From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Dec 1 16:27:08 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:27:08 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Occupy Videos In-Reply-To: <4ED81894.2080709@earthlink.net> References: <4ED81894.2080709@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4ED81B5C.20408@earthlink.net> FYI, there will be Occupy Videos tomorrow in Palo Alto: http://transitionpaloalto.org/2011/11/12/films-of-vision-and-hope-december-occupy-wall-street-whats-happened-whats-next/ Gerry From wrolley at charter.net Thu Dec 1 20:47:48 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:47:48 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Luntz Warns GOP on Occupy Wall Street, "Don't Say Capitalism" Because Americans "Think Capitalism Is Immoral" | ThinkProgress Message-ID: <4ED85874.5050900@charter.net> Spencer and everyone else involved with Occupy activities should be well aware of the work of Dr. Frank Luntz. Also keep this handy when you listen to any Republican Dictator Presidential candidate. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/01/380121/luntz-gop-occupy-wall-street-capitalism-is-immoral/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Thu Dec 1 22:50:06 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:50:06 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Bodacious Bank Bailouts Message-ID: <4ED8751E.9020501@earthlink.net> Some interesting numbers about the bank bailouts. "7-7-7: Jobless? Face It. Obama's Not That Into You" http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/01-8 Gerry From tnharter at aceweb.com Thu Dec 1 23:19:23 2011 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:19:23 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Move to Amend making progress in LA Message-ID: <4ED87BFB.7090503@aceweb.com> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/01/1038535/-Los-Angeles-Poised-to-Be-First-Major-US-City-to-Call-for-Ending-Corporate-Personhood -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: US National debt now $15 Trillion plus. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Kansas quarter. From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Dec 2 00:45:21 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:45:21 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Arrested for Voter Registration? Message-ID: <4ED89021.3040607@earthlink.net> Former Congressional Candidate Ray Lutz arrested in San Diego while doing voter registration. A brief story from NBC: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Politician-Arrested-for-Setting-up-Voter-Registration-Table-134774423.html A more comprehensive story: http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/8006 (and provides an email address and some phone numbers) Arrest Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsHlNR-nVR0 Gerry From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Dec 2 11:14:11 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:14:11 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] S. 1867 passed Message-ID: <4ED92383.2080103@earthlink.net> The vote was 93-7, so every Senator voted. The No votes were Coburn (R-OK) Harkin (D-IA) Lee (R-UT) Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY) Sanders (I-VT) Wyden (D-OR) Note that this is 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 1 Independent. ... Glenn Greenwald's opinion on this: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/ Here's another from someone who wrote a book about Guantanamo: "Deranged Senate Votes for Military Detention of All Terror Suspects and a Permanent Guant?namo" http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/02-7 Gerry From carolineyacoub at att.net Fri Dec 2 14:36:05 2011 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:36:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: RELEASE Green Pres. candidate Stein calls on Obama to veto Defense Authorization Message-ID: <1322865365.87178.YahooMailRC@web181010.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Fri, December 2, 2011 1:29:15 PM Subject: RELEASE Green Pres. candidate Stein calls on Obama to veto Defense Authorization >Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:15:57 -0500 >Subject: RELEASE Green Pres. candidate Stein calls on Obama to veto >Defense Authorization >From: Green News - DC > >(Forwarded) > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ~ Jill Stein for President >http://www.jillstein.org > >Contact: Ben Manski, Campaign Manager, Ben at Manski.org, 608 239-6915 > > >Stein calls on Obama to veto Defense Authorization as "expensive, un-American" > > >Jill Stein said today that if she were president she would veto the >pending National Defense Authorization Bill as needlessly expensive >and because it violates civil liberties by restricting the >constitutional right to a fair trial. Stein is running for president >as a Green Party candidate. > >"Our constitutional liberties have been under attack over the past >decade, a victim of this unending war on terrorism. Congress wants to >authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without >charge, and that is wrong - and the very definition of un-American. If >elected, I will restore our political and civil liberty protections," >said Stein. > >The National Defense Authorization Act would eliminate protections >against the use of the military against our own citizens on American >soil, as articulated by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It would also >empower the president and our armed forces to detain U.S. citizens and >others without trial based on unsubstantiated suspicions that such >persons have been involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, or >have supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces that are >engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition >partners." > >Individuals could also be tried before a military court or transferred >"to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any >other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." > >An amendment by Senator Udall to modify this section was rejected by >the U.S. Senate on Tuesday. > >Jill Stein also supports major cuts in the "massive, bloated military >budget." The Senate is voting this week on the full $682.5 billion >Defense Authorization Bill. Passage of the bill would mean that the >amount the U.S. spends on its military would nearly be the same as the >rest of the world combined. > >"America needs a peace dividend to invest in jobs, rebuild our >nation's infrastructure, pay off student loans, stop foreclosures on >homes, and invest in renewable energy and conservation needed to stop >the growing problem of climate change. The military budget needed >major cuts ten years ago, and since then Congress has doubled it," >said Dr. Stein. > >Even if Congress permits the 10% automatic defense reductions required >in the wake of the deficit reduction super-committee failure, defense >spending would actually continue to increase since the reductions are >only cuts in reference to the rate of growth. > >Stein pointed out that her views -- unlike those of most of the >Republican presidential contenders -- are similar to traditional >conservative beliefs that oppose a large military and the use of our >defense forces as the world's policeman. Stein noted that fifty years >ago, President Eisenhower, the commander of the Allied Forces in WWII, >warned the American people to be careful of the growing power of the >military-industrial-Congress complex. The U.S. did not have a large >permanent army or arms industry before then, always scaling the >military back after a war. > >"We need to bring our troops home not only from the Middle East but >from most of the more than one hundred countries where we have bases. >Our massive military budget actually increases the security threat to >the American people by undermining economic security at home and >distorting our foreign policy. It leads to the use of the military >where it is an inappropriate and ineffective response that exacerbates >hostilities better addressed by diplomatic means. Right-sizing the >military would not only lead to a healthier economy at home but would >also move us towards real security around the world." > > ># # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 18:36:32 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:36:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Concerns about Move To Amend In-Reply-To: <1322865365.87178.YahooMailRC@web181010.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1322865365.87178.YahooMailRC@web181010.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1322966192.69754.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hello all, ? I enjoyed helping with the Peace Fair table today.? We had a lot of people come in towards the end. ? I have one concern however.? A petition was circulated from the Green Party table today concerning Move To Amend. The petition was fine, except that it had a specific amendment included that signers were endorsing when they signed.? I'm not sure that people gathering signatures were pointing out all aspects of the proposed amendment.? I don't have the exact wording of the amendment on the petition in front of me, but as I recall it had the same three points that Move To Amend proposed initially, including corporations are not people, money is not speech and lastly and of most concern to me a statement to the effect that local governments should not have their laws preempted by state or national laws or global treaties.? This last point was why I specifically asked?at the last general meeting that the Santa Clara County Greens?endorse Move To Amend only in a general way and to not endorse any specific amendment.?As I understand it this motion was agreed to with no blocking objections.? Checking the web site that we have on the bumper stickers we were selling (http://www.movetoamend.org) I find a brand new proposal for an amendment that has not a trace of the original point #3.?See http://movetoamend.org/amendment?.?I don't see any place to sign a petition to support this version of the amendment.?? We should have a discussion at the next general meeting (well, the next general BUSINESS meeting I suppose, one that is not just a party)?about both versions of this proposed amendment and have a discussion about how we should proceed if we have people at the Green Party table who want to have people sign a Move To Amend petition with a specific amendment proposal on it. ? As a small business owner (sole proprietor) I am concerned that the part of the newest proposed amendment that strips corporations of all their rights will also strip small business owners of all their rights, even though they are often already fully liable for all their actions as individuals and are?often not hiding behind the fig leaf of incorporation. Unincorporated small business owners are people and should be protected under the constitution the same as any other "person".? The wording of the latest amendment proposal however includes the term "Artificial entities", which could include the common forms employed by small business owners such as sole proprietorships and ficticious business names.? The only right still protected if you are acting on behalf of a business is?freedom of the press.?Because businesses are run by people who have to answer the door when the state comes knocking, their rights as people who have invested time and energy in their own form of free speech (making a statement by building a web site or making a product) will likely be violated if the business entitiy has no inalienalbe rights against unwarranted search and seizure for example.??Money is not speech only during and to influence an election according to this amendment and that may be an important distinction as money used at other times definitely is speech. ?Making sure the courts are crystal clear about what it means to spend money at "other times" or in "other manners" vs arbitrarily defining too much time or influence as being related to an election is also important. The distinctions that are attempted to be made between commercial and nocommercial uses and speech even under current law?are often contrived and often violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.? Copyright law and web site TOU contracts?are a subject best left to another discussion, however. Below is the proposed amendment in its latest form: Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking Amendment Section 1 [Corporations are not people and can be regulated] The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.?? Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and?are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined?by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated] Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit?contributions and expenditures, including a candidate?s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.? Federal, State and local government?shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech?under the First?Amendment. Section 3? Nothing contained in this?amendment?shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press. ? Help Us Name The Amendment! What do you think the amendment should be called? We want to hear from you! Here are some ideas already proposed: * Amendment to End Corporate Rule * Clean Elections Amendment * Abolish Corporate Personhood Amendment * Amendment to Remove Corporations from the Constitution * End Corporate Personhood Amendment * Making Democracy Real Amendment * The Democracy Renewal Amendment * Government of the People Amendment * The 99% Amendment * The Amendment to Liberate Democracy (or Our Republic) * We the People Amendment * The Amendment to Separate Corporation and State * The Peoples Personhood Amendment * Corporations are Not People, Money is Not Speech Amendment * The Common Sense Amendment What do you think? Let us know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Sat Dec 3 19:35:57 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:35:57 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Concerns about Move To Amend In-Reply-To: <1322966192.69754.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1322865365.87178.YahooMailRC@web181010.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1322966192.69754.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EDAEA9D.2020609@prodsyse.com> On 12/3/2011 6:36 PM, John Thielking wrote: > Hello all, > I enjoyed helping with the Peace Fair table today. We had a lot of > people come in towards the end. > I have one concern however. A petition was circulated from the Green > Party table today concerning Move To Amend. The petition was fine, > except that it had a specific amendment included that signers were > endorsing when they signed. I'm not sure that people gathering > signatures were pointing out all aspects of the proposed amendment. I > don't have the exact wording of the amendment on the petition in front > of me, but as I recall it had the same three points that Move To Amend > proposed initially, including corporations are not people, money is > not speech and lastly and of most concern to me a statement to the > effect that local governments should not have their laws preempted by > state or national laws or global treaties. This last point was why I > specifically asked at the last general meeting that the Santa Clara > County Greens endorse Move To Amend only in a general way and to not > endorse any specific amendment. As I understand it this motion was > agreed to with no blocking objections. Checking the web site that we > have on the bumper stickers we were selling > (http://www.movetoamend.org) I find a brand new proposal for an > amendment that has not a trace of the original point #3. See > http://movetoamend.org/amendment . I don't see any place to sign a > petition to support this version of the amendment. We should have a > discussion at the next general meeting (well, the next general > BUSINESS meeting I suppose, one that is not just a party) about both > versions of this proposed amendment and have a discussion about how we > should proceed if we have people at the Green Party table who want to > have people sign a Move To Amend petition with a specific amendment > proposal on it. It was my understanding that we would have an abbreviated meeting Dec. 15, though the main "business" would be a party. This is certainly a hot topic and worthy of both formal and informal discussion that evening. > As a small business owner (sole proprietor) I am concerned that the > part of the newest proposed amendment that strips corporations of all > their rights will also strip small business owners of all their > rights, even though they are often already fully liable for all their > actions as individuals and are often not hiding behind the fig leaf of > incorporation. Unincorporated small business owners are people and > should be protected under the constitution the same as any other > "person". The wording of the latest amendment proposal however > includes the term "Artificial entities", which could include the > common forms employed by small business owners such as sole > proprietorships and ficticious business names. The only right still > protected if you are acting on behalf of a business is freedom of the > press. Because businesses are run by people who have to answer the > door when the state comes knocking, their rights as people who have > invested time and energy in their own form of free speech (making a > statement by building a web site or making a product) will likely be > violated if the business entitiy has no inalienalbe rights against > unwarranted search and seizure for example. I'm not an attorney, but I don't see that: If you are a sole proprietor with or without a fictitious business name, the business is your personal property. The Fourth amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated .. ." There have doubtless been many court decisions that could be cited on the exact legal definition of "houses, papers, and effects", but note that it does not say "homes". I would expect that "houses, papers, and effects" would include a farmer's barn, a journeyman's tools, and a shopkeeper's shop and contents. Of course, we'd have to do further research to be sure. > Money is not speech only during and to influence an election according > to this amendment and that may be an important distinction as money > used at other times definitely is speech. Making sure the courts are > crystal clear about what it means to spend money at "other times" or > in "other manners" vs arbitrarily defining too much time or influence > as being related to an election is also important. The distinctions > that are attempted to be made between commercial and nocommercial uses > and speech even under current law are often contrived and often > violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the > law. Copyright law and web site TOU contracts are a subject best left > to another discussion, however. Below is the proposed amendment in its > latest form: > Thanks. > Sincerely, > John Thielking > > > Amendment > > *Section 1* [/Corporations are not people and can be regulated/] > The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the > rights of natural persons only. > Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability > companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, > the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under > this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through > Federal, State, or local law. > The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the > People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be > construed to be inherent or inalienable. > *Section 2 *[/Money is not speech and can be regulated/] > Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or > prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own > contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any > way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot > measure. > Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible > contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. > The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence > elections to be speech under the First Amendment. > *Section 3 * > Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the > freedom of the press. > > > Help Us Name The Amendment! > > What do you think the amendment should be called? We want to hear from > you! > *Here are some ideas already proposed:* > > * Amendment to End Corporate Rule > * Clean Elections Amendment > * Abolish Corporate Personhood Amendment > * Amendment to Remove Corporations from the Constitution > * End Corporate Personhood Amendment > * Making Democracy Real Amendment > * The Democracy Renewal Amendment > * Government of the People Amendment > * The 99% Amendment > * The Amendment to Liberate Democracy (or Our Republic) > * We the People Amendment > * The Amendment to Separate Corporation and State > * The Peoples Personhood Amendment > * Corporations are Not People, Money is Not Speech Amendment > * The Common Sense Amendment > > What do you think? Let us know. > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 13:38:21 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:38:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Dec 15th short meeting Message-ID: <1323121101.43320.YahooMailNeo@web111414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I volunteered to take Caroline's place in putting together the agenda (so that she can attend a family event). ? As Valerie and others have said in the interest of transparency and fairness... ? PLEASE POST ALL AGENDA REQUESTS TO THIS EMAIL LIST (sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org)? (not by trying to send them to me). ? We will need to have a report from the plenary of course. ? And since we are are trying to keep it short, please think if it needs to be addressed on the 15th in a formal meeting or if preferably either?the GP Council can handle it or it could be handled informally here on-line or talking to folks at the party/meeting or it can be deferred to January.? For example in my opinion the?question raised by John Theilking could best be handled by him polling other members on-line and at the party.? Then if he finds that there are enough other people?that would join him with?serious concerns/objections to the MoveToAmend petitioning procedure perhaps the January meeting would have the time to formally address it.? I don't think December has enough time to deal with it. ? Thanks, ? And BTW, please support the Green Party's Jill Stein for President 2012 campaign.? More at http://jillstein.org ? Drew ? Jill Stein's Occupy the Whitehouse campagin: http://www.jillstein.org/the_hill_occupy_the_white_house -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Mon Dec 5 18:37:14 2011 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 02:37:14 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Dec 15th short meeting Message-ID: <20111205.183714.19938.2@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Hi Drew, all, What is the schedule for the 15th? We typically have social time from 6:30 or 7:00 until 7:30, then the meeting at 7:30. Since the 15th is intended to be part meeting and part party, what happens when? I don't know if I will make it because I have a potential scheduling conflict, but a friend-of-a-friend might be interested, and an event that's part business and part social (instead of mostly business) might be a nice introduction. Thanks, Valerie ~*~*~*~ The Marine Mammal Center 2011 Release Celebrations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoNan4N1dBM Please note: message attached ____________________________________________________________ Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat! http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210 -------------- next part -------------- I volunteered to take Caroline's place in putting together the agenda (so that she can attend a family event). ? As Valerie and others have said in the interest of transparency and fairness... ? PLEASE POST ALL AGENDA REQUESTS TO THIS EMAIL LIST (sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org)? (not by trying to send them to me). ? We will need to have a report from the plenary of course. ? And since we are are trying to keep it short, please think if it needs to be addressed on the 15th in a formal meeting or if preferably either?the GP Council can handle it or it could be handled informally here on-line or talking to folks at the party/meeting or it can be deferred to January.? For example in my opinion the?question raised by John Theilking could best be handled by him polling other members on-line and at the party.? Then if he finds that there are enough other people?that would join him with?serious concerns/objections to the MoveToAmend petitioning procedure perhaps the January meeting would have the time to formally address it.? I don't think December has enough time to deal with it. ? Thanks, ? And BTW, please support the Green Party's Jill Stein for President 2012 campaign.? More at http://jillstein.org ? Drew ? Jill Stein's Occupy the Whitehouse campagin: http://www.jillstein.org/the_hill_occupy_the_white_house -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob.means at electric-bikes.com Tue Dec 6 08:41:26 2011 From: rob.means at electric-bikes.com (Rob Means) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:41:26 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Occupy movement: 12/12 West Coast Port Blockade Message-ID: <1323189686.23898.24.camel@robs-laptop> As of November 27, 2011, the Occupy movement in every major West Coast port city has joined Occupy Oakland in calling for and organizing a coordinated West Coast Port Blockade and Shutdown on December 12, 2011. Here is the six-minute video: http://www.occupyoakland.org/ ?We?re shutting down these ports because of the union busting and attacks on the working class by the 1%: the firing of Port truckers organizing at SSA terminals in LA; the attempt to rupture ILWU union jurisdiction in Longview, WA by EGT. ..." ?We are also striking back against the nationally coordinated attack on the Occupy movement. In response to the police violence and camp evictions against the Occupy movement- This is our coordinated response against the 1%. On December 12th we will show are collective power through pinpointed economic blockade of the 1%.? Each Occupy is organizing plans for a mass mobilization and community pickets to shut down their local Port. The mobilization of over 60,000 people that shut down the Port of Oakland during the general strike on November 2, 2011 is the model for the West Coast efforts. Organizers state that a police attempt to disrupt the port blockade or police violence against any city participating will extend duration of the blockade on the entire coast. -- Rob Means,1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913 408-262-0420h, 408-262-8975w, rob.means at electric-bikes.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Tue Dec 6 11:12:22 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:12:22 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Occupy movement: 12/12 West Coast Port Blockade In-Reply-To: <1323189686.23898.24.camel@robs-laptop> References: <1323189686.23898.24.camel@robs-laptop> Message-ID: <4EDE6916.6060800@charter.net> While I generally agree with the objectives here, I have some concern about the fact that the unions seem to be attempting to claim the mantle of the 99% and the Occupy Movement and then to retreat to the safety of the political power of the Democratic Party. If you don't believe that this is what is happening, then watch the Ed Show on MSNBC for a couple of evenings. It is my experience that Unions use the rhetoric of the 99% while they will support anything or any politicians when they think it means a bigger membership. I note the building trade unions who support the worst excesses of expanding suburbia or the fact that Unite Here supported Republican Richard Pombo for Congress because he wanted to privatize our National Parks (more union jobs) or that the Teamsters support oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. If the Occupy movement can help build toward worker owned enterprises, or community based economics, then they will do us all a favor. If unions support the Ponzi Scheme called economic growth on a finite planet, then life on this planet may not be sustainable. Greens need to be clear that we are adamantly against economic exploitation, to oppose it in any way we can, whether that be on the basis of wealth, gender, age, etc. We also need to be clear about what the science of ecology tells us will be our future. On 12/6/2011 8:41 AM, Rob Means wrote: > As of November 27, 2011, the Occupy movement in every major West Coast > port city has joined Occupy Oakland in calling for and organizing a > coordinated West Coast Port Blockade and Shutdown on December 12, > 2011. Here is the six-minute video: > http://www.occupyoakland.org/ > > "We're shutting down these ports because of the union busting and > attacks on the working class by the 1%: the firing of Port truckers > organizing at SSA terminals in LA; the attempt to rupture ILWU union > jurisdiction in Longview, WA by EGT. ..." > > "We are also striking back against the nationally coordinated attack > on the Occupy movement. In response to the police violence and camp > evictions against the Occupy movement- This is our coordinated > response against the 1%. On December 12th we will show are collective > power through pinpointed economic blockade of the 1%." > > Each Occupy is organizing plans for a mass mobilization and community > pickets to shut down their local Port. The mobilization of over 60,000 > people that shut down the Port of Oakland during the general strike on > November 2, 2011 is the model for the West Coast efforts. Organizers > state that a police attempt to disrupt the port blockade or police > violence against any city participating will extend duration of the > blockade on the entire coast. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From azuresea4me at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 19:00:22 2011 From: azuresea4me at gmail.com (Azure Sea) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:00:22 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: 12/6/11: Shopping With A Conscience and 12/11 Holiday Craft Fair Message-ID: FYI - Lori ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *Shopping With a Conscience: Finding Socially Responsible Gifts* *Tuesday, December 6, 7:00 PM* Community Media Center 900 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto FREE and open to all. Wheelchair accessible. Craig Wiesner and Derrick Kikuchi Founders, Reach and Teach The holiday shopping season is upon us and U.S. consumerism is in full swing. How can we be sure our purchases are socially responsible? What makes for good gifts for the activists on your list -- old, young or in between? How can we be sure an item really is "fair trade" or "green"? Our guests are the founders of Reach and Teach, the peace and social justice learning company. Reach and Teach specializes in "teachable moments" -- gifts that offer learning as well as amusement, that spur a social conscience rather than just more consumerism. In addition to exploring the ins and outs of shopping for a better world, we'll also have a product demonstration of some of Reach and Teach's neatest and coolest items! http://www.peaceandjustice.org/programs/Other_Voices_TV/ *Holiday Peace & Social Justice Crafts & Info Fair* Sunday, December 11 11:00 AM - 2:30PM Fellowship Hall, First Presbyterian Church 1140 Cowper Street, Palo Alto FREE and open to all. Wheelchair accessible. Celebrate the great work being done by organizations in our community and around the world! Toys ~ Fair Trade Crafts ~ Books ~ Art ~ Music ~ DVDs ~ Games ~ Puzzles ~ Jewelry ~ Decorations * Help promote fair trade while doing your holiday shopping! * Learn about great social justice & peacemaking organizations! * Reduce your carbon footprint this holiday season * Enjoy free holiday snacks & beverages Have fun! Sponsored by Peninsula Peace and Justice Center & First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto http://www.peaceandjustice.org/programs/Holiday_Fair_2011/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Tue Dec 6 19:50:28 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:50:28 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Politics and Science Message-ID: <4EDEE284.6040901@charter.net> While nations are talking the politics of climate change in Durban, SA, the scientists, including Dr James Hansen, are talking the science during the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The Climate Watch Blog at KQED has a post about today's presentation from a panel including Dr. Hansen. That post is here: http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/12/06/nasa-climate-changes-coming-faster-than-we-thought/ I excerpt: > > Hansen?s warning is based on his team?s finding that long-ago changes > of less than two degrees in the Earth?s temperature resulted in oceans > rising by about 25 meters (about 82 feet). Current science on global > ice sheets concludes that they?re shedding ice, and the rate of that > is increasing. > > ?We?ve got to slow down this experiment that we?re doing with the > planet,? says Hansen, ?because otherwise we?re leaving for young > people a situation that?s going to be out of their control.? > From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 11:14:31 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:14:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323239908.79894.YahooMailNeo@web111110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323231707.77186.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323239908.79894.YahooMailNeo@web111110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323285271.83160.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages?with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended.?For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org? and look for the amendment link.?Thanks. ? John Thielking ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: John Thielking To: "councilmember.reyes at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.Krekorian at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.zine at lacity.org" ; "paul.koretz at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.cardenas at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.alarcon at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.parks at lacity.org" ; "Jan.Perry at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.wesson at lacity.org" ; "councilman.rosendahl at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.englander at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.garcetti at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.huizar at lacity.org" ; "councildistrict15 at lacity.org" Cc: "info at movetoamend.org" Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Dear LA City Council: ? This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.? Thank you. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking San Jose, CA ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: John Thielking To: "info at movetoamend.org" Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of?the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1%?which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site: Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".? Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".? You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real? job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.? This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).? I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?? We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.? But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like this. That is all for now. Sincerely, John Thielking San Jose, CA *Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.? So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.? And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years. And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Wed Dec 7 12:52:08 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:52:08 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323285271.83160.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323231707.77186.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323239908.79894.YahooMailNeo@web111110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323285271.83160.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EDFD1F8.8070108@prodsyse.com> Hi, John: I don't see the same problem you do. The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power. I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons". This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors. It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it. Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name? I doubt it: They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge. Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly. In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities". Our current system is one dollar, one vote. This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this. Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue: For me the number one problem is the media. For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc. This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP. In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere. We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices. This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg. If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising. Spencer On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: > No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current > paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we > really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing > specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages with > fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved > with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended. For > the complete amendment language that I am referring to see > http://www.movetoamend.org and look for the amendment link. Thanks. > John Thielking > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > *From:* John Thielking > *To:* "councilmember.reyes at lacity.org" > ; "councilmember.Krekorian at lacity.org" > ; "councilmember.zine at lacity.org" > ; "paul.koretz at lacity.org" > ; "councilmember.cardenas at lacity.org" > ; > "councilmember.alarcon at lacity.org" ; > "councilmember.parks at lacity.org" ; > "Jan.Perry at lacity.org" ; > "councilmember.wesson at lacity.org" ; > "councilman.rosendahl at lacity.org" ; > "councilmember.englander at lacity.org" > ; > "councilmember.garcetti at lacity.org" > ; "councilmember.huizar at lacity.org" > ; "councildistrict15 at lacity.org" > > *Cc:* "info at movetoamend.org" > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM > *Subject:* Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > Dear LA City Council: > This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your > passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to > deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this > resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst. Thank you. > Sincerely, > John Thielking > San Jose, CA > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > *From:* John Thielking > *To:* "info at movetoamend.org" > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM > *Subject:* Amendment Name/Feedback > > I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace > and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in > the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner > (www.peacemovies.com ) and I think that > the first part of the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of > business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in > a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1% which have grown to be > more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. > The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a > response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a > resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on > your web site: > Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify > sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as > "non-persons". Also, small corporations are often formed for various > reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these > businesses would also be "non-persons". You want to see an Ayn Rand > style of revolt from the real job creators (small businesses employ > most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as > written. This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was > probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse > version still in circulation on some paper petitions). I suspect that > the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation > before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* > They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at > that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking > system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that > strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of > their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think > this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of > their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have > to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their > life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that > issues the payroll checks? We can't start thinking of jobs as > handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave > under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our > financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility > and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right > ahead and do THAT. But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss > and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over > with an amendment like this. > That is all for now. > Sincerely, > John Thielking > San Jose, CA > > *Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from > May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was > introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of > Rights which was adopted in 1776. So James Madison had 2 years to > come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional > Convention. And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration > percolated for some 13 years. > And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 > years earlier. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 13:41:20 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:41:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <4EDFD1F8.8070108@prodsyse.com> References: <1323231707.77186.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323239908.79894.YahooMailNeo@web111110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323285271.83160.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EDFD1F8.8070108@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1323294080.9801.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Spencer, ? I had a simillar discussion on Facebook and one person thought my comments were totally irrelevant and nonsensical straw man arguments.? This is one of my responses to Richard (and now to you): ? Another reason why I want to think this over before signing on to endorse any specific language: Let's say it did actually work the way that Richard is suggesting in that individual 5th amendment rights were preserved while requiring any member of a business organization to testify against the business while being given immunity from prosecution for their own crimes committed while at that business. This would end up mandating the same form of testimony that is given before grand jurries and that the Committee To Stop FBI repression is working so hard to stop (people involved with small non-profits or activist groups being made to testify against their friends in front of a grand jury). I need to think about the implications of that form of govt for a long time, and research to see if any other country has simillar laws and what the consequences of having those laws were, before I would agree to such an amendment. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Hi, John:? ????? I don't see the same problem you do.? ????? The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power.? I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons".? This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors.? It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it.? Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name?? I doubt it:? They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge.? Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly.? ????? In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities".? Our current system is one dollar, one vote.? This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this.? ????? Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue:? For me the number one problem is the media.? For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc.? This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP.? In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere.? We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices.? This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg.? If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising.? ????? Spencer On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages?with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended.?For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org? and look for the amendment link.?Thanks. >? >John Thielking > > >----- Forwarded Message ----- >From: John Thielking >To: "councilmember.reyes at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.Krekorian at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.zine at lacity.org" ; "paul.koretz at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.cardenas at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.alarcon at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.parks at lacity.org" ; "Jan.Perry at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.wesson at lacity.org" ; "councilman.rosendahl at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.englander at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.garcetti at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.huizar at lacity.org" ; "councildistrict15 at lacity.org" >Cc: "info at movetoamend.org" >Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM >Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >Dear LA City Council: >? >This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.? Thank you. >? >Sincerely, >? >John Thielking >San Jose, CA > > >----- Forwarded Message ----- >From: John Thielking >To: "info at movetoamend.org" >Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM >Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of?the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1%?which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. > >The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site: > >Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".? Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".? You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real? job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.? This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).? I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?? We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.? But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like this. > >That is all for now. > >Sincerely, > >John Thielking >San Jose, CA >*Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.? So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.? And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years. >And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier. > > > > >_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 14:42:48 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:42:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323294080.9801.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323231707.77186.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323239908.79894.YahooMailNeo@web111110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323285271.83160.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EDFD1F8.8070108@prodsyse.com> <1323294080.9801.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323297768.82551.YahooMailNeo@web111106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Spencer, ? I also agree with you about the media.? I'm not sure what to do about it, except that I find very little to object to in the second and third parts of the latest version of the amendment. The only problem I can see with regulating money as not being speech durring an election is to be clear when money is being used as speech when you are not influencing an election. If we screw?up the interpretation of that part of the amendment in some major way, it won't be the end of the world in quite the same way as screwing up the first part of the amendment.? Whatever we do, we need to be able to mobilize major portions of society to stand up for their rights, no matter what the constitution says. Wheather it is apathy or just spending too much time working x number of jobs per person, many people just don't take the time to do this.?? Too often a major "victory", such as the election of a "black, progressive president" is followed by an era of defeat, where we actually lose ground now that most people have gone back to sleep. I don't have an easy answer to how to keep that from happening. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: John Thielking To: Spencer Graves Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Spencer, ? I had a simillar discussion on Facebook and one person thought my comments were totally irrelevant and nonsensical straw man arguments.? This is one of my responses to Richard (and now to you): ? Another reason why I want to think this over before signing on to endorse any specific language: Let's say it did actually work the way that Richard is suggesting in that individual 5th amendment rights were preserved while requiring any member of a business organization to testify against the business while being given immunity from prosecution for their own crimes committed while at that business. This would end up mandating the same form of testimony that is given before grand jurries and that the Committee To Stop FBI repression is working so hard to stop (people involved with small non-profits or activist groups being made to testify against their friends in front of a grand jury). I need to think about the implications of that form of govt for a long time, and research to see if any other country has simillar laws and what the consequences of having those laws were, before I would agree to such an amendment. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Hi, John:? ????? I don't see the same problem you do.? ????? The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power.? I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons".? This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors.? It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it.? Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name?? I doubt it:? They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge.? Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly.? ????? In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities".? Our current system is one dollar, one vote.? This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this.? ????? Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue:? For me the number one problem is the media.? For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc.? This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP.? In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere.? We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices.? This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg.? If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising.? ????? Spencer On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages?with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended.?For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org? and look for the amendment link.?Thanks. >? >John Thielking > > >----- Forwarded Message ----- >From: John Thielking >To: "councilmember.reyes at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.Krekorian at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.zine at lacity.org" ; "paul.koretz at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.cardenas at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.alarcon at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.parks at lacity.org" ; "Jan.Perry at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.wesson at lacity.org" ; "councilman.rosendahl at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.englander at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.garcetti at lacity.org" ; "councilmember.huizar at lacity.org" ; "councildistrict15 at lacity.org" >Cc: "info at movetoamend.org" >Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM >Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >Dear LA City Council: >? >This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.? Thank you. >? >Sincerely, >? >John Thielking >San Jose, CA > > >----- Forwarded Message ----- >From: John Thielking >To: "info at movetoamend.org" >Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM >Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of?the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1%?which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. > >The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site: > >Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".? Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".? You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real? job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.? This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).? I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?? We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.? But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like this. > >That is all for now. > >Sincerely, > >John Thielking >San Jose, CA >*Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.? So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.? And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years. >And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier. > > > > >_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 16:07:54 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:07:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323297768.82551.YahooMailNeo@web111106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323231707.77186.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323239908.79894.YahooMailNeo@web111110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323285271.83160.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EDFD1F8.8070108@prodsyse.com> <1323294080.9801.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323297768.82551.YahooMailNeo@web111106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323302874.10805.YahooMailNeo@web111414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John and all, I pasted the proposed language of the amendment below.? As I see it the language clarifies that artificial entities (corporations) do not have any inherent rights under the constitution and can therefore be regulated freely by the federal and state governments.? This is as opposed to human beings who have numerous rights (ie. human rights) at least some of which the constitution and its amendments recognizes and enumerates.? This I believe is very much in alignment with the common sense expectation that most people have of our constitution and removes the ludicrous concept of corporations being artificial "persons" or of money = speech. John with all respect I am very pro small business but I'm just not seeing any problem with the language, and since it will/would take literally years to bring it to fruition anyway I don't see it as any kind of rush. Green New Deal Now! Dr. Jill Stein for President 2012 http://jillstein.org Drew Amendment Section 1 [A corporation isnot a person and can be regulated] The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.?? Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and?are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined?by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated] Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit?contributions and expenditures, including a candidate?s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.? Federal, State and local government?shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech?under the First?Amendment. Section 3? Nothing contained in this?amendment?shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press. ? >________________________________ > From: John Thielking >To: John Thielking ; Spencer Graves >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:42 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >Spencer, >? >I also agree with you about the media.? I'm not sure what to do about it, except that I find very little to object to in the second and third parts of the latest version of the amendment. The only problem I can see with regulating money as not being speech durring an election is to be clear when money is being used as speech when you are not influencing an election. If we screw?up the interpretation of that part of the amendment in some major way, it won't be the end of the world in quite the same way as screwing up the first part of the amendment.? Whatever we do, we need to be able to mobilize major portions of society to stand up for their rights, no matter what the constitution says. Wheather it is apathy or just spending too much time working x number of jobs per person, many people just don't take the time to do this.?? Too often a major "victory", such as the election of a "black, progressive president" is followed by an era of defeat, where we actually lose ground now that most people have gone back to sleep. I don't have an easy answer to how to keep that from happening. >? >Sincerely, >? >John Thielking > > >From: John Thielking >To: Spencer Graves >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 1:41 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >Spencer, >? >I had a simillar discussion on Facebook and one person thought my comments were totally irrelevant and nonsensical straw man arguments.? This is one of my responses to Richard (and now to you): >? >Another reason why I want to think this over before signing on to endorse any specific language: Let's say it did actually work the way that Richard is suggesting in that individual 5th amendment rights were preserved while requiring any member of a business organization to testify against the business while being given immunity from prosecution for their own crimes committed while at that business. This would end up mandating the same form of testimony that is given before grand jurries and that the Committee To Stop FBI repression is working so hard to stop (people involved with small non-profits or activist groups being made to testify against their friends in front of a grand jury). I need to think about the implications of that form of govt for a long time, and research to see if any other country has simillar laws and what the consequences of having those laws were, before I would agree to such an amendment. >? >Sincerely, >? >John Thielking > > >From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 12:52 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >Hi, John:? > > >????? I don't see the same problem you do.? > > >????? The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power.? I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons".? This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors.? It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it.? Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name?? I doubt it:? They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge.? Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly.? > > >????? In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities".? Our current system is one dollar, one vote.? This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this.? > > >????? Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue:? For me the number one problem is the media.? For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc.? This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP.? In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere.? We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices.? This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg.? If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising.? > > >????? Spencer > > >On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: >No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages?with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended.?For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org? and look for the amendment link.?Thanks. >>? >>John Thielking >> >> >>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM >>Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >> >>Dear LA City Council: >>? >>This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.? Thank you. >>? >>Sincerely, >>? >>John Thielking >>San Jose, CA >> >> >>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>From: John Thielking >>To: "info at movetoamend.org" >>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM >>Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >> >>I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of?the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1%?which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. >>? >>The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site: >>? >>Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".? Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".? You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real? job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.? This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).? I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?? We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.? But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like this. >>? >>That is all for now. >>? >>Sincerely, >>? >>John Thielking >>San Jose, CA >>*Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.? So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.? And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years. >>And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier. >> >> >> >> >>__ >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 21:20:53 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:20:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323302874.10805.YahooMailNeo@web111414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323231707.77186.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323239908.79894.YahooMailNeo@web111110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323285271.83160.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EDFD1F8.8070108@prodsyse.com> <1323294080.9801.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323297768.82551.YahooMailNeo@web111106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323302874.10805.YahooMailNeo@web111414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323321653.7311.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Another right that bites the dust is equal protection under the law for "artificial entities".? That precident will do wonders to screw up business to business relationships and the unequal application of contract law, just for starters...You think the big business fish are eating the little business fish now, just wait... From: Drew To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback John and all, I pasted the proposed language of the amendment below.? As I see it the language clarifies that artificial entities (corporations) do not have any inherent rights under the constitution and can therefore be regulated freely by the federal and state governments.? This is as opposed to human beings who have numerous rights (ie. human rights) at least some of which the constitution and its amendments recognizes and enumerates.? This I believe is very much in alignment with the common sense expectation that most people have of our constitution and removes the ludicrous concept of corporations being artificial "persons" or of money = speech. John with all respect I am very pro small business but I'm just not seeing any problem with the language, and since it will/would take literally years to bring it to fruition anyway I don't see it as any kind of rush. Green New Deal Now! Dr. Jill Stein for President 2012 http://jillstein.org Drew Amendment Section 1 [A corporation isnot a person and can be regulated] The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.?? Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and?are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined?by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated] Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit?contributions and expenditures, including a candidate?s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.? Federal, State and local government?shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech?under the First?Amendment. Section 3? Nothing contained in this?amendment?shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press. ? From: John Thielking >To: John Thielking ; Spencer Graves >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:42 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >Spencer, >? >I also agree with you about the media.? I'm not sure what to do about it, except that I find very little to object to in the second and third parts of the latest version of the amendment. The only problem I can see with regulating money as not being speech durring an election is to be clear when money is being used as speech when you are not influencing an election. If we screw?up the interpretation of that part of the amendment in some major way, it won't be the end of the world in quite the same way as screwing up the first part of the amendment.? Whatever we do, we need to be able to mobilize major portions of society to stand up for their rights, no matter what the constitution says. Wheather it is apathy or just spending too much time working x number of jobs per person, many people just don't take the time to do this.?? Too often a major "victory", such as the election of a "black, progressive president" is followed by an era of defeat, where we actually lose ground now that most people have gone back to sleep. I don't have an easy answer to how to keep that from happening. >? >Sincerely, >? >John Thielking > > >From: John Thielking >To: Spencer Graves >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 1:41 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >Spencer, >? >I had a simillar discussion on Facebook and one person thought my comments were totally irrelevant and nonsensical straw man arguments.? This is one of my responses to Richard (and now to you): >? >Another reason why I want to think this over before signing on to endorse any specific language: Let's say it did actually work the way that Richard is suggesting in that individual 5th amendment rights were preserved while requiring any member of a business organization to testify against the business while being given immunity from prosecution for their own crimes committed while at that business. This would end up mandating the same form of testimony that is given before grand jurries and that the Committee To Stop FBI repression is working so hard to stop (people involved with small non-profits or activist groups being made to testify against their friends in front of a grand jury). I need to think about the implications of that form of govt for a long time, and research to see if any other country has simillar laws and what the consequences of having those laws were, before I would agree to such an amendment. >? >Sincerely, >? >John Thielking > > >From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 12:52 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > > >Hi, John:? > > >????? I don't see the same problem you do.? > > >????? The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power.? I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons".? This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors.? It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it.? Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name?? I doubt it:? They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge.? Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly.? > > >????? In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities".? Our current system is one dollar, one vote.? This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this.? > > >????? Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue:? For me the number one problem is the media.? For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc.? This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP.? In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere.? We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices.? This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg.? If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising.? > > >????? Spencer > > >On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: >No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages?with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended.?For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org? and look for the amendment link.?Thanks. >>? >>John Thielking >> >> >>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM >>Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >> >>Dear LA City Council: >>? >>This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.? Thank you. >>? >>Sincerely, >>? >>John Thielking >>San Jose, CA >> >> >>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>From: John Thielking >>To: "info at movetoamend.org" >>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM >>Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >> >>I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of?the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1%?which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. >> >>The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site: >> >>Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".? Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".? You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real? job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.? This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).? I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?? We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.? But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like this. >> >>That is all for now. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>John Thielking >>San Jose, CA >>*Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.? So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.? And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years. >>And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier. >> >> >> >> >>__ >> > _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 22:16:05 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:16:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Message-ID: <1323324965.52248.androidMobile@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> BP and Union Carbide would be examples of corporations, fully deserving of the corporate death penalty, who failed to ensure the protection of people and planet, before profit. Thumbs down. Occupy the White House! http://JillStein.org Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 22:23:59 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:23:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Message-ID: <1323325439.61942.androidMobile@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John, in my opinion the lazy short cut that wrongly gave artificial entities "human" rights and equal protection in the first place *needs* to go away. Corporations are not people and this was always the wrong way for the U.S. to create the legal foundations for corporations. Instead corporate law needs to be reworked to make certain that corporations have three "bottom line" responsibilities : people and planet first, then (if a for profit) profit. If the corporation commits mass murder or destruction of the planet or rips off people the way the banks have, I'm all for the corporate death penalty. Oh and antitrust laws need to be actually enforced and the big monopolies like Micro$oft, AT&T (again), Monsanto, ADM, Lockheed, Halliburton, etc. must be broken up so that we have real competition, not just lip service. I have no worry that we are capable of creating good business law that protects the small businesses that are the economic engine of our economy without the unnatural and crazy albatross of corporate "personhood" around our necks. We need the Green New Deal! http://jillstein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 23:51:18 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 23:51:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323324965.52248.androidMobile@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323324965.52248.androidMobile@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323330678.26487.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Find me an example of another country that has no inalienable rights for corporations and that has not descended into complete legal chaos and I will go along with the current form of Move to Amend. ? John Thielking From: Drew To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback BP and Union Carbide would be examples of corporations, fully deserving of the corporate death penalty, who failed to ensure the protection of people and planet, before profit. Thumbs down. Occupy the White House! http://JillStein.org Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Drew ; To: pagesincolor at yahoo.com ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 6:09:00 AM John, in my opinion the lazy short cut that wrongly gave artificial entities "human" rights and equal protection in the first place *needs* to go away. Corporations are not people and this was always the wrong way for the U.S. to create the legal foundations for corporations. Instead corporate law needs to be reworked to make certain that corporations have three "bottom line" responsibilities : people and planet first, then (if a for profit) profit. If the corporation commits mass murder or destruction of the planet or rips off people the way the banks have, I'm all for the corporate death penalty. Oh and antitrust laws need to be actually enforced and the big monopolies like Micro$oft, AT&T (again), Monsanto, ADM, Lockheed, Halliburton, etc. must be broken up so that we have real competition, not just lip service. I have no worry that we are capable of creating good business law that protects the small businesses that are the economic engine of our economy without the unnatural and crazy albatross of corporate "personhood" around our necks. We need the Green New Deal! http://jillstein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: John Thielking ; To: Drew ; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 5:20:53 AM Another right that bites the dust is equal protection under the law for "artificial entities".? That precident will do wonders to screw up business to business relationships and the unequal application of contract law, just for starters...You think the big business fish are eating the little business fish now, just wait... From: Drew To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback John and all,I pasted the proposed language of the amendment below.? As I see it the language clarifies that artificial entities (corporations) do not have any inherent rights under the constitution and can therefore be regulated freely by the federal and state governments.? This is as opposed to human beings who have numerous rights (ie. human rights) at least some of which the constitution and its amendments recognizes and enumerates.? This I believe is very much in alignment with the common sense expectation that most people have of our constitution and removes the ludicrous concept of corporations being artificial "persons" or of money = speech.John with all respect I am very pro small business but I'm just not seeing any problem with the language, and since it will/would take literally years to bring it to fruition anyway I don't see it as any kind of rush.Green New Deal Now! Dr. Jill Stein for President 2012http://jillstein.orgDrew Amendment Section 1 [A corporation isnot a person and can be regulated] The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.?? Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and?are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined?by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated] Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit?contributions and expenditures, including a candidate?s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.? Federal, State and local government?shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech?under the First?Amendment. Section 3? Nothing contained in this?amendment?shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.? From: John Thielking >To: John Thielking ; Spencer Graves >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:42 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > >Spencer, >? >I also agree with you about the media.? I'm not sure what to do about it, except that I find very little to object to in the second and third parts of the latest version of the amendment. The only problem I can see with regulating money as not being speech durring an election is to be clear when money is being used as speech when you are not influencing an election. If we screw?up the interpretation of that part of the amendment in some major way, it won't be the end of the world in quite the same way as screwing up the first part of the amendment.? Whatever we do, we need to be able to mobilize major portions of society to stand up for their rights, no matter what the constitution says. Wheather it is apathy or just spending too much time working x number of jobs per person, many people just don't take the time to do this.?? Too often a major "victory", such as the election of a "black, progressive president" is followed by an era of defeat, where we actually lose ground now that most people have gone back to sleep. I don't have an easy answer to how to keep that from happening. >? >Sincerely, >? >John Thielking >From: John Thielking >To: Spencer Graves >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 1:41 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > >Spencer, >? >I had a simillar discussion on Facebook and one person thought my comments were totally irrelevant and nonsensical straw man arguments.? This is one of my responses to Richard (and now to you): >? >Another reason why I want to think this over before signing on to endorse any specific language: Let's say it did actually work the way that Richard is suggesting in that individual 5th amendment rights were preserved while requiring any member of a business organization to testify against the business while being given immunity from prosecution for their own crimes committed while at that business. This would end up mandating the same form of testimony that is given before grand jurries and that the Committee To Stop FBI repression is working so hard to stop (people involved with small non-profits or activist groups being made to testify against their friends in front of a grand jury). I need to think about the implications of that form of govt for a long time, and research to see if any other country has simillar laws and what the consequences of having those laws were, before I would agree to such an amendment. >? >Sincerely, >? >John Thielking >From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 12:52 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > >Hi, John:? ????? I don't see the same problem you do.? ????? The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power.? I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons".? This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors.? It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it.? Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name?? I doubt it:? They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge.? Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly.? ????? In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities".? Our current system is one dollar, one vote.? This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this.? ????? Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue:? For me the number one problem is the media.? For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc.? This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP.? In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere.? We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices.? This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg.? If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising.? ????? Spencer On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: >No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages?with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended.?For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org? and look for the amendment link.?Thanks. >>? >>John Thielking >>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM >>Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >>Dear LA City Council: >>? >>This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.? Thank you. >>? >>Sincerely, >>? >>John Thielking >>San Jose, CA >>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>From: John Thielking >>To: "info at movetoamend.org" >>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM >>Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >>I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of?the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1%?which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. >> >>The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site: >> >>Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".? Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".? You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real? job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.? This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).? I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?? We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.? But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like this. >> >>That is all for now. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>John Thielking >>San Jose, CA*Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.? So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.? And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years.And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier. >> >> >>__ >>_______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss _______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 07:51:51 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 07:51:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Message-ID: <1323359511.16027.androidMobile@web111408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John, that's 180 degrees off. Show me any country besides Amerikkka that even HAS "inalienable rights" for corporate "persons". The UK and the EU countries, the Commonwealth countries, Russia, Japan, China -NONE have "inalienable " rights granted to artificial entities. They are granted limited "rights" in other countries but nowhere else are they considered "inalienable rights" - that is to say above the ability of government to regulate. Why would it be important for corporations to have inherent nonnegotiable, nonlegislatable, nonstatutory rights (ie. inalienable rights)? Inalienable rights are vital for humans and should be in place for the planet, by why praytell for corporations? Why should they be exempted from regulation and legislation in the manner in which you are advocating? If it were something needed (and I I'm not seeing it) then corporations should have their own bill of rights. And establishing the principle that micro artificial entities should be treated equally as mega corporations, does NOT require inalienable rights. Legislation will do nicely. Sorry John, just not feeling you on this one. Inalienable human rights for humans, not corporations! http://JillStein.org Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 07:59:05 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 07:59:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Dysfunctional Pschyopathic Corporations Message-ID: <1323359945.81662.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >From an article in The Economist: 'Joel Bakan, a legal academic, has produced a book and a film?both called ?The Corporation??which argue that, if companies are people, they are particularly dysfunctional and irresponsible ones. In the film, he even consults a psychiatrist who argues that companies display all the characteristics of a psychopath: callous disregard for others? feelings, inability to maintain relationships, a willingness to bend any rule and break any law if it advances their interests, and an obsession with amassing power and money. "...you do not have to be a radical to worry about the might of organisations that can live for ever and take up residence in dozens of countries at once. Nor is it unreasonable to wonder why the idea of corporate personhood should only cut one way: if companies enjoy the same rights as flesh-and-blood humans then shouldn?t they be under the same obligations? ... companies have a moral duty to pursue social rather than merely business ends." http://www.economist.com/node/18437755 Give Peace a chance - limit Corporate "Personhood" http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 8 08:27:06 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:27:06 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323330678.26487.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323324965.52248.androidMobile@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323330678.26487.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE0E55A.9030008@prodsyse.com> During the Move to Amend presentation Sept. 12, David Cobb, Attorney and founder of MTA, said that there are only two countries in the world where corporations are people: The other is Iraq (whose modern constitution was written while under occupation by the US military). I will here outline my understanding of the evolution of the concept of a corporation, based partly on what Cobb said and what my own study of political economy. Cobb said that in the early years after the founding of the US, corporations were created for a short period of time to raise money and perform a specific task. I don't know when that changed, but economists claim that the invention of the limited liability corporation was a major step in facilitating economic growth. There probably is something to that claim, but it seems to have been overblown. For the first half-century of US history, 1790-1849, the US averaged 1.2% per year growth in average annual income (Gross Domestic Product per capita, inflation adjusted).[a] Since the latter half of the 19th century, the US has averaged closer to 2% per year, sometimes more, sometimes less. This included the period of the Robber Barons, Teddy Roosevelt's Trust Busting efforts, the disastrous Hoover years, and since. We need corporations, but they need to be secondary to natural persons in US law. Currently, multinationals are de facto above the law: Through massive disinformation campaigns, they have convinced roughly half of the US electorate that there is no substantive evidence that human activity has had anything to do with climate change, and that they should get tax rebates on taxes they don't pay while the US taxpayers subsidize wars for their benefit. This is not true for small, bankrupt corporations, wherein the tax liability of the owners of the bankrupt corporation can still have substantial personal liability for taxes on negative income (according to someone I know how is experiencing that). Does this answer your question, John? Spencer p.s. There are procedures in US law for a corporate death penalty: It's called bankruptcy. In theory, that should be easier to obtain than a death penalty for a natural person, because the standard of proof in a civil case is the weight of the evidence as evaluated by a majority of the jury. That's obviously very different in two respects from the standard of proof in a criminal case, which requires (a) a unanimous determinate of guilt (b) beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, even most bankrupt corporations can afford attorneys, which means that police and prosecutors are less likely to seek convictions of falsified evidence and coerced perjury. [a] Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?" MeasuringWorth, 2011 (www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php). -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web:www.structuremonitoring.com From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 8 08:30:46 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:30:46 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Dysfunctional Pschyopathic Corporations In-Reply-To: <1323359945.81662.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323359945.81662.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE0E636.6090304@prodsyse.com> > Give Peace a chance - limit Corporate "Personhood" > Give small business a chance: Small business pay taxes and are subject to local law. Major corporations currently are de facto beyond the law. > http://JillStein.org > > Drew > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 10:41:42 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:41:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <4EE0DDF5.3000705@prodsyse.com> References: <1323324965.52248.androidMobile@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323330678.26487.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EE0DDF5.3000705@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1323369702.16644.YahooMailNeo@web111109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I stand corrected.? I guess we have a lot of disinformation to overcome to get this amendment passed.?However, even in other countries like the UK where corporations are not fully vested persons, I would suspect that they have at least some rights. The proposed amendment gives them free speech rights for instance. My concern with the loss of equal protection is not trivial. I wrote a long response yesterday that details this but didn't send it since I figured that worrying about big corporations dominating the Internet is trivial compared to saving the planet. But in a nutshell, we are facing the prospect of big corps filing mere complaints of copyright infringement with no evidence or due process to have small Interent sites taken down.?The bills in Congress on this are PROTECT IP and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act).?My concern within a concern about this has to do with unequal treatment under web site TOU's that prohibit ANY commercial use of the information on the site, effectively barring "fair use" of snippets of info for commercial use.? If equal protection were applied to this case, the TOU's would be rendered invalid on this point because two classes of entities are treated more favorably than adult small business owners: 1) minors who can not enter into binding contracts and 2) Big search engines such as Google who use snippets of info from ALL web sites without authorization for commercial use.? Having corporations, small businesses and adults and minors all treated the same under equal protection would be usefull in cases like that.? If corps have no inalienable rights then we may no longer have as strong an argument under equal protection that "Hey corps are getting ahead of us and why don't we have those rights too".? In effect we could see an era where corps have more and better rights than us (possibly granted by the local company town where they are incorporated) and we would be powerless to stop them.? Maybe we need to add to the amendment that local laws can not supersede national laws when it comes to granting corporations priviledges.? Local govts can be more strict, but not less strict than the national and state govts, or something like that. ? As far as the corporate death penalty goes, Greg Palast in his latest book Vultures' Picnic (www.vulturespicnic.org) details what happened to a nuclear power plant building company that was sued into non-existence by Palast's exposing them for various counts of fraud and racketeering.? This same company started up again under a new name and is now the leading contender for building the next generation of nuclear power plants.? If we have a corporate death penalty, we should have stipulations that say that the corporate officers that had their business shut down can never again work in the same industry or work as regulators of said industry.? ? Palast has said that fraud is as much a part of the structure of a typical nuclear power plant as the concrete and steel.? I sent Mothers For Peace info detailing Greg Palast's assertion that most backup generators at nuke plants are designed to fail.? They are run by boat engines that are designed to be run at full power only after warming up for 30 minutes and they are turbocharged with aftermarket turbochargers to boost the power output so that fewer generators are needed to meet the power requirements.? The testing of some of these generators in the 80's revealed that turning them to full power within 10 seconds of startup, as they are required to be run under emergency conditions, caused them to fail.? Broken drive shafts were common.? The Reagan admin leaned on the NRC at the time and made it look like the problem was solved, but according to Palast, the problem may not be solved to this day. Mothers For Peace had a minor concern recently about the possiblity that the valves on the generators would have to be operated manually durring an emergency, but I don't think they were fully aware of my additional concerns.? They are looking into this as we speak. I also sent them a link to an article from the LA Times that says that on Earth Day 1990 a rouge "environmental group" claimed responsibility for 4 separate incidents where power lines were taken down. In one instance, power to Santa Cruz, CA was shut down for 4 hours after a 100 foot transmission line tower leading from the Moss Landing power plant was toppled over by chiselling the bolts off at the base.?See http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-24/news/mn-326_1_santa-cruz-county for more details.??According to this article:?http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/judibomb.html the accounts of these incidents were blown out of proportion during retelling of the story by the mainstream snooze and the story became the part that I seem to recall from the time that terrorists were bombing electrical transmission line towers.? My concern here is that a terrorist armed litterally with box cutters (in this case metal chiselling tools) can still wreck havoc and cause a statewide disasater. All they need to do is topple a transmission line tower at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, forcing the plant offline and into using the backup generators for cooling that may likely promptly fail. ? I'm not saying that my ideas and grasp of the facts are perfect. We will all need to learn a lot and be sure to stay vigilant even if this amendment passes. Thanks. ? John Thielking? From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: Drew ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback ????? During the Move to Amend presentation Sept. 12, David Cobb, Attorney and founder of MTA, said that there are only two countries in the world where corporations are people:? The other is Iraq (whose modern constitution was written while under occupation by the US military).? ????? I will here outline my understanding of the evolution of the concept of a corporation, based partly on what Cobb said and what my own study of political economy.? Cobb said that in the early years after the founding of the US, corporations were created for a short period of time to raise money and perform a specific task.? I don't know when that changed, but economists claim that the invention of the limited liability corporation was a major step in facilitating economic growth.? There probably is something to that claim, but it seems to have been overblown.? For the first half-century of US history, 1790-1849, the US averaged 1.2% per year growth in average annual income (Gross Domestic Product per capita, inflation adjusted).[a]? Since the latter half of the 19th century, the US has averaged closer to 2% per year, sometimes more, sometimes less.? This included the period of the Robber Barons, Teddy Roosevelt's Trust Busting efforts, the disastrous Hoover years, and since.? We need corporations, but they need to be secondary to natural persons in US law.? Currently, multinationals are de facto above the law:? Through massive disinformation campaigns, they have convinced roughly half of the US electorate that there is no substantive evidence that human activity has had anything to do with climate change, and that they should get tax rebates on taxes they don't pay while the US taxpayers subsidize wars for their benefit.? This is not true for small, bankrupt corporations, wherein the tax liability of the owners of the bankrupt corporation can still have substantial personal liability for taxes on negative income (according to someone I know how is experiencing that).? ????? Does this answer your question, John?? ? ????? Spencerp.s.? There are procedures in US law for a corporate death penalty:? It's called bankruptcy.? In theory, that should be easier to obtain than a death penalty for a natural person, because the standard of proof in a civil case is the weight of the evidence as evaluated by a majority of the jury.? That's obviously very different in two respects from the standard of proof in a criminal case, which requires (a) a unanimous determinate of guilt (b) beyond a reasonable doubt.? Of course, even most bankrupt corporations can afford attorneys, which means that police and prosecutors are less likely to seek convictions of falsified evidence and coerced perjury. ?? [a] Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?" MeasuringWorth, 2011 (www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php).? On 12/7/2011 11:51 PM, John Thielking wrote: Find me an example of another country that has no inalienable rights for corporations and that has not descended into complete legal chaos and I will go along with the current form of Move to Amend. >? >John Thielking > > >From: Drew >To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 10:16 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > >BP and Union Carbide would be examples of corporations, fully deserving of the corporate death penalty, who failed to ensure the protection of people and planet, before profit. Thumbs down. >Occupy the White House!http://JillStein.org >Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android >From: Drew ; >To: pagesincolor at yahoo.com ; >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 6:09:00 AM > >John, in my opinion the lazy short cut that wrongly gave artificial entities "human" rights and equal protection in the first place *needs* to go away. Corporations are not people and this was always the wrong way for the U.S. to create the legal foundations for corporations. >Instead corporate law needs to be reworked to make certain that corporations have three "bottom line" responsibilities : people and planet first, then (if a for profit) profit. If the corporation commits mass murder or destruction of the planet or rips off people the way the banks have, I'm all for the corporate death penalty. Oh and antitrust laws need to be actually enforced and the big monopolies like Micro$oft, AT&T (again), Monsanto, ADM, Lockheed, Halliburton, etc. must be broken up so that we have real competition, not just lip service. >I have no worry that we are capable of creating good business law that protects the small businesses that are the economic engine of our economy without the unnatural and crazy albatross of corporate "personhood" around our necks. >We need the Green New Deal!http://jillstein.org >Drew >Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android >From: John Thielking ; >To: Drew ; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 5:20:53 AM > >Another right that bites the dust is equal protection under the law for "artificial entities".? That precident will do wonders to screw up business to business relationships and the unequal application of contract law, just for starters...You think the big business fish are eating the little business fish now, just wait... > >From: Drew >To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 4:07 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > >John and all, I pasted the proposed language of the amendment below.? As I see it the language clarifies that artificial entities (corporations) do not have any inherent rights under the constitution and can therefore be regulated freely by the federal and state governments.? This is as opposed to human beings who have numerous rights (ie. human rights) at least some of which the constitution and its amendments recognizes and enumerates.? This I believe is very much in alignment with the common sense expectation that most people have of our constitution and removes the ludicrous concept of corporations being artificial "persons" or of money = speech. John with all respect I am very pro small business but I'm just not seeing any problem with the language, and since it will/would take literally years to bring it to fruition anyway I don't see it as any kind of rush. Green New Deal Now! Dr. Jill Stein for President 2012http://jillstein.org Drew >Amendment >Section 1 [A corporation isnot a person and can be regulated] >The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.?? >Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and?are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. >The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined?by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. >Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated] >Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit?contributions and expenditures, including a candidate?s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.? >Federal, State and local government?shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. >The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech?under the First?Amendment. >Section 3? >Nothing contained in this?amendment?shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press. ? >From: John Thielking >>To: John Thielking ; Spencer Graves >>Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >>Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:42 PM >>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >>Spencer, >>? >>I also agree with you about the media.? I'm not sure what to do about it, except that I find very little to object to in the second and third parts of the latest version of the amendment. The only problem I can see with regulating money as not being speech durring an election is to be clear when money is being used as speech when you are not influencing an election. If we screw?up the interpretation of that part of the amendment in some major way, it won't be the end of the world in quite the same way as screwing up the first part of the amendment.? Whatever we do, we need to be able to mobilize major portions of society to stand up for their rights, no matter what the constitution says. Wheather it is apathy or just spending too much time working x number of jobs per person, many people just don't take the time to do this.?? Too often a major "victory", such as the election of a "black, progressive president" is followed by an era of defeat, where we actually lose ground now that most people have gone back to sleep. I don't have an easy answer to how to keep that from happening. >>? >>Sincerely, >>? >>John Thielking >>From: John Thielking >>To: Spencer Graves >>Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >>Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 1:41 PM >>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >>Spencer, >>? >>I had a simillar discussion on Facebook and one person thought my comments were totally irrelevant and nonsensical straw man arguments.? This is one of my responses to Richard (and now to you): >>? >>Another reason why I want to think this over before signing on to endorse any specific language: Let's say it did actually work the way that Richard is suggesting in that individual 5th amendment rights were preserved while requiring any member of a business organization to testify against the business while being given immunity from prosecution for their own crimes committed while at that business. This would end up mandating the same form of testimony that is given before grand jurries and that the Committee To Stop FBI repression is working so hard to stop (people involved with small non-profits or activist groups being made to testify against their friends in front of a grand jury). I need to think about the implications of that form of govt for a long time, and research to see if any other country has simillar laws and what the consequences of having those laws were, before I would agree to such an amendment. >>? >>Sincerely, >>? >>John Thielking >>From: Spencer Graves >>To: John Thielking >>Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >>Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 12:52 PM >>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >>Hi, John:? ????? I don't see the same problem you do.? ????? The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power.? I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons".? This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors.? It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it.? Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name?? I doubt it:? They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge.? Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly.? ????? In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities".? Our current system is one dollar, one vote.? This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this.? ????? Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue:? For me the number one problem is the media.? For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc.? This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP.? In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere.? We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices.? This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg.? If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising.? ????? Spencer On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: >>No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages?with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended.?For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org? and look for the amendment link.?Thanks. >>>? >>>John Thielking >>>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM >>>Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >>> >>>Dear LA City Council: >>>? >>>This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.? Thank you. >>>? >>>Sincerely, >>>? >>>John Thielking >>>San Jose, CA >>>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>From: John Thielking >>>To: "info at movetoamend.org" >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM >>>Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback >>> >>>I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of?the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1%?which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. >>> >>>The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site: >>> >>>Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".? Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".? You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real? job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.? This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).? I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?? We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.? But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like this. >>> >>>That is all for now. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> >>>John Thielking >>>San Jose, CA*Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.? So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.? And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years. And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier. >>> >>> >>>__ _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > >_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 11:12:55 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:12:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Message-ID: <1323371575.44617.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Yes, you are correct John - in these countries corporations have a softer form of limited legal "personhood" and accompanying "rights" - just not "inalienable rights" that are riveted into a written constitution.? So we can see that its very doable to support small businesses and give them the same legal rights as mega corps without resorting to the ludicrous and dangerous situation we have in the U.S. due to our crazy lazy legal situation of directly confering naturally inherent and inalienable human rights to unnatural artificial entities.? Yes John, we can do this much better and much more effectively and safely than we are now. Green Power to The People, not corporations! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 19:06:56 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 19:06:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323371575.44617.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323371575.44617.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323400016.88434.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Drew, ? This is good information to have.? It makes me think that we need to carefully plan how this amendment is going to be implimented if it passes. I'm concerned that without a set of laws already on the books defining the priveledges of corporations and small businesses we could have a dead zone/dark age of a few years duration following passage of this amendment where grand juries and judicial fishing expeditions for those entities without formal rights would rein supreme. I would propose adding to each section of the amendment the following: ? Section 1: New laws and amendments to exisiting laws that are based on section 1 of this amendment may be voted on by the legislatures and signed into law no earlier than 8 years after this amendment is ratified.?These laws and the modifications to those laws will have no effect until Section 1 of this amendment goes into full force and effect. Section 1 of this amendment goes into full force and effect 10 years after it is ratified. ? Section 2: If this amendment is ratified?less than 365 days before the first primary of the next election for Congress, as defined in the schedule of primaries that exists at the time of ratification, Section 2 of this amendment will go into full force and effect after the end of the next general election for Congress.? Otherwise it will go into effect immediately upon ratification. ? Section 3: Section 3 will go into effect immediately upon ratification. ? ? With this language, I think it might not be necessary to have particular goals within the amendment limiting what priviledges can be given to corporations.?? If free and fair elections are given?a 6-8 year head start, I think that the people will end up electing people who will legislate the right types of laws.? What do you think? ? John Thielking ? From: Drew To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Yes, you are correct John - in these countries corporations have a softer form of limited legal "personhood" and accompanying "rights" - just not "inalienable rights" that are riveted into a written constitution. So we can see that its very doable to support small businesses and give them the same legal rights as mega corps without resorting to the ludicrous and dangerous situation we have in the U.S. due to our crazy lazy legal situation of directly confering naturally inherent and inalienable human rights to unnatural artificial entities. Yes John, we can do this much better and much more effectively and safely than we are now. Green Power to The People, not corporations! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: John Thielking ; To: Spencer Graves ; Cc: Drew ; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 6:41:42 PM I stand corrected.? I guess we have a lot of disinformation to overcome to get this amendment passed.?However, even in other countries like the UK where corporations are not fully vested persons, I would suspect that they have at least some rights. The proposed amendment gives them free speech rights for instance. My concern with the loss of equal protection is not trivial. I wrote a long response yesterday that details this but didn't send it since I figured that worrying about big corporations dominating the Internet is trivial compared to saving the planet. But in a nutshell, we are facing the prospect of big corps filing mere complaints of copyright infringement with no evidence or due process to have small Interent sites taken down.?The bills in Congress on this are PROTECT IP and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act).?My concern within a concern about this has to do with unequal treatment under web site TOU's that prohibit ANY commercial use of the information on the site, effectively barring "fair use" of snippets of info for commercial use.? If equal protection were applied to this case, the TOU's would be rendered invalid on this point because two classes of entities are treated more favorably than adult small business owners: 1) minors who can not enter into binding contracts and 2) Big search engines such as Google who use snippets of info from ALL web sites without authorization for commercial use.? Having corporations, small businesses and adults and minors all treated the same under equal protection would be usefull in cases like that.? If corps have no inalienable rights then we may no longer have as strong an argument under equal protection that "Hey corps are getting ahead of us and why don't we have those rights too".? In effect we could see an era where corps have more and better rights than us (possibly granted by the local company town where they are incorporated) and we would be powerless to stop them.? Maybe we need to add to the amendment that local laws can not supersede national laws when it comes to granting corporations priviledges.? Local govts can be more strict, but not less strict than the national and state govts, or something like that. ? As far as the corporate death penalty goes, Greg Palast in his latest book Vultures' Picnic (www.vulturespicnic.org) details what happened to a nuclear power plant building company that was sued into non-existence by Palast's exposing them for various counts of fraud and racketeering.? This same company started up again under a new name and is now the leading contender for building the next generation of nuclear power plants.? If we have a corporate death penalty, we should have stipulations that say that the corporate officers that had their business shut down can never again work in the same industry or work as regulators of said industry.? ? Palast has said that fraud is as much a part of the structure of a typical nuclear power plant as the concrete and steel.? I sent Mothers For Peace info detailing Greg Palast's assertion that most backup generators at nuke plants are designed to fail.? They are run by boat engines that are designed to be run at full power only after warming up for 30 minutes and they are turbocharged with aftermarket turbochargers to boost the power output so that fewer generators are needed to meet the power requirements.? The testing of some of these generators in the 80's revealed that turning them to full power within 10 seconds of startup, as they are required to be run under emergency conditions, caused them to fail.? Broken drive shafts were common.? The Reagan admin leaned on the NRC at the time and made it look like the problem was solved, but according to Palast, the problem may not be solved to this day. Mothers For Peace had a minor concern recently about the possiblity that the valves on the generators would have to be operated manually durring an emergency, but I don't think they were fully aware of my additional concerns.? They are looking into this as we speak. I also sent them a link to an article from the LA Times that says that on Earth Day 1990 a rouge "environmental group" claimed responsibility for 4 separate incidents where power lines were taken down. In one instance, power to Santa Cruz, CA was shut down for 4 hours after a 100 foot transmission line tower leading from the Moss Landing power plant was toppled over by chiselling the bolts off at the base.?See http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-24/news/mn-326_1_santa-cruz-county for more details.??According to this article:?http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/judibomb.html the accounts of these incidents were blown out of proportion during retelling of the story by the mainstream snooze and the story became the part that I seem to recall from the time that terrorists were bombing electrical transmission line towers.? My concern here is that a terrorist armed litterally with box cutters (in this case metal chiselling tools) can still wreck havoc and cause a statewide disasater. All they need to do is topple a transmission line tower at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, forcing the plant offline and into using the backup generators for cooling that may likely promptly fail. ? I'm not saying that my ideas and grasp of the facts are perfect. We will all need to learn a lot and be sure to stay vigilant even if this amendment passes. Thanks. ? John Thielking? From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: Drew ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback ????? During the Move to Amend presentation Sept. 12, David Cobb, Attorney and founder of MTA, said that there are only two countries in the world where corporations are people:? The other is Iraq (whose modern constitution was written while under occupation by the US military).? ????? I will here outline my understanding of the evolution of the concept of a corporation, based partly on what Cobb said and what my own study of political economy.? Cobb said that in the early years after the founding of the US, corporations were created for a short period of time to raise money and perform a specific task.? I don't know when that changed, but economists claim that the invention of the limited liability corporation was a major step in facilitating economic growth.? There probably is something to that claim, but it seems to have been overblown.? For the first half-century of US history, 1790-1849, the US averaged 1.2% per year growth in average annual income (Gross Domestic Product per capita, inflation adjusted).[a]? Since the latter half of the 19th century, the US has averaged closer to 2% per year, sometimes more, sometimes less.? This included the period of the Robber Barons, Teddy Roosevelt's Trust Busting efforts, the disastrous Hoover years, and since.? We need corporations, but they need to be secondary to natural persons in US law.? Currently, multinationals are de facto above the law:? Through massive disinformation campaigns, they have convinced roughly half of the US electorate that there is no substantive evidence that human activity has had anything to do with climate change, and that they should get tax rebates on taxes they don't pay while the US taxpayers subsidize wars for their benefit.? This is not true for small, bankrupt corporations, wherein the tax liability of the owners of the bankrupt corporation can still have substantial personal liability for taxes on negative income (according to someone I know how is experiencing that).? ????? Does this answer your question, John?? ? ????? Spencer p.s.? There are procedures in US law for a corporate death penalty:? It's called bankruptcy.? In theory, that should be easier to obtain than a death penalty for a natural person, because the standard of proof in a civil case is the weight of the evidence as evaluated by a majority of the jury.? That's obviously very different in two respects from the standard of proof in a criminal case, which requires (a) a unanimous determinate of guilt (b) beyond a reasonable doubt.? Of course, even most bankrupt corporations can afford attorneys, which means that police and prosecutors are less likely to seek convictions of falsified evidence and coerced perjury. ?? [a] Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?" MeasuringWorth, 2011 (www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php).? On 12/7/2011 11:51 PM, John Thielking wrote: Find me an example of another country that has no inalienable rights for corporations and that has not descended into complete legal chaos and I will go along with the current form of Move to Amend. >? >John Thielking >From: Drew >To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 10:16 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > >BP and Union Carbide would be examples of corporations, fully deserving of the corporate death penalty, who failed to ensure the protection of people and planet, before profit. Thumbs down. >Occupy the White House!http://JillStein.org >Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android >From: Drew ; >To: pagesincolor at yahoo.com ; >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 6:09:00 AM > >John, in my opinion the lazy short cut that wrongly gave artificial entities "human" rights and equal protection in the first place *needs* to go away. Corporations are not people and this was always the wrong way for the U.S. to create the legal foundations for corporations. >Instead corporate law needs to be reworked to make certain that corporations have three "bottom line" responsibilities : people and planet first, then (if a for profit) profit. If the corporation commits mass murder or destruction of the planet or rips off people the way the banks have, I'm all for the corporate death penalty. Oh and antitrust laws need to be actually enforced and the big monopolies like Micro$oft, AT&T (again), Monsanto, ADM, Lockheed, Halliburton, etc. must be broken up so that we have real competition, not just lip service. >I have no worry that we are capable of creating good business law that protects the small businesses that are the economic engine of our economy without the unnatural and crazy albatross of corporate "personhood" around our necks. >We need the Green New Deal!http://jillstein.org >Drew >Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android >From: John Thielking ; >To: Drew ; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 5:20:53 AM > >Another right that bites the dust is equal protection under the law for "artificial entities".? That precident will do wonders to screw up business to business relationships and the unequal application of contract law, just for starters...You think the big business fish are eating the little business fish now, just wait... > >From: Drew >To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 4:07 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback > >John and all, I pasted the proposed language of the amendment below.? As I see it the language clarifies that artificial entities (corporations) do not have any inherent rights under the constitution and can therefore be regulated freely by the federal and state governments.? This is as opposed to human beings who have numerous rights (ie. human rights) at least some of which the constitution and its amendments recognizes and enumerates.? This I believe is very much in alignment with the common sense expectation that most people have of our constitution and removes the ludicrous concept of corporations being artificial "persons" or of money = speech. John with all respect I am very pro small business but I'm just not seeing any problem with the language, and since it will/would take literally years to bring it to fruition anyway I don't see it as any kind of rush. Green New Deal Now! Dr. Jill Stein for President 2012http://jillstein.org Drew >Amendment >Section 1 [A corporation isnot a person and can be regulated] >The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.?? >Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and?are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. >The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined?by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. >Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated] >Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit?contributions and expenditures, including a candidate?s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.? >Federal, State and local government?shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. >The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech?under the First?Amendment. >Section 3? >Nothing contained in this?amendment?shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press. ? >From: John Thielking >>To: John Thielking ; Spencer Graves >>Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >>Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:42 PM >>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >>Spencer, >>? >>I also agree with you about the media.? I'm not sure what to do about it, except that I find very little to object to in the second and third parts of the latest version of the amendment. The only problem I can see with regulating money as not being speech durring an election is to be clear when money is being used as speech when you are not influencing an election. If we screw?up the interpretation of that part of the amendment in some major way, it won't be the end of the world in quite the same way as screwing up the first part of the amendment.? Whatever we do, we need to be able to mobilize major portions of society to stand up for their rights, no matter what the constitution says. Wheather it is apathy or just spending too much time working x number of jobs per person, many people just don't take the time to do this.?? Too often a major "victory", such as the election of a "black, progressive president" is followed by an era of defeat, where we actually lose ground now that most people have gone back to sleep. I don't have an easy answer to how to keep that from happening. >>? >>Sincerely, >>? >>John Thielking >>From: John Thielking >>To: Spencer Graves >>Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >>Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 1:41 PM >>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >>Spencer, >>? >>I had a simillar discussion on Facebook and one person thought my comments were totally irrelevant and nonsensical straw man arguments.? This is one of my responses to Richard (and now to you): >>? >>Another reason why I want to think this over before signing on to endorse any specific language: Let's say it did actually work the way that Richard is suggesting in that individual 5th amendment rights were preserved while requiring any member of a business organization to testify against the business while being given immunity from prosecution for their own crimes committed while at that business. This would end up mandating the same form of testimony that is given before grand jurries and that the Committee To Stop FBI repression is working so hard to stop (people involved with small non-profits or activist groups being made to testify against their friends in front of a grand jury). I need to think about the implications of that form of govt for a long time, and research to see if any other country has simillar laws and what the consequences of having those laws were, before I would agree to such an amendment. >>? >>Sincerely, >>? >>John Thielking >>From: Spencer Graves >>To: John Thielking >>Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >>Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 12:52 PM >>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >> >>Hi, John:? ????? I don't see the same problem you do.? ????? The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power.? I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons".? This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors.? It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it.? Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name?? I doubt it:? They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge.? Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly.? ????? In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities".? Our current system is one dollar, one vote.? This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this.? ????? Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue:? For me the number one problem is the media.? For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc.? This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP.? In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere.? We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices.? This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg.? If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising.? ????? Spencer On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: >>No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages?with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended.?For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org? and look for the amendment link.?Thanks. >>>? >>>John Thielking >>>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM >>>Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback >>> >>>Dear LA City Council: >>>? >>>This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.? Thank you. >>>? >>>Sincerely, >>>? >>>John Thielking >>>San Jose, CA >>>----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>From: John Thielking >>>To: "info at movetoamend.org" >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM >>>Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback >>> >>>I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of?the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1%?which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%. >>> >>>The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site: >>> >>>Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".? Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".? You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real? job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.? This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).? I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?? We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.? But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like this. >>> >>>That is all for now. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> >>>John Thielking >>>San Jose, CA*Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.? So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.? And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years. And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier. >>> >>> >>>__ _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > >_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com _______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 8 19:59:53 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:59:53 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323400016.88434.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323371575.44617.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323400016.88434.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE187B9.1040600@prodsyse.com> Hi, John: The major corporations will spend millions, perhaps even billions to try to defeat this, and the commercial media will go after it with a vengeance. Even without that, the feeding frenzy unleashed by the commercial media will be vastly more intense than what stampeded the US public into Iraq. There are probably "public relations" business right now preparing proposals for massive research campaigns using focus groups, sample surveys, and other methods to try to figure out the easiest ways to discredit this. They may even be past the proposal stage. If it passes, the major corporations will again spend millions, perhaps billions, to try to stamped the legislators and judges they still control carve out the narrowest possible interpretation -- and even try to get it declared unconstitutional. The latter likely won't happen, but you can bet that the commercial media will work hard to convince the public that this amendment is terrible and will have dire consequences. I'm willing to leave it to David Cobb and his best advisers to forecast the fallout after it passes, if it does. On 12/8/2011 7:06 PM, John Thielking wrote: > Drew, > This is good information to have. It makes me think that we need to > carefully plan how this amendment is going to be implimented if it > passes. I'm concerned that without a set of laws already on the books > defining the priveledges of corporations and small businesses we could > have a dead zone/dark age of a few years duration following passage of > this amendment where grand juries and judicial fishing expeditions for > those entities without formal rights would rein supreme. I would > propose adding to each section of the amendment the following: > Section 1: New laws and amendments to exisiting laws that are based on > section 1 of this amendment may be voted on by the legislatures and > signed into law no earlier than 8 years after this amendment is > ratified. These laws and the modifications to those laws will have no > effect until Section 1 of this amendment goes into full force and > effect. Section 1 of this amendment goes into full force and effect 10 > years after it is ratified. Bad idea. We need honest trust busting right now: As I said, major corporations get tax rebates on taxes they don't even pay. The owners of small businesses, even incorporated ones allegedly subject to rules of limited liability, must pay taxes that can force them into bankruptcy as individuals to pay taxes on income their corporations failed to obtain. I'm not making this up. > Section 2: If this amendment is ratified less than 365 days before the > first primary of the next election for Congress, as defined in the > schedule of primaries that exists at the time of ratification, Section > 2 of this amendment will go into full force and effect after the end > of the next general election for Congress. Otherwise it will go into > effect immediately upon ratification. > Section 3: Section 3 will go into effect immediately upon ratification. > With this language, I think it might not be necessary to have > particular goals within the amendment limiting what priviledges can be > given to corporations. If free and fair elections are given a 6-8 > year head start, I think that the people will end up electing people > who will legislate the right types of laws. What do you think? We are unlikely to defeat the current bribery system of campaign finance until a critical mass of the electorate turns off all the commercial media. Spencer > John Thielking > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web:www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 21:41:23 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:41:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback Message-ID: <1323409283.29537.androidMobile@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hey John, The place where I see our situation completely differently from you is that not only do we have an overwhelmingly strong current bias *in favor of corporations *, that bias is deeply ingrained in our legal system and laws, so I have little to no concern that overturning the inherent/constitutional rights of corporations by way of amendment will somehow suddenly make this overwhelming bias disappear.? I have no worry that anyone will be trampling on the rights of corporations (or even noncorporate businesses) in America at any point in the forseeable future. The probusiness bias and its backing the legal tradition is simply too strong for that. Even if its not an inherent / inalienable / constitutional right, I'm confident that the congress will pass laws that will fill in any missing pieces to protect corporate business interests. Not to worry. Let's build the Green Industrial Complex! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 21:42:28 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:42:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback Message-ID: <1323409348.38072.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay clauses required.? Still required is a populace that won't just go back to sleep at the smell of the first victory. ? John Thielking ? The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 8 21:51:46 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:51:46 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback In-Reply-To: <1323409348.38072.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323409348.38072.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE1A1F2.9040307@prodsyse.com> I'm with Drew on this: If this amendment passes, nothing will change immediately. They major corporations will still fight tooth and claw to minimize the impact of the changes. The difference is that rather than them working with our current reactionary courts to give them even more power over natural persons, they will be on the defensive. Even then, it could take massive amounts of money from private citizens to pay for the litigation required to enforce the changes. You are doubtless correct about one point in this, however, namely that the large corporations will eagerly use their powers to try to limit the power of small businesses while not limiting the large ones. With the wording of this amendment, it will be hard for them to find ways to do that, but they doubtless will try -- and the commercial media (especially broadcasting) will support them at every turn. Best Wishes, Spencer p.s. A cousin is an engineer and a private pilot. He sometimes asks, "What makes an airplane fly?" Answer: Money. On 12/8/2011 9:42 PM, John Thielking wrote: > The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age > (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 > first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay > clauses required. Still required is a populace that won't just go > back to sleep at the smell of the first victory. > > John Thielking > The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked > sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 10:13:20 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP In-Reply-To: <4EE1A1F2.9040307@prodsyse.com> References: <1323409348.38072.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EE1A1F2.9040307@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1323454400.95494.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> If you have any doubts about big businesses' desires to run small businesses out of town, this should erase them. See below: ? ? Friends, Amazing! ?On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head of the Motion Picture Assocation of America admitted that he's pushing a censorship regime just like China's. ?According to Variety, he said: ?"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites." Please urge your lawmakers to oppose Internet censorship -- the vote is coming up next week! ? The Stop Online Piracy Act would require sites to censor their users' posts (or shut down), let the government block your access to websites, and put people in jail for uploading unlicensed content (ie, cover band performances). The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote NEXT WEEK. ?This isn't China -- it's America, where the First Amendment is supposed to rule the day. Please click here to ask your lawmakers to oppose a China-like Internet regime in America. Thanks. From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback ????? I'm with Drew on this:? If this amendment passes, nothing will change immediately.? They major corporations will still fight tooth and claw to minimize the impact of the changes.? The difference is that rather than them working with our current reactionary courts to give them even more power over natural persons, they will be on the defensive.? Even then, it could take massive amounts of money from private citizens to pay for the litigation required to enforce the changes.? ????? You are doubtless correct about one point in this, however, namely that the large corporations will eagerly use their powers to try to limit the power of small businesses while not limiting the large ones.? With the wording of this amendment, it will be hard for them to find ways to do that, but they doubtless will try -- and the commercial media (especially broadcasting) will support them at every turn.? ????? Best Wishes, ????? Spencer p.s.? A cousin is an engineer and a private pilot.? He sometimes asks, "What makes an airplane fly?"? Answer:? Money.? On 12/8/2011 9:42 PM, John Thielking wrote: The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay clauses required.? Still required is a populace that won't just go back to sleep at the smell of the first victory. >? >John Thielking > >The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. > > >_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Fri Dec 9 10:25:05 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:25:05 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP In-Reply-To: <1323454400.95494.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323409348.38072.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EE1A1F2.9040307@prodsyse.com> <1323454400.95494.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE25281.2040207@prodsyse.com> On 12/9/2011 10:13 AM, John Thielking wrote: > If you have any doubts about big businesses' desires to run small > businesses out of town, this should erase them. See below: I never had any doubts about that: That's precisely why we need a constitutional amendment that corporations are not people (but single proprietors are, as are individuals who own LLCs, etc.) Spencer > Friends, > Amazing! On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head > of the Motion Picture Assocation of America admitted that he's pushing > a censorship regime just like China's. According to Variety, he said: > / "When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they > couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out > how to block sites."/ > *Please urge your lawmakers to oppose Internet censorship -- the vote > is coming up next week! * > > The Stop Online Piracy Act would require sites to censor their users' > posts (or shut down), let the government block your access to > websites, and put people in jail for uploading unlicensed content (ie, > cover band performances). > The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote NEXT WEEK. This > isn't China -- it's America, where the First Amendment is supposed to > rule the day. > *Please click here to ask your lawmakers to oppose a China-like > Internet regime in America.* > > Thanks. > *From:* Spencer Graves > *To:* John Thielking > *Cc:* "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" > *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:51 PM > *Subject:* Re: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback > > I'm with Drew on this: If this amendment passes, nothing will > change immediately. They major corporations will still fight tooth > and claw to minimize the impact of the changes. The difference is > that rather than them working with our current reactionary courts to > give them even more power over natural persons, they will be on the > defensive. Even then, it could take massive amounts of money from > private citizens to pay for the litigation required to enforce the > changes. > > > You are doubtless correct about one point in this, however, > namely that the large corporations will eagerly use their powers to > try to limit the power of small businesses while not limiting the > large ones. With the wording of this amendment, it will be hard for > them to find ways to do that, but they doubtless will try -- and the > commercial media (especially broadcasting) will support them at every > turn. > > > Best Wishes, > Spencer > p.s. A cousin is an engineer and a private pilot. He sometimes asks, > "What makes an airplane fly?" Answer: Money. > > > On 12/8/2011 9:42 PM, John Thielking wrote: >> The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age >> (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 >> first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay >> clauses required. Still required is a populace that won't just go >> back to sleep at the smell of the first victory. >> >> John Thielking >> The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked >> sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sosfbay-discuss mailing list >> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob.means at electric-bikes.com Fri Dec 9 09:16:07 2011 From: rob.means at electric-bikes.com (Rob Means) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:16:07 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Letter to the Milpitas Post Message-ID: <1323450967.2070.7.camel@robs-laptop> Letter to the Milpitas Post The bad news on the Climate Change crisis just keeps coming. In the same week that we learn CO2 levels of greenhouse gases worldwide jumped more last year than any year in recorded history, the climate change negotiators in Durban fail to agree on meaningful climate change actions. Already, this year is record-breaking in terms of costs to deal with weather disasters ? which, of course, will continue to grow as the Earth warms. Major policy changes are required ? and strongly supported by public opinion ? to address our environmental, economic and governance problems, but changes are being blocked by the 1% (actually the top 0.1% or 1/1000) and their corporations. We are screwed! But hopeful signs are appearing. The Sunnyvale City Council blew off threats from the chemicals industry by passing a ban on single-use plastic bags. Hopefully, our Council will soon do the same. The Occupy Movement has evolved again. Now, they are giving the banks grief by occupying homes being foreclosed upon. ?Put pressure on your bank by inviting Occupiers to set up an encampment on your property.? That's the invitation from Occupy My Foreclosure! http://www.occupymyforeclosure.org/ The biggest challenge to corporate dominance came from Los Angeles. There, on Dec. 6, ?the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a resolution calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to clearly establish that only living persons -- not corporations -- are endowed with constitutional rights and that money is not the same as free speech. The vote makes Los Angeles the first major city in the U.S. to call for an end to all corporate constitutional rights.? - http://snipurl.com/214mqv8 That last one ? corporations are not people and money is not speech ? is a big deal! If we could pass a Constitutional Amendment accomplishing that, we could probably reverse the decline of the middle class in this country. Until then, many other non-violent options for resisting corporate dominance are waiting for us. For example, join me and many others by moving your money from one of the monster banks to a credit union. http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/ -- Rob Means,1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913 408-262-0420h, 408-262-8975w, rob.means at electric-bikes.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 18:09:06 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:09:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP In-Reply-To: <4EE25281.2040207@prodsyse.com> References: <1323409348.38072.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EE1A1F2.9040307@prodsyse.com> <1323454400.95494.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EE25281.2040207@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1323482946.24132.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Sigh.? I can see that we will continue to be at loggerheads over this issue of what is a paper entity and when does it lose all of its rights under this Move To Amend amendment. For instance, I don't plan on keeping www.peacemovies.com as a one man operation forever. Eventually I may have dvd dispensing kiosks in shopping malls that will be serviced by employees and I will likely have partnerships either with volunteers or employees/paid partners running a retail dvd rental outfit and/or partnerships with people who produce their own content. I may at some point dump Hollywood entirely and go with content from web sites such as? http://www.awkwardblackgirl.com/episodes?for my movies to review and rent/sell.?That tiny little?web site gets 60,000 views per week, believe it or not. ?Another example is that I used to work for Dacara, Inc, which is a mini corporation that runs two Foster's Freeze stores, one in Santa Cruz and one in Salinas. They helped put me through college, so I'm not about to screw them over. If that attitude counts as "revolving door politics", then so be it. People form artificial entities for all sorts of reasons and in all shapes and sizes. I don't think that a reasonable court would hold that complete loss of personhood only applies to mega corps under this amendment.? I should probably study up on what laws currently exist in the US that enhance the EQUAL rights of artificial entities and see if those?laws would still be just as valid if this amendment passes. Equal rights, at least between artificial entities, if not between artificial entities and real people, is the main defense that we can use to keep a level playing field between the big fish and the little fish. If we try to pass laws or principles that tilt the playing field one way or the other in an unfair way, we will likely wake up one day and find those laws and principles used to drive the little fish out of business. ?Any ideas about laws that currently exist Drew, since you seem to be well informed on this sub-topic? ? John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 10:25 AM Subject: Re: SOPA and PROTECT IP On 12/9/2011 10:13 AM, John Thielking wrote: If you have any doubts about big businesses' desires to run small businesses out of town, this should erase them. See below: > ????? I never had any doubts about that:? That's precisely why we need a constitutional amendment that corporations are not people (but single proprietors are, as are individuals who own LLCs, etc.)? Spencer > > >Friends, >Amazing! ?On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head of the Motion Picture Assocation of America admitted that he's pushing a censorship regime just like China's. ?According to Variety, he said: >?"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites." >Please urge your lawmakers to oppose Internet censorship -- the vote is coming up next week! ? >The Stop Online Piracy Act would require sites to censor their users' posts (or shut down), let the government block your access to websites, and put people in jail for uploading unlicensed content (ie, cover band performances). >The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote NEXT WEEK. ?This isn't China -- it's America, where the First Amendment is supposed to rule the day. >Please click here to ask your lawmakers to oppose a China-like Internet regime in America. >Thanks. > >From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:51 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback > > >????? I'm with Drew on this:? If this amendment passes, nothing will change immediately.? They major corporations will still fight tooth and claw to minimize the impact of the changes.? The difference is that rather than them working with our current reactionary courts to give them even more power over natural persons, they will be on the defensive.? Even then, it could take massive amounts of money from private citizens to pay for the litigation required to enforce the changes.? > > >????? You are doubtless correct about one point in this, however, namely that the large corporations will eagerly use their powers to try to limit the power of small businesses while not limiting the large ones.? With the wording of this amendment, it will be hard for them to find ways to do that, but they doubtless will try -- and the commercial media (especially broadcasting) will support them at every turn.? > > >????? Best Wishes, >????? Spencer >p.s.? A cousin is an engineer and a private pilot.? He sometimes asks, "What makes an airplane fly?"? Answer:? Money.? > > >On 12/8/2011 9:42 PM, John Thielking wrote: >The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay clauses required.? Still required is a populace that won't just go back to sleep at the smell of the first victory. >>? >>John Thielking >> >>The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 18:36:28 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:36:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP Message-ID: <1323484588.85444.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The thing is John, that even if it were possible to pass the amendment and have it go into effect today, all the built-in bias favoring artificial entities that exists would still be in effect. All the case law and legal precedents supporting the "rights" of artificial persons would still be right there, so this is completely a nonissue in my opinion.? It would really just be a subtle shift to a slightly less overwhelming position for corporations.? Its not as if it would suddenly mean revolutionary communism and centralized control or that artificial entities would suddenly not be able to sue or be sued, etc. Think subtle shift, not revolution. And as Spencer so eloquently put it, the vested and entrenched special interests will do everything they can to protect their precious corporations and their nonliability for any corporate action, so I'm not worried about their "plight". Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the Save American Democracy Amendment today.? Yeah! Create Democracy in America -? vote Green & end corporate rule! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Fri Dec 9 20:54:43 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:54:43 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP In-Reply-To: <1323482946.24132.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323409348.38072.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EE1A1F2.9040307@prodsyse.com> <1323454400.95494.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EE25281.2040207@prodsyse.com> <1323482946.24132.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE2E613.9070400@prodsyse.com> Hi, John: On 12/9/2011 6:09 PM, John Thielking wrote: > Sigh. I can see that we will continue to be at loggerheads over this > issue of what is a paper entity and when does it lose all of its > rights under this Move To Amend amendment. For instance, I don't plan > on keeping www.peacemovies.com as a one > man operation forever. Eventually I may have dvd dispensing kiosks in > shopping malls that will be serviced by employees and I will likely > have partnerships either with volunteers or employees/paid partners > running a retail dvd rental outfit and/or partnerships with people who > produce their own content. I may at some point dump Hollywood entirely > and go with content from web sites such as > http://www.awkwardblackgirl.com/episodes for my movies to review and > rent/sell. That tiny little web site gets 60,000 views per week, > believe it or not. Another example is that I used to work for Dacara, > Inc, which is a mini corporation that runs two Foster's Freeze stores, > one in Santa Cruz and one in Salinas. They helped put me through > college, so I'm not about to screw them over. If that attitude counts > as "revolving door politics", then so be it. People form artificial > entities for all sorts of reasons and in all shapes and sizes. I don't > think that a reasonable court would hold that complete loss of > personhood only applies to mega corps under this amendment. I should > probably study up on what laws currently exist in the US that enhance > the EQUAL rights of artificial entities and see if those laws would > still be just as valid if this amendment passes. Equal rights, at > least between artificial entities, if not between artificial entities > and real people, is the main defense that we can use to keep a level > playing field between the big fish and the little fish. If we try to > pass laws or principles that tilt the playing field one way or the > other in an unfair way, we will likely wake up one day and find those > laws and principles used to drive the little fish out of business. > Any ideas about laws that currently exist Drew, since you seem to be > well informed on this sub-topic? Drew seems better informed on this than I am, but according to David Cobb of Move to Amend, only two countries on earth have corporate personhood: The US and Iraq -- and Iraq only got it recently while US guns were pointed at the heads of the replacements for Saddam Hussein. From what I've heard, Iraq was among the leaders in national socioeconomic development in the Arab world -- perhaps the leader if you consider the status of the bottom half of the population -- under Saddam Hussein in the 1980s -- without corporate personhood. Europe and Japan rebuilt after World War II without corporate personhood -- but with a reasonable distribution of businesses of all sizes. The US today has lower social mobility than most other countries studied (Canada, Scandinavia, France, Germany, but only slightly better than the UK; www.economicmobility.org ), i.e. the children or rich or poor parents are more likely here to have the same socioeconomic status as their parents than in the other major advanced industrialized countries studied except the UK. I think the media biases and the general excessive dominance of US politics by major corporations have also destroyed the reality that once existed behind the image of the US as a "land of opportunity". Destroying corporate personhood won't fix all those problems, but it should make it easier to fix them. Anything we can do to require multinational corporations to actually pay taxes and live within the law (rather than write laws for their benefit) will likely make things easier for small businesses. Of course, I could be mistaken, and you could be correct. However, that's inconsistent with the experience of the rest of the world without corporate personhood. Spencer > John Thielking > *From:* Spencer Graves > *To:* John Thielking > *Cc:* "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" > *Sent:* Friday, December 9, 2011 10:25 AM > *Subject:* Re: SOPA and PROTECT IP > > On 12/9/2011 10:13 AM, John Thielking wrote: >> If you have any doubts about big businesses' desires to run small >> businesses out of town, this should erase them. See below: > > > I never had any doubts about that: That's precisely why we need > a constitutional amendment that corporations are not people (but > single proprietors are, as are individuals who own LLCs, etc.) Spencer >> Friends, >> Amazing! On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head >> of the Motion Picture Assocation of America admitted that he's >> pushing a censorship regime just like China's. According to Variety, >> he said: >> / "When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they >> couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out >> how to block sites."/ >> *Please urge your lawmakers to oppose Internet censorship -- the vote >> is coming up next week! * >> >> The Stop Online Piracy Act would require sites to censor their users' >> posts (or shut down), let the government block your access to >> websites, and put people in jail for uploading unlicensed content >> (ie, cover band performances). >> The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote NEXT WEEK. This >> isn't China -- it's America, where the First Amendment is supposed to >> rule the day. >> *Please click here to ask your lawmakers to oppose a China-like >> Internet regime in America.