From jean_comfort at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 10:24:15 2006 From: jean_comfort at yahoo.com (Jean Comfort) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] directions to Regional Meeting location Message-ID: <20060601172415.16189.qmail@web50711.mail.yahoo.com> The Silicon Valley regional meeting of the Green Party will be held on Saturday, June 10, from 2:00 - 4:00 PM, at 48 Lorelei Lane, Menlo Park (home of Arlen and Jean Comfort). How to get there: From highway 101 (from either direction) take the Marsh Road exit going west (away from the Bay) Within about half a mile there are railroad tracks (NOT the commuter train). Immediately after be in the left turn lane to turn left onto Bay Rd. Go about one block and turn left on Christopher (It only goes left) Christopher dead ends into Lorelei Lane. Turn right; we are next to the corner on the right, #48. http://tinyurl.com/n9fjc (If someone is coming via CalTrain, let us know and we will arrange for pick up in Menlo Park.) Jean Comfort 48 Lorelei Lane Menlo Park, CA 94025 jean_comfort at yahoo.com (650)323-7188 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Jun 1 11:54:29 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:54:29 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] GPCA County poll: Impeachment Resolution] Message-ID: <447F37E5.3030506@earthlink.net> I forgot to include this in tonight's agenda. Gerry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [GPCA Official Notice] GPCA County poll: Impeachment Resolution Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:06:20 -0700 From: Gerry Gras To: sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org The state is polling the counties on a proposed impeachment resolution. It is similar, but not the same, as the one we passed. Gerry -------- Original Message -------- 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. GPCA active counties, This polling of GPCA's active counties is to determine if the GPCA can take a positive stance on the attached Impeachment Resolution. This email contains 3 sections: 1. Purpose and background of this poll 2. Polling instructions 3. The proposal: Impeachment Resolution SUBJECT GPCA polling of the counties on the Resolution to proceed with the Impeachment of George W. Bush, President of the United States, and designated members of his cabinet and administration. PURPOSE -To initiate GPCA action on the impeachment issue while it's at the top of the national agenda, rather than to act 'after the fact'. -To bring this proposal directly to a wider grass roots audience of Green county organizations, limiting the need for extensive floor time at the next General Assembly. BACKGROUND -This issue has demonstrated support as evidenced by 5 GPCA counties independently endorsing similar impeachment resolution[s]. -The GPCA has the opportunity to act in a relevant and timely fashion. Other organizations, including other state Green Parties, the Peace and Freedom Party, have passed impeachment resolutions, attracting valuable publicity to themselves. Prompt considerations help to amplify GPCA's presence and news worthiness during this election cycle - Other progressive entities are considering weaker statements. It is important for the GPCA to establish itself as the preeminent alternative party in CA with a clear stand on this issue. It is important to demand an even higher standard of governmental accountability at a time when the impeachment issue is gaining in national prominence. PROCESS Please provide the Poll Coordinators with vote results, on or before deadline (6/20 AT 10:00pm), from your county in the following form. "Yes," "No," or "Abstain" PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTTED TO YOUR COUNTY AT THE LAST PLENARY. For example, if your county had 2 delegates to the Yolo General Assembly, you would submit 2 votes in any combination of positions on the proposal. Votes from counties with more than one delegate vote need not be unanimous. Counties with only one delegate will be allowed to split their single vote, but such counties are encouraged to attempt to cast a whole number vote if possible. Your county should rely on it's own internal processes to determine its vote(s). To find out how many delegate votes your county has, please check the last page of the Yolo plenary packet at this address: http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/archives/minutes/delegates_0512.html Any county activated after the 'Yolo delegate list' was published, does receive its delegate vote(s). Those delegates are added as: Delegate/vote #101, #102, etc. Reference GPCA bylaw 4-2.2d). This poll utilizes GPCA's standard initiative polling process which calls for a 50% quorum of active counties participating (16 of 38), and a threshold of 80% for passage. TIMELINE THE VOTING PERIOD BEGINS ON: Sunday 5/21/06 AT 10:00 P.M., AND ENDS ON: Tuesday 6/20/06- 30 full days] AT 10:00 P.M. Votes received after the closing date and time will be noted in the results, but not counted. Submit all votes to both the following email addresses: Matthew Leslie mrl at greens.org 714.401.0168 Michael Borenstein thebor at greens.org 530.620.6659 ++++++++++++++++++++++ Appended proposal ++++++++++++++++++++++ IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION PROPOSAL- Sponsor: GPCA-CC, as amended from the GROW/GP Nevada County proposal. Contact information: Michael Borenstein, 530.620.6659, Kent Smith, PH# on request, kentwsmith at yahoo.com Subject: Impeachment of President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General. Background and purpose: The governance of our country has entered an era where it has become debilitating to: -The worldwide reputation of its citizenry, -Hopeful prospects of building world peace, -Prospects of material and social resources worldwide being used equally for the betterment of all lives of all living things on earth. Whereas goals and values of Green Parties worldwide yearn to reverse these debilitating factors within governments and social structures. We purpose to energize this reversal through the legal means of impeaching those facilitating these debilitating factors. The GPCA may join this worldwide effort by endorsing this proposal, attached language and actions. Proposal: To forward this resolution (included at bottom) through any and all proper GPCA channels to proper government and media entities that the GPCA's opinion is: That our President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and Attorney General have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and Therefore, the Green Party of California demands the impeachment and consequent removal from office of: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Be it further resolved that the Green Party of California petitions the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress to initiate Impeachment proceedings against all four identified officials under the authority given them by Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the duty given them by their constitutional oath to ?preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.? Be it further resolved that copies of this Resolution be sent to our Congressional representatives and to all members of the House Judiciary Committee. Timeline: Immediately, and/or as soon as proper letters, releases and notifications can be most accurately drafted an delivered. Resources: GROW, GPCA-CC, Media SC volunteer time, Between $100 and $300 for printing and postage. +++++++ RESOLUTION +++++++ A RESOLUTION OF THE GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA in defense of the Constitution of the United States, demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, and two complicit associates. Whereas the Declaration of Independence declares securing ?unalienable Rights? including ?Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? to be the purpose of government, and Whereas the Constitution of the United States establishes the firm foundation for our rule of law, and its Bill of Rights provides for the precious individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all American citizens, and Whereas, in the conduct of their offices, President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in violation of their constitutional oaths to ?preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? and to ?take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,? have committed any or all of the following ?high Crimes and Misdemeanors?: I. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES: Ordering the National Security Agency to conduct secret, warrantless searches and seizures of the private personal communications of American citizens, without oversight by the legislative or judicial branches of the government, in violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the Congress (FISA 1978); II. TORTURE: Authorizing and permitting torture against human beings, in violation of the Geneva Conventions (1864-1949) and the United Nations? Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1985); III. INDEFINITE DETENTION: Depriving both American citizens and non- citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights regarding unjust imprisonment and speedy and public trial, in violation of their rights to guaranteed liberty and due process of law in the 5th and 6th Amendments; IV. WAR OF AGGRESSION: Launching an illegal, unjust, and undeclared war against the sovereign state of Iraq, in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and Chapters 1, 6, and 7 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945); V. USE OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS: Authorizing the use of illegal chemical and radioactive weapons in military campaigns, notably white phosphorous and depleted uranium in Iraq, in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); VI. DELIBERATE DECEPTIONS: Repeatedly, consciously, and with forethought, lying to the American people and the U.S. Congress by providing false and deceptive rationales for an unjustified and illegal war in Iraq; covering up the truth about the 9-11 attacks, namely, that the Bush administration, at a minimum, had foreknowledge of the attacks and intentionally failed to prevent them, and at worst, were complicit in the attacks themselves, creating the myth of Al Qaeda as a pretext for starting a war "that will not end in our lifetimes", the so-called "War on Terror"; VII. ATTACKING CIVILIANS: Authorizing, ordering, and condoning direct military attacks on civilians and civilian homes and communities, thereby causing massive death, maiming, and destruction in Iraq, in violation of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; VIII. VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES: Violating and unilaterally abrogating lawful signatory treaties, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972) between the United States and Russia, the Treaty of Rome (1950) establishing the International Criminal Court, and the Geneva Conventions providing for humane treatment of combatants and civilians, in violation of Article VI of the Constitution acknowledging these treaties to be ?the Supreme Law of the Land.? IX. TREASON: Betrayal and disclosure of identifying information of a CIA agent and the operational cover by White House officials caused significant damage to U.S. national security thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy in violation of USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37 ? 793 , ? 794, and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. _______________________________________________ contacts2 mailing list contacts2 at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2 _______________________________________________ Sclara-cc mailing list Sclara-cc at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sclara-cc _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Jun 1 12:46:41 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:46:41 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Message-ID: <447F4421.5080507@earthlink.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:45:08 -0700 From: Gerry Gras To: Gerry Gras by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm Gerry From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 1 13:40:33 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:40:33 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] west point grad (1962) on Bush Message-ID: <447F50C1.2080106@sbcglobal.net> Here is a link to an article written by a 1962 West Point grad in which he introduces a little history of West Point and calls Bush to task. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-30.htm From tnharter at ispwest.com Fri Jun 2 00:17:50 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:17:50 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Thinking of goiing to the Al Gore movie this weekend? Message-ID: <447FE61E.9020901@ispwest.com> I made postcards for my campaign that are VERY "on message" for An Inconvieneint Truth, as Gore's Climate Change movie is known. If you want to give some out at a showing this weekend, please visit: http://tianharter.org/ Where you will find directions for downloading and printing some just below the top of the page. Thanks in advance! -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest addition: Pictures from Julia Butterfly Hill's latest tree sit. 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 Fri Jun 2 11:52:25 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:52:25 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Was the 2004 Election Stolen? In-Reply-To: <447F4421.5080507@earthlink.net> References: <447F4421.5080507@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <448088E9.1080808@ispwest.com> Gerry Gras wrote: >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? >Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:45:08 -0700 >From: Gerry Gras >To: Gerry Gras > > >by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. > > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm > > The obvious answer from reading that is "yes". The question boils down to "what are you going to do about it?" I tell people "We need to stop voting for oil companies at the gas pump." because I just can't think of a more transparent response. As long as they can get more out of the leadership position, they will find more under- handed ways to get those positions. What is needed is a decentralized response. