://banjarainc.com 407 Town & Country Village, Sunnyvale Directions available at above web site NOTE: Future meetings after May 2 will be at: San Jose Peace Center downtown San Jose 6:30 Socializing and Dinner - 7:30 Meeting -- Preliminary Items -- Choose Facilitator(s), Note-Taker(s), Time Keeper, and Vibes Watcher(s) (5) Introductions and Short Announcements (5) Revise and Affirm Agenda (5) -- Main Part -- 1. Treasurer's Report (5) Adam 2. State Party Business Plenary Postponed (15) Gerry 3. Old Business Tabling (15) (Jim Doyle) Earth Day Events Junior Statesmen Gay Pride Parade Fourth of July "weekend" (Su-Tu, 7/2-4) Buttons Mother's Day leaflet Warner? Treasurer Replacement (3) Cameron Regional Rep Election (3) Gerry Move meeting to San Jose Peace Center (5) Cameron Press Release Authorization (10) Gerry / Jim Doyle / Wes CNA public campaign financing initiative (5) Warner? Fundraising Report (5) Warner? 4. New Business Coalition for a San Jose downtown hospital (8) Jim Doyle (Total scheduled time: 1 hours, 29 minutes) -- Future Events -- Next GPSCC meeting ??? Tuesday, June 13, 2006 ??? (Postponed to the second Tuesday because the first Tuesday is the primary election.) (Unless some date change proposal passes) (Cameron is suggesting the meetings be on the first Wednesday of each month, in June that would be June 7.) -- Disclaimer -- The items summarized above are agenda suggestions, only. The actual meeting agenda is affirmed at the meeting by those who are present. Additionally, the times allotted to agenda items may be changed during the course of the meeting, and some items may not e reached during the meeting because of time limits. Persons receiving this email are invited to make additional suggestions or corrections regarding potential agenda items, time estimates or the agenda sequence. Please share this information with individuals who do not have email. From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Apr 28 15:37:49 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:37:49 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Press Release Policy Message-ID: <4452993D.3000201@earthlink.net> As I recall, we did not make much progress at our last meeting (April 4th) on the Press Release Policy, because we did not have a proposal. I think we concluded that we needed to work on that offline. But I can't remember who agreed to work on it. So ... Did anyone agree to work on it, and if so, whom and what is the status? Gerry From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 29 11:53:16 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:53:16 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] county council meeting Message-ID: <4453B61C.6030906@sbcglobal.net> The County Council will meet Saturday April 29-th at 2 pm at the home of Mike F. 520 View St. Mountain View (650) 962-8805 Agenda: Press Releases Immigration Planning - goals Impeachment request follow up From WB4D23 at aol.com Sun Apr 30 12:43:59 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:43:59 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Proposed Agenda for County Meeting Message-ID: <3cc.1eced53.31866d7f@aol.com> Maybe add the question about getting an updated copy of at least GPSCC registered voters? On tabling issues: At the SJSU Earthday tabling, it was apparent that the buttons supply was almost gone. Need more buttons!!! Also the green table cloth was not in the suitcase. Re the Mother's Day pamphlet -- This is a nice piece of literature origina lly provided by Charlotte Casey. There were no copies in the suitcase. Since the Berryessa Arts and Wine Festival is the day before Mother's Day, either a supply needs printed or we won't have it for that tabling. What is the situation with our representation on the GPCA Coordinating Committee? Add this as an agenda item, if just to clarify? Also discuss the idea (again) of mutual Bylaws and a regional meeting??? Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Sun Apr 30 13:00:22 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:00:22 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Proposed Agenda for County Meeting In-Reply-To: <3cc.1eced53.31866d7f@aol.com> References: <3cc.1eced53.31866d7f@aol.com> Message-ID: <44551756.6000200@charter.net> A couple of add ons. First, as I said, I have a copy of the entire precinct list for my precinct. I am using that to call people for Pete McCloskey. What I find is that there are a number of people who are willing to do a little bit, only no one had asked them directly. If we are missing the opportunity, it is our fault. Second. One of the events that attracts those with an outdoors, environmental bent is the annual Mothers Day Brunch at Henry Coe State Park. It might be good just to show up there wearing a Green Party Tee Shirt and talking to people...tabling would not be appropriate. Wes WB4D23 at aol.com wrote: > Maybe add the question about getting an updated copy of at least GPSCC > registered voters? > > > > On tabling issues: At the SJSU Earthday tabling, it was apparent that > the buttons supply was almost gone. Need more buttons!!! Also the > green table cloth was not in the suitcase. > > > > Re the Mother's Day pamphlet -- This is a nice piece of literature > originally provided by Charlotte Casey. There were no copies in the > suitcase. Since the Berryessa Arts and Wine Festival is the day > before Mother's Day, either a supply needs printed or we won't have it > for that tabling. > > > > What is the situation with our representation on the GPCA Coordinating > Committee? Add this as an agenda item, if just to clarify? Also > discuss the idea (again) of mutual Bylaws and a regional meeting??? > > > > Warner -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024 From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Sun Apr 30 14:37:57 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:37:57 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] monthly GP of Santa Clara Co meeting MOVE Message-ID: Hi folks, Last month we almost moved the monthly business meeting from Banjara in Sunnyvale to the San Jose Peace Center. SJPC is on the 22 bus line. It's a seven block walk from light rail. There's a kitchen, and inexpensive carry-out (Mexican, Vietnamese, Chinese...) nearby. Free parking after 6 in the garage at 4th and San Fernando a few blocks away. There's Internet access; you can bring your laptop with wifi or an Ethernet cable. We got hung up choosing a meeting night. Tuesdays the Open Space initiative is meeting. The rest of the week is open. But nobody returned Jim's email survey of meeting night preferences. So I decided to make it easier. Please go to http://gandhi.greens.org/cls/meetingsurvey.html and check the boxes for the nights that are good for you. It just takes a minute. If you don't do it, we're still stuck at Banjara, where beers cost $4.50 - $8.50. Thanks. Cameron