* >> >> Thanks. >> *From:* Spencer Graves >> >> *To:* John Thielking >> >> *Cc:* "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >> >> >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:51 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback >> >> I'm with Drew on this: If this amendment passes, nothing will >> change immediately. They major corporations will still fight tooth >> and claw to minimize the impact of the changes. The difference is >> that rather than them working with our current reactionary courts to >> give them even more power over natural persons, they will be on the >> defensive. Even then, it could take massive amounts of money from >> private citizens to pay for the litigation required to enforce the >> changes. >> >> >> You are doubtless correct about one point in this, however, >> namely that the large corporations will eagerly use their powers to >> try to limit the power of small businesses while not limiting the >> large ones. With the wording of this amendment, it will be hard for >> them to find ways to do that, but they doubtless will try -- and the >> commercial media (especially broadcasting) will support them at every >> turn. >> >> >> Best Wishes, >> Spencer >> p.s. A cousin is an engineer and a private pilot. He sometimes >> asks, "What makes an airplane fly?" Answer: Money. >> >> >> On 12/8/2011 9:42 PM, John Thielking wrote: >>> The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age >>> (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 >>> first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay >>> clauses required. Still required is a populace that won't just go >>> back to sleep at the smell of the first victory. >>> >>> John Thielking >>> The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked >>> sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sosfbay-discuss mailing list >>> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss >> -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 21:31:39 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 21:31:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP Message-ID: <1323495099.12925.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I think what David Cobb was saying was that only in the U.S. and Iraq are corporate "persons" accorded constitutional / "inalienable" / nonlegislatable/ natural rights. On the other hand nonconstitutional "personhood" of corporation's itself with a lighter form of "rights" is common in legal systems worldwide following the UK's adoption of the concept. This occurred after the U.S. war of independence so the U.S. missed out on this lighter-handed version of corporate "personhood" that first the U.K., then the British Commonwealth, then other industrial countries adopted. The U.S. didn't codify this concept until 50-100 years later than the U.K. and had the clumsy / lazy unique distinction of conferring "inalienable " human rights directly upon them rigidly via constitution instead of building a doctrine and body of laws specifically regarding corporate "persons". FOR MORE SEE: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality http://ask.metafilter.com/143941/corporate-personhood-around-the-world Bring Democracy to America - people over profits! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Spencer Graves ; To: John Thielking ; Cc: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2011 4:54:43 AM Hi, John:? On 12/9/2011 6:09 PM, John Thielking wrote: Sigh.? I can see that we will continue to be at loggerheads over this issue of what is a paper entity and when does it lose all of its rights under this Move To Amend amendment. For instance, I don't plan on keeping www.peacemovies.com as a one man operation forever. Eventually I may have dvd dispensing kiosks in shopping malls that will be serviced by employees and I will likely have partnerships either with volunteers or employees/paid partners running a retail dvd rental outfit and/or partnerships with people who produce their own content. I may at some point dump Hollywood entirely and go with content from web sites such as? http://www.awkwardblackgirl.com/episodes?for my movies to review and rent/sell.?That tiny little?web site gets 60,000 views per week, believe it or not. ?Another example is that I used to work for Dacara, Inc, which is a mini corporation that runs two Foster's Freeze stores, one in Santa Cruz and one in Salinas. They helped put me through college, so I'm not about to screw them over. If that attitude counts as "revolving door politics", then so be it. People form artificial entities for all sorts of reasons and in all shapes and sizes. I don't think that a reasonable court would hold that complete loss of personhood only applies to mega corps under this amendment.? I should probably study up on what laws currently exist in the US that enhance the EQUAL rights of artificial entities and see if those?laws would still be just as valid if this amendment passes. Equal rights, at least between artificial entities, if not between artificial entities and real people, is the main defense that we can use to keep a level playing field between the big fish and the little fish. If we try to pass laws or principles that tilt the playing field one way or the other in an unfair way, we will likely wake up one day and find those laws and principles used to drive the little fish out of business. ?Any ideas about laws that currently exist Drew, since you seem to be well informed on this sub-topic? ????? Drew seems better informed on this than I am, but according to David Cobb of Move to Amend, only two countries on earth have corporate personhood:? The US and Iraq -- and Iraq only got it recently while US guns were pointed at the heads of the replacements for Saddam Hussein.? From what I've heard, Iraq was among the leaders in national socioeconomic development in the Arab world -- perhaps the leader if you consider the status of the bottom half of the population -- under Saddam Hussein in the 1980s -- without corporate personhood.? Europe and Japan rebuilt after World War II without corporate personhood -- but with a reasonable distribution of businesses of all sizes.? The US today has lower social mobility than most other countries studied (Canada, Scandinavia, France, Germany, but only slightly better than the UK;? www.economicmobility.org), i.e. the children or rich or poor parents are more likely here to have the same socioeconomic status as their parents than in the other major advanced industrialized countries studied except the UK.? I think the media biases and the general excessive dominance of US politics by major corporations have also destroyed the reality that once existed behind the image of the US as a "land of opportunity".? ????? Destroying corporate personhood won't fix all those problems, but it should make it easier to fix them.? Anything we can do to require multinational corporations to actually pay taxes and live within the law (rather than write laws for their benefit) will likely make things easier for small businesses.? ????? Of course, I could be mistaken, and you could be correct.? However, that's inconsistent with the experience of the rest of the world without corporate personhood.? ????? Spencer ? John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 10:25 AM Subject: Re: SOPA and PROTECT IP On 12/9/2011 10:13 AM, John Thielking wrote: If you have any doubts about big businesses' desires to run small businesses out of town, this should erase them. See below: ????? I never had any doubts about that:? That's precisely why we need a constitutional amendment that corporations are not people (but single proprietors are, as are individuals who own LLCs, etc.)? Spencer ? ? Friends, Amazing! ?On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head of the Motion Picture Assocation of America admitted that he's pushing a censorship regime just like China's. ?According to Variety, he said: ?"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites." Please urge your lawmakers to oppose Internet censorship -- the vote is coming up next week! ? The Stop Online Piracy Act would require sites to censor their users' posts (or shut down), let the government block your access to websites, and put people in jail for uploading unlicensed content (ie, cover band performances). The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote NEXT WEEK. ?This isn't China -- it's America, where the First Amendment is supposed to rule the day. Please click here to ask your lawmakers to oppose a China-like Internet regime in America. Thanks. From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback ????? I'm with Drew on this:? If this amendment passes, nothing will change immediately.? They major corporations will still fight tooth and claw to minimize the impact of the changes.? The difference is that rather than them working with our current reactionary courts to give them even more power over natural persons, they will be on the defensive.? Even then, it could take massive amounts of money from private citizens to pay for the litigation required to enforce the changes.? ????? You are doubtless correct about one point in this, however, namely that the large corporations will eagerly use their powers to try to limit the power of small businesses while not limiting the large ones.? With the wording of this amendment, it will be hard for them to find ways to do that, but they doubtless will try -- and the commercial media (especially broadcasting) will support them at every turn.? ????? Best Wishes, ????? Spencer p.s.? A cousin is an engineer and a private pilot.? He sometimes asks, "What makes an airplane fly?"? Answer:? Money.? On 12/8/2011 9:42 PM, John Thielking wrote: The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay clauses required.? Still required is a populace that won't just go back to sleep at the smell of the first victory. ? John Thielking ? The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 21:50:48 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 21:50:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Saving Our Democracy Message-ID: <1323496248.87061.androidMobile@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 22:08:27 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:08:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Saving Our Democracy Message-ID: <1323497307.74246.androidMobile@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Please sign Senator Bernie Sander's petition for the constitutional amendment to limit corporate influence of elections. http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c From: Drew ; To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Saving Our Democracy Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2011 5:50:48 AM From: Drew ; To: sosfbay-discuss at yahoo.com ; Subject: Saving Our Democracy Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2011 5:45:00 AM Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a constitional amendment to limit corporate influence on elections today and in this article explains why: http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/8818-saving-our-democracy http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Sat Dec 10 13:11:35 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:11:35 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Two Environment Speeches In-Reply-To: <740354A3-E73B-4777-9637-2E0ACD204308@evcl.com> References: <740354A3-E73B-4777-9637-2E0ACD204308@evcl.com> Message-ID: <4EE3CB07.7050504@earthlink.net> The email below reminds of another speech in 1992: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0 Gerry P.S. Today is Human Rights Day: http://www.un.org/en/events/humanrightsday/2011/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Can't say it any better than this Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:29:37 -0800 Here the speech from Youth Delegate to the UN Climate talks in South Africa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko3e6G_7GY4&feature=channel_video_title Please pass this on far and wide. David From wrolley at charter.net Sat Dec 10 20:18:08 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:18:08 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Two Environment Speeches In-Reply-To: <4EE3CB07.7050504@earthlink.net> References: <740354A3-E73B-4777-9637-2E0ACD204308@evcl.com> <4EE3CB07.7050504@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4EE42F00.5090902@charter.net> Gerry, thank you putting these two speeches together. They belong that way. I am so depressed that so little has changed between 1992 and Ms. Appadurai's speech today. We are still going down the same road and it is looking more and more like The Road of Cormac McCarthy. This weekend, I am working on another of my Morgan Hill Times columns. It will have a harsher tone than any that I have written so far. But, as Ms. Appadurai said, we have "5 years at the most" until climate change is "irrevocable." The column is for Tuesday, Dec. 13. While I support what Move to Amend... and Bernie Sanders... are trying to do, we don't have time to pass such an amendment. By the time that happens, the corporate propaganda machine will have doomed this planet, or at least life as we know it and which our children and grand children will have to suffer through. What action will we all take today, tomorrow? I will continue to write and hope to change other minds. On 12/10/2011 1:11 PM, Gerry Gras wrote: > > The email below reminds of another speech in 1992: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0 > > Gerry > > P.S. Today is Human Rights Day: > http://www.un.org/en/events/humanrightsday/2011/ > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Can't say it any better than this > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:29:37 -0800 > > Here the speech from Youth Delegate to the UN Climate talks in South > Africa: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko3e6G_7GY4&feature=channel_video_title > > Please pass this on far and wide. > > David > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Sun Dec 11 05:23:21 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 05:23:21 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] OCCUPY THE BANKS! MONDAY!! 4-6 PM In-Reply-To: <4EE46BB6.3000204@prodsyse.com> References: <4EE46BB6.3000204@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <4EE4AEC9.9070501@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: The South Bay Mobilization is planning to "Occupy the Banks" at Market and San Fernando in San Jose (Cesar Chavez Park), tomorrow, Monday, Dec. 12. Hi, Caroline, Merriam: 1. How many copies do you have of the Green Party "Move Your Money" z-folds and "Media & Democracy" bookmarks? 2. Will you be able to arrange for some of those to appear at Market and San Fernando in San Jose at the appointed time? Thanks, Spencer Graves -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: [SBM] OCCUPY THE BANKS! MONDAY!! Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:37:10 -0800 From: Betsy Wolf-Graves To: spencer graves -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SBM] OCCUPY THE BANKS! MONDAY!! Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 12:01:41 -0800 From: Fred Hirsch To: Dear Brothers, Sisters, Friends, I was informed today that the South Bay Labor Council Executive Board has voted to join with the many organizations that have endorsed this event. Please make every effort to attend and bring co-workers and friends. Help to make this a really powerful statement that we won?t stand for Big Bank victimization of immigrants and working class homeowners ? the 99%. Please read the background information I put below this leaflet. See you on Monday afternoon. In solidarity, Fred ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * ----------------------------------------------------------------------- **Here isWhat You Should Know About Wells Fargo and Bank of America. *Wall Street big banks profit from jailing our family and community members. Some of the biggest banks in America are getting even richer by investing in private prisons, including immigrant detention centers. In other countries such places were called ?concentration camps.? In 2007 Bank of America arranged investments of $450,000,000 for expansion and development of facilities for the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the biggest operator of immigrant detention centers and other private prisons in the country. Wells Fargo also invested in growing this spreading web of private prisons to the tune of $5,900,000 in CCA and $88,700,000 in another profit driven prison company, GEO Group. CCA& GEO Group invest some of their expanding wealth in anti-immigrant politicians and in lobbying for harsher immigration policies and stricter criminal sentencing. The more people they imprison, and the longer they keep them, the higher their profits. These Wall Street One Percenters have opened a gold mine based on human misery and ethnic cleansing. These Big Banks also cause untold suffering by foreclosing people out of their homes and simultaneously boosting rents. Our families are struggling while the big Wall Street banks that triggered this economic collapse are raking in record profits. You are probably aware of this impact in your own immediate or extended family and in your community. 6.2 million families have already lost their homes; another 4.2 million are soon to be put out on the street. An additional 3.5 million families are estimated to be foreclosed next year. More information here: - http://www.piconetwork.org/admin/documents/files/Report_Private_Prisons_Final.pdf - http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/privateprisons Hope to see you at Market, near San Fernando from 4:00 to 6:00 PM on Monday. Fred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 11:50:10 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:50:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP In-Reply-To: <1323495099.12925.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323495099.12925.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323633010.74154.YahooMailNeo@web111109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Drew and Spencer, ? Thanks for the links to more information on how corporate personhood is reflected in existing law. However, I have had discussions with other people about this and while most remain nuetral/have no specific comment, my room mate and a woman I met at the WILPF Human Rights Day meeting yesterday both agree with me that opening up the constitution to amendment in this way could result in a constitutional convention where the bill of rights that applies to people is abolished. I have always been against having a constitutional convention for precisely this reason. We, as proponents of the Move To Amend movement, just don't have the resources or collective political will to sustain and win a fight at the level of a constitutional convention. An article located here: http://glynholton.com/2011/10/abolishing-corporate-personhood-be-careful-what-you-ask-for/? suggests two things: ? 1) The abolition of corporate personhood is already at the top of the agenda at many law schools.? New lawyers are being schooled in the "Nexus Of Contracts" theory.? That is, in the future, corporations will no longer be "persons" in any sense of the word. Under Nexus Of Contracts theory, corporations will have wiped away the last few strings that tie them to any kind of responsibility. Most notably, the shareholders will no longer own the corporation because there is no longer a body of any substance to own. Then the corporations will no longer even be responsible to their shareholders, nevermind the public at large.? This brings to complete fruition the Terms of Use contract nightmare that I discussed in reference to copyright violations in a previous e-mail on this subject. Only now TRON has escaped from the video game world and has his hand around my throat in the real world.? Lawyers seriously think that they can write just any old contract, with clauses as insane as "by shopping here you agree that the ashes of your dead cat will become the property of xyz corp" and have that stuff stick. ? 2) The author suggests a rather complex way to solve this or avoid this emerging trend: rewrite the bill of rights to make clear distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of artificial entities vs natural persons. Again, I have little faith in our ability to carry forward a constitutional convention that will have the bill of rights for humans emerge in a recognizable form.? As the woman at WILPF said, "people in general are anti-liberal".? ? The only way forward that I can see that won't automatically result in the eventual loss of all of our rights as humans (in comparison to the UBER rights of corporations) is to pass just part 2 and 3 of the proposed amendment and hope that soon after such an amendment is passed the common people gain real traction in electing representatives that truly represent them and that can be held to account in the next election if they don't measure up.?? If the vast majority of people who don't currently vote have their faith restored and are willing to work hard to get what they want, then we may be able to get somewhere. ? And finally, I found the above article while searching for any statement that Ralph Nader has made about Move To Amend. While the article above claims that Nader supports Move To Amend, I have yet to read what he actually said about it.? Do you have any leads on that?? Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking ? PS Move To Amend is having their next meeting on Monday Dec 12 at 6pm (buy your own food) and at 7pm (meeting) in the casita at Casa Vicky's at 17th and Julian in San Jose.? I will be there pushing what I said here, but I will also acknowledge our dissagreements here.? I will also be asking the question "Is there a major donor behind Move To Amend/where is the $ coming from?" ? From: Drew To: "pagesincolor at yahoo.com" ; "spencer.graves at prodsyse.com" Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP I think what David Cobb was saying was that only in the U.S. and Iraq are corporate "persons" accorded constitutional / "inalienable" / nonlegislatable/ natural rights. On the other hand nonconstitutional "personhood" of corporation's itself with a lighter form of "rights" is common in legal systems worldwide following the UK's adoption of the concept. This occurred after the U.S. war of independence so the U.S. missed out on this lighter-handed version of corporate "personhood" that first the U.K., then the British Commonwealth, then other industrial countries adopted. The U.S. didn't codify this concept until 50-100 years later than the U.K. and had the clumsy / lazy unique distinction of conferring "inalienable " human rights directly upon them rigidly via constitution instead of building a doctrine and body of laws specifically regarding corporate "persons". FOR MORE SEE: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality http://ask.metafilter.com/143941/corporate-personhood-around-the-world Bring Democracy to America - people over profits! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Spencer Graves ; To: John Thielking ; Cc: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2011 4:54:43 AM Hi, John:? On 12/9/2011 6:09 PM, John Thielking wrote: Sigh.? I can see that we will continue to be at loggerheads over this issue of what is a paper entity and when does it lose all of its rights under this Move To Amend amendment. For instance, I don't plan on keeping www.peacemovies.com as a one man operation forever. Eventually I may have dvd dispensing kiosks in shopping malls that will be serviced by employees and I will likely have partnerships either with volunteers or employees/paid partners running a retail dvd rental outfit and/or partnerships with people who produce their own content. I may at some point dump Hollywood entirely and go with content from web sites such as? http://www.awkwardblackgirl.com/episodes?for my movies to review and rent/sell.?That tiny little?web site gets 60,000 views per week, believe it or not. ?Another example is that I used to work for Dacara, Inc, which is a mini corporation that runs two Foster's Freeze stores, one in Santa Cruz and one in Salinas. They helped put me through college, so I'm not about to screw them over. If that attitude counts as "revolving door politics", then so be it. People form artificial entities for all sorts of reasons and in all shapes and sizes. I don't think that a reasonable court would hold that complete loss of personhood only applies to mega corps under this amendment.? I should probably study up on what laws currently exist in the US that enhance the EQUAL rights of artificial entities and see if those?laws would still be just as valid if this amendment passes. Equal rights, at least between artificial entities, if not between artificial entities and real people, is the main defense that we can use to keep a level playing field between the big fish and the little fish. If we try to pass laws or principles that tilt the playing field one way or the other in an unfair way, we will likely wake up one day and find those laws and principles used to drive the little fish out of business. ?Any ideas about laws that currently exist Drew, since you seem to be well informed on this sub-topic? > ????? Drew seems better informed on this than I am, but according to David Cobb of Move to Amend, only two countries on earth have corporate personhood:? The US and Iraq -- and Iraq only got it recently while US guns were pointed at the heads of the replacements for Saddam Hussein.? From what I've heard, Iraq was among the leaders in national socioeconomic development in the Arab world -- perhaps the leader if you consider the status of the bottom half of the population -- under Saddam Hussein in the 1980s -- without corporate personhood.? Europe and Japan rebuilt after World War II without corporate personhood -- but with a reasonable distribution of businesses of all sizes.? The US today has lower social mobility than most other countries studied (Canada, Scandinavia, France, Germany, but only slightly better than the UK;? www.economicmobility.org), i.e. the children or rich or poor parents are more likely here to have the same socioeconomic status as their parents than in the other major advanced industrialized countries studied except the UK.? I think the media biases and the general excessive dominance of US politics by major corporations have also destroyed the reality that once existed behind the image of the US as a "land of opportunity".? ????? Destroying corporate personhood won't fix all those problems, but it should make it easier to fix them.? Anything we can do to require multinational corporations to actually pay taxes and live within the law (rather than write laws for their benefit) will likely make things easier for small businesses.? ????? Of course, I could be mistaken, and you could be correct.? However, that's inconsistent with the experience of the rest of the world without corporate personhood.? ????? Spencer ? >John Thielking >From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 10:25 AM >Subject: Re: SOPA and PROTECT IP >On 12/9/2011 10:13 AM, John Thielking wrote: > If you have any doubts about big businesses' desires to run small businesses out of town, this should erase them. See below: >> >????? I never had any doubts about that:? That's precisely why we need a constitutional amendment that corporations are not people (but single proprietors are, as are individuals who own LLCs, etc.)? Spencer > ? >>? >>Friends, >>Amazing! ?On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head of the Motion Picture Assocation of America admitted that he's pushing a censorship regime just like China's. ?According to Variety, he said: >>?"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites." >>Please urge your lawmakers to oppose Internet censorship -- the vote is coming up next week! ? >>The Stop Online Piracy Act would require sites to censor their users' posts (or shut down), let the government block your access to websites, and put people in jail for uploading unlicensed content (ie, cover band performances). >>The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote NEXT WEEK. ?This isn't China -- it's America, where the First Amendment is supposed to rule the day. >>Please click here to ask your lawmakers to oppose a China-like Internet regime in America. >>Thanks. >>From: Spencer Graves >>To: John Thielking >>Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >>Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:51 PM >>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback >>????? I'm with Drew on this:? If this amendment passes, nothing will change immediately.? They major corporations will still fight tooth and claw to minimize the impact of the changes.? The difference is that rather than them working with our current reactionary courts to give them even more power over natural persons, they will be on the defensive.? Even then, it could take massive amounts of money from private citizens to pay for the litigation required to enforce the changes.? >>????? You are doubtless correct about one point in this, however, namely that the large corporations will eagerly use their powers to try to limit the power of small businesses while not limiting the large ones.? With the wording of this amendment, it will be hard for them to find ways to do that, but they doubtless will try -- and the commercial media (especially broadcasting) will support them at every turn.? >>????? Best Wishes, >>????? Spencer >>p.s.? A cousin is an engineer and a private pilot.? He sometimes asks, "What makes an airplane fly?"? Answer:? Money.? >>On 12/8/2011 9:42 PM, John Thielking wrote: >> The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay clauses required.? Still required is a populace that won't just go back to sleep at the smell of the first victory. >>>? >>>John Thielking >>>? >>>The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. >>>_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss >>> -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 07:48:04 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:48:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts In-Reply-To: <1323633010.74154.YahooMailNeo@web111109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323495099.12925.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323633010.74154.YahooMailNeo@web111109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323704884.70109.YahooMailNeo@web111114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hello again, ? After trying to explain my concerns below to Mirriam last night I decided to research some more to find out exactly what a Nexus Of Contracts form of a corporation is and if it would in fact be more profitable and suffer less liability as a personless entity.? I'm not 100% sure since the paper I found on the subject didn't specifically give the title of "personless entity" to the form I am about to describe, but as near as I can tell from my position as an ametuer non-lawyer and non-economist I think I have found that I can answer the above question in the affirmative. ? According to a paper that is located here: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/appliedtheory/archive/workshop/spring2011/Ayotte.pdf ? there are two basic forms of the Nexus Of Contracts form of doing business.? The first form I will call the Traditional Corporation.? In this form there is a corporation at the center that acts as a "person" who signs all the contracts that determine the relationships between the leaseholders, suppliers, etc and the corporation. ? My interpretation: With this form of doing business there is a single central entity that can be sued and held accountable if something goes wrong or the business fails in some way.? The central entity is accountable to the shareholders who own shares of the entity's stock. ? The second form of the Nexus Of Contracts form of doing business has no central entity to sign all the contracts. Instead, what is done is that each subcontractor has its own contract to sign and?all the other contracts that are part of the nexus are mentioned (probably in a simple list) on each of the other contracts as contracts that control the subcontractor's contract.? ? My interpretation: The paper above?states the opinion that the first form of Nexus of Contracts is the most efficient form for doing business on a large scale.? For instance, Boeing has about 700 contracts that form the core of its business and it is the opinion of the author that it would be too cumbersome for large corporations such as Boeing to function?using the second form of Nexus of Contracts.? I dissagree with that assessment. Given the?relative ease of electronic recordkeeping and the ability to add new contracts and terms to old contracts by simply sending out 700 e-mails, I find it highly plausible that a large corporation could at least have all of its contracts managed this way.?One of the heads of a small solar power company that I work with often gets 700 e-mails in one day and he seems to function just fine in this environment. ?What does a corporation gain by going to the trouble of sending out 700 e-mails every time a change is made to the contract structure?? It loses its "personhood" form.? There is no longer a central entity to hold to account if something goes wrong. In a Nexus of Contracts (even the Traditional Corporation form) there often are no physical assets that anyone owns (everything is leased)?and the only value of the nexus is the production output.? It is also relatively easy to commit fraud if someone can simply edit the collection of existing contracts with everyone's electronic signature still attached.? Additional contracts could be added to the Nexus this way with few people even knowing about it.?(This type of?electronic records fraud is committed routinely by hospitals who cover up the?causes of patient deaths, as detailed in a Youtube video called Death By Deletion.)?I believe that it is this second form of Nexus of Contracts organization that was referred to here: http://glynholton.com/2011/10/abolishing-corporate-personhood-be-careful-what-you-ask-for/ when describing corporate forms that are no longer accountable to shareholders.? I'm still not 100% sure about this, but I'm 95% sure that this is the way things work out and the way things will be done in the future with or without a constitutional amendment that abolishes corporate personhood. Thanks for reading. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: John Thielking To: "RainbeauFriend at yahoo.com" ; "spencer.graves at prodsyse.com" Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP Drew and Spencer, ? Thanks for the links to more information on how corporate personhood is reflected in existing law. However, I have had discussions with other people about this and while most remain nuetral/have no specific comment, my room mate and a woman I met at the WILPF Human Rights Day meeting yesterday both agree with me that opening up the constitution to amendment in this way could result in a constitutional convention where the bill of rights that applies to people is abolished. I have always been against having a constitutional convention for precisely this reason. We, as proponents of the Move To Amend movement, just don't have the resources or collective political will to sustain and win a fight at the level of a constitutional convention. An article located here: http://glynholton.com/2011/10/abolishing-corporate-personhood-be-careful-what-you-ask-for/? suggests two things: ? 1) The abolition of corporate personhood is already at the top of the agenda at many law schools.? New lawyers are being schooled in the "Nexus Of Contracts" theory.? That is, in the future, corporations will no longer be "persons" in any sense of the word. Under Nexus Of Contracts theory, corporations will have wiped away the last few strings that tie them to any kind of responsibility. Most notably, the shareholders will no longer own the corporation because there is no longer a body of any substance to own. Then the corporations will no longer even be responsible to their shareholders, nevermind the public at large.? This brings to complete fruition the Terms of Use contract nightmare that I discussed in reference to copyright violations in a previous e-mail on this subject. Only now TRON has escaped from the video game world and has his hand around my throat in the real world.? Lawyers seriously think that they can write just any old contract, with clauses as insane as "by shopping here you agree that the ashes of your dead cat will become the property of xyz corp" and have that stuff stick. ? 2) The author suggests a rather complex way to solve this or avoid this emerging trend: rewrite the bill of rights to make clear distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of artificial entities vs natural persons. Again, I have little faith in our ability to carry forward a constitutional convention that will have the bill of rights for humans emerge in a recognizable form.? As the woman at WILPF said, "people in general are anti-liberal".? The only way forward that I can see that won't automatically result in the eventual loss of all of our rights as humans (in comparison to the UBER rights of corporations) is to pass just part 2 and 3 of the proposed amendment and hope that soon after such an amendment is passed the common people gain real traction in electing representatives that truly represent them and that can be held to account in the next election if they don't measure up.?? If the vast majority of people who don't currently vote have their faith restored and are willing to work hard to get what they want, then we may be able to get somewhere. And finally, I found the above article while searching for any statement that Ralph Nader has made about Move To Amend. While the article above claims that Nader supports Move To Amend, I have yet to read what he actually said about it.? Do you have any leads on that?? Thanks. Sincerely, John Thielking PS Move To Amend is having their next meeting on Monday Dec 12 at 6pm (buy your own food) and at 7pm (meeting) in the casita at Casa Vicky's at 17th and Julian in San Jose.? I will be there pushing what I said here, but I will also acknowledge our dissagreements here.? I will also be asking the question "Is there a major donor behind Move To Amend/where is the $ coming from?" From: Drew To: "pagesincolor at yahoo.com" ; "spencer.graves at prodsyse.com" Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP I think what David Cobb was saying was that only in the U.S. and Iraq are corporate "persons" accorded constitutional / "inalienable" / nonlegislatable/ natural rights. On the other hand nonconstitutional "personhood" of corporation's itself with a lighter form of "rights" is common in legal systems worldwide following the UK's adoption of the concept. This occurred after the U.S. war of independence so the U.S. missed out on this lighter-handed version of corporate "personhood" that first the U.K., then the British Commonwealth, then other industrial countries adopted. The U.S. didn't codify this concept until 50-100 years later than the U.K. and had the clumsy / lazy unique distinction of conferring "inalienable " human rights directly upon them rigidly via constitution instead of building a doctrine and body of laws specifically regarding corporate "persons". FOR MORE SEE:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality http://ask.metafilter.com/143941/corporate-personhood-around-the-world Bring Democracy to America - people over profits! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Spencer Graves ; To: John Thielking ; Cc: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2011 4:54:43 AM Hi, John:? On 12/9/2011 6:09 PM, John Thielking wrote: Sigh.? I can see that we will continue to be at loggerheads over this issue of what is a paper entity and when does it lose all of its rights under this Move To Amend amendment. For instance, I don't plan on keeping www.peacemovies.com as a one man operation forever. Eventually I may have dvd dispensing kiosks in shopping malls that will be serviced by employees and I will likely have partnerships either with volunteers or employees/paid partners running a retail dvd rental outfit and/or partnerships with people who produce their own content. I may at some point dump Hollywood entirely and go with content from web sites such as? http://www.awkwardblackgirl.com/episodes?for my movies to review and rent/sell.?That tiny little?web site gets 60,000 views per week, believe it or not. ?Another example is that I used to work for Dacara, Inc, which is a mini corporation that runs two Foster's Freeze stores, one in Santa Cruz and one in Salinas. They helped put me through college, so I'm not about to screw them over. If that attitude counts as "revolving door politics", then so be it. People form artificial entities for all sorts of reasons and in all shapes and sizes. I don't think that a reasonable court would hold that complete loss of personhood only applies to mega corps under this amendment.? I should probably study up on what laws currently exist in the US that enhance the EQUAL rights of artificial entities and see if those?laws would still be just as valid if this amendment passes. Equal rights, at least between artificial entities, if not between artificial entities and real people, is the main defense that we can use to keep a level playing field between the big fish and the little fish. If we try to pass laws or principles that tilt the playing field one way or the other in an unfair way, we will likely wake up one day and find those laws and principles used to drive the little fish out of business. ?Any ideas about laws that currently exist Drew, since you seem to be well informed on this sub-topic? ????? Drew seems better informed on this than I am, but according to David Cobb of Move to Amend, only two countries on earth have corporate personhood:? The US and Iraq -- and Iraq only got it recently while US guns were pointed at the heads of the replacements for Saddam Hussein.? From what I've heard, Iraq was among the leaders in national socioeconomic development in the Arab world -- perhaps the leader if you consider the status of the bottom half of the population -- under Saddam Hussein in the 1980s -- without corporate personhood.? Europe and Japan rebuilt after World War II without corporate personhood -- but with a reasonable distribution of businesses of all sizes.? The US today has lower social mobility than most other countries studied (Canada, Scandinavia, France, Germany, but only slightly better than the UK;? www.economicmobility.org), i.e. the children or rich or poor parents are more likely here to have the same socioeconomic status as their parents than in the other major advanced industrialized countries studied except the UK.? I think the media biases and the general excessive dominance of US politics by major corporations have also destroyed the reality that once existed behind the image of the US as a "land of opportunity".? ????? Destroying corporate personhood won't fix all those problems, but it should make it easier to fix them.? Anything we can do to require multinational corporations to actually pay taxes and live within the law (rather than write laws for their benefit) will likely make things easier for small businesses.? ????? Of course, I could be mistaken, and you could be correct.? However, that's inconsistent with the experience of the rest of the world without corporate personhood.? ????? Spencer > >John Thielking >From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 10:25 AMSubject: Re: SOPA and PROTECT IP >On 12/9/2011 10:13 AM, John Thielking wrote: If you have any doubts about big businesses' desires to run small businesses out of town, this should erase them. See below: ????? I never had any doubts about that:? That's precisely why we need a constitutional amendment that corporations are not people (but single proprietors are, as are individuals who own LLCs, etc.)? Spencer >> >> >>Friends, >>Amazing! ?On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head of the Motion Picture Assocation of America admitted that he's pushing a censorship regime just like China's. ?According to Variety, he said: >>?"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites." >>Please urge your lawmakers to oppose Internet censorship -- the vote is coming up next week! ? >>The Stop Online Piracy Act would require sites to censor their users' posts (or shut down), let the government block your access to websites, and put people in jail for uploading unlicensed content (ie, cover band performances). >>The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote NEXT WEEK. ?This isn't China -- it's America, where the First Amendment is supposed to rule the day. >>Please click here to ask your lawmakers to oppose a China-like Internet regime in America. >>Thanks. >>From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:51 PMSubject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Amendment Name/Feedback >>????? I'm with Drew on this:? If this amendment passes, nothing will change immediately.? They major corporations will still fight tooth and claw to minimize the impact of the changes.? The difference is that rather than them working with our current reactionary courts to give them even more power over natural persons, they will be on the defensive.? Even then, it could take massive amounts of money from private citizens to pay for the litigation required to enforce the changes.? >>????? You are doubtless correct about one point in this, however, namely that the large corporations will eagerly use their powers to try to limit the power of small businesses while not limiting the large ones.? With the wording of this amendment, it will be hard for them to find ways to do that, but they doubtless will try -- and the commercial media (especially broadcasting) will support them at every turn.? >>????? Best Wishes, ????? Spencer p.s.? A cousin is an engineer and a private pilot.? He sometimes asks, "What makes an airplane fly?"? Answer:? Money.? >>On 12/8/2011 9:42 PM, John Thielking wrote: The only other option that I can see that won't result in a dark age (not counting the one we are already in) is to pass Section 2 and 3 first and then try for section 1 about 10 years later. No delay clauses required.? Still required is a populace that won't just go back to sleep at the smell of the first victory.?John Thielking >>> >>>The rest of this message was deleted because the system blocked sending the message since it was over the limit of 80k. >>>_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com _______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 07:58:45 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:58:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts Message-ID: <1323705525.92305.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John I have my doubts whether any form of corporation is really accountable to anyone. The concept of being accountable to shareholders is largely mythology from what I can see. The CEO usually stacks the Board, and together they do whatever they please or believe is in service of profits (with no damn given for people or profits). Shareholders rarely are effective in altering the course. As I encouraged before, check out the book and movie "The corporation ".? I would recommend it as one of our movies of the month. Green America! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Mon Dec 12 08:26:57 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:26:57 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts In-Reply-To: <1323705525.92305.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323705525.92305.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE62B51.2080001@prodsyse.com> On 12/12/2011 7:58 AM, Drew wrote: > > John I have my doubts whether any form of corporation is really > accountable to anyone. The concept of being accountable to > shareholders is largely mythology from what I can see. The CEO usually > stacks the Board, and together they do whatever they please or believe > is in service of profits > No: They do whatever they perceive serves their best short term interests, though maximizing profits is a common mantra. Given the choice of an action that will make the company boom in the short term but has a 10% chance of bankrupting the company and a more conservative strategy that will likely provide lower but reasonable profits for the long term, they will generally select the more risky strategy, because they most likely look like heroes in the short term and can leave with their golden parachutes if that fails. > (with no damn given for people or profits). Shareholders rarely are > effective in altering the course. > Correct. Spencer > As I encouraged before, check out the book and movie "The corporation > ". I would recommend it as one of our movies of the month. > > Green America! > > http://JillStein.org > > Drew > > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web:www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 08:36:30 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:36:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts Message-ID: <1323707790.13929.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Excellent point Spencer. Green is Connection! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 08:39:15 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:39:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts Message-ID: <1323707955.37874.androidMobile@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Oh and I meant to write "with no damn given for people or planet" Green is 7 Generations Sustainability! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Mon Dec 12 08:48:49 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:48:49 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts In-Reply-To: <1323707955.37874.androidMobile@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323707955.37874.androidMobile@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE63071.2070709@prodsyse.com> Correct. I'm currently reading Jeff Sachs (2011) The Price of Civilization (Random House). Sachs makes similar points. "Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and special adviser to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the United Nations' Millenium Development Goals." (from the dust jacket) This book is the best overview of the current international financial situation I've seen. Or at least I think so, primarily because it is quite well researched and fits well with everything else I think I know. Of course, I may be biased, because it largely reinforces and extends opinions I've formed from many other sources. However, it also has 31 pages of notes. As I'm reading, I often look at his notes pages to help decide how much credence I should place in what he says. Later, I will sometimes go to the sources cited in things like this. Spencer On 12/12/2011 8:39 AM, Drew wrote: > > Oh and I meant to write "with no damn given for people or planet" > > Green is 7 Generations Sustainability! > > http://JillStein.org > > Drew > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: * Spencer Graves ; > *To: * > *Cc: * sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; > *Subject: * Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus > Of Contracts > *Sent: * Mon, Dec 12, 2011 4:26:57 PM > > > > On 12/12/2011 7:58 AM, Drew wrote: >> >> John I have my doubts whether any form of corporation is really >> accountable to anyone. The concept of being accountable to >> shareholders is largely mythology from what I can see. The CEO >> usually stacks the Board, and together they do whatever they please >> or believe is in service of profits >> > > > No: They do whatever they perceive serves their best short term > interests, though maximizing profits is a common mantra. Given the > choice of an action that will make the company boom in the short term > but has a 10% chance of bankrupting the company and a more > conservative strategy that will likely provide lower but reasonable > profits for the long term, they will generally select the more risky > strategy, because they most likely look like heroes in the short term > and can leave with their golden parachutes if that fails. > > >> (with no damn given for people or profits). Shareholders rarely are >> effective in altering the course. >> > > > Correct. > > > Spencer > > >> As I encouraged before, check out the book and movie "The corporation >> ". I would recommend it as one of our movies of the month. >> >> Green America! >> >> http://JillStein.org >> >> Drew >> >> -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 10:38:15 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:38:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts In-Reply-To: <4EE63071.2070709@prodsyse.com> References: <1323707955.37874.androidMobile@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EE63071.2070709@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1323715095.61642.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> After thinking about this some more, I have come to the conclusion that corporate profit making ventures currently exist on a spectrum with the Traditional Corporation that owns all of its own assets at one end and the 2nd version, the headless mobius strip of contracts, at the other.? The players in the gulf oil rig disaster exist somewhere in the middle.? There are at least 4 players there that have various stakes and culpabilities in the disaster, but only one, BP, is being made to pay for the cleanup.? Not that BP is the good guy or anything, or even coming close to paying enough, but for instance the cleanup crew that was sent to contain the spill could have completely contained the spill and scooped it up using existing technology, according to Greg Palast in his book Vultures' Picinic, but because the companies involved were uderprepared this didn't happen.? As we move further down the spectrum towards the extreme end of the mobius strip form of incorporation, we may one day find that instead of having a handy fall guy like BP to blame, we will be facing down the mobius strip that consists only of the players who supplied the pilings, the players who supplied the drill bits, the players in charge of assembling the oil rig, the players in charge of hiring the workers who assembled the oil rig and so on.? There may be a paper fig leaf of a management company with a big insurance policy left nominally "in charge" that we could sue, but that company would itself likely have hardly any income or assets that we could sieze. Abolishing corporate personhood in a formal sense will just speed up the movement towards the mobius strip form of organization.? Plus it will invite the abuse of police power of the state against small businesses and nonprofits, even the Peace Center possibly. (Can you say "Committee to?Stop FBI Repression?")