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest addition: Pictures from Julia Butterfly Hill's latest tree sit. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.mv-voice.com/story.php?story_id=1583 <-- Writeup on ME! :-) From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Jun 2 20:53:52 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:53:52 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Re: [GPCA-CC] County poll: Impeachment Resolution] Message-ID: <448107D0.7060200@earthlink.net> Here is my report to the county poll coordinators, Gerry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [GPCA-CC] County poll: Impeachment Resolution Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:52:06 -0700 From: Gerry Gras To: Michael Borenstein , Matthew Leslie The Green Party of Santa Clara County had its monthly business meeting yesterday. ============= The short version is 1 Yes / 3 No / 0 Abstains. ============= The long version: There was consensus for an impeachment resolution. There was consensus for all parts of this resolution except sections VI and IX. I do not know if the problem(s) with IX contributed to any of the "No" votes. I believe that the problems with section VI led to the 3 "No" votes. Thoughts about VI: Everyone agreed with VI up to and including "covering up the truth about the 9-11 attacks". But beyond that was problematic. Essentially the statement is extreme. The issue was not whether the statement was correct or not. The issue was that the statement as is is not defensible at this time. Beyond this it gets a little fuzzy. But it is my impression that the best approach here is to say that the past 9/11 investigation was inadequate, that the adminstration did not cooperate with the investigation. Thoughts about IX: I don't think there was any blocking concerns with this section as it. No one was arguing against the statement of treason. The only concern that I recall was the part about "caused significant damage to U.S. national security". I think that there was general agreement that the implications for national security were not that significant. I pointed out that I had heard that Valerie Plame was supposed to be involved in getting information about the Iran nuclear program, and this outing of Ms. Plame may have hurt those efforts. But that seemed to have little effect on their thinking. ... And I agree, even with that info, I think that this did not cause "significant damage". (But yes, it was treasonous). Hmm, maybe saying something like "there might have been significant damage", or "it was security risk", or ... Gerry Gras member of County Council of Green Party of Santa Clara County Michael Borenstein wrote: > CC, > > The following has been forwarded @ about 11:00am for distribution to > the GPCA county contacts list. > /mb > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > GPCA active counties, > > This polling of GPCA's active counties is to determine if the GPCA > can take a positive stance on the attached Impeachment Resolution. > > This email contains 3 sections: > > 1. Purpose and background of this poll > 2. Polling instructions > 3. The proposal: Impeachment Resolution > > > SUBJECT > > GPCA polling of the counties on the Resolution to proceed with the > Impeachment of George W. Bush, President of the United States, and > designated members of his cabinet and administration. > > PURPOSE > > -To initiate GPCA action on the impeachment issue while it's at the > top of the national agenda, rather than to act 'after the fact'. > -To bring this proposal directly to a wider grass roots audience of > Green county organizations, limiting the need for extensive floor time > at the next General Assembly. > > > BACKGROUND > > -This issue has demonstrated support as evidenced by 5 GPCA counties > independently endorsing similar impeachment resolution[s]. > -The GPCA has the opportunity to act in a relevant and timely > fashion. Other organizations, including other state Green Parties, > the Peace and Freedom Party, have passed impeachment resolutions, > attracting valuable publicity to themselves. Prompt considerations > help to amplify GPCA's presence and news worthiness during this > election cycle > - Other progressive entities are considering weaker statements. It > is important for the GPCA to establish itself as the preeminent > alternative party in CA with a clear stand on this issue. It is > important to demand an even higher standard of governmental > accountability at a time when the impeachment issue is gaining in > national prominence. > > PROCESS > > Please provide the Poll Coordinators with vote results, on or before > deadline (6/20 AT 10:00pm), from your county in the following form. > > "Yes," "No," or "Abstain" > > PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTTED TO YOUR COUNTY AT THE LAST > PLENARY. For example, if your county had 2 delegates to the Yolo > General Assembly, you would submit 2 votes in any combination of > positions on the proposal. Votes from counties with more than one > delegate vote need not be unanimous. Counties with only one delegate > will be allowed to split their single vote, but such counties are > encouraged to attempt to cast a whole number vote if possible. > > Your county should rely on it's own internal processes to determine its > vote(s). To find out how many delegate votes your county has, please > check the last page of the Yolo plenary packet at this address: > > http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/archives/minutes/delegates_0512.html > > Any county activated after the 'Yolo delegate list' was published, does receive > its delegate vote(s). Those delegates are added as: > Delegate/vote #101, #102, etc. Reference GPCA bylaw 4-2.2d). > > This poll utilizes GPCA's standard initiative polling process which > calls for a 50% quorum of active counties participating (16 of 38), > and a threshold of 80% for passage. > > > TIMELINE > > THE VOTING PERIOD BEGINS ON: Sunday 5/21/06 AT 10:00 P.M., > AND ENDS ON: Tuesday 6/20/06- 30 full days] AT 10:00 P.M. > Votes received after the closing date and time will be noted > in the results, but not counted. > Submit all votes to both the following email addresses: > > Matthew Leslie > mrl at greens.org > 714.401.0168 > > Michael Borenstein > thebor at greens.org > 530.620.6659 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > Appended proposal > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION PROPOSAL- > > Sponsor: GPCA-CC, as amended from the GROW/GP Nevada County proposal. > > Contact information: > Michael Borenstein, 530.620.6659, > Kent Smith, PH# on request, kentwsmith at yahoo.com > > Subject: > Impeachment of President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, > Attorney General. > > Background and purpose: > > The governance of our country has entered an era where it has become > debilitating to: > -The worldwide reputation of its citizenry, > -Hopeful prospects of building world peace, > -Prospects of material and social resources worldwide being used equally for the > betterment of all lives of all living things on earth. > > Whereas goals and values of Green Parties worldwide yearn to reverse these > debilitating factors within governments and social structures. We purpose to > energize this reversal through the legal means of impeaching those > facilitating these debilitating factors. The GPCA may join this worldwide effort > by endorsing this proposal, attached language and actions. > > Proposal: > > To forward this resolution (included at bottom) through any and all proper GPCA > channels to proper government and media entities that the GPCA's > opinion is: > > That our President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and Attorney > General have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and > > Therefore, the Green Party of California demands the impeachment and consequent > removal from office of: > President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary > of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. > > Be it further resolved that the Green Party of California petitions the House of > Representatives of the U.S. Congress to initiate Impeachment proceedings against > all four identified officials under the authority given them by > Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the duty given them by their > constitutional oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." > > Be it further resolved that copies of this Resolution be sent to our > Congressional representatives and to all members of the House Judiciary > Committee. > > Timeline: > Immediately, and/or as soon as proper letters, releases and > notifications can be most accurately drafted an delivered. > > Resources: > GROW, GPCA-CC, Media SC volunteer time, Between $100 and $300 for > printing and postage. > > +++++++ RESOLUTION +++++++ > > A RESOLUTION OF THE GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA in defense of the Constitution of > the United States, demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush, > Richard B. Cheney, and two complicit associates. > > Whereas the Declaration of Independence declares securing "unalienable Rights" > including "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to be the > purpose of government, and > > Whereas the Constitution of the United States establishes the firm foundation > for our rule of law, and its Bill of Rights provides for the precious individual > rights and freedoms guaranteed to all American citizens, and > > Whereas, in the conduct of their offices, President George W. Bush, > Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, > and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in violation of their > constitutional oaths to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" and to > "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," have committed any or all of > the following "high Crimes and Misdemeanors": > > I. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES: > Ordering the National Security Agency to conduct secret, warrantless searches > and seizures of the private personal communications of American citizens, > without oversight by the legislative or judicial branches of the government, in > violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Act of the Congress (FISA 1978); > > II. TORTURE: > Authorizing and permitting torture against human beings, in violation of the > Geneva Conventions (1864-1949) and the United Nations' Convention against > Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1985); > > III. INDEFINITE DETENTION: > Depriving both American citizens and non- citizens of their constitutionally > guaranteed rights regarding unjust imprisonment and speedy and public trial, in > violation of their rights to guaranteed liberty and due process of law in the > 5th and 6th Amendments; > > IV. WAR OF AGGRESSION: > Launching an illegal, unjust, and undeclared war against the sovereign state of > Iraq, in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and Chapters 1, > 6, and 7 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945); > > V. USE OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS: > Authorizing the use of illegal chemical and radioactive weapons in military > campaigns, notably white phosphorous and depleted uranium in Iraq, in violation > of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); > > VI. DELIBERATE DECEPTIONS: > Repeatedly, consciously, and with forethought, lying to the American people and > the U.S. Congress by providing false and deceptive rationales for an unjustified > and illegal war in Iraq; covering up the truth about the 9-11 attacks, namely, > that the Bush administration, at a minimum, had foreknowledge of the attacks and > intentionally failed to prevent them, and at worst, were complicit in the > attacks themselves, creating the myth of Al Qaeda as a pretext for starting a > war "that will not end in our lifetimes", the so-called "War on Terror"; > > VII. ATTACKING CIVILIANS: > Authorizing, ordering, and condoning direct military attacks on civilians and > civilian homes and communities, thereby causing massive death, maiming, and > destruction in Iraq, in violation of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights; > > VIII. VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES: > Violating and unilaterally abrogating lawful signatory treaties, such as the > Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972) between the United States and Russia, the > Treaty of Rome (1950) establishing the International Criminal Court, and the > Geneva Conventions providing for humane treatment of combatants and civilians, > in violation of Article VI of the Constitution acknowledging these treaties to > be "the Supreme Law of the Land." > > IX. TREASON: > Betrayal and disclosure of identifying information of a CIA agent and the > operational cover by White House officials caused significant damage to > U.S. national security thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy in > violation of USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37 ? 793 , ? 