?I pointed this last point out to Merriam last night, but she brushed it off saying "I worked with a lot of vitamin companies that were raided by the FBI for spurious reasons in the 1980's." Not having 4th amendment protections for small businesses won't make a lot of difference according to her. I guess according to Merriam's logic, we don't need a constitution at all. The police will act the same regardless. And indeed, without a strong people's movement, they will act the same regardless. However, another point that Merriam misses in this argument is that although it took a long time for the vitamin cos to get to court and they went out of business in the meantime, the cases were ultimately thrown out I believe for various reasons.? If the Peace Center is raided for no reason because nonprofits no longer have 4th amendment protections (as they do under current law and precident) the case won't be eventually thrown out for lack of probable cause. Although if the FBI?are following the rules no one would be arrested in such a raid, the officers of the Peace Center could easily be summoned to testify before a grand jury fishing expedition and given imunity from self incrimination when they finally do appear before a judge.?And if you really want to start nit picking about copyright, taxes and so on we are not really innocent of some of the stuff they?could dig up in such a fishing expedition.?My room mate Pete Orielly also?dissagrees with Merriam about the vitamin companies. He says that there were perfectly legit reasons to raid those vitamin companies. He also says that Move To Amend should be renamed "Move To Dead Ends."? He thinks we are a bunch of mixed up white folks fooling ourselves into thinking we can change something. We need to pass parts 2 and 3 of the Move To Amend amendment so we can have Congress pass laws with teeth and have a people's movement and a President with backbone to be sure those laws are enforced.? The rest is a bunch of wishfull thinking that will only get us in more trouble than we know how to dig ourselves out of, especially if we end up being lazy after an apparent "victory".? Abolishing corporate personhood with an amendment is a lazy solution to the alleged problem that we were lazy to begin with by allowing court decisions enacting corporate personhood.?It is lazy, discriminatory and will backfire against the little people we are ultimately trying to protect. ? John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: RainbeauFriend at yahoo.com Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts ????? Correct.? I'm currently reading Jeff Sachs (2011) The Price of Civilization (Random House).? Sachs makes similar points.? ????? "Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and special adviser to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the United Nations' Millenium Development Goals."? (from the dust jacket)????? This book is the best overview of the current international financial situation I've seen.? Or at least I think so, primarily because it is quite well researched and fits well with everything else I think I know.? Of course, I may be biased, because it largely reinforces and extends opinions I've formed from many other sources.? However, it also has 31 pages of notes.? As I'm reading, I often look at his notes pages to help decide how much credence I should place in what he says.? Later, I will sometimes go to the sources cited in things like this.? ??? ? Spencer On 12/12/2011 8:39 AM, Drew wrote: Oh and I meant to write "with no damn given for people or planet" > >Green is 7 Generations Sustainability! >http://JillStein.org >Drew > > > >Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android >From: Spencer Graves ; >To: >Cc: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] SOPA and PROTECT IP and What Is A Nexus Of Contracts >Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 4:26:57 PM > > > >On 12/12/2011 7:58 AM, Drew wrote: >John I have my doubts whether any form of corporation is really accountable to anyone. The concept of being accountable to shareholders is largely mythology from what I can see. The CEO usually stacks the Board, and together they do whatever they please or believe is in service of profits > >????? No:? They do whatever they perceive serves their best short term interests, though maximizing profits is a common mantra.? Given the choice of an action that will make the company boom in the short term but has a 10% chance of bankrupting the company and a more conservative strategy that will likely provide lower but reasonable profits for the long term, they will generally select the more risky strategy, because they most likely look like heroes in the short term and can leave with their golden parachutes if that fails.? > > > >(with no damn given for people or profits). Shareholders rarely are effective in altering the course. > >????? Correct.? > > >????? Spencer > > > >As I encouraged before, check out the book and movie "The corporation ". I would recommend it as one of our movies of the month. >>Green America! >>http://JillStein.org >>Drew >> >> >> -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com _______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Mon Dec 12 11:48:20 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:48:20 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [Alt-Media] Delaying decisive investment in clean energy will cost us more financially and environmentally In-Reply-To: <627C5D84-9DD6-459D-8D9F-0635DCA5AF47@cagreens.org> References: <627C5D84-9DD6-459D-8D9F-0635DCA5AF47@cagreens.org> Message-ID: <4EE65A84.2010707@earthlink.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Alt-Media] Delaying decisive investment in clean energy will cost us more financially and environmentally Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:37:26 -0800 From: Alt-Media Reply-To: alt-media-owner at cagreens.org To: Alt-Media: News and views from an IEA Bombshell: We?re Headed Toward 11?F Global Warming Delaying action is a "false economy? By Joe Romm (Climate Progress, Nov 9) -- The International Energy Agency (IEA) has issued yet another clarion call for urgent action on climate. Their recently released 2011 World Energy Outlook (WEO) report should end once and for all any notion that delay is the rational course for the nation and the world: ?On planned policies, rising fossil energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change" the report notes. "We are on an even more dangerous track to an increase of 6?C [11?F in average global temperature] ?. Delaying action is a false economy: For every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.? The UK Guardian?s headline captures the urgency more succinctly: "World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns -- If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ?lose forever? the chance to avoid dangerous climate change". We must start aggressively deploying clean energy now through myriad policies, including putting a price on carbon. That has been the conclusion of most authoritative studies, of course, including the recent one by California?s independent state science and technology advisory panel. The IEA report deserves the label ?bombshell,? though, because for most of the past two decades, the IEA was the source of bland, conservative, business-as-usual analysis. When I was the acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, no one at Department of Energy paid much attention to IEA reports. And that perspective continued through most of the past decade. But in just the last few years they have woken up to the risks posed to peak oil -- ?We have to leave oil before oil leaves us?, the IEA's top economist warned in August 2009 -- and especially climate change. And in its 2009 WEO, the IEA warned that it will cost the world "an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming.? Now the IEA has done the calculation a different way. ?Delaying action is a false economy", its 2011 WEO concludes. "For every dollar not invested in cleaner technology in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 will need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.? In other words, those who counsel waiting for breakthrough technologies are urging us on a path that is unsustainable, irreversible, potentially catastrophic, and economically indefensible. The IEA is one of the few organizations in the world with a sophisticated enough global energy model to do credible projections of the cost of different emissions pathways and the costs of delaying efforts to achieve them. Their 2008 analysis of the 2?C warming pathway demonstrated that the total shift in investment needed to stabilize the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm) is only about 1.1% of GDP per year. And it's worth noting that such investment would not be a ?cost? or hit to the economy, because much of that investment goes towards saving expensive fuel, and developing new and sustainable industries the will actually serve to boost economic activity. But the IEA's new analysis shows that, because of soaring emissions, we are running out of time for the implementing such a 450 ppm scenario, and at risk of irreversibly ?locking in? dangerous warming. ?[W]e cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy,? said Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. ?Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies". ?As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the ?lock-in? of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals,? said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. "Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted in the 450 ppm scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories". "Without [decisive investment] by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure that will be in place as a result will generate all the CO2 emissions that are allowed under the 450 ppm scenario until the year 2035", Birol said. Which means that all new infrastructure from then until 2035 would need to be zero-carbon emitting, unless old infrastructure is retired before the end of its economic lifetime to make headroom for new investment. That is theoretically -- but not politically -- possible. The IEA has created an intermediate scenario between the best-case 2?C warming and the more likely 6?C, "which assumes that recent government commitments are implemented in a cautious manner?. In this scenario, world demand for energy increases by one-third between 2010 and 2035, and energy-related CO2 emissions increase by 20%, creating a trajectory for a long-term rise in the average global temperature in excess of 3.5?C. Sorry, cautious governments, but warming greater than 3.5?C doesn?t avert multiple catastrophes -- it invites them. The key point is that in the 2020s, the world is going to be considerably more desperate than we are now. The evidence of human-caused climate change will be difficult for all but the most extreme deniers to ignore. The Arctic will very likely be virtually ice-free in September by then. The amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks -- such as the release of even more carbon that was previously sequestered in the thawing Arctic permafrost -- will probably have started to kick in. We will be subjected to increasingly devastating extreme weather, in which the record-smashing super-storms of the last 18 months will increasingly be the normal weather -- and really extreme weather will be above and beyond that. "Dust-bowlification" will be setting in (including in the southern U.S.), and it will be pretty obvious that feeding 8 billion people (and then 9 and maybe 10 billion) will be the great task of humanity for the rest of the 21st century. In short, most policymakers will finally realize that we are on path to the self-destruction of modern civilization. And thus things that are viewed as politically impractical now will be taken very seriously in the 2020s. But that doesn?t mean the world will still get its act together in time. Indeed, because of the higher emissions and carbon feedbacks, the effort required to avert catastrophe will be considerably greater then. But we may yet find our environmental Winston Churchill, and that means we may yet adopt a World War II-style and -scale effort. And in WWII, we converted a great deal of manufacturing infrastructure to war-time purposes before the end of its economic lifetime. That can?t be considered a likely scenario for the 2020s, but it?s far from impossible and may be our only hope. _______________________________________________ Alt-Media: News and views from an alternative perspective http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/alt-media From tnharter at aceweb.com Mon Dec 12 12:13:23 2011 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:13:23 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] [Fwd: Currency Speculator speech] Message-ID: <4EE66063.4050003@aceweb.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Currency Speculator speech Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 04:37:35 -0500 (EST) From: DontBeFuelish at aol.com To: tnharter at aceweb.com Hello Y'all, At the Green Party of California meeting last weekend I took an opportunity during lunch on Saturday to share some thoughts I've been chewing on about why I'm a sticker activist. On Sunday it was clear that a lot of people had enjoyed my words, so I thought I'd share them with you as well. My talk was spontaneous, so I don't have any notes to work from. As far as I know nobody recorded it either. What follows is the spirit of what I said, not the word for word transcript. Hello everybody! Some time ago I heard a conversation with George Sorros on the radio. He was explaining that back before the Euro a lot of issues would go into the value of a currency. Such things as tendencies of the people, resources of the Country, whether the leader were a thief or an altruist and many other factors all boiled down to what the country's money was worth. Currency exchange had something of a "betting" quality to it. Now that Europe has one currency instead of more than a dozen, they have to figure out how to allocate that risk can't bring down Germany with their spendthrift attitude or whatever it is. I listened to that and I thought "maybe I'm also a speculator." I'm not the kind of speculator that makes large numerical bets based on quantitative formulas and risk arbitrage. That kind of thing is for quants with large bank accounts that don't care about strangers. I'm a grass roots activist that believes in the power of good ideas to move us forward together. My main criticism of Wall St. style financial analysis is that it leaves people out of the equation to too large an extent. A dollar means different things to different people. My work is based on the idea that it's okay to use less energy than I do. As this female voice on the radio put it, "If you don't spend money on cars, gas, and insurance, you have a lot more to spend on other more entertaining things." I'm speculating that we can build up that kind of activism into a healthy organic movement where the win/win starts with being a good citizen. I started with this long ago, when I learned firsthand that incumbents that were owned by the status quo didn't want to bother showing up to debates with people like me. They would rather spend a million dollars on advertising during the last two weeks of a race using focus-tested messages that were sure to win. How could I expect someone beholden to the oil, car, defense, and pharmaceutical industries to care about us? I just felt that being a good citizen ought to be worth something. At Occupy Mountain View's vigil last week there was a woman with a sign that read "I couldn't afford a lobbyist so I bought this sign." To me that is so symbolic of the solution. Putting resources into a public education campaign about decentralized solutions makes more sense than hoping for a centralized solution to come from incumbents that can't even listen to hundreds of thousands of people in the streets yelling "NO WAR". It's also much more democratic than anything else I can think of as a green activist. I found the key to understanding this kind of stuff when I met an old Libertarian during my Orange County days. He told of helping fight against the San Onofre nuclear power plant. He'd made stickers to put on light switches that read "VOTE ON NUCLEAR POWER" across the top with a "YES" by the ON position and a "NO" by the OFF position. He'd found them such a perfect image for democracy that he'd moved on to buttons about the speed of light, "186,000 miles per second. It's the law!" He dithered about whether that was a law that must be broken until he realized something else about memes he couldn't quite explain to me. His words were the inspiration behind my much more recent slogan, "STOP VOTING FOR OIL COMPANIES AT THE GAS PUMP!" I feel so connected to those vegetarians asking people to "stop voting for meat at the fork!" There are so many fun angles for person centered grass roots democracy. Is it speculation to believe in retail democracy? If it is, then I'm a speculator. It's not the kind of speculation I expect will make me rich. Every time I table for the Green Party and somebody else gives us a buck for a button with a good idea on it, I feel like they have invested in a better future. It's speculative that we can add that up to enough to save our planet from climate chaos, but what other choice is there? I'm listening for your ideas. Thank you, -- Tian http://tian.greens.org My Audie Bock exists (or did in 2000) page has been clicked on 12 times. I have been car free for more than one month. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: US National debt now $15 Trillion plus. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Nevada quarter. From gerrygras at earthlink.net Mon Dec 12 14:10:19 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:10:19 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Jill Steins says it's unforgivable ... Message-ID: <4EE67BCB.6040802@earthlink.net> "White House role in blocking climate progress 'unforgivable'" http://www.jillstein.org/white_house_role_in_blocking_climate_progress_unforgivable Gerry From rob.means at electric-bikes.com Mon Dec 12 14:20:58 2011 From: rob.means at electric-bikes.com (Rob Means) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:20:58 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] leverage against government stalling on Climate Change? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1323728458.18343.9.camel@robs-laptop> Earlier today, Gerry Gras posted an article with the title as the subject: Delaying decisive investment in clean energy will cost us more financially and environmentally The second paragraph stated: For every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.? Given the fiduciary responsibilities of elected city councils and other officials, would they not be subject to a lawsuit if they do not promptly start investing in clean technology? I'm just asking. -- If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Rob Means, Electro Ride Bikes and Scooters 408-262-8975 rob.means at electric-bikes.com 1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913 Discover cycling that's Easy, Safe, Fast - and FUN! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 11:50 -0800, sosfbay-discuss-request at cagreens.org wrote: > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:11:35 -0800 > From: Gerry Gras > To: GPSCC > Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Two Environment Speeches > Message-ID: <4EE3CB07.7050504 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > The email below reminds of another speech in 1992: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0 > > Gerry > > P.S. Today is Human Rights Day: > http://www.un.org/en/events/humanrightsday/2011/ > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Can't say it any better than this > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:29:37 -0800 > > Here the speech from Youth Delegate to the UN Climate talks in South > Africa: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko3e6G_7GY4&feature=channel_video_title > > Please pass this on far and wide. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Mon Dec 12 14:42:10 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:42:10 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] leverage against government stalling on Climate Change? In-Reply-To: <1323728458.18343.9.camel@robs-laptop> References: <1323728458.18343.9.camel@robs-laptop> Message-ID: <4EE68342.5040308@earthlink.net> Very interesting question!!! Any lawyers available who can answer this question? ... As a bicyclist who was once active in the SVBC, (Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition), I once heard of a form called "Notice of Dangerous Condition". The idea was that if you noticed a hazardous situation that could cause an accident, you would fill out the form, send it to the appropriate city / county department, and then they would be liable for any accident that happened if they did not fix it within a certain period. Note that filing that form was important, because if an accident occurred without them getting the form, they could claim they did not know. But once you can prove that they knew ... I remember one bicyclist who was skeptical that filing the form would make a difference, but he tried it and the problem was fixed within 24 hours. And that was in San Jose!!! Maybe someone could come up with a similar form for the Climate Change issue. Gerry Rob Means wrote: > Earlier today, Gerry Gras posted an article with the title as the subject: > Delaying decisive investment in clean energywill cost us more > financially and environmentally > > The second paragraph stated: > For every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is > avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need > to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.? > > Given the fiduciary responsibilities of elected city councils and other > officials, would they not be subject to a lawsuit if they do not > promptly start investing in clean technology? I'm just asking. > -- > If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. > > Rob Means, Electro Ride Bikes and Scooters > 408-262-8975 rob.means at electric-bikes.com > 1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913 > Discover cycling that's Easy, Safe, Fast - and FUN! > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 11:50 -0800, sosfbay-discuss-request at cagreens.org > wrote: >> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:11:35 -0800 >> From: Gerry Gras > > >> To: GPSCC > > >> Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Two Environment Speeches >> Message-ID: <4EE3CB07.7050504 at earthlink.net >> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> >> The email below reminds of another speech in 1992: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0 >> >> Gerry >> >> P.S. Today is Human Rights Day: >> http://www.un.org/en/events/humanrightsday/2011/ >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Can't say it any better than this >> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:29:37 -0800 >> >> Here the speech from Youth Delegate to the UN Climate talks in South >> Africa: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko3e6G_7GY4&feature=channel_video_title >> >> >> Please pass this on far and wide. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From gerrygras at earthlink.net Mon Dec 12 22:45:02 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:45:02 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda Item Message-ID: <4EE6F46E.8050702@earthlink.net> Please add to the agenda: Endorsement of Move to Amend Occupy the Court event: 10 minutes http://movetoamend.org/occupythecourts Gerry From rob.means at electric-bikes.com Tue Dec 13 09:55:32 2011 From: rob.means at electric-bikes.com (Rob Means) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:55:32 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] fiduciary obligations vis-a-vis Climate Change Message-ID: <1323798932.2346.8.camel@robs-laptop> This article may answer my question about suing elected officials over their fiduciary obligations vis-a-vis Climate Change: The young and the restless: Kids sue government over climate change The lawsuits are based on a legal theory developed by University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood called "atmospheric trust litigation." The theory "rests on the premise that all governments hold natural resources in trust for their citizens and bear the fiduciary obligation to protect such resources for future generations," according to Wood's web page. http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-08-the-young-and-the-restless-kids-sue-government-over-climate-chan -- If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Rob Means, Electro Ride Bikes and Scooters 408-262-8975 rob.means at electric-bikes.com 1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913 Discover cycling that's Easy, Safe, Fast - and FUN! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Tue Dec 13 10:06:31 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:06:31 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Fw: iMatter In-Reply-To: <977199.19518.qm@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <977199.19518.qm@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EE79427.3040803@charter.net> Rob mentioned the Kids vs. Global Warming law suits. I noted that Alec was from CA and contacted the Green I knew best there.... Kendra Gonzales. That was her replying note. -------- Original Message -------- funny you should ask.... I met Alec when he was 13...he and his family attended Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" along with most of the activist community here. We gathered and sent 250+ postcards demanding local action to our City Council. From that, we all organized a Town Hall mtng in the same theatre - standing room only (300+ people) The non-profit I work with (Board Member now) VCCool (Ventura Climate Care Options Organized Locally) and Kids v Global Warming were "born" from this action in 2006 / 2007....at the same time. In fact, Alec really got started "tabling" at VCCool's very first Kids Bike Safety Rodeo and I'm in the throes of helping to organize our 5th Bike Rodeo May 21st. On Sunday the 15th, Ojai is having its iMatter March, which is where Alec and his family live - I'll be attending that for sure. I've also worked closely with his mom... so...yes...we've certainly talked and I'm "plugging" the iMatter March as much as I can. Its SO amazing what he is doing and I'm looking very forward to seeing how the law-suits turn out...I'd imagine you know about that? ____\ Note: there is a local connection here in that one time San Mateo County Congressman, Pete McCloskey, is involved in the litigation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at aceweb.com Tue Dec 13 15:31:35 2011 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:31:35 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Holiday Party at Tian's Message-ID: <4EE7E057.9020702@aceweb.com> I'm having a party this coming Sunday, from 5ish to 10ish PM. It'll be at my clubhouse, 505 Cypress Point Dr. There should be plenty of interesting people to talk to. By all means bring something if you want it, but don't worry if you just show up. There will likely be plenty of everything. If you need directions or anything like that, let me know. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: US National debt now $15 Trillion plus. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Nevada quarter. From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 17:22:08 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:22:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC Message-ID: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Any more items to add to the short (45 minute max) agenda? Hopefully not. ? === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === Location:? San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose 7:00 PM? Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. 7:30 PM? Begin meeting *? Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November agenda preparer, November one-minute speakers ?????? 2 min *? Introductions and short announcements ?????? 10 min *? Revise and affirm agenda ?????? 4 min *? Treasurer's report, pass the hat ?????? 4 min, Jim Doyle *? Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec.?3-4?????? ?????15 min, Warner Bloomberg? * Endorsement of Move to Amend Occupy the Court event: 10 minutes *? January Movie Night ?????? 6 min, Merriam Kathaleen PARTY! ? ? Green is GO!? http://JillStein.org ? Drew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 18:22:28 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:22:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC In-Reply-To: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323829348.90098.YahooMailNeo@web111110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> http://movetoamend.org/organizations? This link lists the founding organizations at the national level behind Move To Amend.? ? John Thielking From: Drew To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 5:22 PM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC Any more items to add to the short (45 minute max) agenda? Hopefully not. === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === Location:? San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose 7:00 PM? Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. 7:30 PM? Begin meeting *? Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November agenda preparer, November one-minute speakers ?????? 2 min *? Introductions and short announcements ?????? 10 min *? Revise and affirm agenda ?????? 4 min *? Treasurer's report, pass the hat ?????? 4 min, Jim Doyle *? Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec.?3-4?????? ?????15 min, Warner Bloomberg? * Endorsement of Move to Amend Occupy the Court event: 10 minutes *? January Movie Night ?????? 6 min, Merriam Kathaleen PARTY! Green is GO!? http://JillStein.org Drew _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Tue Dec 13 18:24:22 2011 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:24:22 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC In-Reply-To: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Endorsement of AB1148, the California Disclose Act, the bill that will require that political ads identify who REALLY pays, so they can't hide behind names like "Committee for Equity and Justice". Co-sponsorship of the CA Disclose Act passion raiser in Palo Alto January 7, along with the California Clean Money Campaign and the Palo Alto League of Women Voters. Rich Gordon and other legislators will speak. Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:22:08 -0800 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC Any more items to add to the short (45 minute max) agenda? Hopefully not. === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === Location: San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose 7:00 PM Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. 7:30 PM Begin meeting * Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November agenda preparer, November one-minute speakers 2 min * Introductions and short announcements 10 min * Revise and affirm agenda 4 min * Treasurer's report, pass the hat 4 min, Jim Doyle * Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec. 3-4 15 min, Warner Bloomberg? * Endorsement of Move to Amend Occupy the Court event:10 minutes * January Movie Night 6 min, Merriam Kathaleen PARTY! Green is GO! http://JillStein.org Drew _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Tue Dec 13 20:23:01 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:23:01 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Gov Brown on Climate???? Message-ID: <4EE824A5.8000600@charter.net> Does anyone know about this? > Tuesday's forum was part of a statewide effort launched by Gov. Jerry > Brown to get residents talking about climate change and ways to adapt. > On Dec. 15, he's holding a conference on the topic in San Francisco. > It can be watched live online at gov.ca.gov. That was from a story at Sign On San Diego.: Climate Projections Dismal for California. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/13/climate-projections-dismal-california/ From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Wed Dec 14 09:11:17 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:11:17 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th., 15 Dec. 6:30: come early help fold & cut Message-ID: <4EE8D8B5.3050605@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: I plan to arrive at 6:30 PM with 300 "Move Your Money" z-folds that need to be folded plus 50 sheets of half-sheet "Donkey fliers", that need to be cut in half to make 100 "Donkey fliers". I could use help. Thanks, Spencer -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 16:21:44 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:21:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC In-Reply-To: References: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323908504.58603.YahooMailNeo@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hi Brian, That sounds like an excellent bill and? related event.? So if you or somebody will be there to make the proposal that sounds reasonable.? If you can't make it, the way it usually goes is everyone scratches their head and no one knows enough about it to present the proposal, so we'd likely not agendize it. Green Future NOW! http://JillStein.org Drew >________________________________ > From: Brian Good >To: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:24 PM >Subject: RE: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC > > > > >Endorsement of AB1148, the California Disclose Act, the bill that will >require that political ads identify who REALLY pays, so they can't hide >behind names like "Committee for Equity and Justice". > >Co-sponsorship of the CA Disclose Act passion raiser in Palo Alto >January 7, along with the California Clean Money Campaign and the >Palo Alto League of Women Voters.? Rich Gordon and other >legislators will speak. > > > > > > > > > >________________________________ >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:22:08 -0800 >From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com >To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC > > >Any more items to add to the short (45 minute max) agenda? Hopefully not. >? >=== Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === > >Location:? San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose > >7:00 PM? Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. > >7:30 PM? Begin meeting > >*? Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November agenda preparer, November one-minute speakers >?????? 2 min > >*? Introductions and short announcements >?????? 10 min > >*? Revise and affirm agenda >?????? 4 min > >*? Treasurer's report, pass the hat >?????? 4 min, Jim Doyle > >*? Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec.?3-4?????? >?????15 min, Warner Bloomberg? > >* Endorsement of Move to Amend Occupy the Court event: >10 minutes > >*? January Movie Night >?????? 6 min, Merriam Kathaleen > >PARTY! >? >? >Green is GO!? http://JillStein.org >? >Drew >? >? >_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Wed Dec 14 20:39:14 2011 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:39:14 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda Item--CA DISCLOSE Act Endorsement and Campaign Kickoff Co-sponsorship Message-ID: 2 issues: Endorsement of the Act, and co-sponsorship of the January 7th Campaign Kickoff in Palo Alto. Remember the Passion Raiser for Proposition 15 (Public Finance of the Secretary of State Election) a couple of years ago in Palo Alto? There were about 8 GPSCC folks there at the Unitarian Church among 150 friends or so, Sally Lieber gave a rousing speech, there was wine and cheese and a great time was had by all. That was put on by the California Clean Money Campaign. The same folks are putting on the 1/7 event. Sponsors include the Dean Club, GPSMC, 3 League of Women Voters chapters, WILPF Mid-Peninsula, UU Palo Alto, UU Redwood City, San Mateo County Democracy for America, SCC Democratic Club. Speakers will include 4 local Assembly members: Rich Gordon, Paul Fong, Jim Beall, Jerry Hill, and Bob Wieckowski. Also retired Assembly member Sally Lieber. Paul Fong is co-author of the bill. To co-sponsor, call Nancy Neff at 650.858.2436. Merriam and Dana already know who she is. The bill, AB1148, the California DISCLOSE Act, requires that those who pay for political advertising stop hiding behind vague names like "Citizens for Tax Equity" and identify themselves by name on the ad if they contribute more than $50,000 and are among the top five funders. Polls show that 91% of Democrats and 87% of Republicans think this kind of legislation is a good idea. The Supreme Court noted in its Citizens United decision the problems with ads run by groups "hiding behind dubious and misleading names". Lawrence Lessig was on Jon Stewart last night and the need for campaign finance reform is much on the public mind. This is an achievable goal, a first step. Today campaign ad disclosure, tomorrow the end to corporate personhood. For more info about AB1148 see http://www.caclean.org/ For more about the Kickoff event: http://www.yesfairelections.org/contacts/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=297 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgshurt69 at aol.com Thu Dec 15 08:42:05 2011 From: jgshurt69 at aol.com (jgshurt69 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:42:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Reminder...Saturday 3PM is Bradley Manning Day at OccupySF In-Reply-To: <8CE895F1192181E-1BE0-7FA1E@webmail-d081.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CE895F1192181E-1BE0-7FA1E@webmail-d081.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CE895F9D025E32-1BE0-7FAE5@webmail-d081.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: jgshurt69 To: linda718 ; huy009 ; hobgob ; phil.vosburg ; ss457603739 ; zay911xd ; sheinka_6 ; GFutbolFanatico ; WButkus ; terrymc ; kellyk48 ; lyfong ; afong ; nandini.cmu ; ftprairiedog ; pat1936 ; cmarcopulos ; wechslertoo Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2011 3:38 am Subject: Reminder...Saturday 3PM is Bradley Manning Day at OccupySF As his Secret Military Trial begins at Fort Meade, Maryland....around the world "Protest Activists" (TIME MAGAZINE) are demandingFREE BRADLEY MANNING. Defend Human RightsIn San Francisco the event will be heldon the Embarcadero at Bradley Manning Plazaat 3PM Saturday 12/17.Occupy Fort Meade belowhttp://www.facebook.com/events/186545744765690/ From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 15:23:15 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:23:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC In-Reply-To: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323991395.52632.YahooMailNeo@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message body === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === Location:? San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose 6:30 PM Spencer Graves requests volunteer help on assemblying Move Your Money flyers 7:00 PM? Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. 7:30 PM? Begin meeting *? Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November agenda preparer, November one-minute speakers ?????? 2 min *? Introductions and short announcements ?????? 10 min *? Revise and affirm agenda ?????? 4 min *? Treasurer's report, pass the hat ?????? 4 min, Jim Doyle *? Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec.?3-4?????? ?????? 15 min, Warner Bloomberg? * Proposal to endorse of Jan 20th Move to Amend "Occupy the Courts!" St. James Park 12-1:30p ?????? 5?minutes, Merriam Kathaleen *? January Movie Night ???????5 min, Merriam Kathaleen * Proposal to endorse AB 1184: The 2012 California Disclose Act ????? & Sat. Jan. 7th Campaign Kickoff event @ PA?Unitarian Church 2-4pm? ???????5 min, Brian Good PARTY! Green is Sustainability! Drew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 16:08:29 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:08:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Corporate Personhood Abolition From Three Points Of View In-Reply-To: <1323991395.52632.YahooMailNeo@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323991395.52632.YahooMailNeo@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323994109.29244.YahooMailNeo@web111102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hello again, ? I called WILPF in Boston and found out that WILPF was in fact a co-founder of Move To Amend, as MTA claims on their web site.?This fact is not noted on any WILPF web site that I can see. WILPF has some docs on their web site relating to abolishing corporate personhood that were put there before they signed up with MTA.? One of those docs is located here: http://www.wilpf.org/docs/ccp/corp/ACP/What_Could_Change.pdf ? The doc describes what could change if MTA was adopted.? I have pasted it below with my critiques in bold.? At the end there is an additional comment by Ralph Nader, the one I was looking for for awhile about what his position is on this.? See below. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking ? What Could Change if Corporate Personhood were Abolished? WILPF?s Campaign to Abolish Corporate Personhood is about the question of who?s in charge. If We the People are sovereign, we must control the government. Corporations are created and chartered by the government which, acting on behalf of We the People, gives corporations privileges, not rights. Neither the government, without the consent of the governed, nor corporations have the right to rule over the people. Since corporations have gained the legal status of persons, corporations have accumulated rights and become rulers ? in other words, they can tell the government what to do. Corporate legal personhood was wrongly given ? not by We the People, but by nine Supreme Court judges in 1886. Corporate personhood is bad for democracy, people, and the planet because it has allowed an artificial entity to legally relegate people to subhuman status. We the People have the sovereign right ? indeed, duty ? to abolish corporate personhood. When corporate personhood is abolished, here are some actions We the People can take that are currently ?beyond our authority?: 1. Prohibit all political activity by corporations ? stop all corporate political donations and all corporate lobbying. These activities are currently legal because ?corporate persons? are protected under the First Amendment. The first amendment protections would not change under Move To Amend proposal (see section 3). Campaign financing by corporations could be restricted by section 2 alone, without resorting to using section 1 of MTA. 2. Prevent corporate mergers and prohibit corporations from owning stock in other corporations. Regulation of these activities was overturned because ?corporate persons? are protected under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Doing away with due process will bring legal anarchy like you have never seen before. Might makes right will be the theme of the day and big corporations will have Uber Rights while the little people and little corps have nothing. 3. Inspect for environmental or health violations without a warrant or prior notice. The Fourth Amendment protects ?corporate persons? from search without a warrant, protecting corporate polluters from concerned citizens and regulatory agencies. The health dept can get a secret warrant to inspect my restaurant under current rules. I'm fine with that. Laws should be passed to make it a crime/felony/jail time to tip off a big polluter about a warrant. Doing that doesn't violate due process. In a recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that although businesses have 4th amendment protections against warrantless searches, this conflict essentially amounts to a procedural technicality since they also ruled that such warrants may be issued without having probable cause that a violation of law exists. See http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv2n4/v2n4-2.pdf for the full story. 1. Revoke corporate charters by popular referendum. This is now illegal because ?corporate persons? are entitled to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Mob rule should be illegal. Might makes right will replace due process if MTA section 1 passes. 5. Prohibit the erection of cell phone towers and chain stores from doing business in your town, county, and state. Civil rights legislation and the Fourteenth Amendment are used to ensure that ?corporate persons? have an equal opportunity to be part of our communities. The 14thamendment should be used to insure that small businesses have an equal opportunity to be part of the Internet and that the rights to reuse web sites' content is regulated the same way as the content of books in the library --- insuring free exchange of ideas and a robust commerce and fair competition. Abolishing 14thamendment protections nullifies arguments such as this. Don't kill off the 99% while passing laws that are targeting only the 1%. 6. Stop advertising for tobacco, guns, and other dangerous products. ?Corporate persons? are entitled to free speech under the First Amendment, with ?commercial speech? increasingly protected by the federal courts. This is good. Small businesses will be hurt if this principle is overturned. Just because I make a profit off of advertising hosted on my site should not mean that I am subjected to any less freedom of speech than the homeless man holding a sign on a street corner.? The SEC regulations on the other hand should not be overturned by this principle because other things are at stake besides freedom of speech in those cases.?? 7. Levy differential taxes for corporations and restrict their size. The Fourteenth Amendment protects ?corporate persons? from unfair discrimination (although they don?t complain when they get big tax breaks). Small businesses will be unfairly discriminated against and Might Makes Right will rule the day if this principle is overturned. 8. Require labeling of genetically modified foods. This is currently prevented because the First Amendment protects the right of ?corporate persons? NOT to speak. Corporations currently have no 5thamendment rights. Make your argument in court under the fifth amendment along the lines of Freedom Of Information Act request precedent and publish your own list of products produced by corps that are genetically modified. See http://www.theusconstitution.org/page_module.php?id=28&mid=69 for the scoop on a recent Supreme Court ruling against ATT vs the Freedom Of Information Act. While it is true that this particular case would not even be possible to bring up with a straight face in a pre Citizens United world, the case was still treated as a joke. If Congress would have the balls to regulate GMOs this would not even be an issue. We need section 2 and 3 of MTA, not section 1 to accomplish this. If corporate personhood were abolished, none of these things would change automatically. New laws could be written and old laws could be challenged in court to eliminate the kinds of protections that have enabled ?corporate persons? to amass so much wealth and power. If these principles are overturned, corporations will acquire Uber Rights, Might Makes Right will rule the day and small businesses will be unfairly competed against and put out of business. The power of corporations will increase like never before. Remember: judge-made law is not democracy! We the People have the power to change this. Women?s International League for Peace and Freedom 1213 Race Street ? Philadelphia, PA 19107 ? 215.563.7110 ? www.wilpf.org Ralph Nader said the following about this: Equality of constitutional rights plus an inequality of legislated and de facto powers leads inevitably to the supremacy of artificial over real persons. And now the ultimate irony: Corporate entities have the constitutional right, says the Supreme Court, to patent living beings such as genetically engineered cattle, pigs, chickens and, perhaps someday, humanoids. This is not to say that corporations should have only the legal rights emanating from state charters that create them. What is required, however, is a constitutional presumption favoring the individual over the corporation. To establish this presumption, we need a constitutional amendment that declares that corporations are not persons and that they are only entitled to statutory protections conferred by legislatures and through referendums. Only then will the Constitution become the exclusive preserve of those whom the Framers sought to protect: real people. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/Corps_Not_Persons_RNR.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 15 17:44:23 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:44:23 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Friday, 6 PM, candlelight vigil "to condemn the assassination of the Bill of Rights by the President and, Congress" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EEAA277.9070707@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: Occupy San Jose is organizing a candlelight vigil and procession for tomorrow night, 6 PM, to march from City Hall to the Issei Memorial Building on Fifth and Jackson streets; see below. Spencer -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: NDAA Emergency Response Event Friday Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:39:52 -0800 From: Susie Barton Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com Wow Martin, thanks, this is great. I'm trying to make the meeting tonight. Let me know when the final is done, the JACL and JAMSJ said that they would post it up for tomorrow's foot traffic. The volunteers there are pretty well informed. The idea was not well received at Nichi Bei, the Tatsuno's have always been merchants and she immediately launched into how the port shut down is hurting the local business's in Oakland. It's good to know how to smile and nod your head. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Martin > wrote: I'm working on the flier/press release for this. Here is the copy to discuss at tonight's meeting (I might not be able to make it). I will revise, format/add art, and get them printed tomorrow. Occupy San Jose is holding a candlelight procession and vigil to condemn the assassination of the Bill of Rights by the President and Congress. Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 "authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens? right to trial," according to a letter signed by 40 members of the House including Rep. Mike Honda. "We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military." By defining U.S. soil as a battleground on the ongoing war on terror, this legislation effectively suspends habeas corpus and deprives American citizens of due process. It grants the military unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate, torture, and even kill United States citizens labeled as terrorists. The Occupy Movement deplores this imposition of a police state as an act of treason against the American people and calls on the Supreme Court to swiftly void its unconstitutional provisions. We will meet at City Hall Plaza at 6 p.m. Friday for a silent, candelit funeral procession to the Issei Memorial Building on Fifth and Jackson streets where we will hold a vigil at the memorial to the Japanese internment camps. -- /Watashi tachi wa onaji kama no meshi o taberu/ "We all eat from the same bowl" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 18:04:07 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:04:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Corporate Personhood Abolition From Three Points Of View Message-ID: <1324001047.32980.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I don't know what to say John except that in my opinion you've got this completely backwards. Corporations need regulating and corporate 'rights' not by usurping human rights.? It was by unhappy accident that they obtained the uber position they have in America and they *need* to have their wings clipped badly. Green is collective! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Thu Dec 15 19:09:09 2011 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:09:09 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: [Fwd: AACSA Presents... The Holiday Faire 2011] Message-ID: <20111215.190909.20227.0@webmail09.vgs.untd.com> FYI, a tabling possibility for next year from Jim Doyle. Valerie ~*~*~*~ The Marine Mammal Center 2011 Release Celebrations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoNan4N1dBM Please note: forwarded message attached ____________________________________________________________ 57 Year Old Mom Looks 27 Mom Reveals $3 Wrinkle Trick Angering Doctors... http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4eeab693e4fbbb08a4dst05vuc -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: African American Community Service Agency Subject: AACSA Presents... The Holiday Faire 2011 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:41:08 -0500 (EST) Size: 10635 URL: From wrolley at charter.net Thu Dec 15 21:00:23 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:00:23 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Controversial marine 'protected' areas effective January 1 In-Reply-To: <511C0C96-E416-4D24-89F4-BA61FD7C5278@fishsniffer.com> References: <511C0C96-E416-4D24-89F4-BA61FD7C5278@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: <4EEAD067.5010707@charter.net> "Those who believe in environmental justice, democracy and true, wholistic marine protection - as opposed to privately funded green washing - believe that January 1, 2012 will be a very sad day. " http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/12/15/controversial-marine-protected-areas-effective-january-1/ Please read the rest of this at the above link. It is vintage Dan Bacher and very good. _p_ . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 15 21:28:30 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:28:30 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC In-Reply-To: <1323991395.52632.YahooMailNeo@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323991395.52632.YahooMailNeo@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EEAD6FE.5000205@prodsyse.com> On 12/15/2011 3:23 PM, Drew wrote: > > > Message body > > === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === > > Location: San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose > > 6:30 PM Spencer Graves requests volunteer help on assemblying Move > Your Money flyers > > 7:00 PM Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. > > 7:30 PM Begin meeting > > * Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November > agenda preparer, November one-minute speakers > 2 min facilitator: Tian notetaker: Spencer timekeeper: Fred vibes watcher: Merriam Jan. agenda preparer: Tian (1. Betsy on Secure Communities) Jan. one-minute speakers: Merriam > > * Introductions and short announcements > 10 min Tian Harter: Bike parties tomorrow and Saturday night. Christmas party Sunday evening, 5-9 PM. see tian.greens.org: 505 Cyprus Point Drive, Mountain View, CA. John T. Hector Schneider, from Occupy San Jose: have to move it from Occupation to a progressive movement Spencer Graves, Betsy Wolf-Graves: To give a 10 minute presentation at the beginning of the meeting on Secure Communities in January. Drew: Fred D. Merriam: Jim Stauffer > > * Revise and affirm agenda > 4 min > > * Treasurer's report, pass the hat > 4 min, Jim Doyle > > * Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec. 3-4 > 15 min, Jim S. & Tian JIM: Nothing earth shattering. Bylaw modifications of minor consequence and updates of platform planks. Recommendations of names for inclusion on primary presidential candidates. Jill Stein (consensus) and Kent Mesplay (by only 2 votes; they had a debate and he had poor showing. People voted for that, because they felt there should be 2 names on the ballot.) Confirmed Jared Laiety(sp) as liason to the Secretary of State. This was a meeting in LA. Marnie Glickman is the "Managing Director of the CA Green Party". A few locals have disassociated with the CA state party over this. Next Plenary in ~6 months someplace in N. CA. We can have a plenary here and try to reach out to other locals. PROPOSED: People in this group form a committee to brainstorm how to deal with this: Merriam will call a County Council Meeting. Proposed fiscal policy for the Green Party: The finance and coordinating committees never looked at it. Mike Feinstein wrote it and brought it directly to the General Assembly without going through the appropriate committees. Sunday morning: 2 items: AB 1148 clean money campaign. + an anti-death penalty initiative. > * Proposal to endorse of Jan 20th Move to Amend "Occupy the Courts!" > St. James Park 12-1:30p > 5 minutes, Merriam Kathaleen Fri., Jan. 20 = 2 year anniversary of the Citizens United decision. St. James Park is across the street from the Courthouse wherein the original "corporate personhood" decision was made in the 1880s. Proposed: Santa Clara Greens endorse this event. Passed by consensus with one stand aside. John is still concerned about the specific language. Q: Could Laura Wells be invited to speak? > * January Movie Night > 5 min, Merriam Kathaleen Dr. Strangelove. John agreed to get the announcement on the Peace Center calendar AND send an announcement to Spencer for the web site. Proposed: Green Party combines with Occupy San Jose to co-sponsor movies starting in February. Latin Movie group wants to switch, so the Greens have the first Friday and the Latin group does the second. Tian is one of the regulars and cannot come first Friday. > * Proposal to endorse AB 1184: The 2012 California Disclose Act > & Sat. Jan. 7th Campaign Kickoff event @ PA Unitarian Church 2-4pm > 5 min, Brian Good State Green party has endorsed it. Requires people who pay for an ad must put their names on it. We should see if we can have a table at this event. Santa Clara Greens also endorse the act and the event. Approved. > PARTY! > Green is Sustainability! > Drew > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at aceweb.com Fri Dec 16 12:37:01 2011 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:37:01 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Privacy and Anonymity in a World of Interconnected Data Message-ID: <4EEBABED.5070009@aceweb.com> > Arvind Narayanan > > speaking on > > Privacy and Anonymity in a World of Interconnected Data > > Arvind Narayanan is a post-doctoral computer science researcher at > Stanford University and a junior affiliate scholar at the Center for > Internet and Society, housed at Stanford Law School and a part of > the Law, Science and Technology Program. Arvind completed his Ph.D, > which exposed the problems with data anonymization, at the University > of Texas, and now studies privacy from a multidisciplinary perspective > focusing on the intersection between technology, law and policy. > > Arvind will describe the issues around the privacy and anonymity of > online consumers in this age of massive data collection from internet > sites and mobile applications. His doctoral thesis, in a sentence, > is that the level of anonymity that consumers expect?and companies > claim to provide?in published or outsourced databases is fundamentally > unrealizable. Arvind began by explaining that when fingerprints were discovered about 100 years ago it was a huge breakthrough in criminal justice. No longer was it possible for a criminal to escape because they couldn't be proven to have been there. The idea that everybody could be uniquely identified took on a life of its own in the public imagination. Since then the field of privacy law has developed a lot. Arvind showed us pictures of many other things that also now are known to have unique fingerprints. Computers have unique ID's from manufacturing requirements. Old typewriters have unique ID's because life has worn their keys in individual ways. Digital cameras have unique ID's because every camera is just slightly less than perfect in a different way, and the differences can be spotted by sophisticated computers with the right test algorithms. Even a blank piece of paper can be uniquely identified by its grain. Arvind explained that such information is important to know about. Consider a blogger that is providing information about an awful regime. If their identity isn't known they are relatively safe. If their camera gives them away they could be apprehended. Then he explained that pictures can be "derezed" to hide such information by reducing the detail level to less than 70% of that in the original shot. Online there are also digital footprints to be watched out for. It turns out that 87% of us can be uniquely identified just by our zip codes, birthday, and sex. Any anonymous database that holds those clues can be at least partly broken into by comparing those characteristics with public information. Arvind talked about a couple of major data dumps that had simply released too much information about individual people for their privacy to be guaranteed by the companies that promised it. During Q&A the following came up: Arvind is a big fan of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He recommends giving them money, because it will be well spent. He doesn't know if the spy drone that was captured by the Iranians was "hacked out of the sky" by a computer attack or if it was jammed or simply fell because of equipment failure or whatever. Deleting cookies from your browser is an important part of data privacy. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: US National debt now $15 Trillion plus. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Colorado quarter. From carolineyacoub at att.net Fri Dec 16 18:04:58 2011 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:04:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Watch LIVE Now! GP Prez candidate Jill Stein talking with Matt Rothschild on GP-TV Message-ID: <1324087498.6274.YahooMailRC@web181006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Fri, December 16, 2011 4:13:24 PM Subject: Watch LIVE Now! GP Prez candidate Jill Stein talking with Matt Rothschild on GP-TV Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:55:52 -0800 >From: Starlene >Subject: [Lavender-issues] Watch LIVE Now! GP Prez candidate Jill Stein talking >with Matt Rothschild on GP-TV > > > > >Watch LIVE right now!? Jill Stein is talking with Matt Rothschild, Editor of The >Progressive Magazine. Join the discussion in the Chat Room. >http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Fri Dec 16 18:26:33 2011 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:26:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: There Goes the Republic - Robert Scheer on defense authorization bill Message-ID: <1324088793.98893.YahooMailRC@web181017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Thu, December 15, 2011 8:57:06 PM Subject: There Goes the Republic - Robert Scheer on defense authorization bill Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:28:15 -0800 >Subject: There Goes the Republic - Robert Scheer on defense authorization bill >From: Thomas Scott Tucker > > >There Goes the Republic > >By Robert Scheer > >EXCERPT, use link for full text:??? >http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/there_goes_the_republic_20111214/ > >Once again the gods of war have united our Congress like nothing else. Unable to >agree on the minimal spending necessary to save our economy, schools, medical >system or infrastructure, the cowards who mislead us have retreated to the >irrationalities of what George Washington in his farewell address condemned as >?pretended patriotism.? > > >The defense authorization bill that Congress passed and President Obama had >threatened to veto will soon become law, a fact that should be met with public >outrage. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth, responding to >Obama?s craven collapse on the bill?s most controversial provision, said, ?By >signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as >the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law.? On >Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed ?the most recent >changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will >be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the >heart of our country?s strength.? > > >What rubbish, coming from a president who taught constitutional law. The point >is not to hock our civil liberty to the discretion of the president, but rather >to guarantee our freedoms even if a Dick Cheney or Newt Gingrich should attain >the highest office. > >Sadly, this flagrant subversion of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due >process of law was opposed in the Senate by only seven senators, including >libertarian Republican Rand Paul and progressive Independent Bernie Sanders. > >That onerous provision of the defense budget bill, much discussed on the >Internet but far less so in the mass media, assumes a permanent war against >terrorism that extends the battlefield to our homeland. It reeks of a >militarized state that threatens the foundations of our republican form of >government. > >This is not only a disaster in the making for civil liberty but a blow to >effective anti-terrorist police work. Recall that it was the FBI that was most >effective in interrogating al-Qaida suspects before the military let loose the >torturers. Under the newly approved legislation, that bypassing of civilian >experts will be codified as a routine option for a president. > > >As The New York Times editorialized, the bill ?would take the most experienced >and successful anti-terrorism agencies?the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors?out of >the business of interrogating, charging and trying most terrorism cases, and >turn the job over to the military.? Not only has FBI Director Robert Mueller III >opposed this shift in the law, but so has Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who >previously ran the CIA. > > >What?s alarming is not just that one pernicious aspect of the defense spending >bill, but the ease with which an otherwise deadlocked Congress that can?t manage >minimal funding for job creation and unemployment relief can find the money to >fund at Cold War levels a massive sophisticated arsenal to defeat an enemy that >no longer exists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Dec 16 23:19:45 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:19:45 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? In-Reply-To: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> References: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> Thanks to Caroline's email, I went searching for more info ... It appears that we now can have indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without any hearings / trials. "There Goes the Republic" http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/there_goes_the_republic_20111214/ "Truthdiggers of the Week: NDAA Dissenters in Congress" http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdiggers_of_the_week_ndaa_dissenters_in_congress_20111216/ Senate: The Republicans voted 43/3. The Democrats voted 49/3. The Independents voted 1/1. Both Feinstein and Boxer voted for it. House: The Republicans voted 190/32. The Democrats voted 93/93. Pelosi, McNerney voted Yes. Speier, Eshoo, Honda voted No. ... How do I do an upside down U.S. flag? Gerry From gerrygras at earthlink.net Sat Dec 17 01:06:38 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:06:38 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? In-Reply-To: <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> References: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> Glenn Greenwald makes a clear statement against the bill. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/ Gerry Gerry Gras wrote: > > Thanks to Caroline's email, I went searching for more info > > ... > > It appears that we now can have indefinite detention > of U.S. citizens without any hearings / trials. > > "There Goes the Republic" > http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/there_goes_the_republic_20111214/ > > "Truthdiggers of the Week: NDAA Dissenters in Congress" > http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdiggers_of_the_week_ndaa_dissenters_in_congress_20111216/ > > > Senate: > > The Republicans voted 43/3. > The Democrats voted 49/3. > The Independents voted 1/1. > Both Feinstein and Boxer voted for it. > > House: > The Republicans voted 190/32. > The Democrats voted 93/93. > Pelosi, McNerney voted Yes. > Speier, Eshoo, Honda voted No. > > ... > > How do I do an upside down U.S. flag? > > Gerry > From wrolley at charter.net Sat Dec 17 09:18:46 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:18:46 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? In-Reply-To: <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> References: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4EECCEF6.3030500@charter.net> On 12/17/2011 1:06 AM, Gerry Gras wrote: > > Glenn Greenwald makes a clear statement against the bill. > > http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/ > > > Gerry > > But even Greenwald's "clear statement" against the NDAA is not inkeeping with the final text of the bill as passed. Sections 1031 and 1032 need to be read. When in doubt, go to the bill at thomas.loc.gov/ There are still problems, but not nearly as bad as painted by Greenwald's broad brush. From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 09:58:47 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:58:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Privacy and Anonymity in a World of Interconnected Data In-Reply-To: <4EEBABED.5070009@aceweb.com> References: <4EEBABED.5070009@aceweb.com> Message-ID: <1324144727.68645.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Maintaining privacy takes many forms these days.? I have started paying cash for everything that I can.?(Remember that the PATRIOT?Act allows the govt to access your financial records.)??I take the battery out of my cell phone when I am not using it. (The battery drains like crazy when I put tin foil over the phone when it is off so?I KNOW that the cell tower is being pinged to reveal my location even when it is off when the battery is in it.) There is a company called Caged Ideas LLC (see them on Facebook) that is making a special case that can be used to block different apps from accessing your phone. This gives you a finer level of control than just taking the battery out, plus it makes it possible to have this level of control over an iPhone, where it is not an easy task to take the battery out.?The govt probably will make this company install a back door in their device eventually, so using a phone that allows you to take the battery out easily is probably still the best option if you don't like being tracked. ?I also stopped looking up my travel plans online. Instead, I just go to the train station and pay cash for my ticket while keeping the dates and times in my head.? If I look up ticket availabilty online I soon find that every ad displayed is showing "come to (my destination city) on (travel dates) for a great deal on a hotel" or something like that.? It is clear to me that such info is not private at all and the cops are probably tapping into that.? I have to show ID when I get my ticket anyway, so the info is available if they really want it.? But why make it any easier for them than it should be? ? John Thielking From: Tian Harter To: Post South SF Bay discus Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:37 PM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Privacy and Anonymity in a World of Interconnected Data > Arvind Narayanan > > speaking on > > Privacy and Anonymity in a World of Interconnected Data > > Arvind Narayanan is a post-doctoral computer science researcher at > Stanford University and a junior affiliate scholar at the Center for > Internet and Society, housed at Stanford Law School and a part of > the Law, Science and Technology Program. Arvind completed his Ph.D, > which exposed the problems with data anonymization, at the University > of Texas, and now studies privacy from a multidisciplinary perspective > focusing on the intersection between technology, law and policy. > > Arvind will describe the issues around the privacy and anonymity of > online consumers in this age of massive data collection from internet > sites and mobile applications. His doctoral thesis, in a sentence, > is that the level of anonymity that consumers expect?and companies > claim to provide?in published or outsourced databases is fundamentally > unrealizable. Arvind began by explaining that when fingerprints were discovered about 100 years ago it was a huge breakthrough in criminal justice. No longer was it possible for a criminal to escape because they couldn't be proven to have been there. The idea that everybody could be uniquely identified took on a life of its own in the public imagination. Since then the field of privacy law has developed a lot. Arvind showed us pictures of many other things that also now are known to have unique fingerprints. Computers have unique ID's from manufacturing requirements. Old typewriters have unique ID's because life has worn their keys in individual ways. Digital cameras have unique ID's because every camera is just slightly less than perfect in a different way, and the differences can be spotted by sophisticated computers with the right test algorithms. Even a blank piece of paper can be uniquely identified by its grain. Arvind explained that such information is important to know about. Consider a blogger that is providing information about an awful regime. If their identity isn't known they are relatively safe. If their camera gives them away they could be apprehended. Then he explained that pictures can be "derezed" to hide such information by reducing the detail level to less than 70% of that in the original shot. Online there are also digital footprints to be watched out for. It turns out that 87% of us can be uniquely identified just by our zip codes, birthday, and sex. Any anonymous database that holds those clues can be at least partly broken into by comparing those characteristics with public information. Arvind talked about a couple of major data dumps that had simply released too much information about individual people for their privacy to be guaranteed by the companies that promised it. During Q&A the following came up: Arvind is a big fan of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He recommends giving them money, because it will be well spent. He doesn't know if the spy drone that was captured by the Iranians was "hacked out of the sky" by a computer attack or if it was jammed or simply fell because of equipment failure or whatever. Deleting cookies from your browser is an important part of data privacy. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: US National debt now $15 Trillion plus. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Colorado quarter. _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 10:01:00 2011 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:01:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? Message-ID: <1324144860.68708.androidMobile@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Wes, could you please go into more detail and give some quotes from the bill? in your email to explain why you don't think its as bad as most believe?? Thanks. Green is Inevitable! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 10:30:43 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:30:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: There Goes the Republic - Robert Scheer on defense authorization bill In-Reply-To: <1324088793.98893.YahooMailRC@web181017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1324088793.98893.YahooMailRC@web181017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1324146643.57497.YahooMailNeo@web111101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Thanks for sharing this. ? Last night, Occupy San Jose had a march and a candlelight vigil from 6pm-7:30PM to mark the passage of the NDAA.? We marched up the middle of 5th street to the site of the memorial for the Japanese who were interned during WWII.?A couple of us were actually Japanese American, with one woman saying that her great grandmother had lived in this same area of San Jose.?We wore black armbands, some of which had the names of the internment camps on them.? There were benches in front of the memorial that represented each of the internment camps.? Various people gave speeches about human rights and the violations that have occurred since Sept 11, 2001.? It was pointed out that Muslim men over the age of 16 are required to register with (Homeland Security? I think) and right after Sept 11, 2001 many of these men were promptly arrested and deported to whatever country Homeland Security thought was appropriate, even if they were native born US citizens.? When it was my turn to speak, I gave a short speal about how I would like to see us be consistent when we talk about rights, and consider the impact on little people and small businesses when we promote stuff such as Section 1 of the MTA amendment that will take away all rights of artificial entities. I focused on the 4th amendment, and said that I didn't want cops busting into my house looking "only" for my business records and taking everything while they sort out what is business related or not. I pointed out that 99% of artificial entities are small, and that we should be carefull what we actually end up doing when we attempt to go after the big bad corporations that we are so focused on.? There will be a few more simillar memorial marches planned in the coming days.? The organizers were pleased that they got such a healthy turnout (about 25 people) on only 2 days notice.? The SJ Occupy action from earlier in the day (Carolling at Banks Action) was shown on the 10PM Ch2 news and they also mentioned the march to Japantown in protest of the passage of the NDAA on the broadcast, though they didn't mention WHY we were concerned. ? John Thielking From: Caroline Yacoub To: sosfbay-discuss Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 6:26 PM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: There Goes the Republic - Robert Scheer on defense authorization bill ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Thu, December 15, 2011 8:57:06 PM Subject: There Goes the Republic - Robert Scheer on defense authorization bill Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:28:15 -0800 >Subject: There Goes the Republic - Robert Scheer on defense authorization bill >From: Thomas Scott Tucker > > >There Goes the Republic > >By Robert Scheer > >EXCERPT, use link for full text:??? >http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/there_goes_the_republic_20111214/ > >Once again the gods of war have united our Congress like nothing else. Unable to agree on the minimal spending necessary to save our economy, schools, medical system or infrastructure, the cowards who mislead us have retreated to the irrationalities of what George Washington in his farewell address condemned as ?pretended patriotism.? > >The defense authorization bill that Congress passed and President Obama had threatened to veto will soon become law, a fact that should be met with public outrage. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth, responding to Obama?s craven collapse on the bill?s most controversial provision, said, ?By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law.? On Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed ?the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country?s strength.? > >What rubbish, coming from a president who taught constitutional law. The point is not to hock our civil liberty to the discretion of the president, but rather to guarantee our freedoms even if a Dick Cheney or Newt Gingrich should attain the highest office. > >Sadly, this flagrant subversion of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law was opposed in the Senate by only seven senators, including libertarian Republican Rand Paul and progressive Independent Bernie Sanders. > >That onerous provision of the defense budget bill, much discussed on the Internet but far less so in the mass media, assumes a permanent war against terrorism that extends the battlefield to our homeland. It reeks of a militarized state that threatens the foundations of our republican form of government. > >This is not only a disaster in the making for civil liberty but a blow to effective anti-terrorist police work. Recall that it was the FBI that was most effective in interrogating al-Qaida suspects before the military let loose the torturers. Under the newly approved legislation, that bypassing of civilian experts will be codified as a routine option for a president. > >As The New York Times editorialized, the bill ?would take the most experienced and successful anti-terrorism agencies?the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors?out of the business of interrogating, charging and trying most terrorism cases, and turn the job over to the military.? Not only has FBI Director Robert Mueller III opposed this shift in the law, but so has Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who previously ran the CIA. > >What?s alarming is not just that one pernicious aspect of the defense spending bill, but the ease with which an otherwise deadlocked Congress that can?t manage minimal funding for job creation and unemployment relief can find the money to fund at Cold War levels a massive sophisticated arsenal to defeat an enemy that no longer exists. _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 11:04:45 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:04:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? In-Reply-To: <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> References: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1324148685.29361.YahooMailNeo@web111111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> This section may have been the part that my Mother was referring to when she suggested that she might be arrested for serving me Christmas dinner. (harboring someone who aided a terrorist).? I "aid terrorists" all the time by protesting against the war on terror and against drones.? So what Obama? Bite me. ? (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. ? John Thielking ? From: Gerry Gras To: GPSCC Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? Glenn Greenwald makes a clear statement against the bill. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/ Gerry Gerry Gras wrote: > > Thanks to Caroline's email, I went searching for more info > > ... > > It appears that we now can have indefinite detention > of U.S. citizens without any hearings / trials. > > "There Goes the Republic" > http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/there_goes_the_republic_20111214/ > > "Truthdiggers of the Week: NDAA Dissenters in Congress" > http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdiggers_of_the_week_ndaa_dissenters_in_congress_20111216/ > > > Senate: > > The Republicans voted 43/3. > The Democrats voted 49/3. > The Independents voted 1/1. > Both Feinstein and Boxer voted for it. > > House: > The Republicans voted 190/32. > The Democrats voted 93/93. > Pelosi, McNerney voted Yes. > Speier, Eshoo, Honda voted No. > > ... > > How do I do an upside down U.S. flag? > > Gerry > _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Sat Dec 17 12:35:23 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:35:23 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? In-Reply-To: <4EECCEF6.3030500@charter.net> References: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> <4EECCEF6.3030500@charter.net> Message-ID: <4EECFD0B.4090808@earthlink.net> Wes Rolley wrote: > On 12/17/2011 1:06 AM, Gerry Gras wrote: >> >> Glenn Greenwald makes a clear statement against the bill. >> >> http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/ >> >> >> Gerry >> >> > But even Greenwald's "clear statement" against the NDAA is not inkeeping > with the final text of the bill as passed. > > Sections 1031 and 1032 need to be read. > > When in doubt, go to the bill at thomas.loc.gov/ There are still > problems, but not nearly as bad as painted by Greenwald's broad brush. > Well, I went to the text, and I fail to see where Greenwald is incorrect. Maybe I missed something. Could you please point out Greenwald's errors? Maybe I need to explain what I was looking at. I went to thomas.loc.gov, found bill S. 1867, went to all Congressional Actions with Amendments, found that the last date mentioned was 12/1. Where it says see also H.R. 1540. So I went to H.R. 1540, went to all Congressional Actions with Amendments. As near as I can tell, the "final" bill being handed to Obama is the Conference Report: http://conferencereport.gpo.gov/%28X%281%29S%28522vnfg0zduqzgreczujb0fn%29%29/Link.aspx?ReportId=8dEW5nme98U=&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 which points to a pdf file: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf The text in Greenwald's column matches the text in this conference report. NOTE: for some reason, sections 1031 and 1032 have been renumbered 1021 and 1022. And Greenwald's analysis looks ok to me as well. Gerry From gerrygras at earthlink.net Sat Dec 17 13:00:18 2011 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:00:18 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Weekend Update: All Eyes on Obama In-Reply-To: <20c4-5ca-4eece696@list.350.org> References: <20c4-5ca-4eece696@list.350.org> Message-ID: <4EED02E2.7090409@earthlink.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Weekend Update: All Eyes on Obama Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:59:34 +0000 From: Bill McKibben - 350.org Reply-To: Bill McKibben - 350.org To: Mr. Gerry Gras Dear Friends, *As you might know, the Keystone tar sands pipeline is back in play. * This morning, the Senate passed a bill that requires a 60-day, expedited approval process for the pipeline in return for a payroll tax cut, and the President has said he will sign it. The news has been swirling around Washington the last few days, with one report after another of deals and deadlines. (It?s a little weird to think that six months ago, when we started the campaign to stop this pipeline, almost no one had even heard of this thing and now it?s the center of frantic bargaining -- that?s a real tribute to your efforts). *Here?s what we do know: * 1) The dirty energy industry wants the pipeline fast-tracked, and is demanding that the President grant or deny a permit within two months. They?re going to do all they can to make that happen. 2) The administration knows that Americans don?t want that permit granted. They know because many of you encircled the White House in November, and submitted more public comments than on any energy project in history, and because yesterday the climate movement flooded the White House switchboard with so many phone calls that the busy signal was the sound of the day. For all that work, thank you. *Here?s what we don?t know: what happens next. * Our hope -- and what you should ask the President for when you write him -- is that when he signs the bill he will say the obvious thing: /?Two months is not long enough to review the pipeline. The Canadians themselves have just delayed review of their tar sands pipelines over safety concerns, and we?ve just come through a year that set a record for billion-dollar climate-related disasters; I?m not going to do a rush job just to please the oil industry lobbyists. So this pipeline is dead.? / Since the State Department has already, in essence, said two months is not enough time, this should be pretty straightforward. *We should know how it?s going to play out within 48 hours or so. We?re of course ready to fight like heck. * But for this weekend? Well, the switchboard is now closed, so to contact the White House you'll need to send them a message here. And click here to spread the word on Faceboo k, and click here to share the news on on Twitter. Once you?ve done that, I recommend eggnog, football, caroling, Hannukah-shopping -- and checking the email every once in a while? We?re hanging fire on this, and we?ll let you know when we find out what?s going down and if rapid reaction of some kind is required. So so many thanks for your continued good hearted work, Bill McKibben for 350.org Team P.S. We know one other thing too. On Thursday night the Republican debating society came out in favor the pipeline, which is easy for them to do since they?ve all now denied climate science. Newt Gingrich in particular blamed ?San Francisco environmental extremists? with holding things up. I?m sure our California crew is happy for the shout-out, but it seemed a little unfair to Nebraska farmers, Texas ranchers, Florida College students, New York trade unionists, Wall Street occupiers, and even us Vermont granola eaters. We?re a big broad bunch and we?re going to stay that way! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 350.org is building a global movement to solve the climate crisis. Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter , and sign up for email alerts . You can help power our work by getting involved locally and donating here. What is 350? Go to our website to learn about the science behind the movement. / To stop receiving emails from 350.org, click here. / From jims at greens.org Sat Dec 17 16:43:35 2011 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:43:35 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC In-Reply-To: <4EEAD6FE.5000205@prodsyse.com> References: <1323825728.96727.YahooMailNeo@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1323991395.52632.YahooMailNeo@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EEAD6FE.5000205@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <4EED3737.9080103@greens.org> I've added some clarifications inline to the notes. Sometimes paraphrasing doesn't capture the original intent. Jim On 12/15/2011 9:28 PM, Spencer Graves wrote: > On 12/15/2011 3:23 PM, Drew wrote: >> >> >> Message body >> >> === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === >> >> Location: San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose >> >> 6:30 PM Spencer Graves requests volunteer help on assemblying Move Your >> Money flyers >> >> 7:00 PM Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. >> >> 7:30 PM Begin meeting >> >> * Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November agenda >> preparer, November one-minute speakers >> 2 min > > facilitator: Tian > > > notetaker: Spencer > > > timekeeper: Fred > > > vibes watcher: Merriam > > > Jan. agenda preparer: Tian (1. Betsy on Secure Communities) > > > Jan. one-minute speakers: Merriam > >> >> * Introductions and short announcements >> 10 min > > > Tian Harter: Bike parties tomorrow and Saturday night. Christmas party Sunday > evening, 5-9 PM. see tian.greens.org: 505 Cyprus Point Drive, Mountain View, CA. > > > John T. > > > Hector Schneider, from Occupy San Jose: have to move it from Occupation to a > progressive movement > > > Spencer Graves, > > > Betsy Wolf-Graves: To give a 10 minute presentation at the beginning of the > meeting on Secure Communities in January. > > > Drew: > > > Fred D. > > > Merriam: > > > Jim Stauffer > >> >> * Revise and affirm agenda >> 4 min >> >> * Treasurer's report, pass the hat >> 4 min, Jim Doyle >> >> * Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec. 3-4 >> 15 min, Jim S. & Tian > > > JIM: Nothing earth shattering. Bylaw modifications of minor consequence and > updates of platform planks. Recommendations of names for inclusion on primary > presidential candidates. Jill Stein (consensus) and Kent Mesplay (by only 2 > votes; they had a debate and he had poor showing. People voted for that, > because they felt there should be 2 names on the ballot.) [Jim] This issues was the names the GPCA sends to the Secretary of State for inclusion on our Presidential Primary ballot. Kent did not attend the presidential debate at the LA General Assembly due to illness. Some did not fully believe his excuse and felt he ruined the webcast debate with his phone-in presence. Tian also presented on this. > > > Confirmed Jared Laiety(sp) as liason to the Secretary of State. > > > This was a meeting in LA. Marnie Glickman is the "Managing Director of the CA > Green Party". A few locals have disassociated with the CA state party over this. [Jim] Actually, Locals have not disassociated from the state party over Marnie Glickman (yet). Disassociation was brought up as a possible response if a Local has serious problems with what the GPCA is doing. A couple Locals have done this in the past. [Jim] The issue I raised about the CC was their implementation of Marnie's Green2012 plan, including establishing Marnie as Managing Director, on a 6-3 vote that did not use the consensus process to address concerns and proposed amendments. Green2012 has not been discussed or decided at a General Assembly and some of us feel the CC grossly over-stepped their authority. > > > Next Plenary in ~6 months someplace in N. CA. We can have a plenary here and > try to reach out to other locals. > > > PROPOSED: People in this group form a committee to brainstorm how to deal with > this: Merriam will call a County Council Meeting. > > > Proposed fiscal policy for the Green Party: The finance and coordinating > committees never looked at it. Mike Feinstein wrote it and brought it directly > to the General Assembly without going through the appropriate committees. > > > Sunday morning: 2 items: AB 1148 clean money campaign. + an anti-death penalty > initiative. > >> * Proposal to endorse of Jan 20th Move to Amend "Occupy the Courts!" St. >> James Park 12-1:30p >> 5 minutes, Merriam Kathaleen > > > Fri., Jan. 20 = 2 year anniversary of the Citizens United decision. St. James > Park is across the street from the Courthouse wherein the original "corporate > personhood" decision was made in the 1880s. > > > Proposed: Santa Clara Greens endorse this event. Passed by consensus with one > stand aside. > > > John is still concerned about the specific language. > > > Q: Could Laura Wells be invited to speak? > > > >> * January Movie Night >> 5 min, Merriam Kathaleen > > > Dr. Strangelove. > > > John agreed to get the announcement on the Peace Center calendar AND send an > announcement to Spencer for the web site. > > > Proposed: Green Party combines with Occupy San Jose to co-sponsor movies > starting in February. > > > Latin Movie group wants to switch, so the Greens have the first Friday and the > Latin group does the second. Tian is one of the regulars and cannot come first > Friday. > >> * Proposal to endorse AB 1184: The 2012 California Disclose Act >> & Sat. Jan. 7th Campaign Kickoff event @ PA Unitarian Church 2-4pm >> 5 min, Brian Good > > > State Green party has endorsed it. Requires people who pay for an ad must put > their names on it. > > > We should see if we can have a table at this event. > > > Santa Clara Greens also endorse the act and the event. Approved. > >> PARTY! >> Green is Sustainability! >> Drew >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sosfbay-discuss mailing list >> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > > -- > Spencer Graves, PE, PhD > President and Chief Technology Officer > Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. > 751 Emerson Ct. > San Jos?, CA 95126 > ph: 408-655-4567 > web:www.structuremonitoring.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From vdf at juno.com Sat Dec 17 19:46:07 2011 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:46:07 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC Message-ID: <20111217.194607.4744.0@webmail09.vgs.untd.com> Hi Jim, Thanks very much for the clarifications. Do you (or anyone else) know what happened with the proposed fiscal policy at the plenary? The notes talk about how it was brought to the General Assembly, but nothing is said about whether it was passed, rejected, modified, etc. Thanks and happy holidays, Valerie ---------- Original Message ---------- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:43:35 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC I've added some clarifications inline to the notes. Sometimes paraphrasing doesn't capture the original intent. Jim On 12/15/2011 9:28 PM, Spencer Graves wrote: > On 12/15/2011 3:23 PM, Drew wrote: >> >> >> Message body >> >> === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === >> >> Location: San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose >> >> 6:30 PM Spencer Graves requests volunteer help on assemblying Move Your >> Money flyers >> >> 7:00 PM Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. >> >> 7:30 PM Begin meeting >> >> * Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November agenda >> preparer, November one-minute speakers >> 2 min > > facilitator: Tian > > > notetaker: Spencer > > > timekeeper: Fred > > > vibes watcher: Merriam > > > Jan. agenda preparer: Tian (1. Betsy on Secure Communities) > > > Jan. one-minute speakers: Merriam > >> >> * Introductions and short announcements >> 10 min > > > Tian Harter: Bike parties tomorrow and Saturday night. Christmas party Sunday > evening, 5-9 PM. see tian.greens.org: 505 Cyprus Point Drive, Mountain View, CA. > > > John T. > > > Hector Schneider, from Occupy San Jose: have to move it from Occupation to a > progressive movement > > > Spencer Graves, > > > Betsy Wolf-Graves: To give a 10 minute presentation at the beginning of the > meeting on Secure Communities in January. > > > Drew: > > > Fred D. > > > Merriam: > > > Jim Stauffer > >> >> * Revise and affirm agenda >> 4 min >> >> * Treasurer's report, pass the hat >> 4 min, Jim Doyle >> >> * Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec. 3-4 >> 15 min, Jim S. & Tian > > > JIM: Nothing earth shattering. Bylaw modifications of minor consequence and > updates of platform planks. Recommendations of names for inclusion on primary > presidential candidates. Jill Stein (consensus) and Kent Mesplay (by only 2 > votes; they had a debate and he had poor showing. People voted for that, > because they felt there should be 2 names on the ballot.) [Jim] This issues was the names the GPCA sends to the Secretary of State for inclusion on our Presidential Primary ballot. Kent did not attend the presidential debate at the LA General Assembly due to illness. Some did not fully believe his excuse and felt he ruined the webcast debate with his phone-in presence. Tian also presented on this. > > > Confirmed Jared Laiety(sp) as liason to the Secretary of State. > > > This was a meeting in LA. Marnie Glickman is the "Managing Director of the CA > Green Party". A few locals have disassociated with the CA state party over this. [Jim] Actually, Locals have not disassociated from the state party over Marnie Glickman (yet). Disassociation was brought up as a possible response if a Local has serious problems with what the GPCA is doing. A couple Locals have done this in the past. [Jim] The issue I raised about the CC was their implementation of Marnie's Green2012 plan, including establishing Marnie as Managing Director, on a 6-3 vote that did not use the consensus process to address concerns and proposed amendments. Green2012 has not been discussed or decided at a General Assembly and some of us feel the CC grossly over-stepped their authority. > > > Next Plenary in ~6 months someplace in N. CA. We can have a plenary here and > try to reach out to other locals. > > > PROPOSED: People in this group form a committee to brainstorm how to deal with > this: Merriam will call a County Council Meeting. > > > Proposed fiscal policy for the Green Party: The finance and coordinating > committees never looked at it. Mike Feinstein wrote it and brought it directly > to the General Assembly without going through the appropriate committees. > > > Sunday morning: 2 items: AB 1148 clean money campaign. + an anti-death penalty > initiative. > >> * Proposal to endorse of Jan 20th Move to Amend "Occupy the Courts!" St. >> James Park 12-1:30p >> 5 minutes, Merriam Kathaleen > > > Fri., Jan. 20 = 2 year anniversary of the Citizens United decision. St. James > Park is across the street from the Courthouse wherein the original "corporate > personhood" decision was made in the 1880s. > > > Proposed: Santa Clara Greens endorse this event. Passed by consensus with one > stand aside. > > > John is still concerned about the specific language. > > > Q: Could Laura Wells be invited to speak? > > > >> * January Movie Night >> 5 min, Merriam Kathaleen > > > Dr. Strangelove. > > > John agreed to get the announcement on the Peace Center calendar AND send an > announcement to Spencer for the web site. > > > Proposed: Green Party combines with Occupy San Jose to co-sponsor movies > starting in February. > > > Latin Movie group wants to switch, so the Greens have the first Friday and the > Latin group does the second. Tian is one of the regulars and cannot come first > Friday. > >> * Proposal to endorse AB 1184: The 2012 California Disclose Act >> & Sat. Jan. 7th Campaign Kickoff event @ PA Unitarian Church 2-4pm >> 5 min, Brian Good > > > State Green party has endorsed it. Requires people who pay for an ad must put > their names on it. > > > We should see if we can have a table at this event. > > > Santa Clara Greens also endorse the act and the event. Approved. > >> PARTY! >> Green is Sustainability! >> Drew >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sosfbay-discuss mailing list >> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > > -- > Spencer Graves, PE, PhD > President and Chief Technology Officer > Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. > 751 Emerson Ct. > San Jos?, CA 95126 > ph: 408-655-4567 > web:www.structuremonitoring.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss ____________________________________________________________ 57 Year Old Mom Looks 27 Mom Reveals $3 Wrinkle Trick Angering Doctors... http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4eed62423f877b9f3ddst04vuc From wrolley at charter.net Sat Dec 17 19:54:58 2011 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:54:58 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? In-Reply-To: <4EECFD0B.4090808@earthlink.net> References: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> <4EECCEF6.3030500@charter.net> <4EECFD0B.4090808@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4EED6412.8050709@charter.net> The basis of my comments are these. Renumbered... Section 1021 (e) reads... (e) AUTHORITIES.---Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. Renumbered... Section 1022 (b) reads... (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.--- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.---The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.---The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. -- and -- (2) COVERED PERSONS.---The requirement in paragraph (1)*shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021* who is determined--- Greenwald fails to consider that American Citizens and Resident Aliens are exempted from the provisions of 1021 and chooses instead to quibble about the meaning of the term "requirement'... sort of like what/the meaning of "is" is. / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Sat Dec 17 23:18:11 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:18:11 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: Sunday, 4pm: protest David Ledesma's Father's eviction In-Reply-To: <4EED8393.5010309@earthlink.net> References: <4EED8393.5010309@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4EED93B3.9010409@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: Those of you who know David Ledesma will be saddened to hear that he lost an uncle Friday night, and his Father is very ill and is being evicted. Ledesma is organizing a vigil for 4 PM Sunday afternoon, Dec. 18 at King and Story; see below. Best Wishes, Spencer > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [occupy-san-jose] You're Invited! - PACT Posada > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:34:55 -0800 > From: david ledesma > Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com > To: > > > > Greetings OSJers- > I have been invited to speak on my father's behalf at a PACT Posada > action tomorrow, Sunday, at 4pm, about my father's home foreclosure. My > father's home foreclosure is a long drawn out saga that I won't get into > in this email. PACT would very much like Occupy San Jos? to join the > activities tomorrow. I know this is very short notice, but I just found > out about this yesterday, and finalized details with PACT tonight. I am > speaking on my father's behalf because my elderly father is very ill, > and his brother, my Tio Ray, passed away last night. > > This is the 411: > - PACT is People Acting in Community Together. They are a faith based > organization, or coalition of 26 San Jose?churches, that recently > organized their member churches to close their accounts and move > millions of dollars out of Bank of America and Wells Fargo due to the > on-going home foreclosure fraud. Most Holy Trinity PACT is sponsoring > this event. > > - POSADA: A Posada is a Mexican tradition of reenacting the journey of > Mary and Joseph asking for shelter. The reenactment typically travels > home-to-home. But THIS Posada will lift up the plight of families who > are struggling with banks to keep their homes. Instead of traveling > house-to-house, we will be walking bank-to-bank, asking for shelter and > a STOP to preventable foreclosures. > > - START: 4:00pm > > - ROUTE: We will visit bank branches on Story and King roads in east San > Jos?. The two branches will be Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Since it > is Sunday the banks will be closed, which is symbolic of the 35,000 > families who have been ignored by these big banks and had their homes > taken from them. Posada will end at a micro branch on Story Rd. which > will be open and offer shelter and refreshments. > > - COURSE: Start at Bank of America (Southwest corner of Story& King), > go to Wells Fargo (Southeast corner of Story& King), walk east on Story > Rd. and cross over to end at micro branch (corner of Story& Hopkins). > > The event is somewhat low key, but the main organizer has invited OSJ to > participate and encourages everyone to bring signs. As far as chanting, > let's play it by ear, but appropriate chants like "Banks got bailed out, > We got sold out" are most likely appropriate. THIS IS WHAT WE DO! > > I will make an announcement at GA tomorrow. Thanks, -D. From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 09:07:14 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:07:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? In-Reply-To: <4EED6412.8050709@charter.net> References: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> <4EECCEF6.3030500@charter.net> <4EECFD0B.4090808@earthlink.net> <4EED6412.8050709@charter.net> Message-ID: <1324228034.14601.YahooMailNeo@web111111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> So this means a continuation of the SOS, namely the rounding up of undocumented immigrants, only this time they can be detained indefinitely.? This is not any more acceptable than the previous interpretation.? So now the military?may soon be patrolling the streets checking to see if you have a passport or birth certificate and if you don't (especially if you are brown) detaining you indefinitely or until they can sort out your citizenship status. I have heard that the error rate of ICE detaining lawfull residents is as high as 5%. We will have to see how this all shakes out.? I'm still sticking with the following slogan: "Since the pasage of NDAA 2012, the lesser of two evils argument has flown out the window and hit its head on the pavement.? Vote the two party system of the Green Party and the Peace and Fredom Party and nevermind the unintended consequences."