794, and the > Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. > _______________________________________________ > gpca-cc mailing list > gpca-cc at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc > > From WB4D23 at aol.com Sat Jun 3 21:38:40 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 00:38:40 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Agenda Packet Review Meeting Sunday June 18th Message-ID: <454.2af6e11.31b3bdd0@aol.com> At the June 1st GPSCC general membership meeting we agreed to meet at my house to review the agenda packet for the June 24-25th plenary in Ventura County Sunday afternoon June 18th 2:30 - 5:30 pm The address is 867 North Fifth Street, San Jose (nearest intersection Hedding Street). GPSCC delegates for this General Assembly are: Warner Bloomberg, Tian Harter, Cameron Spitzer and Jim Stauffer. Alternate delegates are Dana St. George and Gerry Gras. We are aware that our GPSCC delegation is all men. That's who volunteered to be delegates. If you have particular issues or concerns about any of the decision items listed in the agenda packet (go to cagreens.org/plenary), contact the GPSCC delegates, or express them on this email list, or attend the meeting. Assuming no rain, we will meet in my back yard. Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Sun Jun 4 23:16:19 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:16:19 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: An Inconvenient Truth] Message-ID: <4483CC33.7090809@earthlink.net> Hi, I have seen the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". I highly recommend it. Here is the main website for this movie: http://www.climatecrisis.net/ The following websites can help find theatres where it is playing in the U.S.. http://www.imdb.com/showtimes/ http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/id/3473272 http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809257809/info http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=an+inconvenient+truth&btnG=Google+Search Before June 2nd, it was only being shown in New York City and the Los Angeles area. Now it is in "select" theatres (about a half dozen in the San Francisco Bay Area). I think it will have wider distribution soon (June 26th?). Right now it is at the following theatres in this area: CineArts - Santana Row CineArts - Palo Alto Square Camera Seven - Campbell Gerry From gerrygras at earthlink.net Mon Jun 5 08:41:27 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:41:27 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: ELECTION: Candidates Supporting BAREC, Quality Not Quantity] Message-ID: <448450A7.9000805@earthlink.net> FYI, Gerry --- Kathryn Mathewson wrote: > From: "Kathryn Mathewson" > To: > Subject: ELECTION: Candidates Supporting BAREC, Quality Not Quantity > Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:24:01 -0700 >Dear Friends of BAREC: With the election this Tuesday, June 6th, (D Day) I thought you should know that there are only a few candidates running for office who have publicly supported saving BAREC. Following are their names: Dave Cortese for San Jose Mayor Ken Yeager for County Supervisor (District 4)...note that Mayor Mahan has not been supportive and is running against Yeager Joe Padnit for Director of Santa Clara Valley Water District (District 4) These candidates are not taking money from developers and lobbyists and are ethical and honest. They believe in a balanced community which thinks about schools and children, urban open space where people live not just in the hills, historical preservation, environmental health issues, more diversity of businesses especially small businesses, and quality over quantity. They see that infill housing everywhere in the heart of Santa Clara Valley brings more and more commuters from richer northern bay area cites and this makes us poorer. "Housing is a dead bang looser for income" (Terry Trumbell, Environmental Law Professor). This is currently far removed from what is happening with our local governments. Having a few of these kinds of people in leadership roles will make all our lives better and will help to ensure that BAREC is saved. Maybe such a positive outcome will lead to attracting more balanced independent leaders to our local politics. The BAREC issues are clearly helping to bring such thinking to the surface. Kathryn Mathewson 408-292-9595 kmathewson at secretgardens.com From wrolley at charter.net Mon Jun 5 15:23:48 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:23:48 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] New line with the inconvenient truth Message-ID: <4484AEF4.4050503@charter.net> From Sierra Club's Carl Pope's Blog today... Whenever someone tells you that something is moving at a glacial pace, ask them, "Which glacial pace -- pre? or post?global warming?" -- "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 tnharter at ispwest.com Mon Jun 5 16:28:10 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:28:10 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] After you vote come on down to the Election Night Party at Tian's Message-ID: <4484BE0A.2030108@ispwest.com> You are invited to come on down! Details about the event are at: http://tian.greens.org/MountainView/ElectionPartyAnoucement.shtml It will be in the clubhouse at my complex, where I have hosted many other parties. I thought I wouldn't have any money to host with, but a kind Green in Joshua Tree sent me $50, so that will at least buy everybody that wants one a beer. It's simply too late to put any more postcards in the mail.... In other news, The Mountain View Voice did a great article about my campaign. It's probably the nicest coverage I've ever gotten. You can read it by clicking on this URL: http://www.mv-voice.com/story.php?story_id=1583 DON'T FORGET TO VOTE FOR TIAN IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY! -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest addition: Pictures from Julia Butterfly Hill's latest tree sit. Tian Harter for Senate, P.O. Box 391854, Mtn View CA 94039-1854 http://www.mv-voice.com/story.php?story_id=1583 <-- Writeup on ME! :-) From jims at greens.org Mon Jun 5 20:39:27 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:39:27 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Registration and Packets for the Plenary] Message-ID: <4484F8EF.8E3006A7@greens.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [GPCA Official Notice] Registration and Packets for the Plenary Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:29:30 -0700 From: "New contacts list 10 Apr '04" Reply-To: ginnycase at greens.org, contacts2 at marla.cagreens.org To: County Contacts 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. ALL WEB PAGES FOR THE JUNE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ARE NOW OPERATIONAL Online registration is now open! Please register as soon as possible. The proposal packet and the logistics packet are now available! Please visit: http://cagreens.org/plenary And don't forget to submit your list of delegates and alternates online. Also... A travel fund has been created by the GPCA CC for the upcoming plenary, which will take place on June 24-25 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 June 15, 2006. People requesting checks on time will receive them by mail that week. If there are left over travel funds after the 15th, the Treasurer will continue to honor requests, but late requests, if granted, will not be distributed until after the plenary. - Green Party county and local organizations are encouraged to help their delegates with funds if possible. Please visit http://cagreens.org/plenary for more information about the upcoming Ventura plenary. _______________________________________________ contacts2 mailing list contacts2 at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2 From WB4D23 at aol.com Tue Jun 6 16:04:26 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:04:26 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Ride Needed to Menlo Park Meeting Saturday Afternoon Message-ID: <3ca.3a1afe2.31b763fa@aol.com> I would be willing to attend the Regional Meeting in Menlo Park Saturday afternoon if I could get a ride. Warner (408/295-9353) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Tue Jun 6 19:20:14 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:20:14 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Gay Pride Parade Message-ID: <448637DE.8C8E5D70@greens.org> Are there any volunteers to march in the parade this Sunday in San Jose? We have a slot in the parade reserved, but we need some volunteers to make it worthwhile. -- Jim From gerrygras at earthlink.net Wed Jun 7 11:05:46 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:05:46 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Gore Leads at Box Office Message-ID: <4487157A.1020001@earthlink.net> FYI, Gerry -------- Original Message -------- Al Gore's global warming documentary is finding an audience - in its second weekend in theaters, "An Inconvenient Truth" led all films in box office gross per screen. The movie was shown in 77 theaters and took in $1.34 million - enough to put it at No. 9 in box office gross for the weekend - for an average of $17,615 per screen. The top box office attraction, "The Break Up," brought in $39 million, but it was screened in 3,070 locations, for an average of $12,760 per theater. From gerrygras at earthlink.net Wed Jun 7 11:10:06 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:10:06 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [GPCA Official Notice] Registration and Packets for the Plenary Message-ID: <4487167E.3090401@earthlink.net> ALL WEB PAGES FOR THE JUNE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ARE NOW OPERATIONAL Online registration is now open! Please register as soon as possible. The proposal packet and the logistics packet are now available! Please visit: http://cagreens.org/plenary And don't forget to submit your list of delegates and alternates online. Also... A travel fund has been created by the GPCA CC for the upcoming plenary, which will take place on June 24-25 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 June 15, 2006. People requesting checks on time will receive them by mail that week. If there are left over travel funds after the 15th, the Treasurer will continue to honor requests, but late requests, if granted, will not be distributed until after the plenary. - Green Party county and local organizations are encouraged to help their delegates with funds if possible. Please visit http://cagreens.org/plenary for more information about the upcoming Ventura plenary. From gerrygras at earthlink.net Wed Jun 7 11:54:10 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:54:10 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] CA Primary Results - 6/6/06 Message-ID: <448720D2.4020708@earthlink.net> Information from http://vote.ss.ca.gov/ (Final unofficial results.) ======================================== General Voting Statistics: 15,668,439 Registered Voters 4,388,827 Ballots Cast 28% turnout ======================================== Green Party Statewide Results: Governor - Peter Camejo - 26,210 Lt. Gov - Donna Warren - 24,348 Sec. of S. - Forrest Hill - 24,801 Contoller - Laura Wells - 25,027 Treasurer - Mehul Thakker - 24,326 Atty. Gen. - Michael Wyman - 24,257 Ins. Comm. - Larry Cafiero - 24,082 U.S. Senate - Todd Chretian - 9,964 - Tian Harter - 8,245 - Kent Mesplay - 3,724 - 21,933 ========================================= Green Party Congressional Races: District 1 - Pamela Elizondo - 2,376 District 5 - Jeff Kravitz - 522 District 8 - Kristine Keefer - 2,050 District 14 - Carol Brouillet - 887 District 21 - John R. Miller - 183 District 28 - Byron De Lear - 167 District 29 - William Paparian - 378 ========================================= Green Party State Senate: District 4 - Robert W Vizzard - 927 District 18 - Matthew Rick - 271 ========================================= Green Party State Assembly: District 4 - Gerald M. Fritts - 382 District 6 - Cat Woods - 950 District 12 - Barry Hermanson - 789 District 34 - David M. Silva - 130 District 44 - Ricardo Costa - 203 Philip Koebel - 132 District 53 - Peter L. Thottam - 296 ========================================= NOTE: Of course it is hard to compare numbers between different races. But just in case, remember there are - 53 Congressional Districts - 40 Senate Districts - 80 Assembly Districts ================================================= Additionaly info from http://www.sccgov.org/elections/results/june2006/ Green Party U.S. Senate TODD CHRETIEN 418 39.62% TIAN HARTER 414 39.24% KENT P. MESPLAY 184 17.44% Total 1,055 ========================================= NOTE: this map shows who "won" the various counties: http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/ussen/mapJG.htm Tian won more counties than Todd did. And Tian's color is Green, Todd's color is blue. Gerry From tnharter at ispwest.com Thu Jun 8 12:58:23 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:58:23 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] The rank of soldiers refusing orders to Iraq is escalating... Message-ID: <4488815F.9000307@ispwest.com> http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=7188 -- Tian http://tianharter.org In case you didn't know, I was 2nd in the Green Party Senate Primary. I got at least 8,269 votes, more than I ever got in one election before. You can see my concession speech on the front page of TianHarter.org From tnharter at ispwest.com Fri Jun 9 00:40:35 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:40:35 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] In case you hadn't heard.... Message-ID: <448925F3.2040907@ispwest.com> As I type this, the only suspense left in the Green Party Senate race is right here in Santa Clara County. As I type this, the ROV site* says: Green U.S. SENATOR 2006 Vote For 1 1115/1115 100.00% Candidate Name Vote Count Percent TODD CHRETIEN 432 39.38% TIAN HARTER 429 39.11% KENT P. MESPLAY 192 17.50% Total 1,097 100% Whoever gets this ( I was behind by four votes this morning), the statewide result** is going to look a lot like this: Todd Chretien 10,260 45.8 Tian Harter 8,361 37.4 Kent P. Mesplay 3,783 16.8 Four vote margins don't close that kind of gap. I'm going to be second in the end. The writing is on the wall. An interesting piece of analysis came to my mailbox from Gerry Gras. He pointed out that if you removed San Francisco, Alameda, and Los Angeles Countys you get a different statewide result. LA: Todd Chretien 1,276 43.2 Tian Harter 1,104 37.3 Kent P. Mesplay 578 19.5 Alameda: Todd Chretien 1,498 59.0 Tian Harter 635 24.9 Kent P. Mesplay 410 16.1 SF: Todd Chretien 1,571 64.7 Tian Harter 564 23.2 Kent P. Mesplay 295 12.1 LA+SF+Alameda Countys: Todd Chretien 4345 Tian Harter 2303 Kent Mesplay 1283 Rest of California: Todd Chretien 5915 Tian Harter 6058 Kent Mesplay 2500 Unfortunately, those three Countys are the ones you need to get into the media to reach voters in, and I wasn't able to do that. I have therefore accepted that my race is over. You can see my concession speech at: http://TianHarter.org Tuesday evening I had a better party than I was expecting to be able to throw. See the pictures at: http://tian.greens.org/MountainView/My/PrimaryParty/index.shtml Tian Harter * first footnote see: http://www.sccgov.org/elections/results/june2006/ ** Second footnote see: http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/ussen/59.htm From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Jun 9 15:05:56 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:05:56 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Regional Meeting tomorrow Message-ID: <4489F0C4.8000309@earthlink.net> Reminder that the regional meeting is tomorrow, Gerry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SC-SM] directions to Regional Meeting location Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:24:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jean Comfort The Silicon Valley regional meeting of the Green Party will be held on Saturday, June 10, from 2:00 - 4:00 PM, at 48 Lorelei Lane, Menlo Park < http://tinyurl.com/n9fjc > (home of Arlen and Jean Comfort). How to get there: From highway 101 (from either direction) take the Marsh Road exit going west (away from the Bay) Within about half a mile there are railroad tracks (NOT the commuter train). Immediately after be in the left turn lane to turn left onto Bay Rd. Go about one block and turn left on Christopher (It only goes left) Christopher dead ends into Lorelei Lane. Turn right; we are next to the corner on the right, #48. http://tinyurl.com/n9fjc (If someone is coming via CalTrain, let us know and we will arrange for pick up in Menlo Park.) Jean Comfort 48 Lorelei Lane Menlo Park, CA 94025 jean_comfort at yahoo.com (650)323-7188 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: nsmail.txt URL: From jims at greens.org Fri Jun 9 19:13:26 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:13:26 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Gay Pride Parade - NOT Message-ID: <448A2AC6.B3B4DA6D@greens.org> There are no more volunteers for the parade other than the two of us from the county meeting. We really need at least a half dozen people to do it right so I think we should just pass on it this year. -- Jim From gerrygras at earthlink.net Mon Jun 12 12:41:53 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:41:53 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: [Special Advanced screening of "Road to Guantanamo"] Message-ID: <448DC381.8060800@earthlink.net> -------- Original Message -------- www.amnestyusa.org Amnesty International USA is excited to invite you to an Advanced Screening of the film "Road to Guantanamo" in San Francisco on June 20th before its public release on June 23rd. Scheduled to speak is AIUSA Western Regional Field Director Mona Cadena. San Francisco Screening: When: Tuesday, June 20th at 7:30pm Where: Landmark Embarcadero Theatre One Embarcadero Center, Promenade Level San Francisco, CA 94111 The San Francisco screening is FREE to the public - no reservation process - FIRST COME FIRST SERVE! Please note that the screening will be overbooked, and seating is not guaranteed; as always, you're advised to arrive early. The film "The Road to Guantanamo" is the terrifying first-hand account of three British Citizens who were held for two years without charges in the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Part documentary, part dramatization, the real Tipton Three (Tipton Three, in reference to their town in Britain) tell their stories in interviews throughout the film. The film chronicles the sequence of events that took the trio from Tipton in the British Midlands to their crossing the Afghanistan border just as the U.S. began their invasion. There they were captured by the Northern Alliance and imprisoned in Camp Z-Ray and later at Camp Delta in Guantanmo. The film has already engendered significant controversy due to its critical stance towards the American and British governments. For more about the film please see: www.roadtoguantanamomovie.com -- Terry McCaffrey Area Coordinator Western Region Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator Amnesty International Tel: 408-257-4611 Cell: 408-515-0341 FAX: 408-257-1360 From andi at wrytor.com Tue Jun 13 06:59:12 2006 From: andi at wrytor.com (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:59:12 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] SRI show of "innovative renewable energy" in Menlo Park today! Message-ID: <07A57243-26BB-44A2-B698-9B57FFAE52EA@wrytor.com> Go to www.threelabs.com to see the innovative technology locations! Los Alamos, Lawrence Berkeley, and Lawrence Livermore are the locations cited, and you can bet your britches that the new technology is nuclear related. This is NOT innovation, this is the same ol' same ol' back to haunt and destroy us residents who live within 100 miles of their development. We need to watch and then protest as soon as we know for sure what's going on. SRI is having an open house TODAY at their Menlo Park location, 333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, 94025. They are nearby Sunset Magazine, between 101 and El Camino, in case you can make the 8:30 to 11 AM Expo. Andrea From andid at cagreens.org Tue Jun 13 07:02:59 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:02:59 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: SRI show of "innovative renewable energy" in Menlo Park today! References: <07A57243-26BB-44A2-B698-9B57FFAE52EA@wrytor.com> Message-ID: <9CE76740-8DCD-4A9D-A61B-F2B55AD29201@cagreens.org> Begin forwarded message: > From: Andrea Dorey > Date: June 13, 2006 6:59:12 AM PDT > To: Green South Bay Discussion > Subject: SRI show of "innovative renewable energy" in Menlo Park > today! > > Go to www.threelabs.com to see the innovative technology locations! > Los Alamos, Lawrence Berkeley, and Lawrence Livermore are the > locations cited, and you can bet your britches that the new > technology is nuclear related. > This is NOT innovation, this is the same ol' same ol' back to haunt > and destroy us residents who live within 100 miles of their > development. > We need to watch and then protest as soon as we know for sure > what's going on. > > SRI is having an open house TODAY at their Menlo Park location, > 333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, 94025. > > They are nearby Sunset Magazine, between 101 and El Camino, in case > you can make the 8:30 to 11 AM Expo. > > Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Tue Jun 13 12:16:40 2006 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:16:40 GMT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Will there be a plenary packet review meeting? Message-ID: <20060613.121655.2521.174675@webmail51.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From andid at cagreens.org Tue Jun 13 18:17:28 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:17:28 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: Save NPR and PBS (again) References: <00d501c68f2e$78cee390$fba1480c@dianescomputer> Message-ID: <9BDA61EA-E969-444B-A8DC-930383C9CE22@cagreens.org> FYI, friends. Time to fight back for what we believe in. What's at stake is the last vestige of free speech in the PEG part of public TV. Andrea "We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we cannot have both." ---Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis Begin forwarded message: > Hi, > > Everyone expected House Republicans to give up efforts to kill NPR > and PBS after a massive public outcry stopped them last year. But > they've just voted to eliminate funding for NPR and PBS -- > unbelievably, starting with programs like "Sesame Street." > > Public broadcasting would lose nearly a quarter of its federal > funding this year. Even worse, all funding would be eliminated in > two years--threatening one of the last remaining sources of > watchdog journalism. > > Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS again this > year: > > http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ > > Last year, millions of us took action to save NPR and PBS, and > Congress listened. We can do it again if enough of us sign the > petition in time. > > This would be the most severe cut in the history of public > broadcasting. The Boston Globe reports the cuts "could force the > elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs." NPR's president > expects rural public radio stations may be forced to shut down. > > The House and Senate are deciding if public broadcasting will > survive, and they need to hear from viewers like you. Sign the > petition at: > > http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ > > Thanks! > > > P.S. Read the Boston Globe story on the threat to NPR and PBS at: > > http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1864 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Tue Jun 13 19:04:09 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:04:09 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Will there be a plenary packet review meeting? References: <20060613.121655.2521.174675@webmail51.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <448F6E99.12F05B24@greens.org> We're meeting this Sunday at Warner's house, but I don't remember the time. I think it was 2:00. Anybody? -- Jim "Valerie D. Face" wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Is there a plan to have a plenary packet review meeting that Greens > besides the delegates may attend if they're interested? > > Thanks, > Valerie Face > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From WB4D23 at aol.com Wed Jun 14 18:53:37 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:53:37 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Will there be a plenary packet review meeting? Message-ID: <2d4.905048e.31c217a1@aol.com> In a message dated 6/13/06 12:18:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, vdf at juno.com writes: Is there a plan to have a plenary packet review meeting that Greens besides the delegates may attend if they're interested? This Sunday, June 18th, at my house, 867 North Fifth Street, San Jose (cross street Hedding) from 2:30-5:30 pm in the back yard. Warner (408/295-9353) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Thu Jun 15 08:13:06 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:13:06 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: The Cost of Saving Lives: Must-See Presentation by Shanti Seliz and Daniel Strauss 6/18, 7 pm] Message-ID: <44917902.3010504@charter.net> Just one more update on the immigration issues. -- "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: Dan Bacher Subject: The Cost of Saving Lives: Must-See Presentation by Shanti Seliz and Daniel Strauss 6/18, 7 pm Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:13:41 -0700 Size: 7694 URL: From WB4D23 at aol.com Thu Jun 15 22:18:40 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:18:40 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Comments on selected plenary agenda items Message-ID: <505.bc1cd.31c39930@aol.com> June 15, 2006 To: Anyone Interested -- The following are comments related to agenda items announced for the GPCA General Assembly in Ventura County June 24-25, 2006 These are simply my own questions and positions. Warner Bloomberg _wsb3attyca at aol.com_ (mailto:wsb3attyca at aol.com) Consent Calendar Items Proposed Amended Bylaw 5-4.3 re Quorum Edit item. At the beginning of subparagraph a) the text should read ?Delegates and alternates shall...? Proposed Amended Bylaw 7-1.3.1 re Coordinating Committee meetings. Questions: I thought GPCA Bylaws require committees to publish their meeting agendas two weeks before the scheduled meeting. If there are going to be bylaws about this, why not make it two weeks? Maybe that would help the CC with its planning and communications issues. What happened to the 80% requirement for policy issues vs. 2/3rds for administrative issues? Proposed Amendment to Bylaw 7-1.2 to increase at large Representatives to the CC from 4 to 6. This does not make sense to me. Adding more people who are going to be contentious, or nonparticipating, or unwilling to do their jobs to appoint committee members and work group liaisons, or get plenary agendas published on time, or even show up for a teleconference to constitute a meeting quorum (including absent alternates), are unable to schedule their own annual retreat (including dealing with budget), and have been unable to even respond to the CoCos proposal for a joint retreat, is NOT a formula for addressing the longstanding problems with the Coordinating Committee. I would support a bylaw which creates alternates for At Large Reps, but not expanding the number of the CC votes at this time. Bylaw 2 Purpose statement proposal. This item does not belong on the consent calendar. This is the kind of philosophical and writing item that first should be presented as a report with discussion and then brought back at a f uture plenary for adoption with or without revisions. Regular Agenda Proposal to amend Bylaws to add Section 3.1.3 re Membership -- Edit suggestions: In 2nd paragraph change text to read: ?County organizations may extend County Green Party membership...10 Key Values, described in the County Green Party ?s bylaws.? In 3rd paragraph change