? From: Wes Rolley To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? The basis of my comments are these. Renumbered... Section 1021 (e) reads... (e) AUTHORITIES.?Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. Renumbered... Section 1022 (b) reads... (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.? (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.?The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.?The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. -- and -- (2) COVERED PERSONS.?The requirement in paragraph (1)shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined? Greenwald fails to consider that American Citizens and Resident Aliens are exempted from the provisions of 1021 and chooses instead to quibble about the meaning of the term "requirement'... sort of like whatthe meaning of "is" is. _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 10:12:03 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:12:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? In-Reply-To: <1324228034.14601.YahooMailNeo@web111111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <4EEC421D.6020308@earthlink.net> <4EEC4291.2090706@earthlink.net> <4EEC5B9E.3090508@earthlink.net> <4EECCEF6.3030500@charter.net> <4EECFD0B.4090808@earthlink.net> <4EED6412.8050709@charter.net> <1324228034.14601.YahooMailNeo@web111111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1324231923.88299.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Let's try that again.? This time I will actually go and read the law from the Congressional Record.? This is what I find: ? From the Congressional Record, located here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf ? From Section 1021SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE (b) COVERED PERSONS.?A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.?The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. ? [No mention is made in this section about exemptions for Citizens or resident aliens] ? SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN ALQAEDA TERRORISTS (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.? (1) IN GENERAL.?Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107?40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS.?The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined? (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. ? (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.? (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.?The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.?The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. ? [Note the title of this SECTION is "Military Custody for foreign Alqaeda Terrorists", so of course it doesn't apply to US Citizens or resident aliens, but Section 1021 fails to specifically exempt Citizens and resident aliens from its requirements.? It also looks like it is ok for my Mother to serve me Christmas dinner since I wasn't responsible for even aiding the Sept 11, 2011 attacks specifically, so harboring me (under 1021(b)(1) )won't be a specific crime under this section.? However, my actions as an activist who doesn't like drones could still be interpreted as "substantial support" for terrorism under this act (under Section 1021 (b) (2) ).] ? So my conclusions and rehtoric remain unaltered from my rants of yesterday on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere.? I also said that the freaks named Obama, Feinstein and Boxer need to be voted out of office at any cost, even if this means that they are replaced by clones of Michelle Bachmann whos' last elected offices were those of Dog Catcher. ? John Thielking From: John Thielking To: Wes Rolley ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? So this means a continuation of the SOS, namely the rounding up of undocumented immigrants, only this time they can be detained indefinitely.? This is not any more acceptable than the previous interpretation.? So now the military?may soon be patrolling the streets checking to see if you have a passport or birth certificate and if you don't (especially if you are brown) detaining you indefinitely or until they can sort out your citizenship status. I have heard that the error rate of ICE detaining lawfull residents is as high as 5%. We will have to see how this all shakes out.? I'm still sticking with the following slogan: "Since the pasage of NDAA 2012, the lesser of two evils argument has flown out the window and hit its head on the pavement.? Vote the two party system of the Green Party and the Peace and Fredom Party and nevermind the unintended consequences."? From: Wes Rolley To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties? The basis of my comments are these. Renumbered... Section 1021 (e) reads... (e) AUTHORITIES.?Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. Renumbered... Section 1022 (b) reads... (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.? (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.?The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.?The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. -- and -- (2) COVERED PERSONS.?The requirement in paragraph (1)shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined? Greenwald fails to consider that American Citizens and Resident Aliens are exempted from the provisions of 1021 and chooses instead to quibble about the meaning of the term "requirement'... sort of like whatthe meaning of "is" is. _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Mon Dec 19 21:01:20 2011 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:01:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Jan. 7: Peninsula/Soutfh Bay DISCLOSE Act Campaign Kickoff! [1 Attachment] In-Reply-To: <001201ccbdbd$a53a1ee0$efae5ca0$@net>, , References: <001201ccbdbd$a53a1ee0$efae5ca0$@net>, , Message-ID: <1324357280.777.YahooMailRC@web181011.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I will be there and bring food. What kind of food for 2-4 in the afternoon? Cookies? Cheese and crackers? Crudites? ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Lynn Huidekoper To: Lynn Huidekoper Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 5:05:43 PM Subject: Jan. 7: Peninsula/South Bay DISCLOSE Act Campaign Kickoff! [1 Attachment] HCA-Santa Clara County is a Co-Sponsor of this event on Jan. 7 where you would get to meet local legislators: Assemblymembers Jerry Hill AD-19), Bob Wieckowski (AD-20), Rich Gordon (AD-21), Paul Fong* (AD-22), Jim Beall (AD-24), and Sally Lieber (ret.); Trent Lange, President, California Clean Money Campaign ? ? ?Jan. 7: Peninsula/South Bay DISCLOSE Act Campaign Kickoff! Dear Palo Alto Area Clean, Fair and Transparent Elections supporters, Mark your calendars! ?Saturday, January 7, 2 to 4 PM, Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, 505 E. Charleston Rd., we need everyone to attend the Peninsula/South ?Bay DISCLOSE Act Campaign Kickoff to show the assembled Assemblymembers that the public demands passage of AB 1148. ?Let's give them something to talk about in Sacramento! Check out the beautiful flyer attached (thanks to Kristen Johnson! ? Sending work her way is an appropriate form of thanks), and spread the word. RSVP at www.yesfairelections.org. Please let Carol Cross (copied) know if you can bring a bottle of wine -- anything nicer than two buck Chuck (which we will purchase to have on hand and then hopefully return all unopened). Also let Carol know if you can help with food. I also need help moving chairs before it starts, watching for press, organizing carpools for our Sacramento lobby day the following week, and greeting and shepherding the Assemblymembers and other guests for a 2:15 program start. ?And a good photographer, and sign maker, and PR help. ? Please let me know if one of these jobs is up your alley or if you can recommend someone. Thanks, Nancy 650-858-2436 ------ End of Forwarded Message __._,_.___Attachment(s) from Ralph Kuiper 1 of 1 File(s) Disclose Act Kickoff Jan.7 Palo Alto.v3.pdf Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: * New Members 1 Visit Your Group MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Mon Dec 19 21:10:17 2011 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:10:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo Message-ID: <1324357817.58073.YahooMailRC@web181002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I wrote to Anna Eshoo thanking her for her no vote on the defense authorization bill. This was her reply. I thought you might be interested. Caroline ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "ca14ima.pub at mail.house.gov" To: carolineyacoub at att.net Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 3:06:48 PM Subject: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo ? ? ? December 19, 2011 ? ? Dear? Mrs. Yacoub , ? Thank you for contacting me about the National Defense Authorization Act, legislation which sets defense policy and spending levels for the coming year. On May 26 th I voted against the Ho use version of this legislation. ? O n December 14 th I voted against the? House-Senate Conference Report,? but ? it passed the House by a vote of 283-136. ? The Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization? authorizes $670 billion? for defense activities, inclu ding personnel expenses, health care, weapons systems, and base construction.? I could not support the measure for several reasons. ? In the most general sense, despite severe cutbacks throughout the government and the lowest revenue levels in years, this legislation sets a defense spending level that is twice as high as the rest of the world, combined. Although the overall level is a reduction from last year, the reduction is primarily related? to our planned drawdown in Iraq. Congress has failed to make serious, fundamental changes to defense spending. In order to be serious about fiscal responsibility? and I believe we must be?Congress? has to take a much harder? look at the defense budget than this legislation reflects. ? The Defense Authorization also include s several provisions that I? oppose and consider a threat to our national security and civil liberties. Similar to past pieces of legislation, the bill effectively blocks the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba.? As? I' ve? stated for many years, the continuing use of this facility is strategically counterproductive and offensive to our most closely-held American values. Insisting on its continuing use and prohibiting the transfer of its inmates to regular prisons , as this legislation does, is a step in exactly the wrong direction. ? The Defense Authorization also contains unacceptable provisions related to the treatment of detainees. Ignoring the views of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of the FBI, the Defense Authorization includes mandatory military detention for? many? terrorism suspects, including? noncitizens captured within the U.S. The law permits indefinite detention, circumventing suspects' habeas corpus rights. This policy will thwart the efforts of our civilian law enforcement officers whose efforts have protected our country from terrorism since 9/11 and raise serious Constitutional issues.? Although President Obama has indicated he will no longer veto the bill, h uman rights groups, law enforcement , and the defense community are united in their opposition to this policy, and I? could not support it. ? I will conti nue to be an active participant in the discussions concerning how best to protect our country, our civil rights, and our fiscal responsibility, and I appreciate your input into this critical conversation. If you have any other questions or comments, let me hear from you.? I value what my constituents say to me, and always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas. I've created an ongoing e-newsletter to keep constituents informed on a variety of congressional issues and legislation.? Many constituents tell me how much they value reading it, and if you would like to as well, you can go to my website at http://eshoo.house.gov and click on Sign Up for ENews.? Your email address will never be used by anyone except my office to communicate with you, and your tax dollars will be conserved by using electronic communications rather than traditional mailings. Sincerely, Anna G. Eshoo Member of Congress -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Mon Dec 19 21:20:44 2011 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:20:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Lawbreaking, Wisconsin style. Message-ID: <1324358444.36251.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Jill Stein for President To: carolineyacoub at att.net Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 1:52:44 PM Subject: Lawbreaking, Wisconsin style. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser Jill Stein broke the law. Literally. On Friday, Dr. Stein and her supporters joined hundreds of Wisconsinites at their State Capitol building. Together, they raised their voices in song. And broke the law. They literally broke the law. Faced with yet another act of collective defiance, the Scott Walker administration folded, and failed to enforce its new policy banning unpermitted rallies at the State Capitol. On paper, as of Friday, any outdoor public gathering of more than 100 people required a permit, 72 hours notice, and payment of police costs. In practice, the freedom of assembly still rules in Wisconsin. Jill Stein went to Madison to support the First Amendment rights of Wisconsinites. But her visit was not limited to singing labor songs, and addressing the crowd at the State Capitol. In one day, Dr. Stein conducted eleven interviews with national and local media. And she joined Matt Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, in a public conversation about her campaign. You can see video footage from that discussion on Livestream or on this edited video provided by former Madison Alder Brenda Konkel (click here). You should also tune in to Jill Stein's radio interview on "Sly in the Morning." As the campaign grows, the media requests keep coming in, and Dr. Stein is now conducting dozens of interviews weekly. But this radio interview was something special. To listen in, click here. There will be more to come from Jill Stein's visit to Wisconsin. And she will continue to tour the country, building our insurgent campaign, and speaking out like no other political figure for the freedom of assembly and the interests of the 99%. Please make an end-of-year contribution to Jill Stein for President:?http://www.jillstein.org/donate Let's continue to build our momentum, to grow this campaign, and to bring the demand for genuine democracy to the polling place in the new year. Please join our campaign for democracy and the secure, green, just future we all deserve. Jill Stein for President does not accept contributions from corporations, corporate lobbyists, or from the CEOs of corporations that hire lobbyists. Chances are, we can accept your contribution. Please donate now ________________________________ Paid for by Jill Stein for President To unsubscribe please click here Jill Stein for President PO Box 260217, Madison, WI, 53726 To donate please click here -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Mon Dec 19 22:43:50 2011 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:43:50 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo In-Reply-To: <1324357817.58073.YahooMailRC@web181002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1324357817.58073.YahooMailRC@web181002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eshoo, Farr, Honda, Stark, Lee, Miller, Woolsey and Speier all voted against it. Nancy Pelosi was the only Bay Area Congresscritter to vote for it. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:10:17 -0800 From: carolineyacoub at att.net To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo I wrote to Anna Eshoo thanking her for her no vote on the defense authorization bill. This was her reply. I thought you might be interested. Caroline ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "ca14ima.pub at mail.house.gov" To: carolineyacoub at att.net Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 3:06:48 PM Subject: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo December 19, 2011 Dear Mrs. Yacoub , Thank you for contacting me about the National Defense Authorization Act, legislation which sets defense policy and spending levels for the coming year. On May 26 th I voted against the Ho use version of this legislation. O n December 14 th I voted against the House-Senate Conference Report, but it passed the House by a vote of 283-136. The Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization authorizes $670 billion for defense activities, inclu ding personnel expenses, health care, weapons systems, and base construction. I could not support the measure for several reasons. In the most general sense, despite severe cutbacks throughout the government and the lowest revenue levels in years, this legislation sets a defense spending level that is twice as high as the rest of the world, combined. Although the overall level is a reduction from last year, the reduction is primarily related to our planned drawdown in Iraq. Congress has failed to make serious, fundamental changes to defense spending. In order to be serious about fiscal responsibility? and I believe we must be?Congress has to take a much harder look at the defense budget than this legislation reflects. The Defense Authorization also include s several provisions that I oppose and consider a threat to our national security and civil liberties. Similar to past pieces of legislation, the bill effectively blocks the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. As I' ve stated for many years, the continuing use of this facility is strategically counterproductive and offensive to our most closely-held American values. Insisting on its continuing use and prohibiting the transfer of its inmates to regular prisons , as this legislation does, is a step in exactly the wrong direction. The Defense Authorization also contains unacceptable provisions related to the treatment of detainees. Ignoring the views of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of the FBI, the Defense Authorization includes mandatory military detention for many terrorism suspects, including noncitizens captured within the U.S. The law permits indefinite detention, circumventing suspects' habeas corpus rights. This policy will thwart the efforts of our civilian law enforcement officers whose efforts have protected our country from terrorism since 9/11 and raise serious Constitutional issues. Although President Obama has indicated he will no longer veto the bill, h uman rights groups, law enforcement , and the defense community are united in their opposition to this policy, and I could not support it. I will conti nue to be an active participant in the discussions concerning how best to protect our country, our civil rights, and our fiscal responsibility, and I appreciate your input into this critical conversation. If you have any other questions or comments, let me hear from you. I value what my constituents say to me, and always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas. I've created an ongoing e-newsletter to keep constituents informed on a variety of congressional issues and legislation. Many constituents tell me how much they value reading it, and if you would like to as well, you can go to my website at http://eshoo.house.gov and click on Sign Up for ENews. Your email address will never be used by anyone except my office to communicate with you, and your tax dollars will be conserved by using electronic communications rather than traditional mailings. Sincerely, Anna G. Eshoo Member of Congress _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 22:49:05 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:49:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo In-Reply-To: References: <1324357817.58073.YahooMailRC@web181002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1324363745.19848.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Does this mean that Zoe Lofgren voted against NDAA 2012?? She also has a proposal for an alternative to SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) detailed on her web site that I have yet to read. ? Thanks for posting this Caroline. ? John Thielking ? From: Brian Good To: carolineyacoub at att.net; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo Eshoo, Farr, Honda, Stark, Lee, Miller, Woolsey and Speier all voted against it.Nancy Pelosi was the only Bay Area Congresscritter to vote for it.http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:10:17 -0800From: carolineyacoub at att.netTo: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orgSubject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo I wrote to Anna Eshoo thanking her for her no vote on the defense authorization bill. This was her reply. I thought you might be interested. Caroline ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "ca14ima.pub at mail.house.gov" To: carolineyacoub at att.net Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 3:06:48 PM Subject: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo ? ? ? December 19, 2011 ? ? Dear? Mrs. Yacoub , ? Thank you for contacting me about the National Defense Authorization Act, legislation which sets defense policy and spending levels for the coming year. On May 26 th I voted against the Ho use version of this legislation. ? O n December 14 th I voted against the? House-Senate Conference Report,? but ? it passed the House by a vote of 283-136. ? The Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization? authorizes $670 billion? for defense activities, inclu ding personnel expenses, health care, weapons systems, and base construction.? I could not support the measure for several reasons. ? In the most general sense, despite severe cutbacks throughout the government and the lowest revenue levels in years, this legislation sets a defense spending level that is twice as high as the rest of the world, combined. Although the overall level is a reduction from last year, the reduction is primarily related? to our planned drawdown in Iraq. Congress has failed to make serious, fundamental changes to defense spending. In order to be serious about fiscal responsibility? and I believe we must be?Congress? has to take a much harder? look at the defense budget than this legislation reflects. ? The Defense Authorization also include s several provisions that I? oppose and consider a threat to our national security and civil liberties. Similar to past pieces of legislation, the bill effectively blocks the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba.? As? I' ve? stated for many years, the continuing use of this facility is strategically counterproductive and offensive to our most closely-held American values. Insisting on its continuing use and prohibiting the transfer of its inmates to regular prisons , as this legislation does, is a step in exactly the wrong direction. ? The Defense Authorization also contains unacceptable provisions related to the treatment of detainees. Ignoring the views of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of the FBI, the Defense Authorization includes mandatory military detention for? many? terrorism suspects, including? noncitizens captured within the U.S. The law permits indefinite detention, circumventing suspects' habeas corpus rights. This policy will thwart the efforts of our civilian law enforcement officers whose efforts have protected our country from terrorism since 9/11 and raise serious Constitutional issues.? Although President Obama has indicated he will no longer veto the bill, h uman rights groups, law enforcement , and the defense community are united in their opposition to this policy, and I? could not support it. ? I will conti nue to be an active participant in the discussions concerning how best to protect our country, our civil rights, and our fiscal responsibility, and I appreciate your input into this critical conversation. If you have any other questions or comments, let me hear from you.? I value what my constituents say to me, and always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas. I've created an ongoing e-newsletter to keep constituents informed on a variety of congressional issues and legislation.? Many constituents tell me how much they value reading it, and if you would like to as well, you can go to my website at http://eshoo.house.gov and click on Sign Up for ENews.? Your email address will never be used by anyone except my office to communicate with you, and your tax dollars will be conserved by using electronic communications rather than traditional mailings. Sincerely, Anna G. Eshoo Member of Congress ? ?_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss_______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Mon Dec 19 22:52:50 2011 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:52:50 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo In-Reply-To: <1324363745.19848.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1324357817.58073.YahooMailRC@web181002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> , <1324363745.19848.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I forgot Lofgren. When Kucinich had his one-day impeachment hearing at the Judiciary Committee, Lofgren didn't even make a pretty speech. That makes her easy to forget. She voted no with the others. B Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:49:05 -0800 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo To: snug.bug at hotmail.com; carolineyacoub at att.net; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Does this mean that Zoe Lofgren voted against NDAA 2012? She also has a proposal for an alternative to SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) detailed on her web site that I have yet to read. Thanks for posting this Caroline. John Thielking From: Brian Good To: carolineyacoub at att.net; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo Eshoo, Farr, Honda, Stark, Lee, Miller, Woolsey and Speier all voted against it.Nancy Pelosi was the only Bay Area Congresscritter to vote for it.http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:10:17 -0800From: carolineyacoub at att.netTo: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orgSubject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo I wrote to Anna Eshoo thanking her for her no vote on the defense authorization bill. This was her reply. I thought you might be interested. Caroline ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "ca14ima.pub at mail.house.gov" To: carolineyacoub at att.net Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 3:06:48 PM Subject: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo December 19, 2011 Dear Mrs. Yacoub , Thank you for contacting me about the National Defense Authorization Act, legislation which sets defense policy and spending levels for the coming year. On May 26 th I voted against the Ho use version of this legislation. O n December 14 th I voted against the House-Senate Conference Report, but it passed the House by a vote of 283-136. The Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization authorizes $670 billion for defense activities, inclu ding personnel expenses, health care, weapons systems, and base construction. I could not support the measure for several reasons. In the most general sense, despite severe cutbacks throughout the government and the lowest revenue levels in years, this legislation sets a defense spending level that is twice as high as the rest of the world, combined. Although the overall level is a reduction from last year, the reduction is primarily related to our planned drawdown in Iraq. Congress has failed to make serious, fundamental changes to defense spending. In order to be serious about fiscal responsibility? and I believe we must be?Congress has to take a much harder look at the defense budget than this legislation reflects. The Defense Authorization also include s several provisions that I oppose and consider a threat to our national security and civil liberties. Similar to past pieces of legislation, the bill effectively blocks the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. As I' ve stated for many years, the continuing use of this facility is strategically counterproductive and offensive to our most closely-held American values. Insisting on its continuing use and prohibiting the transfer of its inmates to regular prisons , as this legislation does, is a step in exactly the wrong direction. The Defense Authorization also contains unacceptable provisions related to the treatment of detainees. Ignoring the views of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of the FBI, the Defense Authorization includes mandatory military detention for many terrorism suspects, including noncitizens captured within the U.S. The law permits indefinite detention, circumventing suspects' habeas corpus rights. This policy will thwart the efforts of our civilian law enforcement officers whose efforts have protected our country from terrorism since 9/11 and raise serious Constitutional issues. Although President Obama has indicated he will no longer veto the bill, h uman rights groups, law enforcement , and the defense community are united in their opposition to this policy, and I could not support it. I will conti nue to be an active participant in the discussions concerning how best to protect our country, our civil rights, and our fiscal responsibility, and I appreciate your input into this critical conversation. If you have any other questions or comments, let me hear from you. I value what my constituents say to me, and always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas. I've created an ongoing e-newsletter to keep constituents informed on a variety of congressional issues and legislation. Many constituents tell me how much they value reading it, and if you would like to as well, you can go to my website at http://eshoo.house.gov and click on Sign Up for ENews. Your email address will never be used by anyone except my office to communicate with you, and your tax dollars will be conserved by using electronic communications rather than traditional mailings. Sincerely, Anna G. Eshoo Member of Congress _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss_______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 22:54:38 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:54:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Lawbreaking, Wisconsin style. In-Reply-To: <1324358444.36251.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1324358444.36251.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1324364078.80369.YahooMailNeo@web111114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I read somewhere that Texas may be even more restrictive.? Something about all rallies at the Capitol have to have a general public purpose (non partisan). ? John Thielking From: Caroline Yacoub To: sosfbay-discuss Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 9:20 PM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Lawbreaking, Wisconsin style. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Jill Stein for President To: carolineyacoub at att.net Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 1:52:44 PM Subject: Lawbreaking, Wisconsin style. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser Jill Stein broke the law. Literally. On Friday, Dr. Stein and her supporters joined hundreds of Wisconsinites at their State Capitol building. Together, they raised their voices in song. And broke the law. They literally broke the law. Faced with yet another act of collective defiance, the Scott Walker administration folded, and failed to enforce its new policy banning unpermitted rallies at the State Capitol. On paper, as of Friday, any outdoor public gathering of more than 100 people required a permit, 72 hours notice, and payment of police costs. In practice, the freedom of assembly still rules in Wisconsin. Jill Stein went to Madison to support the First Amendment rights of Wisconsinites. But her visit was not limited to singing labor songs, and addressing the crowd at the State Capitol. In one day, Dr. Stein conducted eleven interviews with national and local media. And she joined Matt Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, in a public conversation about her campaign. You can see video footage from that discussion on Livestream or on this edited video provided by former Madison Alder Brenda Konkel (click here). You should also tune in to Jill Stein's radio interview on "Sly in the Morning." As the campaign grows, the media requests keep coming in, and Dr. Stein is now conducting dozens of interviews weekly. But this radio interview was something special. To listen in, click here. There will be more to come from Jill Stein's visit to Wisconsin. And she will continue to tour the country, building our insurgent campaign, and speaking out like no other political figure for the freedom of assembly and the interests of the 99%. Please make an end-of-year contribution to Jill Stein for President:?http://www.jillstein.org/donate Let's continue to build our momentum, to grow this campaign, and to bring the demand for genuine democracy to the polling place in the new year. Please join our campaign for democracy and the secure, green, just future we all deserve. Jill Stein for President does not accept contributions from corporations, corporate lobbyists, or from the CEOs of corporations that hire lobbyists. Chances are, we can accept your contribution. Please donate now Paid for by Jill Stein for President To unsubscribe please click here Jill Stein for President PO Box 260217, Madison, WI, 53726 To donate please click here _______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Mon Dec 19 23:27:36 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:27:36 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] #SOPA? In-Reply-To: References: <234b8fb5-5824-4111-81d5-770fdf4635f5@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <9fba5014-c001-43fa-b604-cdbe7ba094d4@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <4EF038E8.3040104@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: Owen in Occupy San Jose is organizing a protest against the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA), which is currently scheduled for a vote this Wednesday, Dec. 21. For ignoramuses such as myself, I will summarize here my understanding of the current status of this bill (mostly taken from the Wikipedia article on it); if anything below seems inappropriate, please let me know. WHAT IS SOPA? 1. This is a House bill scheduled to come to a vote this Wednesday, Dec. 21. The corresponding Senate bill, the Protect IP Act, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but is not currently scheduled for a vote. As of Dec. 17, there were 31 official sponsors, and 4 known opponents in the House, including Nancy Polosi, Zoe Lofgren, Darrell Issa, and Ron Paul. 2. "The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights... . After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as PayPal or Visa to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe... . The Attorney-General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites." 3. However, most experts outside the US media industry are opposed for several reasons. First, its provisions could so disrupt the normal functioning of the Internet that it seriously degrades its utility. Second, civil libertarians say that it essentially authorizes prior censorship in ways that could be virtually beyond public scrutiny. In theory, the bill gives web site owners unjustly accused of copyright infringement the right to sue their accusers. In practice, it's not realistic to expect that "occupysj.org", for example, could afford the attorney's fees required to challenge Disney -- especially since most of the media industry supports Disney's position and would happily see "occupysj.org" destroyed if they could do so without a large public outcry. CALL TO ACTION: 1. Write (and perhaps call) your representative in the US House. If that's Lofgren, thank her for her strong opposition to this in order to reinforce her resolve to sustain her position and to give her ammunition in talking with other representatives. For others, ask their position and express your opposition. If you haven't done this before, go to "www.house.gov" and enter your zip code. This will identify your representative and provide a link to how to communicate to him / her. 2. Write your friends and acquaintances to tell them what you did and encourage them to do likewise. 3. While you are at it, I encourage you to also write your Senators. Boxer is fourth highest recipient of money from the organizations pushing for this legislation: $544,424 (according to "www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money ") and include those when you write others. The following are what I'm writing. Spencer Representative Zoe Lofgren: Dear Representative Lofgren: I wish to thank you for your strong opposition to the "Stop Online Piracy Act". I oppose it because (a) I'm convinced it presents serious technical problems as discussed by many technical experts, (b) authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without substantive loss of audience, and (c) it's one more example of corporate welfare and bribery at work in the halls of congress. Thanks, Spencer Graves Senator Barbara Boxer: Subject: Protect IP Act Dear Senator Boxer: What is your position on the Protect IP Act? From what I've read, it is (a) one more example of corporate welfare and bribery at work in congress that would (b) presents serious technical problems as discussed by many technical experts and (c) authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without substantive loss of audience. According to "www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money ", you've received $544,424 in contributions from the industry pushing for this bill. Are you planning to vote for the special interests and against the constitution or for the general welfare of the public? Sincerely, Spencer Graves Senator Diane Feinstain: General Topic: Civil Liberties. Dear Senator Feinstein: What is your position on the Protect IP Act? From what I've read, it is (a) one more example of corporate welfare and bribery at work in congress that would (b) presents serious technical problems as discussed by many technical experts and (c) authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without substantive loss of audience. Sincerely, Spencer Graves On 12/19/2011 7:54 PM, Owen wrote: > ALSO, I don't like that is an unofficial action, either. Came up with > the idea or this yesterday since #SOPA goes to vote on the 21st. > > My apologies for this unorthodox (spontaneous) action. > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web:www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tim at alvco.com Mon Dec 19 23:51:52 2011 From: tim at alvco.com (Tim Alvarado) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:51:52 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC In-Reply-To: <20111217.194607.4744.0@webmail09.vgs.untd.com> References: <20111217.194607.4744.0@webmail09.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <4EF03E98.7010605@alvco.com> Cynthia speaks Africa - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=WL3132EB8F0B8032C0&v=YppNrN3xkqs On 12/17/2011 7:46 PM, Valerie D. Face wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Thanks very much for the clarifications. > > Do you (or anyone else) know what happened with the proposed fiscal policy at the plenary? The notes talk about how it was brought to the General Assembly, but nothing is said about whether it was passed, rejected, modified, etc. > > Thanks and happy holidays, > Valerie > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:43:35 -0800 > From: Jim Stauffer > To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC > > I've added some clarifications inline to the notes. Sometimes paraphrasing > doesn't capture the original intent. > > Jim > > > > > On 12/15/2011 9:28 PM, Spencer Graves wrote: >> On 12/15/2011 3:23 PM, Drew wrote: >>> >>> Message body >>> >>> === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === >>> >>> Location: San Jose Peace& Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose >>> >>> 6:30 PM Spencer Graves requests volunteer help on assemblying Move Your >>> Money flyers >>> >>> 7:00 PM Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. >>> >>> 7:30 PM Begin meeting >>> >>> * Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November agenda >>> preparer, November one-minute speakers >>> 2 min >> facilitator: Tian >> >> >> notetaker: Spencer >> >> >> timekeeper: Fred >> >> >> vibes watcher: Merriam >> >> >> Jan. agenda preparer: Tian (1. Betsy on Secure Communities) >> >> >> Jan. one-minute speakers: Merriam >> >>> * Introductions and short announcements >>> 10 min >> >> Tian Harter: Bike parties tomorrow and Saturday night. Christmas party Sunday >> evening, 5-9 PM. see tian.greens.org: 505 Cyprus Point Drive, Mountain View, CA. >> >> >> John T. >> >> >> Hector Schneider, from Occupy San Jose: have to move it from Occupation to a >> progressive movement >> >> >> Spencer Graves, >> >> >> Betsy Wolf-Graves: To give a 10 minute presentation at the beginning of the >> meeting on Secure Communities in January. >> >> >> Drew: >> >> >> Fred D. >> >> >> Merriam: >> >> >> Jim Stauffer >> >>> * Revise and affirm agenda >>> 4 min >>> >>> * Treasurer's report, pass the hat >>> 4 min, Jim Doyle >>> >>> * Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec. 3-4 >>> 15 min, Jim S.& Tian >> >> JIM: Nothing earth shattering. Bylaw modifications of minor consequence and >> updates of platform planks. Recommendations of names for inclusion on primary >> presidential candidates. Jill Stein (consensus) and Kent Mesplay (by only 2 >> votes; they had a debate and he had poor showing. People voted for that, >> because they felt there should be 2 names on the ballot.) > [Jim] This issues was the names the GPCA sends to the Secretary of State for > inclusion on our Presidential Primary ballot. Kent did not attend the > presidential debate at the LA General Assembly due to illness. Some did not > fully believe his excuse and felt he ruined the webcast debate with his > phone-in presence. Tian also presented on this. > > >> >> Confirmed Jared Laiety(sp) as liason to the Secretary of State. >> >> >> This was a meeting in LA. Marnie Glickman is the "Managing Director of the CA >> Green Party". A few locals have disassociated with the CA state party over this. > [Jim] Actually, Locals have not disassociated from the state party over > Marnie Glickman (yet). Disassociation was brought up as a possible response if > a Local has serious problems with what the GPCA is doing. A couple Locals have > done this in the past. > > [Jim] The issue I raised about the CC was their implementation of Marnie's > Green2012 plan, including establishing Marnie as Managing Director, on a 6-3 > vote that did not use the consensus process to address concerns and proposed > amendments. Green2012 has not been discussed or decided at a General Assembly > and some of us feel the CC grossly over-stepped their authority. > > >> >> Next Plenary in ~6 months someplace in N. CA. We can have a plenary here and >> try to reach out to other locals. >> >> >> PROPOSED: People in this group form a committee to brainstorm how to deal with >> this: Merriam will call a County Council Meeting. >> >> >> Proposed fiscal policy for the Green Party: The finance and coordinating >> committees never looked at it. Mike Feinstein wrote it and brought it directly >> to the General Assembly without going through the appropriate committees. >> >> >> Sunday morning: 2 items: AB 1148 clean money campaign. + an anti-death penalty >> initiative. >> >>> * Proposal to endorse of Jan 20th Move to Amend "Occupy the Courts!" St. >>> James Park 12-1:30p >>> 5 minutes, Merriam Kathaleen >> >> Fri., Jan. 20 = 2 year anniversary of the Citizens United decision. St. James >> Park is across the street from the Courthouse wherein the original "corporate >> personhood" decision was made in the 1880s. >> >> >> Proposed: Santa Clara Greens endorse this event. Passed by consensus with one >> stand aside. >> >> >> John is still concerned about the specific language. >> >> >> Q: Could Laura Wells be invited to speak? >> >> >> >>> * January Movie Night >>> 5 min, Merriam Kathaleen >> >> Dr. Strangelove. >> >> >> John agreed to get the announcement on the Peace Center calendar AND send an >> announcement to Spencer for the web site. >> >> >> Proposed: Green Party combines with Occupy San Jose to co-sponsor movies >> starting in February. >> >> >> Latin Movie group wants to switch, so the Greens have the first Friday and the >> Latin group does the second. Tian is one of the regulars and cannot come first >> Friday. >> >>> * Proposal to endorse AB 1184: The 2012 California Disclose Act >>> & Sat. Jan. 7th Campaign Kickoff event @ PA Unitarian Church 2-4pm >>> 5 min, Brian Good >> >> State Green party has endorsed it. Requires people who pay for an ad must put >> their names on it. >> >> >> We should see if we can have a table at this event. >> >> >> Santa Clara Greens also endorse the act and the event. Approved. >> >>> PARTY! >>> Green is Sustainability! >>> Drew >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sosfbay-discuss mailing list >>> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss >> >> -- >> Spencer Graves, PE, PhD >> President and Chief Technology Officer >> Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. >> 751 Emerson Ct. >> San Jos?, CA 95126 >> ph: 408-655-4567 >> web:www.structuremonitoring.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sosfbay-discuss mailing list >> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > ____________________________________________________________ > 57 Year Old Mom Looks 27 > Mom Reveals $3 Wrinkle Trick Angering Doctors... > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4eed62423f877b9f3ddst04vuc > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Dec 20 04:28:01 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:28:01 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Fwd: Video: "Its a Wonderful Occupation" // Occupy Resolutions for 2012 In-Reply-To: <4EF03AD9.6050703@prodsyse.com> References: <4EF03AD9.6050703@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <4EF07F51.2070806@prodsyse.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Video: "Its a Wonderful Occupation" // Occupy Resolutions for 2012 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:35:53 -0800 From: Betsy Wolf-Graves To: spencer graves -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Video: "Its a Wonderful Occupation" // Occupy Resolutions for 2012 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:50:23 -0800 From: Silicon Valley De-Bug To: Raj Jayadev Attached is a link to a video produced by Fernando Perez and soundtracked by Malcolm Lee, who produced a musical piece integrating dialogue from the "Its a Wonderful Life" film -- the iconic Hollywood movie that Fernando points out speaks to issues of banks,fairness, homes -- familiar themes for the Occupy movement. The video is from the protest in front of Wells Fargo -- which brought together organizations and communities from a diverse political background. In the spirit of the holiday season, we asked Occupy movement participants what their resolutions were for the movement for 2012. Please do feel free to share, or comment on the site with your own Occupy resolutions. Check it out, and happy new year. link: http://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2011/12/18/its-wonderful-occupation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Dec 20 04:29:20 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:29:20 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Fwd: Censorship In-Reply-To: <4EF03EA0.1050202@prodsyse.com> References: <4EF03EA0.1050202@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <4EF07FA0.3080508@prodsyse.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Censorship Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:52:00 -0800 From: Betsy Wolf-Graves To: spencer graves -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Censorship Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:04:49 +0000 From: David Moon Reply-To: David Moon To: Betsy Wolf-Graves Betsy, Hope your holiday was great, and that you've woken up from your food coma. Great news: 100,000 people have asked Senator Wyden to read their names during his filibuster of the dreaded PROTECT IP Act. Worse news: This legislation could come to a vote as soon as later this week. *But the nastier we make this prospective filibuster look, the better the chance that Senate leadership won't even call for a vote.* Will you help us muster more troops? Please consider posting a link to StopCensorship.org on your blog or website, and share it with your friends: [fb] If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends. [fb] If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet *Here's the message Senator Wyden's office issued to Demand Progress a few days ago, asking for more support from Internet users:* The filibuster affords senators an opportunity to stand up for what they believe in and there are few things I believe in more than ensuring that every American has a voice and an opportunity to get ahead. Right now, the Internet gives every American that voice while making it possible for every entrepreneur, thinker and innovator to compete alongside the biggest and most moneyed interests. *It is my hope that -- with your help ? my colleagues in Congress will realize that a free and open Internet is something that we as Americans should celebrate and not allow those special moneyed interests to quash. * It is my hope that ? with your help ? my colleagues in Congress will realize that PIPA/SOPA are the wrong way to protect intellectual property because the price they exact on the Internet is too high. With your help, I believe we can get that word out and prevent these misguided bills from every reaching the House and Senate floor, but if they do reach the floor you can count on me to stand up and make our voices heard. **Let's make it clear to the Senator that we have his back, and that we plan to stand with him on the floor of the Senate: ** ** ** [fb] If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends. [fb] If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet Thanks, as always. --The Demand Progress team *P.S. Please help push this viral by sharing StopCensorship.org with your friends. Can you link back from your blog or website?* Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org ) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. *One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!* -- You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 08:31:52 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:31:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] #SOPA? In-Reply-To: <4EF038E8.3040104@prodsyse.com> References: <234b8fb5-5824-4111-81d5-770fdf4635f5@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <9fba5014-c001-43fa-b604-cdbe7ba094d4@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4EF038E8.3040104@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1324398712.52344.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> It is my understanding that SOPA was still in committee being marked up, according to yesterday's hard Knock radio at www.kpfa.org . They might have a vote in committee on Dec 21, but it is unlikely that it is going to the house floor on the 21st. ? John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: GPSCC Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11:27 PM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] #SOPA? Hello, All:? ????? Owen in Occupy San Jose is organizing a protest against the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA), which is currently scheduled for a vote this Wednesday, Dec. 21.? For ignoramuses such as myself, I will summarize here my understanding of the current status of this bill (mostly taken from the Wikipedia article on it);? if anything below seems inappropriate, please let me know.? WHAT IS SOPA?? ??? ??????? 1.? This is a House bill scheduled to come to a vote this Wednesday, Dec. 21.? The corresponding Senate bill, the Protect IP Act, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but is not currently scheduled for a vote.? As of Dec. 17, there were 31 official sponsors, and 4 known opponents in the House, including Nancy Polosi, Zoe Lofgren, Darrell Issa, and Ron Paul.? ??? ??????? 2.? "The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights... .? After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as PayPal or Visa to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe... .? The Attorney-General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites."? ??? ??????? 