text to read: ?Only GPCA members...? In the 4th paragraph change text to read: ?... Coordinating Committee representative and alternate, ...? Proposal to add Bylaw 7-4.2.1 Questions: Is this an attempt at term limits in disguise? If not, there should be an express provision that states the definition of the terms do bar the same person from being re-appointed for an additional term. What happens when the term ends and there has been a delay convening a General Assembly (e.g., in 2006)? More questions about the Bylaws proposals: A number of the proposals are reported as being approved on a 3 to 1 vote. How many people are supposed to be on the Bylaws Committee? If it is more than 4, why wasn?t there a full committee to consider these proposals. Were there additional appointmens after the proposals were considered? Were the proposals reconsidered after the additional members were appointed? What were the opposing considerations for each of the proposals? Why weren?t the dissenting opinions included in the proposals reports? GPCA Candidate Endorsement Policies General Elections: There is a major flaw in this proposal in that it denies any opportunity for legislative candidates in partisan elections (i.e., State Assembly, State Senate, and U.S. Congress) to receive any state party endorsement. This is tactically misguided and is disrespectful to candidates who may want to be able to list such an endorsement. The cure is simple: A. Delete the proposed paragraphs 5. and 6. B. Replace those with the following language: New 5. A candidate for legislative office who has previously received the endorsement of the County Green Party in the elective district, or at least one County Green Party where there are multiple counties in the district, who is the GPCA nominee after the Primary Election, may seek the endorsement of the General Assembly delegates at a plenary held within thirty days after the Primary Election, which, if given, shall constitute the endorsement by the state party. Such endorsements shall be placed upon the agenda at any such state meeting. New 6. In the event a General Assembly is not held within thirty days following the Primary Election, a GPCA nominee for legislative office who has received County Green Party endorsement, may apply to the GPCA Coordinating Committee, which shall have authority upon at least 30 days notice before consideration, to authorize endorsement by the GPCA. I am less concerned about the same issues before the Primary Election, but note that there is no proposal for GPCA endorsement of nonpartisan candidates (although whether they would want such an endorsement is another issue). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WB4D23 at aol.com Thu Jun 15 22:20:22 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:20:22 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: [sfba_members] June 19 Immigration Panel - Santa Clara Message-ID: <4cf.199afe7.31c39996@aol.com> In a message dated 6/14/06 2:45:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, maryannemc at mail2athena.com [on the YNPN list] writes: Hands On Bay Area invites you to a panel discussion on immigration policy and issues facing immigrants in Santa Clara County! Monday, June 19, 2006 7pm-8:30pm Santa Clara Central Park Library 2635 Homestead Road, Santa Clara http://www.library.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/ Confirmed panelists include: - Olivia Soza Mendiola, CEO, Mexican American Community Services Agency - Robert Yabes, Director of Immigration Legal Services, Catholic Charities - Marilyn Lacey, Refugee Services Director, Catholic Charities - Larisa Casillas, Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN) This event is free and open to the public. (Please share this announcement with friends, colleagues, and clients!) It is being presented by a team of volunteers who are engaged in a service learning series focused on immigration issues in Santa Clara County. For more information about Hands On Bay Area, visit: http://www.handsonbayarea.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Subject: Fwd: [sfba_members] June 19 Immigration Panel - Santa Clara Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:00:37 EDT Size: 7666 URL: From tnharter at ispwest.com Fri Jun 16 12:11:07 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:11:07 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Save Hangar One Message-ID: <4493024B.2060700@ispwest.com> > *>Tuesday, June 13 at 11:45 AM* > *>Lenny Siegel * > *>Save Hangar One* > > >Lenny Siegel is executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight, >a non-profit organization that promotes and facilitates public participation in the >oversight of environmental activities at federal facilities, private "Superfund" sites, >and Brownfields. Lenny is also founder of the Alliance for a New Moffett Field and >a spokesperson for the Save Hangar One Committee. > >Lenny will review the engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) for Hangar #1 >recently released by the U.S. Navy, and discuss the efforts of local historic >preservation activists to lobby for a non-demolition alternative. The EE/CA summarizes >the evaluation of 13 alternatives for dealing with the contamination, and describes >the Navy?s recommended alternative (complete demolition and offsite disposal). > Lenny began his talk by pointing out that Hanger One is one of the largest free standing building in the United States. It is 1133 feet long, 200 feet high, and is by far the most recognizable building in Santa Clara County. Most long term residents of the Peninsula have many fond memories of seeing it on their way past Moffett Field. Some even remember seeing the USS Macon, a giant helium airship so big it could work as an aircraft carrier, land there. Lenny explained that as part of the remedial investigation of the wetlands at the end of the runway, a NASA environmental official had found some rare PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) in the land and had traced them back to Hangar One. Further research had brought to light that the walls of Hangar One are made of Galbestos, a sandwich of galvanized steel, PCBs, and Asbestos. The Navy now wants to tear the building down. They think they can do it for about $12 million. Save Hanger One was organized last summer to prevent this from happening. Lenny waved a NASA study that he says shows the costs not included in the Navy analysis bring the actual costs of removing the building to $30 million, about what it would cost to remove the Galbestos siding and replace it with something that looks similar enough but isn't toxic. There have been public meetings about the future of Moffett Field where Save Hangar One turned out hundreds of people who expressed support for Hangar One to the Navy. The leading proposal on what to do with the building if it is saved is to put a museum there. (The most recent TASC speaker spoke on that, please see http://www.mv-voice.com/story.php?story_id=1607 for more information.) Space World has succeeded in putting together a blue ribbon board, including names like Astronaut Sally Ride and Hollywood's James Cameron, but they are all too busy with other projects to do much work on the fundraising. Lenny is looking for all kinds of help on the project of Saving Hanger One. If you know people with power and influence, he would be grateful if you would enlist their help in saving Hangar One. If you have time to write a letter or email to the Navy in support of Hanger One, the address is: *Mr. Rick Weissenborn BRAC Environmental Coordinator Navy BRAC PMO West 1455 Frazee Road Ste 900 San Diego, CA 92108-4310 richard.weissenborn at navy.mil* During Q&A the following came up: The general attitude in the Save Hangar One community is "let's save the building before we get into an argument about what to do with it next." If Hangar One is torn down, the air safety rules limit the size of any replacement building to 70 feet tall. The site is probably not suitable for housing because it is right next to a working airport. There is also a lot of TCE contamination in the area that might make direct reuse a bit of a problem. For more information please visit: http://www.savehangarone.org/ http://www.nuqu.org/ -- Tian http://tianharter.org In case you didn't know, I was 2nd in the Green Party Senate Primary. I got at least 9,208 votes, more than I ever got in one election before. I spent about 52 cents a vote. Todd Chretien spent about $2.50 a vote. You can see my concession speech on the front page of TianHarter.org From wrolley at charter.net Fri Jun 16 14:55:31 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:55:31 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: IMPORTANT - Supervisors Hearing] Message-ID: <449328D3.20609@charter.net> This is an important time to establish a policy of public defined land use in Santa Clara County, rather than develop planned land use. Whatever we can do at this time, we should. It is rather late to influence much via Letters to the Editor. They probably would not be in by the 20th. However, if we could have someone there who, as a representative of the GP-SCC, could make the point that we were the only party central committee to endorse the initiative, that would help them and help us. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Peter Drekmeier Subject: IMPORTANT - Supervisors Hearing Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:14:04 -0700 Size: 3218 URL: From andid at cagreens.org Sat Jun 17 14:31:56 2006 From: andid at cagreens.org (Andrea Dorey) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:31:56 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: IMPORTANT - Supervisors Hearing] In-Reply-To: <449328D3.20609@charter.net> References: <449328D3.20609@charter.net> Message-ID: <23674093-0EB7-4C75-898B-770B48B66A1A@cagreens.org> As an ex-member of the cc, I recommend that the cc consider doing this. Andrea "We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we cannot have both." ---Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis On Jun 16, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Wes Rolley wrote: > This is an important time to establish a policy of public defined > land use in Santa Clara County, rather than develop planned land > use. Whatever we can do at this time, we should. > > It is rather late to influence much via Letters to the Editor. > They probably would not be in by the 20th. However, if we could > have someone there who, as a representative of the GP-SCC, could > make the point that we were the only party central committee to > endorse the initiative, that would help them and help us. > > 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: Peter Drekmeier > Date: June 16, 2006 12:14:04 PM PDT > To: undisclosed-recipients:; > Subject: IMPORTANT - Supervisors Hearing > > > Friends: > > Our campaign for the Santa Clara County Land Conservation > Initiative is progressing wonderfully. Of the 62,000 signatures we > submitted to the Registrar of Voters, more than 58,000 were valid, > far more than the required 36,000. Many thanks to all of you who > helped out! > > Next Tuesday (June 20) the Board of Supervisors will host a public > hearing on the Initiative, and we need you there to lend your > support. The Supervisors will vote to do one of the following: > > 1) Place the Initiative on the November 7 ballot. > 2) Order a report on the impacts of the Initiative. > 3) Adopt the Initiative outright. > > Our preference would be for the Supervisors to adopt the Initiative > outright in order to avoid a costly campaign. The second best > option is for them to put it on the November ballot. > > Please join us on Tuesday, June 20 at 10am at the Board of > Supervisors Chambers, 70 West Hedding St. in San Jose. For those > coming from North County, carpools will leave from the Peninsula > Conservation Center (3921 E. Bayshore Rd. in Palo Alto) at 9:30am. > > You don?t need to speak at the hearing, but your presence is very > important. The developers will be out in full force, so we need to > show the Supervisors that the community is solidly behind the > Initiative. > > Please let me know if you can join us on Tuesday. > > Thank you. > > -Peter Drekmeier > > P.S. Your financial support is extremely important at this time. > Please consider donating online at http://www.openspace2006.org/ > donate.htm > > ----------------------------------- > Peter Drekmeier > Campaign Coordinator > People for Land and Nature (PLAN) > 48 So. Seventh St. > San Jose, CA 95112 > (650) 223-3306 > > Peter at OpenSpace2006.org > www.OpenSpace2006.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 eameece at california.com Fri Jun 16 17:15:31 2006 From: eameece at california.com (E. Alan Meece) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:15:31 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] solstice Message-ID: <449349A3.4434@california.com> Please come, and share with everyone appropriate on your own email list. The media has not been very helpful, so we need extra publicity. Thanks! SUMMER SOLSTICE CELEBRATION Sat., June 24, 7pm Benefit Fundraiser. Come celebrate the beginning of summer. Join Crowman and others in the sacred medicine wheel ceremony with the exciting snake dance. Hear Singing Crystal Bowls, and a special concert appearance by Paradiso on didgeridoo and electronics. Participate in toning and drumming, with blessings and prayers. Donations requested. At Divine Science Community Center. 1540 Hicks Ave, San Jose, CA 95125 >From 17, take Hamilton Ave. east 2 miles; left on Hicks for 3 blocks. For more info contact: Eric Meece (408)448-6726 eameece at california.com Rev. Christine (408)293-3838 cemmerling at earthlink.net From wrolley at charter.net Mon Jun 19 16:45:11 2006 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:45:11 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Reminder - Supervisors' Hearing] Message-ID: <44973707.9050002@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: Peter Drekmeier Subject: Reminder - Supervisors' Hearing Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:54:37 -0700 Size: 2265 URL: From tnharter at ispwest.com Tue Jun 20 16:56:00 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:56:00 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] South Central Farm again... Message-ID: <44988B10.4060205@ispwest.com> A week ago there was a lot of talk about the farm in South Central LA being buldozed. I wanted to see for myself what had happened, so I went down and took these pictures: http://tian.greens.org/LosAngeles/SouthCentralFarm/June14/index.html In other news, this morning I saw the Santa Clara County Supervisors vote to put PLAN's Open Space Initiative on this November's ballot. There were a lot of Developers there with their Realtor friends trying to get them to delay doing that, but 58,000 signatures were too hard to ignore. Supervisor Kniss's proposal passed 4 to 1. Looks like there will be a battle over it in the fall! -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: Added pictures of the South Central Farm after the bulldozer had run through the place like a crazy elephant. From jims at greens.org Tue Jun 20 20:17:05 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:17:05 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Agenda Packet Follow-up Message-ID: <4498BA31.1239BB79@greens.org> During the packet review last Sunday a concern/clarification was brought up on the Quorum proposal (pg 13) of which I am the author. The issue was that the proposal speaks of delegates registered and not alternate delegates. My response was to agree to change the term to "delegate seats" to accomodate the alts. But that was the wrong answer. We're talking about delegates registered at the accreditation table and not about the general plenary registration. Only delegates, and not alternates, accredit-register. If a county is short a delegate, then an alternate converts to a delegate and registers. So the language referring only to delegates is appropriate. -- Jim From WB4D23 at aol.com Wed Jun 21 11:28:22 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:28:22 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Agenda Packet Follow-up Message-ID: <308.6a56100.31cae9c6@aol.com> In a message dated 6/20/06 8:16:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jims at greens.org writes: Only delegates, and not alternates, accredit-register. If a county is short a delegate, then an alternate converts to a delegate and registers. So the language referring only to delegates is appropriate. I'm fine with this explanation. It should be part of the presentation at the plenary. Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Wed Jun 21 20:40:20 2006 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:40:20 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Agenda Packet Follow-up References: <308.6a56100.31cae9c6@aol.com> Message-ID: <449A1124.BDBF27AB@greens.org> > WB4D23 at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/20/06 8:16:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > jims at greens.org writes: > > Only delegates, and not alternates, accredit-register. If > a county is short a delegate, then an alternate converts to > a delegate > and registers. > > So the language referring only to delegates is appropriate. > > I'm fine with this explanation. It should be part of the presentation > at the plenary. Warner Yeah, except this proposal is on the consent calendar so there's no presentation. What are the odds this will pass? -- Jim From MARKETPOIN at aol.com Fri Jun 23 11:19:17 2006 From: MARKETPOIN at aol.com (MARKETPOIN at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:19:17 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Democracy Now to Air Locally? Message-ID: <545.2b9c04.31cd8aa5@aol.com> Dear Friends, I have just read and signed the online petition:"Bring " (SEE BELOW)hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petitionservice, at: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/kqedamy/I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you mightagree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and considersigning yourself. Best wishes,KAREN LEMES -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Upcoming Events - SBM Calendar 6-22-06 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:40:07 -0700 (PDT) From: South Bay Mobilization Reply-To: South Bay Mobilization To: SOUTH BAY MOBILIZATION TO STOP THE WAR CALENDAR ? 6/22/2006 Brought to you by South Bay Mobilization: www.sbm4peace.org Please forward to your e-mail list: Join South Bay Mobilization to Stop the War! To unsubscribe from this list, please scroll to the bottom and follow the simple instructions. Stand for Peace and Justice, Join South Bay Mobilization! To Activists and the Progressive Movement of the Bay Area: Help Bring 'Democracy Now!' to KQED and KTEH We have a unique opportunity in the next few months to influence the programming decisions that will be made because of the merger of two of the Bay Area's PBS TV stations, KTEH and KQED, into one entity: Northern California Public Broadcasting (NCPB). The two TV stations will continue to broadcast separately on Channels 9 and 10, but "joining forces will allow NCPB to offer more diverse programming, educational outreach and community services," according to the president and CEO of KTEH. We have launched a campaign to pressure NCPB to broadcast "Democracy Now!" on a daily basis. We know that TV news is the only source of news for many people. If we succeed, it means that millions of TV viewers from Solano to Santa Cruz will have access to this essential independent news source. Sign the petition at: petitiononline.com/kqedamy/petition.html The campaign to Bring ?Democracy Now!? to KQED/KTEH is sponsored by Peninsula Peace and Justice Center (www.peaceandjustice.org) and South Bay Mobilization (www.sbm4peace.org) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Sun Jun 25 16:48:10 2006 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:48:10 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Tabling 4-th July weekend Message-ID: <449F20BA.90302@sbcglobal.net> The "America's Festival" is on Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday July 1, 2, and 4. We have secured a booth and need helping hands to staff the booth. The Festival itself opens at 3pm on Saturday and at noon on Sunday and Tuesday. It is scheduled to close at 10 pm each of the 3 days. Please let me know if you can put in some hours at the Green Party booth. We'll open at 3 pm Saturday and at noon on Sunday and Tuesday. We'll close when the crowd thins out. Jim Doyle (408) 269-3299 From WB4D23 at aol.com Mon Jun 26 14:16:27 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:16:27 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Quick notes from the GPCA plenary last weekend Message-ID: <269.be52060.31d1a8ab@aol.com> Kern County GP certified by the GPCA CC as a recognized active county organization. San Benito County GP recognized by the General Assembly of Delegates after being specially placed on the agenda. ERWG authorized to move forward on trying to get a legislative sponsor for the draft Elections Code Sections (after years of work on this by Warner and Jim with Gerry and Valerie participating). Mitch Smith affirmed as Silicon Valley Regional Rep. All GPCA nominees for partisan office endorsed by acclamation of the delegates. GPCA budget approved after minor changes. Others who were there, please add to this list. Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fredd at freeshell.org Mon Jun 26 14:24:28 2006 From: fredd at freeshell.org (Fred Duperrault) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:24:28 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: "Oil Out of Congress" Rally - Wednesday] Message-ID: <44A0508C.7010406@freeshell.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: "Oil Out of Congress" Rally - Wednesday Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:04:09 -0700 From: Fred Duperrault To: sosfbay-discus at cagreens.org On late _Wednesday afternoon__,_ an "OIL OUT of CONGRESS" _ _rally will take place at Mountain View's _intersection of El_ _Camino Real and Shoreline Blvd._ _From 5:00 until 6:30,_ scores of people will participate because they are fed up with Congress Members' corrupt practice of accepting campaign contributions - better defined as "bribes" - from the gushing pockets of huge oil corporations and oil related industries. (Three hundred such MoveOn initiated rallies will occur throughout the country.) _You are encouraged to participate_ in the Mountain View demonstration that will also include a group from the "Raging Grannies." Bring more participants and, if you can, bring appropriate signs. (Some signs will be available at the site.) Available parking on Shoreline and El Camino is quite close the intersection. >From Fred Duperrault, local coordinator of the event. (650) 691-1215 and/or fredd at freeshell.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fredd at freeshell.org Mon Jun 26 15:13:27 2006 From: fredd at freeshell.org (Fred Duperrault) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:13:27 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Land Conservation Initiative Endorsement Request Message-ID: <44A05C07.2090707@freeshell.org> FYI: Tommorow night, Tuesday, the Mountain View City Council will be asked to endorse the Santa Clara County Land Conservation Initiative (SCCLCI). The business will be # 17 on the Council's Agenda. Mountain View residents who would like the Council members to pass an endorsement of SCCLCI are encouraged to attend the council meeting to add their support. Fred Duperrault Contact person: Nancy Couperus, (650) 941-4808; couperus at mindspring.com From alexcathy at aol.com Mon Jun 26 21:33:03 2006 From: alexcathy at aol.com (alexcathy at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:33:03 -0400 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Any Thoughts on San Jose? Message-ID: <8C867B9E9CFF7A8-1C7C-3FE4@mblk-d20.sysops.aol.com> Dear Green Friends, Maybe I missed it, but I haven't read a single post here about San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales being indicted on 6 felony charges. Any thoughts on this from Santa Clara Greens? At the risk of sounding like a cynical politician, there ought to be some way we can "spin" this to our advantage. Should we attack him as yet another crooked Clinton-Davis Democrat? Should we defend him as the target of yet another attempted coup d'etat by the usual rightwing union-hating, "minority"-hating big business interests? At the very least, isn't it (yet another) example of the utter bankruptcy of the Democrat-Republican system (doesn't anybody remember how they were hailing this guy as a "great" mayor just a couple of years ago? Doesn't anybody remember Cisco Systems plan to turn Coyote Valley into a big parking lot and how the Establishment hailed Gonzales and his crew for shooting down all the environmental objections?) If Gonzalez is a crook, then he is certainly no more of a crook than Joe Coto, the guy who wrecked the East Side Union High School District before this same San Jose Know-It-All Establishment gave Coto a "Get-Out-of-Jail-and-Go-Free-to-Sacramento" card. Alex Walker ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. From WB4D23 at aol.com Wed Jun 28 21:49:55 2006 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:49:55 EDT Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] GPUS Delegate Apportionment Survey Message-ID: <323.686a14a.31d4b5f3@aol.com> In a message dated 6/28/06 6:14:55 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. ******************************* Below is a questionnaire regarding apportionment issues from the GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee. Responses are accepted from individual Greens as well as state parties. The responses will influence whether and how much the democratic representation of California Green Party members is improved in the national party. Please send your responses to myself, Greg Gerritt and Dean Myerson (cat801 at mindspring.com, gerritt at mindspring.com, greens at deanmyerson.org ). The final deadline for submissions is July 10, but earlier is preferred. I understand it's a complex and sometimes intimidating topic and would be happy to answer questions. 415-897-6989. Cat Woods California GPUS delegation co-coordinator co-chair, GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee ************************** DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE A. Minimum Delegation Threshold: The GPUS has adopted a minimum threshold of 2 delegates on the NC from each state to ensure that all accredited states are represented in our national governing body. Currently there are 44 accreditation states and two caucuses (1 delegate each) with representation on the NC. The number of delegates on the NC is 120 and the number of delegates designated each state based only on the minimum threshold is 90 (44 x 2 + 2). This means that the minimum threshold of delegates allocated to each state accounts for 75% of the NC and the delegates allocated to each state using some measure of proportional strength accounts for 25% of the NC. 1. Do you believe that a higher percentage of delegates should be chosen based on some measure of proportional strength? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know 2. What percentage of the delegates to the NC should be allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength? ___ % 3. To increase the percentage of delegates allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength would you support lowering the minimum delegate threshold to 1 per state or increasing the size of the NC? __ Lower the Minimum Delegate Threshold to 1 __ Increase the size of the NC __ Both __ Neither 4. Would you consider changing to a regional allocation of delegates in order to improve both the proportionality of delegate allocation and the proportional representation within that delegation (for example, to facilitate racial balance as well as gender balance on delegations)? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know B. Proxy or Weighted Voting: One way to increase proportionality without increasing the NC is through weighted or proxy voting, which would allow states to have more votes than delegates. For example a state that currently has 5 delegates could be given 7 votes based on some measure of proportional strength. In this case, the each delegate for that state would cast 1.4 votes during any decision making process. 1. What do you think of weighted or proxy voting, where a state gets more votes than the number of delegates it has? __Support __Do Not Support __Don't Know 2. If you favor weighted voting, is that just for in-person meetings, or for the listserv as well? __ In-person meetings only (e.g a national convention) __ On-line Voting only __ Both __ Neither 3. If you would accept weighted voting, what is the maximum number of votes you would accept one delegate casting? (e.g., 2.0, 3.5, no limit). ______ C. Fractional Voting: A similar method of increasing proportionality is through fractional voting. By splitting a single vote into fractions, a state is better represent minority views, especially with small delegations, in proportion to the support for that view. For example, a state might have 2 votes to cast, but could cast 1.5 yes and 0.5 no in order to reflect a 3:1 split in opinion. 1. Would you consider allowing states to use fractional voting, if it didn't affect overall vote proportionality? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know 2. If yes, would you consider separating the number of state delegates from the number of votes allotted to that state? (For example, a state with three votes might have six delegates. This might increase participation at the national level.) __ Yes __ No 3. If yes on #1, is there a limit to how small you think a vote can be split (e.g., 1/2 vote, 1/4 vote, etc.)? ____ D. Determining Proportional Strength: One way to determine the proportion strength of the Green Party in each state is to use several criteria to estimate membership size and then take an average value of those criteria. The list of possible criteria currently being discussed by the DAC is included in question 2 below. 1. Would you favor allowing states to choose a subset of criteria from the larger list that best fits the conditions, laws, and bylaws of their state party, or do you think every state should use the same set of criteria? __ Subset of Criteria __ Same Criteria 2. Below is a list of possible criteria we could use to allow states to determine their proportional strength relative to other states. Please check all criteria that you think would be appropriate to use as a measure of proportional strength. __ Number of registered Green voters __ Green membership rolls (for non-registration states) __ Number of elected Greens __ Number of Green candidates that have run for office (any) __ Total number of Greens running for statewide and federal office (partisan races) __ Maximum number of votes cast for a single Green candidate __ Total number of votes cast for all Green candidates in the state __ Total number of votes cast for Greens candidates for local office __ Total number of votes for David Cobb __ Total number of votes for Ralph Nader (2004) __ Total number of votes for David Cobb and Ralph Nader combined __ State population size __Others (please list): i. ii. iii. iv. v. 3. If you favored allowing states to use a subset of criteria in question 1, what number of the criteria that you approved in the question above is the appropriate number of criteria states should choose from that list? _____ 4. If a method for determining the proportional strength of each state is adopted that is based on some calculations of Green accomplishment how often do you think the NC numbers should be recalculated based on new elections? __Every year __Every 2 years __Every 4 years Other comments: [You may wish to comment on whether you think the apportionment formula itself should be revisited periodically and, if so, how often.] _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Subject: Fwd: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] GPUS Delegate Apportionment Survey Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:03:06 EDT Size: 26772 URL: From alexcathy at aol.com Thu Jun 29 08:09:25 2006 From: alexcathy at aol.com (alexcathy at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:09:25 -0400 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] San Jose - Whatever Happened to "Think Globally, Work Locally" ? Message-ID: <8C869A52523A50A-1564-93@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Whatever happened to that great progressive slogan: THINK GLOBALLY, WORK LOCALLY As I write this the City of San Jose, third largest city in California, 10th largest in the nation, and the so-called Capital of Silicon Valley is in a major political crisis. San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales has been indicted on six counts of corruption right in the middle of a very hotly contested election. And yet... I want to know what Greens think about what is happening here. To date I have not seen or heard a single comment by any of my Northern California Green Party comrades. Instead, I read e-mails about tedious plenary minutiae and, frankly, meaningless resolutions to impeach President Bush. My personal feelings about this matter with Mayor Gonzales are similar to my feelings about the Clinton impeachment in 1998. Gonzales is a sleaze. But so are his enemies. And his enemies are my enemies. Gonzales is yet another example of one of these pain-in-the-ass "New Democrats" who likes to butter up the perpetually discontented "business community." He is a "Good Latino" with a Spanish surname who doesn't speak Spanish and is appropriately deferential to "Ruling Class" and the "Master Race." So, now the San Jose City Council -- all Democrats -- are making a big show of demanding the resignation of the "New Democrat" mayor over a deal wich they, in fact, approved. The San Jose story (like the Oakland story and the San Francisco story and the Los Angeles story), is just another example of exactly how and why the 2 corporate parties are leading this nation to perdition. * * * Last night I attended a presentation at Black Oak Books in Berkeley featuring Cindy Sheehan, Paul Rockwell, and Aimee Allison. They are co-authors of a new book titled "Ten Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military." Cindy Sheehan made the important point that electing Democrats to Congress or even electing a Democratic president in 2008 will make no difference unless we challenge the ideology that makes "Bushism" possible. That was a nice segue for Aimee Allison to crow about how "that's why I am a member of the Green Party." Aimee Allison is a candidate for the Oakland City Council. Out of a large field she has made it into the runoff election for this fall. She may win. Think Globally, Work Locally. Alex Walker ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. From baalavi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 09:23:55 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: San Jose - Whatever Happened to "Think Globally, Work Locally" ? Message-ID: <20060629162355.63644.qmail@web52112.mail.yahoo.com> Alex, Right next to your post, I received this in the mail. Not quite a reply to the points you raised, but somehow I found common points in both. [Perhaps Greens telling Davis to step down ...] Whether they have anything in common or not, oh well, hope you'd find it interesting or use "DEL" key. ba ================================>> Begin Excerpt >> >> Marc wrote: The only apology needed here is from Nader to the Greens for: Then went on to repeat the tirade about their ( San Francisco Greens and their progressive base) suffering all sorts of setbacks from Nader's run. Kamran's response: Marc, I am not Nader. I did not vote for Al Gore because: - Al Gore does not represent me by any measure important to me. The differences between ham, fish and chicken don't matter to a vegetarian. - And my assessment of voting for the lesser evil for four decades is: Increasingly worse Democrats, not one better Republican, a complete breakdown of the electoral process and complete handover of the 3 branches of government to an increaingly shrinking number of corporations (now less than a dozen). Are you not the same Marc that said "One definition of insanity is repeating the same patterns and expecting different results." ? These are what you should have been telling your progressive base, instead of making it your business to chant "Don't run, Nader" with them... I have a right to be purposeful and I am not Nader. I have a right to vote (14th amendment acknowledges that). I have weighed and do not wish to cast a vote for anyone, REGARDLESS OF THEIR "POSITIONS", who would concentrate power for the two party system. And I did not cheat any Democrats from their right to vote. They did violate laws to keep me from voting. They also cheated a lot of others to make them think that Al Gore lost because of Nader. They have lost several hundred important elected federal and state level posts, from Senate, House, Governors... in places that they were shoe-ins. They have done all that, over 2 decades, with no Nader or Greens running against them. Remember them saying "If you don't vote for Davis, Arnold will become governor? Remember we were writing them to ask Davis to resign, thus stopping the recall election, and let Bustamante become governor? Ask Thomas to forward you the first and most elegant one.... Remember them, then saying "If you don't vote for Bustamante, Arnold will become governor."? I do. They lost governorship of California, and they could have easily kept it!!!!!!! They have lost, not because anyone split "their" votes but because they are losers. The fruits of 60's and 70's were handed, in a silver platter, to the Democratic Party and the idiots lost them. Now they are blaming Bush for their own decades-long follies. Tell your progressive base that The Republican Party has some validity: They say they represent the corporations and they do.. The Democratic Party is the imposter party; They do not represent whom they claim to represent. The sooner that party is over the better. And I have no intention of voting for Democrats so they don't lose. Because they are losers and I don't want to throw my vote away. What is so complicated that your progressive base does not understand? Will then, your progressive base nag why I excercised my right? And will you continue nagging and blaming me for alienating your progressive base and your other failures? Will you continue the false accusation that people are making laws to prevent you from local work? SHOULD I APOLOGIZE, if you don't have the nerve to tell your progressive base that my votes are mine and none of their progressive business? You should be busy doing what you should have done in 2000 and 2004: Telling them it is not progressive to demand that others see things their way. And it is reactionary to try to keep someone, bad as s/he may be, off the ballot... so the people who would have voted for her/him, have no choice but the one you (your progressive base) would want them to have. What else could the implications of "Nader, don't run!" be? Don't give-in to confusion my friend, this has little to do with Nader. Kamran << End ================================ alexcathy at aol.com wrote: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:09:25 -0400 From: alexcathy at aol.com To: gpca-mediawg at cagreens.org, sosfbay-discuss at greens.org Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] San Jose - Whatever Happened to "Think Globally, Work Locally" ? Whatever happened to that great progressive slogan: THINK GLOBALLY, WORK LOCALLY As I write this the City of San Jose, third largest city in California, 10th largest in the nation, and the so-called Capital of Silicon Valley is in a major political crisis. San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales has been indicted on six counts of corruption right in the middle of a very hotly contested election. And yet... I want to know what Greens think about what is happening here. To date I have not seen or heard a single comment by any of my Northern California Green Party comrades. Instead, I read e-mails about tedious plenary minutiae and, frankly, meaningless resolutions to impeach President Bush. My personal feelings about this matter with Mayor Gonzales are similar to my feelings about the Clinton impeachment in 1998. Gonzales is a sleaze. But so are his enemies. And his enemies are my enemies. Gonzales is yet another example of one of these pain-in-the-ass "New Democrats" who likes to butter up the perpetually discontented "business community." He is a "Good Latino" with a Spanish surname who doesn't speak Spanish and is appropriately deferential to "Ruling Class" and the "Master Race." So, now the San Jose City Council -- all Democrats -- are making a big show of demanding the resignation of the "New Democrat" mayor over a deal wich they, in fact, approved. The San Jose story (like the Oakland story and the San Francisco story and the Los Angeles story), is just another example of exactly how and why the 2 corporate parties are leading this nation to perdition. * * * Last night I attended a presentation at Black Oak Books in Berkeley featuring Cindy Sheehan, Paul Rockwell, and Aimee Allison. They are co-authors of a new book titled "Ten Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military." Cindy Sheehan made the important point that electing Democrats to Congress or even electing a Democratic president in 2008 will make no difference unless we challenge the ideology that makes "Bushism" possible. That was a nice segue for Aimee Allison to crow about how "that's why I am a member of the Green Party." Aimee Allison is a candidate for the Oakland City Council. Out of a large field she has made it into the runoff election for this fall. She may win. Think Globally, Work Locally. Alex Walker ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fredd at freeshell.org Thu Jun 29 13:32:12 2006 From: fredd at freeshell.org (Fred Duperrault) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:32:12 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] GPUS Delegate Apportionment Survey Message-ID: <44A438CC.1040604@freeshell.org> In a message dated 6/28/06 6:14:55 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. ******************************* Below is a questionnaire regarding apportionment issues from the GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee. Responses are accepted from individual Greens as well as state parties. The responses will influence whether and how much the democratic representation of California Green Party members is improved in the national party. Please send your responses to myself, Greg Gerritt and Dean Myerson (cat801 at mindspring.com, gerritt at mindspring.com, greens at deanmyerson.org ). The final deadline for submissions is July 10, but earlier is preferred. I understand it's a complex and sometimes intimidating topic and would be happy to answer questions. 415-897-6989. Cat Woods California GPUS delegation co-coordinator co-chair, GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee ************************** DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE A. Minimum Delegation Threshold: The GPUS has adopted a minimum threshold of 2 delegates on the NC from each state to ensure that all accredited states are represented in our national governing body. Currently there are 44 accreditation states and two caucuses (1 delegate each) with representation on the NC. The number of delegates on the NC is 120 and the number of delegates designated each state based only on the minimum threshold is 90 (44 x 2 + 2). This means that the minimum threshold of delegates allocated to each state accounts for 75% of the NC and the delegates allocated to each state using some measure of proportional strength accounts for 25% of the NC. 1. Do you believe that a higher percentage of delegates should be chosen based on some measure of proportional strength? X Yes __ No __ Don't Know 2. What percentage of the delegates to the NC should be allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength? 45 % 3. To increase the percentage of delegates allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength would you support lowering the minimum delegate threshold to 1 per state or increasing the size of the NC? __ Lower the Minimum Delegate Threshold to 1 X Increase the size of the NC __ Both __ Neither 4. Would you consider changing to a regional allocation of delegates in order to improve both the proportionality of delegate allocation and the proportional representation within that delegation (for example, to facilitate racial balance as well as gender balance on delegations)? __ Yes X No __ Don't Know B. Proxy or Weighted Voting: One way to increase proportionality without increasing the NC is through weighted or proxy voting, which would allow states to have more votes than delegates. For example a state that currently has 5 delegates could be given 7 votes based on some measure of proportional strength. In this case, the each delegate for that state would cast 1.4 votes during any decision making process. 1. What do you think of weighted or proxy voting, where a state gets more votes than the number of delegates it has? __Support X Do Not Support __Don't Know 2. If you favor weighted voting, is that just for in-person meetings, or for the listserv as well? __ In-person meetings only (e.g a national convention) __ On-line Voting only __ Both X_ Neither 3. If you would accept weighted voting, what is the maximum number of votes you would accept one delegate casting? (e.g., 2.0, 3.5, no limit). ______ C. Fractional Voting: A similar method of increasing proportionality is through fractional voting. By splitting a single vote into fractions, a state is better represent minority views, especially with small delegations, in proportion to the support for that view. For example, a state might have 2 votes to cast, but could cast 1.5 yes and 0.5 no in order to reflect a 3:1 split in opinion. 1. Would you consider allowing states to use fractional voting, if it didn't affect overall vote proportionality? __ Yes X No __ Don't Know 2. If yes, would you consider separating the number of state delegates from the number of votes allotted to that state? (For example, a state with three votes might have six delegates. This might increase participation at the national level.) __ Yes __ No 3. If yes on #1, is there a limit to how small you think a vote can be split (e.g., 1/2 vote, 1/4 vote, etc.)? ____ D. Determining Proportional Strength: One way to determine the proportion strength of the Green Party in each state is to use several criteria to estimate membership size and then take an average value of those criteria. The list of possible criteria currently being discussed by the DAC is included in question 2 below. 1. Would you favor allowing states to choose a subset of criteria from the larger list that best fits the conditions, laws, and bylaws of their state party, or do you think every state should use the same set of criteria? _X_ Subset of Criteria __ Same Criteria 2. Below is a list of possible criteria we could use to allow states to determine their proportional strength relative to other states. Please check all criteria that you think would be appropriate to use as a measure of proportional strength. _X_ Number of registered Green voters _X_ Green membership rolls (for non-registration states) __ Number of elected Greens __ Number of Green candidates that have run for office (any) __ Total number of Greens running for statewide and federal office (partisan races) __ Maximum number of votes cast for a single Green candidate _X_ Total number of votes cast for all Green candidates in the state __ Total number of votes cast for Greens candidates for local office __ Total number of votes for David Cobb __ Total number of votes for Ralph Nader (2004) _X_ Total number of votes for David Cobb and Ralph Nader combined __ State population size __Others (please list): i. ii. iii. iv. v. 3. If you favored allowing states to use a subset of criteria in question 1, what number of the criteria that you approved in the question above is the appropriate number of criteria states should choose from that list? _____ 4. If a method for determining the proportional strength of each state is adopted that is based on some calculations of Green accomplishment how often do you think the NC numbers should be recalculated based on new elections? __Every year _X_Every 2 years __Every 4 years Other comments: [You may wish to comment on whether you think the apportionment formula itself should be revisited periodically and, if so, how often.] Every 2 (four)years/______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Subject: Fwd: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] GPUS Delegate Apportionment Survey Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:03:06 EDT Size: 26773 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: file:///tmp/nsmail.txt URL: From tnharter at ispwest.com Thu Jun 29 15:31:15 2006 From: tnharter at ispwest.com (Tian Harter) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:31:15 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] San Jose - Whatever Happened to "Think Globally, Work Locally" ? In-Reply-To: <8C869A52523A50A-1564-93@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C869A52523A50A-1564-93@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <44A454B3.3030505@ispwest.com> alexcathy at aol.com wrote: >Whatever happened to that great progressive slogan: > > THINK GLOBALLY, WORK LOCALLY > > As I write this the City of San Jose, third largest city in >California, 10th largest in the nation, and the so-called Capital of >Silicon Valley is in a major political crisis. San Jose Mayor Ron >Gonzales has been indicted on six counts of corruption right in the >middle of a very hotly contested election. > >And yet... > >I want to know what Greens think about what is happening here. To date >I have not seen or heard a single comment by any of my Northern >California Green Party comrades. Instead, I read e-mails about tedious >plenary minutiae and, frankly, meaningless resolutions to impeach >President Bush. > >My personal feelings about this matter with Mayor Gonzales are similar >to my feelings about the Clinton impeachment in 1998. Gonzales is a >sleaze. But so are his enemies. And his enemies are my enemies. >Gonzales is yet another example of one of these pain-in-the-ass "New >Democrats" who likes to butter up the perpetually discontented >"business community." He is a "Good Latino" with a Spanish surname who >doesn't speak Spanish and is appropriately deferential to "Ruling >Class" and the "Master Race." So, now the San Jose City Council -- all >Democrats -- are making a big show of demanding the resignation of the >"New Democrat" mayor over a deal wich they, in fact, approved. > > I've talked to Mayor Gonzales once in my entire life. I got about two thirds of the way through my little speech and the guy ripped my sticker out of my hands and said "that's why I live downtown." Then he turned away, and has ignored me ever since. I just can't get excited about defending the guy. He's too rude for my taste. >The San Jose story (like the Oakland story and the San Francisco story >and the Los Angeles story), is just another example of exactly how and >why the 2 corporate parties are leading this nation to perdition. > > I agree, but on the ground working the crowd in San Jose is a pleasure to me. I push enough stickers to pay for the light rail ticket home often enough. That's my idea of working locally. > * * * > >Last night I attended a presentation at Black Oak Books in Berkeley >featuring Cindy Sheehan, Paul Rockwell, and Aimee Allison. They are >co-authors of a new book titled "Ten Excellent Reasons Not to Join the >Military." Cindy Sheehan made the important point that electing >Democrats to Congress or even electing a Democratic president in 2008 >will make no difference unless we challenge the ideology that makes >"Bushism" possible. > >That was a nice segue for Aimee Allison to crow about how "that's why I >am a member of the Green Party." > >Aimee Allison is a candidate for the Oakland City Council. Out of a >large field she has made it into the runoff election for this fall. She >may win. > > I expect I'll be walking at least a precinct or two for her this fall... >Think Globally, Work Locally. > > Amen brother! -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: Added pictures of the MVVP 2500 comemoration. Another fine Kurt Vonnegut read about the current state or the USA: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13659.htm From baalavi at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 13:01:01 2006 From: baalavi at yahoo.com (Bob Alavi) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] GPCA distribution? Message-ID: <20060630200101.92001.qmail@web52114.mail.yahoo.com> Does this sound right or a virus?! Just received a note prefixed with GPCA (from Judson -- Admin) with the subject line: "Your medicine is rEady", or something close. I deleted it anyway. ba --------------------------------- 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 gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Jun 30 14:54:08 2006 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:54:08 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Request for Agenda Items Message-ID: <44A59D80.7050106@earthlink.net> Please submit your agenda items for Thursday July 6th's meeting. Deadline for submissions is Monday 7/03. I would appreciate it if you would include time estimate(s) and presenter(s). Thanks, Gerry From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Fri Jun 30 15:02:51 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:02:51 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] GPCA distribution? Message-ID: >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT) >From: Bob Alavi >To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] GPCA distribution? >Does this sound right or a virus?! > > Just received a note prefixed with GPCA (from Judson -- Admin) with the subject line: "Your medicine is rEady", or something close. > > I deleted it anyway. *Everything* in a junk email is a lie, except those "Received" lines in the message header that were generated by your ISP. The From, envelope-sender, and Subject are lies. The "remove me" link is a lie. The language encoding and attachment type are lies. The story about the widow with the box of money is a lie. You can ignore it all. Or you can look up the sender's IP address and report it. Comcast and AT&T obviously don't care about their residential customers who get spamming trojans. But sometimes it's a school or library with a compromised server. They're almost always glad to hear about it. Let 'em know the Green Party is looking out for them even if their giant corporate ISP and their software vendor aren't. Handy lookup tools at dnsstuff.com, samspade.org, geektools.com. Cameron From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Fri Jun 30 22:59:18 2006 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:59:18 -0700 Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] impeachment resolution flyer Message-ID: At the last minute I decided we needed one for tabling this weekend. http://gandhi.greens.org/cls/impeach.pdf I used KWord so here is the document source. http://gandhi.greens.org/cls/impeach.kwd If you want to hack on it you might need the text alone or RTF for Abiword or MS-Word. http://gandhi.greens.org/cls/impeach.txt http://gandhi.greens.org/cls/impeach.rtf Cameron