3.? However, most experts outside the US media industry are opposed for several reasons.? First, its provisions could so disrupt the normal functioning of the Internet that it seriously degrades its utility.? Second, civil libertarians say that it essentially authorizes prior censorship in ways that could be virtually beyond public scrutiny.? In theory, the bill gives web site owners unjustly accused of copyright infringement the right to sue their accusers.? In practice, it's not realistic to expect that "occupysj.org", for example, could afford the attorney's fees required to challenge Disney -- especially since most of the media industry supports Disney's position and would happily see "occupysj.org" destroyed if they could do so without a large public outcry.? CALL TO ACTION:? ??? ??????? 1.? Write (and perhaps call) your representative in the US House.? If that's Lofgren, thank her for her strong opposition to this in order to reinforce her resolve to sustain her position and to give her ammunition in talking with other representatives.? For others, ask their position and express your opposition.? If you haven't done this before, go to "www.house.gov" and enter your zip code.? This will identify your representative and provide a link to how to communicate to him / her.? ??? ??????? 2.? Write your friends and acquaintances to tell them what you did and encourage them to do likewise.? ??? ?????? 3.? While you are at it, I encourage you to also write your Senators.? Boxer is fourth highest recipient of money from the organizations pushing for this legislation:? $544,424 (according to "www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money") and include those when you write others.? ????? The following are what I'm writing.? ????? Spencer Representative Zoe Lofgren:? Dear Representative Lofgren:? I wish to thank you for your strong opposition to the "Stop Online Piracy Act".? I oppose it because (a) I'm convinced it presents serious technical problems as discussed by many technical experts, (b) authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without substantive loss of audience, and (c) it's one more example of corporate welfare and bribery at work in the halls of congress.? Thanks, Spencer Graves Senator Barbara Boxer:? Subject:? Protect IP Act Dear Senator Boxer:? What is your position on the Protect IP Act?? From what I've read, it is (a) one more example of corporate welfare and bribery at work in congress that would (b) presents serious technical problems as discussed by many technical experts and (c) authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without substantive loss of audience.? According to "www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money", you've received $544,424 in contributions from the industry pushing for this bill.? Are you planning to vote for the special interests and against the constitution or for the general welfare of the public?? Sincerely, Spencer Graves Senator Diane Feinstain:? General Topic:? Civil Liberties.? Dear Senator Feinstein:? What is your position on the Protect IP Act?? From what I've read, it is (a) one more example of corporate welfare and bribery at work in congress that would (b) presents serious technical problems as discussed by many technical experts and (c) authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without substantive loss of audience.? Sincerely, Spencer Graves ??? On 12/19/2011 7:54 PM, Owen wrote: ALSO, I don't like that is an unofficial action, either. Came up with the idea or this yesterday since #SOPA goes to vote on the 21st. My apologies for this unorthodox (spontaneous) action. -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Dec 20 08:39:17 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:39:17 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] #SOPA? In-Reply-To: <1324398712.52344.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <234b8fb5-5824-4111-81d5-770fdf4635f5@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <9fba5014-c001-43fa-b604-cdbe7ba094d4@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4EF038E8.3040104@prodsyse.com> <1324398712.52344.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EF0BA35.3070407@prodsyse.com> John: What do you know about the House rules? Is it possible that it could be voted out of committee and still come to a vote tomorrow, Dec. 21? I also read several places that the committee recessed last Friday without taking a vote. Logically, this would seem to reduce the chances of it coming to a vote by Dec. 21. However, I don't know the House rules, and it may not have much if any impact on the schedule of a vote, especially if the committee approves it today. Spencer On 12/20/2011 8:31 AM, John Thielking wrote: > It is my understanding that SOPA was still in committee being marked > up, according to yesterday's hard Knock radio at www.kpfa.org > . They might have a vote in committee on Dec 21, > but it is unlikely that it is going to the house floor on the 21st. > John Thielking > > *From:* Spencer Graves > *To:* GPSCC > *Sent:* Monday, December 19, 2011 11:27 PM > *Subject:* [GPSCC-chat] #SOPA? > > Hello, All: > > > Owen in Occupy San Jose is organizing a protest against the > "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA), which is currently scheduled for a > vote this Wednesday, Dec. 21. For ignoramuses such as myself, I will > summarize here my understanding of the current status of this bill > (mostly taken from the Wikipedia article on it); if anything below > seems inappropriate, please let me know. > > > WHAT IS SOPA? > > > 1. This is a House bill scheduled to come to a vote this > Wednesday, Dec. 21. The corresponding Senate bill, the Protect IP > Act, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but is not currently > scheduled for a vote. As of Dec. 17, there were 31 official sponsors, > and 4 known opponents in the House, including Nancy Polosi, Zoe > Lofgren, Darrell Issa, and Ron Paul. > > > 2. "The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of > Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. > jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights... . After > delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General could require > US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and > payment processors such as PayPal or Visa to suspend doing business > with sites found to infringe... . The Attorney-General could also bar > search engines from displaying links to the sites." > > > 3. However, most experts outside the US media industry > are opposed for several reasons. First, its provisions could so > disrupt the normal functioning of the Internet that it seriously > degrades its utility. Second, civil libertarians say that it > essentially authorizes prior censorship in ways that could be > virtually beyond public scrutiny. In theory, the bill gives web site > owners unjustly accused of copyright infringement the right to sue > their accusers. In practice, it's not realistic to expect that > "occupysj.org ", for example, could afford the > attorney's fees required to challenge Disney -- especially since most > of the media industry supports Disney's position and would happily see > "occupysj.org" destroyed if they could do so without a large public > outcry. > > > CALL TO ACTION: > > > 1. Write (and perhaps call) your representative in the US > House. If that's Lofgren, thank her for her strong opposition to this > in order to reinforce her resolve to sustain her position and to give > her ammunition in talking with other representatives. For others, ask > their position and express your opposition. If you haven't done this > before, go to "www.house.gov " and enter your > zip code. This will identify your representative and provide a link > to how to communicate to him / her. > > > 2. Write your friends and acquaintances to tell them what > you did and encourage them to do likewise. > > > 3. While you are at it, I encourage you to also write your > Senators. Boxer is fourth highest recipient of money from the > organizations pushing for this legislation: $544,424 (according to > "www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money > ") and include those > when you write others. > > > The following are what I'm writing. > > > Spencer > > > Representative Zoe Lofgren: Dear Representative Lofgren: I wish to > thank you for your strong opposition to the "Stop Online Piracy Act". > I oppose it because (a) I'm convinced it presents serious technical > problems as discussed by many technical experts, (b) authorize prior > censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part because the media > have a conflict of interest that would push them to avoid reporting on > any such events when they could do so without substantive loss of > audience, and (c) it's one more example of corporate welfare and > bribery at work in the halls of congress. Thanks, Spencer Graves > > > Senator Barbara Boxer: Subject: Protect IP Act > Dear Senator Boxer: What is your position on the Protect IP Act? > From what I've read, it is (a) one more example of corporate welfare > and bribery at work in congress that would (b) presents serious > technical problems as discussed by many technical experts and (c) > authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part > because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to > avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without > substantive loss of audience. According to > "www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money > ", you've received > $544,424 in contributions from the industry pushing for this bill. > Are you planning to vote for the special interests and against the > constitution or for the general welfare of the public? Sincerely, > Spencer Graves > > > Senator Diane Feinstain: General Topic: Civil Liberties. > Dear Senator Feinstein: What is your position on the Protect IP Act? > From what I've read, it is (a) one more example of corporate welfare > and bribery at work in congress that would (b) presents serious > technical problems as discussed by many technical experts and (c) > authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part > because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to > avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without > substantive loss of audience. Sincerely, Spencer Graves > > > On 12/19/2011 7:54 PM, Owen wrote: >> ALSO, I don't like that is an unofficial action, either. Came up with >> the idea or this yesterday since #SOPA goes to vote on the 21st. >> >> My apologies for this unorthodox (spontaneous) action. > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 09:23:13 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:23:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Oh no -- vote could still happen In-Reply-To: <48cb2-447-4ef0950a@list.demandprogress.org> References: <48cb2-447-4ef0950a@list.demandprogress.org> Message-ID: <1324401793.540.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Here is some more info on SOPA that contradicts what little I know. Better to call the Reps listed below and be safe rather than sorry. ? John Thielking From: David Segal To: John Thielking Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:00 AM Subject: Oh no -- vote could still happen John, Some annoying news: As was widely reported last Friday, all indications were that the House Judiciary Committee would delay its vote on SOPA for a few weeks. ?Now it looks like they might vote this week, if Congress stays in session: PCMAG: "SOPA vote might happen this week after all" ACTIVIST POST: "Congress tries to pull a fast one" You've all been amazing as we've worked to spread word about SOPA, convinced more and more lawmakers to oppose it, and dragged out the hearing for a week -- that's pretty much unheard of. But we need to ask you to pick up the phone once more: Will you call Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor and ask them to reign in Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith? ? Speaker John Boehner:?(202) 225-6205 Majority Leader Eric Cantor: (202) 225-2815 Please be polite, but firm. ?You can work off of this script: I'm calling because Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is pushing the Stop Online Piracy Act even though it will kill jobs, undermine cybersecurity, stifle free speech, and give comfort to totalitarian regimes that want to censor the Internet. ?And they're doing it all to prop up a few Hollywood bigwigs. His hearings are turning into a circus that's embarrassing for our country and for the House of Representatives. Please ask him to back down and hold real hearings on this legislation before rushing it through his committee. These powerful leaders control what will be voted on by the full House, and we need to put them on notice. And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the effort and email and call their lawmakers about the Internet censorship bills, or just ask them to visit StopCensorship.org. If you're already on?Facebook,?click here to share with your friends. If you're already on?Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign:?Tweet Thanks for staying in this fight for another round! -The Demand Progress team ? Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you! You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time. http://act.demandprogress.org/cms/unsubscribe/unsubscribe/?akid=1095.298162.kttgQ-&t=2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 09:53:39 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:53:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Oh no -- vote could still happen In-Reply-To: <1324401793.540.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <48cb2-447-4ef0950a@list.demandprogress.org> <1324401793.540.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1324403619.88185.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I called both numbers today.?Boehner's phone was busy enough that I was forced to leave a message (the operator would not pick up and the system eventually transferred me to voicemail.) Majority Leader Eric Cantor's aide answered the phone after putting me on hold.? I told both reps? 1) The message about SOPA listed below 2) The payroll tax cut is a Trojan Horse designed to?permanently cut funding for Social Security, by making the situation such that Republicans will be crying "No New Taxes" as soon as any serious effort is made to raise the payroll tax back to its normal level. (Mainstream news reports have completely butchered the Republican position on this.? They are opposed to the 2 month extension passed by the Senate BECAUSE they want a 1 year extension instead.) So please get rid of the payroll tax cut. ? John Thielking? From: John Thielking To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Oh no -- vote could still happen Here is some more info on SOPA that contradicts what little I know. Better to call the Reps listed below and be safe rather than sorry. ? John Thielking From: David Segal To: John Thielking Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:00 AM Subject: Oh no -- vote could still happen John, Some annoying news: As was widely reported last Friday, all indications were that the House Judiciary Committee would delay its vote on SOPA for a few weeks. ?Now it looks like they might vote this week, if Congress stays in session: PCMAG: "SOPA vote might happen this week after all" ACTIVIST POST: "Congress tries to pull a fast one" You've all been amazing as we've worked to spread word about SOPA, convinced more and more lawmakers to oppose it, and dragged out the hearing for a week -- that's pretty much unheard of. But we need to ask you to pick up the phone once more: Will you call Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor and ask them to reign in Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith? ? Speaker John Boehner:?(202) 225-6205 Majority Leader Eric Cantor: (202) 225-2815 Please be polite, but firm. ?You can work off of this script: I'm calling because Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is pushing the Stop Online Piracy Act even though it will kill jobs, undermine cybersecurity, stifle free speech, and give comfort to totalitarian regimes that want to censor the Internet. ?And they're doing it all to prop up a few Hollywood bigwigs. His hearings are turning into a circus that's embarrassing for our country and for the House of Representatives. Please ask him to back down and hold real hearings on this legislation before rushing it through his committee. These powerful leaders control what will be voted on by the full House, and we need to put them on notice. And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the effort and email and call their lawmakers about the Internet censorship bills, or just ask them to visit StopCensorship.org. If you're already on?Facebook,?click here to share with your friends. If you're already on?Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign:?Tweet Thanks for staying in this fight for another round! -The Demand Progress team Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you! You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time. http://act.demandprogress.org/cms/unsubscribe/unsubscribe/?akid=1095.298162.kttgQ-&t=2_______________________________________________sosfbay-discuss mailing listsosfbay-discuss at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Tue Dec 20 12:53:02 2011 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:53:02 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC In-Reply-To: <20111217.194607.4744.0@webmail09.vgs.untd.com> References: <20111217.194607.4744.0@webmail09.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <4EF0F5AE.9070500@greens.org> The fiscal policy passed with just a few of us voicing objections about its necessity, accuracy and the bizarre way it became a proposal. This was written by Mike Feistein but submitted by Humboldt County. They originally argued that counties have a right to put proposals directly onto the agenda without any committee review. I showed them that the bylaws do not say any such thing and they ended up with the Coordinating Committee sponsoring it. During the presentation I question Mike about the origins of this proposal. He said he wrote it and it was reviewed by some finance committee in Humboltd. The problem is, Humboldt is not affected by this policy. It is the state committee coordinators and party officers who are subjected to this policy, and they weren't part of its creation or review. But that didn't matter to the Mike/Marnie crowd that constituted most of the delegates at the meeting, so it passed with a large margin. In past times, a proposal like this would not be allowed to slither onto the agenda in this manner. But it's a different party now days, where this type of behavior is accepted and encouraged. Jim On 12/17/2011 7:46 PM, Valerie D. Face wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Thanks very much for the clarifications. > > Do you (or anyone else) know what happened with the proposed fiscal policy > at the plenary? The notes talk about how it was brought to the General > Assembly, but nothing is said about whether it was passed, rejected, > modified, etc. > > Thanks and happy holidays, Valerie > > ---------- Original Message ---------- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:43:35 > -0800 From: Jim Stauffer To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda GPSCC > > I've added some clarifications inline to the notes. Sometimes paraphrasing > doesn't capture the original intent. > > Jim > > > > > On 12/15/2011 9:28 PM, Spencer Graves wrote: >> On 12/15/2011 3:23 PM, Drew wrote: >>> >>> >>> Message body >>> >>> === Draft Agenda for GPSCC General Meeting on December 15, 2011 === >>> >>> Location: San Jose Peace& Justice Center, 48 S 7th St, San Jose >>> >>> 6:30 PM Spencer Graves requests volunteer help on assemblying Move >>> Your Money flyers >>> >>> 7:00 PM Social time: practice one-minute speeches, eat, chat, etc. >>> >>> 7:30 PM Begin meeting >>> >>> * Choose facilitator, note taker, timekeeper, vibes watcher, November >>> agenda preparer, November one-minute speakers 2 min >> >> facilitator: Tian >> >> >> notetaker: Spencer >> >> >> timekeeper: Fred >> >> >> vibes watcher: Merriam >> >> >> Jan. agenda preparer: Tian (1. Betsy on Secure Communities) >> >> >> Jan. one-minute speakers: Merriam >> >>> >>> * Introductions and short announcements 10 min >> >> >> Tian Harter: Bike parties tomorrow and Saturday night. Christmas party >> Sunday evening, 5-9 PM. see tian.greens.org: 505 Cyprus Point Drive, >> Mountain View, CA. >> >> >> John T. >> >> >> Hector Schneider, from Occupy San Jose: have to move it from Occupation >> to a progressive movement >> >> >> Spencer Graves, >> >> >> Betsy Wolf-Graves: To give a 10 minute presentation at the beginning of >> the meeting on Secure Communities in January. >> >> >> Drew: >> >> >> Fred D. >> >> >> Merriam: >> >> >> Jim Stauffer >> >>> >>> * Revise and affirm agenda 4 min >>> >>> * Treasurer's report, pass the hat 4 min, Jim Doyle >>> >>> * Report from GPCA General Assembly Dec. 3-4 15 min, Jim S.& Tian >> >> >> JIM: Nothing earth shattering. Bylaw modifications of minor consequence >> and updates of platform planks. Recommendations of names for inclusion on >> primary presidential candidates. Jill Stein (consensus) and Kent Mesplay >> (by only 2 votes; they had a debate and he had poor showing. People voted >> for that, because they felt there should be 2 names on the ballot.) > > [Jim] This issues was the names the GPCA sends to the Secretary of State > for inclusion on our Presidential Primary ballot. Kent did not attend the > presidential debate at the LA General Assembly due to illness. Some did > not fully believe his excuse and felt he ruined the webcast debate with > his phone-in presence. Tian also presented on this. > > >> >> >> Confirmed Jared Laiety(sp) as liason to the Secretary of State. >> >> >> This was a meeting in LA. Marnie Glickman is the "Managing Director of >> the CA Green Party". A few locals have disassociated with the CA state >> party over this. > > [Jim] Actually, Locals have not disassociated from the state party over > Marnie Glickman (yet). Disassociation was brought up as a possible response > if a Local has serious problems with what the GPCA is doing. A couple > Locals have done this in the past. > > [Jim] The issue I raised about the CC was their implementation of > Marnie's Green2012 plan, including establishing Marnie as Managing > Director, on a 6-3 vote that did not use the consensus process to address > concerns and proposed amendments. Green2012 has not been discussed or > decided at a General Assembly and some of us feel the CC grossly > over-stepped their authority. > > >> >> >> Next Plenary in ~6 months someplace in N. CA. We can have a plenary here >> and try to reach out to other locals. >> >> >> PROPOSED: People in this group form a committee to brainstorm how to deal >> with this: Merriam will call a County Council Meeting. >> >> >> Proposed fiscal policy for the Green Party: The finance and coordinating >> committees never looked at it. Mike Feinstein wrote it and brought it >> directly to the General Assembly without going through the appropriate >> committees. >> >> >> Sunday morning: 2 items: AB 1148 clean money campaign. + an anti-death >> penalty initiative. >> >>> * Proposal to endorse of Jan 20th Move to Amend "Occupy the Courts!" >>> St. James Park 12-1:30p 5 minutes, Merriam Kathaleen >> >> >> Fri., Jan. 20 = 2 year anniversary of the Citizens United decision. St. >> James Park is across the street from the Courthouse wherein the original >> "corporate personhood" decision was made in the 1880s. >> >> >> Proposed: Santa Clara Greens endorse this event. Passed by consensus with >> one stand aside. >> >> >> John is still concerned about the specific language. >> >> >> Q: Could Laura Wells be invited to speak? >> >> >> >>> * January Movie Night 5 min, Merriam Kathaleen >> >> >> Dr. Strangelove. >> >> >> John agreed to get the announcement on the Peace Center calendar AND send >> an announcement to Spencer for the web site. >> >> >> Proposed: Green Party combines with Occupy San Jose to co-sponsor movies >> starting in February. >> >> >> Latin Movie group wants to switch, so the Greens have the first Friday >> and the Latin group does the second. Tian is one of the regulars and >> cannot come first Friday. >> >>> * Proposal to endorse AB 1184: The 2012 California Disclose Act & Sat. >>> Jan. 7th Campaign Kickoff event @ PA Unitarian Church 2-4pm 5 min, >>> Brian Good >> >> >> State Green party has endorsed it. Requires people who pay for an ad must >> put their names on it. >> >> >> We should see if we can have a table at this event. >> >> >> Santa Clara Greens also endorse the act and the event. Approved. >> >>> PARTY! Green is Sustainability! Drew >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing >>> list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss >> >> >> -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer >> Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA >> 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web:www.structuremonitoring.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing >> list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing > list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > > ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old > Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors > Worried > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4eed6242280d0b9ef3ast05vuc > From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 18:36:19 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:36:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: That was close (SOPA vote for Dec 21 cancelled) In-Reply-To: <48cb2-44a-4ef124f4@list.demandprogress.org> References: <48cb2-44a-4ef124f4@list.demandprogress.org> Message-ID: <1324434979.59471.YahooMailNeo@web111102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Please pardon the fundraising aspects of this e-mail.? It contains good news about SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act.? The hearing and possible vote scheduled for Dec 21st was put off for now. ? John Thielking ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: David Moon To: John Thielking Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:14 PM Subject: That was close John Wow -- That was close: After threatening to hold a vote this week, the House Judiciary Committee just cancelled tomorrow's hearing on SOPA! ? WASHINGTON POST:?The House Judiciary Committee?confirmed Tuesday?that it will delay continuing debate on the Stop Online Piracy Act until after Congress returns from its winter recess. In January of one year ago it looked like Internet censorship legislation could pass in a matter of months. But then Demand Progress members stepped in: We've pushed the legislation back a full year, and now it's on the ropes. Will you click here to chip in 5, 10, or 20 bucks so we can keep fighting back against big business's attempts to censor the Internet next year? Demand Progress is doing everything in our power to make sure that our members' voices are heard in the halls of power and to save the Internet from this horrendous legislation: We've organized press conferences on Capitol Hill, hosted policy briefings. ?We've delivered countless petitions to Congress, and met with the White House as they consider whether to oppose SOPA and its Senate cousin, the PROTECT IP Act. We've repeatedly been slammed by the Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Assocaition of America, and other censorship proponents -- proving the importance of our work and the righteousness of our cause. Will you click here to chip in 5, 10, or 20 bucks so we can keep fighting back against big business's attempts to censor the Internet -- we need your support to open next year strong. Most importantly, we've driven hundreds of thousands of constituent contacts to Congress -- And helped lead an unprecedented coalition of activist groups, websites, and tech firms which together have helped more than 3 million people send anti-censorship emails and make anti-censorship phone calls to Congress and the White House. But the fight isn't over yet: The Senate is still threatening to hold a vote in January, and we need to make sure we're in a position to keep pushing back. ?We've proved that our voices make a real difference, but we can't afford to let up one bit. Please help us start next year with a bang, so we can continue the fight against Internet censorship. ?We rely on donations from members like you to support our 3-person staff.?? Thanks so so much, The Demand Progress team PS: We know we've been sending a ton of emails over the last few weeks -- we promise it'll calm down a bit over the next couple of weeks, now that the most immediate threat is behind us. ? Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Sat Dec 24 18:19:36 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:19:36 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Occupy Wiki Workshop (revised) In-Reply-To: References: <4EF416B5.3030703@prodsyse.com> <4EF4D33F.1060601@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <4EF68838.3010007@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: I'm planning to lead a series of "Wiki Workshops" at the Peace Center devoted to both the mechanics of how to edit a Wiki page and the rigorous habit of thought that is needed to write good text for "THE Wikipedia"? This can be a high leverage activity. The Wikipedia article on the Stop Online Piracy Act received a million views between Nov. 24 and Dec. 24. Contributing to Wikipedia can also help you develop a critical, analytical habit of thought and expression, because such is needed to write good text for Wikipedia (because without it, edits you make are more likely to be undone by someone else). This habit of thought and expression may also make you more effective in other things you try to do. I'm about to schedule Monday, January 9 for the first session. Depending on the response, I plan to schedule others, e.g., once per month or per week, depending on the level of interest. I have three questions regarding this that I'd like to ask you all: 1. Might the Green Party like to co-host something like this with Occupy San Jos?? 2. Might you be interested in participating in such? 3. Might you be interested in participating virtually, i.e., via the Internet from wherever you happen to be at the appointed time? Thanks, Spencer TITLE: Occupy Wiki Workshop SHORT DESCRIPTION: The Wikipedia article on the "Stop Online Piracy Act" received over 1,000,000 views in the month between Nov. 24 and Dec. 24. Clearly, work to improve the content of such a page can have a large impact. Accordingly, the Education and Research Committee of Occupy San Jos? would like to recruit people with or without experience editing Wikis to meet regularly in working / education sessions to increase the impact of the participants while also improving their skills. We will change and add to a Wiki devoted to Occupy San Jose (http://occupy.pbworks.com/?_ci=15332.o6tKe2-2) as well as "THE Wikipedia" and perhaps others. We will discuss the interests and desires of participants, select things to change and add, share knowledge about how to make changes and additions and how to do research so your edits will more likely be accepted and read. [Contributing to Wikipedia can help you develop a critical, analytical habit of thought and expression, because such is needed to write good text for Wikipedia (because without it, edits you make are more likely to be undone by someone else). This habit of thought and expression may also make you more effective in other things you try to do.] FACILITATORS: Henry Gage and Spencer Graves On 12/23/2011 11:29 AM, Ana Maria Candela wrote: > Hi Spencer, > > We should do this at the peace center, which has a projector we can > use. To schedule the workshop, I need a title, a short description > and a rough idea of how long it will be. Then we need to pick a date > and reserve it on the SJPJC calendar. Here is what is available at > SJPJC for January that would work for us: > > Monday, January 9 - 7pm > Saturday, January 14 - all day > Monday, January 16 - 7pm > Saturday, January 21 - all day > Monday, January 23 - 7pm > Monday, January 30 - 7pm > > Once everything is in order, I can schedule everything. > > Thanks for doing this! > Ana > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Spencer Graves > > wrote: > > Hi, Ana, et al.: > > > What's the next step? > > > I think we should mention both the Occupy Wiki and "The" > Wikipedia to attract an audience. I agree we should encourage > people to do things with the Occupy Wiki as well as "The" > Wikipedia. The latter has an article on "Occupy San Jose", but > the most recent event recorded there is dated Oct. 21. A lot has > happened since then, and people can make changes there that are > less likely to be challenged than my attempts to edit the SOPA > article. > > > I want to call it a "Workshop" for two reasons: First, I > won't feel a need to do a lot of preparation. Second, people > should expect to come and "work" in the "shop". (It doesn't all > have to be serious: There are various Wikijoke pages.) > > > Spencer > > > On 12/23/2011 10:33 AM, Ana Maria Candela wrote: >> Hi Spencer, >> >> I think this is a great idea. I think we should begin by >> training people to use the OSJ Wiki that Henry developed. So >> much comes through on the google group that needs to be on that >> wiki, it would be nice to start sending people there to document >> our resources. >> >> Best, >> ana >> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Spencer Graves >> > > wrote: >> >> Hi, Ana, Henry, Pablo, David: >> >> >> WIKI POWER >> >> >> I tried recently to edit the Wikipedia entry on the Stop >> Online Piracy Act, especially adding a section on the "Media >> Conflict of Interest". My additions were removed 18 minutes >> later, complaining I did not have a valid source. >> >> >> That article has been receiving between 100,000 and >> 150,000 views per day, which means that any editing effort >> can have very high leverage. I learned that, because earlier >> today, I was officially invited to participate in a >> discussion about whether to split the article. I think the >> consensus is to try to shorten the article by not including >> as many lengthy quotes. >> >> >> OCCUPY WIKI WORKSHOP? >> >> >> What do you think about trying to organize a Wiki >> Workshop at the Peace Center? I'd be willing to facilitate >> something like this as a recurring event. What is our status >> with the Peace Center? >> >> >> The basic idea is to help people become Wikipedians by >> learning both the mechanics of the Wiki markup language and >> (more importantly) the rigorous habit of thought that is >> required to make good contributions that people want to read >> and quote. >> >> >> I've made probably a few thousand edits over the past 6 >> years. Most of these were for a corporate wiki internal to >> where I used to work. However, I've made a few hundred edits >> to "the" Wikipedia, and I think I understand their standard >> and how they think. >> >> >> I'm thinking of structuring the Workshops so they start >> with a discussion of what the attendees want to do, either >> with the Occupy Wiki that Henry initiated or "the" Wikipedia. >> After recording the desires of the attendees, we could then >> spend a few minutes answering the easiest questions. For the >> more difficult questions, we could recruit volunteers to >> prepare brief presentation(s) at later session(s) -- or >> handle those questions via email. Then there should be time >> for brief presentations people prepared for question(s) >> raised in previous session(s). >> >> >> If we can use the Peace Center's computer projector, >> that might be best. I could take notes in an email, which I >> could then send to interested parties at the end of the >> meeting. If we can't get the projector, then I could bring a >> portable easel. I have a backup notebook computer I could >> bring, also, which could be used by attendees who do not >> bring a notebook. >> >> >> Best Wishes, >> Spencer >> > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web:www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Sat Dec 24 20:45:25 2011 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:45:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo In-Reply-To: References: <1324357817.58073.YahooMailRC@web181002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1324788325.45452.YahooMailRC@web181016.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I don't know about Zoe Lofgren. She isn't my representative. If you want to know how she voted, look it up. Caroline ________________________________ From: Brian Good To: carolineyacoub at att.net; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 10:43:50 PM Subject: RE: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo Eshoo, Farr, Honda, Stark, Lee, Miller, Woolsey and Speier all voted against it. Nancy Pelosi was the only Bay Area Congresscritter to vote for it. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml ________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:10:17 -0800 From: carolineyacoub at att.net To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo I wrote to Anna Eshoo thanking her for her no vote on the defense authorization bill. This was her reply. I thought you might be interested. Caroline ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "ca14ima.pub at mail.house.gov" To: carolineyacoub at att.net Sent: Mon, December 19, 2011 3:06:48 PM Subject: Message From Rep. Anna G. Eshoo ? ? ? December 19, 2011 ? ? Dear? Mrs. Yacoub , ? Thank you for contacting me about the National Defense Authorization Act, legislation which sets defense policy and spending levels for the coming year. On May 26 th I voted against the Ho use version of this legislation. ? O n December 14 th I voted against the? House-Senate Conference Report,? but ? it passed the House by a vote of 283-136. ? The Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization? authorizes $670 billion? for defense activities, inclu ding personnel expenses, health care, weapons systems, and base construction.? I could not support the measure for several reasons. ? In the most general sense, despite severe cutbacks throughout the government and the lowest revenue levels in years, this legislation sets a defense spending level that is twice as high as the rest of the world, combined. Although the overall level is a reduction from last year, the reduction is primarily related? to our planned drawdown in Iraq. Congress has failed to make serious, fundamental changes to defense spending. In order to be serious about fiscal responsibility? and I believe we must be?Congress? has to take a much harder? look at the defense budget than this legislation reflects. ? The Defense Authorization also include s several provisions that I? oppose and consider a threat to our national security and civil liberties. Similar to past pieces of legislation, the bill effectively blocks the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba.? As? I' ve? stated for many years, the continuing use of this facility is strategically counterproductive and offensive to our most closely-held American values. Insisting on its continuing use and prohibiting the transfer of its inmates to regular prisons , as this legislation does, is a step in exactly the wrong direction. ? The Defense Authorization also contains unacceptable provisions related to the treatment of detainees. Ignoring the views of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of the FBI, the Defense Authorization includes mandatory military detention for? many? terrorism suspects, including? noncitizens captured within the U.S. The law permits indefinite detention, circumventing suspects' habeas corpus rights. This policy will thwart the efforts of our civilian law enforcement officers whose efforts have protected our country from terrorism since 9/11 and raise serious Constitutional issues.? Although President Obama has indicated he will no longer veto the bill, h uman rights groups, law enforcement , and the defense community are united in their opposition to this policy, and I? could not support it. ? I will conti nue to be an active participant in the discussions concerning how best to protect our country, our civil rights, and our fiscal responsibility, and I appreciate your input into this critical conversation. If you have any other questions or comments, let me hear from you.? I value what my constituents say to me, and always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas. I've created an ongoing e-newsletter to keep constituents informed on a variety of congressional issues and legislation.? Many constituents tell me how much they value reading it, and if you would like to as well, you can go to my website at http://eshoo.house.gov and click on Sign Up for ENews.? Your email address will never be used by anyone except my office to communicate with you, and your tax dollars will be conserved by using electronic communications rather than traditional mailings. Sincerely, Anna G. Eshoo Member of Congress ? ? _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Dec 27 13:22:00 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:22:00 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] =?windows-1252?q?MoveOn_Monday=2C_Jan=2E_9=2C_San_Jo?= =?windows-1252?q?s=E9_City_Hall_Rotunda=2C_5=3A30-7=3A30_PM?= In-Reply-To: <69e882c2-a161-46fc-84d3-963f8eb668b0@c42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> References: <69e882c2-a161-46fc-84d3-963f8eb668b0@c42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <4EFA36F8.2020307@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: I encourage all to get tickets via "http://jobsnotcuts.eventbrite.com" and attend the MoveOn rally, Monday, Jan. 9, in the San Jos? City Hall Rotunda, 5:30 - 7:30 PM. Representatives Mike Honda and Zoe Lofgren are scheduled to speak along with Cindy Chavez and others (see below). I don't know what their rules are: I think it would be great if the MoveOn crowd is crowded out by Occupy and Greens, all asking tough questions. If MoveOn organizers sense their event is being hijacked, they may not allow anyone in carrying a sign. However, I think it would be great of we all drafted tough questions and sent them in advance to Honda and Lofgren. One of my questions will be something like the following: "What have the Democrats done since the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall besides whine that the Republicans won't let us do anything -- while endorsing numerous proposals for more welfare for the wealthy?" Enjoy, Spencer -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [occupy-san-jose] 99% RALLY for?Jobs, Not Cuts!? January 9 @ City Hall Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:55:31 -0800 (PST) From: Andrew Fitz Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com To: Occupy San Jose don't know anything about this, just saw it on the tweeter 99% RALLY for ?Jobs, Not Cuts!? January 9, 2012, 5:30 to 7:30 PM San Jos? City Hall Rotunda 200 E. Santa Clara Street, San Jos? Ask Questions and get Answers from guest speakers: US Reps. Mike Honda and Zoe Lofgren Cindy Chavez, Working Partners CEO - investing in infrastructure Anthony Cody, Educator - Save our Schools Scott Myers-Lipton, SJSU Sociology Prof - creating living wage jobs fast Fr. Jon Pedigo, STL, Pastor St. Julie Billiart Parish - invocation ...and others. http://jobsnotcuts.eventbrite.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 29 01:35:56 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:35:56 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EFC347C.6090908@prodsyse.com> Hi, All: What specifically is the status of instant-runoff voting in San Jose? It seems that now would be a great time to push that. Spencer -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:33:42 -0800 From: Tim Bonnemann Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com Well, It would be nice to come out with our own "State of the City" address, maybe the day before the mayor's: List the Occupy issues and how they apply locally. Dig through City Council minutes to show what if anything they have done in 2011 to address these issues. Mention the "innovative" ways the City treats concerned citizens/protesters and the damage (time, energy, money, lost income, reputation etc.) they've caused with their misguided eviction policy, citations and arrests. Compare current City Council priorities with what would be ours. That kind of thing. This might be a little project we could run over a few weeks leading up to February 9. Maybe involve a broader public (via blog, social media etc.), too. Like that original "We are the 99 percent" Tumblr, a "What's the state of (y)our city?" to capture some of the voices that likely won't be represented at the Feb 9 event. Mayor Reed's past SOTC speeches are here (with video): http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/news/videos/videos_SOTC.asp Tim On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Andrew Fitz wrote: > You gonna mic-check chuckie? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 29 01:50:42 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:50:42 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EFC37F2.8050804@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: 1. What specifically is the status of instant-runoff voting (IRV) in San Jos? and / or Santa Clara County? I remember having heard some discussion of this at Green Party meetings. I think we should suggest it to Occupy San Jos?. I believe they could easily be persuaded to embrace it. (There is a Wikipedia on IRV. The article looks pretty good to me, but if you say any way it could be improved and would like to discuss changes, please let me know. I'm an occasional Wikipedian and could help you understand their rules and perhaps make the changes you suggest if they also seem sensible to me.) 2. What other issues do we have with the City of San Jos?? I'd like to push them to switch from Wells Fargo to a local-only bank or Credit Union. (I've heard that California state law requires municipalities to use major banks, but I don't know the law on that. If you do, I'd like to know. I think we can get Occupy San Jos? behind a move to change this.) 3. I'd like to encourage everyone to sign up to attend the MoveOn event on Monday, Jan. 9 at the San Jos? City Hall Rotunda and maybe also Mayor Reed's State of the City address, Feb. 9; see below. Comments? Thanks, Spencer -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:33:42 -0800 From: Tim Bonnemann Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com Well, It would be nice to come out with our own "State of the City" address, maybe the day before the mayor's: List the Occupy issues and how they apply locally. Dig through City Council minutes to show what if anything they have done in 2011 to address these issues. Mention the "innovative" ways the City treats concerned citizens/protesters and the damage (time, energy, money, lost income, reputation etc.) they've caused with their misguided eviction policy, citations and arrests. Compare current City Council priorities with what would be ours. That kind of thing. This might be a little project we could run over a few weeks leading up to February 9. Maybe involve a broader public (via blog, social media etc.), too. Like that original "We are the 99 percent" Tumblr, a "What's the state of (y)our city?" to capture some of the voices that likely won't be represented at the Feb 9 event. Mayor Reed's past SOTC speeches are here (with video): http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/news/videos/videos_SOTC.asp Tim On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Andrew Fitz wrote: > You gonna mic-check chuckie? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Thu Dec 29 11:04:00 2011 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:04:00 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address In-Reply-To: <4EFC37F2.8050804@prodsyse.com> References: <4EFC37F2.8050804@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <4EFCB9A0.6040903@greens.org> I would say there's very little movement to implement IRV on the county level. The county seems to be waiting for one municipality to lead the way. San Jose, with half the population of the county, would be the best municipality to push for IRV. In 2009-2010 Californians for Electoral Reform and the New America Foundation made a major IRV push in San Jose. The city council is sympathetic/supportive of the idea. But a common response from city gov't is to wait for someone else to try it first. This is what San Jose did, deferring any decision until after Oakland and San Leandro implemented their IRV in 2010 elections. Also, budget problem get in the way since changing to a new balloting system is expensive, even if the new system saves money in the long run. So, on the one hand San Jose is primed for IRV implementation -- a sympathetic city council and two near-by cities that had relatively good experiences with IRV. On the other hand, how do we pay for the change-over in a city wracked with budget deficits? BTW, a much better source for info on IRV is http://www.fairvote.org/. Also, the common term used these days is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), which I think is a better description than the marketing oriented "IRV." I have PDFs of IRV flyers if you need anything like that. Jim On 12/29/2011 1:50 AM, Spencer Graves wrote: > Hello, All: > > > 1. What specifically is the status of instant-runoff voting (IRV) in San Jos? > and / or Santa Clara County? I remember having heard some discussion of this > at Green Party meetings. I think we should suggest it to Occupy San Jos?. I > believe they could easily be persuaded to embrace it. (There is a Wikipedia on > IRV. The article looks pretty good to me, but if you say any way it could be > improved and would like to discuss changes, please let me know. I'm an > occasional Wikipedian and could help you understand their rules and perhaps > make the changes you suggest if they also seem sensible to me.) > > > 2. What other issues do we have with the City of San Jos?? I'd like to push > them to switch from Wells Fargo to a local-only bank or Credit Union. (I've > heard that California state law requires municipalities to use major banks, > but I don't know the law on that. If you do, I'd like to know. I think we can > get Occupy San Jos? behind a move to change this.) > > > 3. I'd like to encourage everyone to sign up to attend the MoveOn event on > Monday, Jan. 9 at the San Jos? City Hall Rotunda and maybe also Mayor Reed's > State of the City address, Feb. 9; see below. Comments? > > > Thanks, > Spencer > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the > City Address > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:33:42 -0800 > From: Tim Bonnemann > Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com > To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com > > > > Well, > > It would be nice to come out with our own "State of the City" address, maybe > the day before the mayor's: > > List the Occupy issues and how they apply locally. Dig through City Council > minutes to show what if anything they have done in 2011 to address these > issues. Mention the "innovative" ways the City treats concerned > citizens/protesters and the damage (time, energy, money, lost income, > reputation etc.) they've caused with their misguided eviction policy, > citations and arrests. Compare current City Council priorities with what would > be ours. That kind of thing. > > This might be a little project we could run over a few weeks leading up to > February 9. Maybe involve a broader public (via blog, social media etc.), too. > Like that original "We are the 99 percent" Tumblr, a "What's the state of > (y)our city?" to capture some of the voices that likely won't be represented > at the Feb 9 event. > > Mayor Reed's past SOTC speeches are here (with video): > http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/news/videos/videos_SOTC.asp > > Tim > > > On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Andrew Fitz wrote: > >> You gonna mic-check chuckie? > > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Dec 29 11:52:08 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:52:08 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address In-Reply-To: <4EFCB9A0.6040903@greens.org> References: <4EFC37F2.8050804@prodsyse.com> <4EFCB9A0.6040903@greens.org> Message-ID: <4EFCC4E8.6040400@prodsyse.com> Dear Jim: Who is our best local expert on IRV? I'd like the following: 1. A brief article of 100-300 words with a color photograph or some other eye candy for the San Jos? Occup?er (Google "San Jose Occupier Newsletter" or go to "https://sites.google.com/site/sanjoseoccupier/download"). 2. Someone who could do a credible job in a 1 hour presentation, which we could schedule through the Education and Research Committee of Occupy San Jos?. 3. A brochure to distribute to Occupy San Jos? soon to get them discussing the idea. 4. Some help in strategizing on how to get this issue introduced in the Jan. 9 MoveOn event in the San Jos? City Hall Rotunday and the Feb. 9 State of the City event. The international Occupy movement and the affiliated Arab Spring is moving and shaking the establishment. The mainstream media have already figured out they can not ignore Occupy and retain audience, and there is now public discussion of a few issues that were previously unmentionable. MoveOn and the Democrats are trying to claim they are the 99% -- while still accepting their huge campaign contributions from the ultra wealthy and still delivering votes on anything that does not catch enough of the movement's attention. Spencer On 12/29/2011 11:04 AM, Jim Stauffer wrote: > I would say there's very little movement to implement IRV on the > county level. The county seems to be waiting for one municipality to > lead the way. > > San Jose, with half the population of the county, would be the best > municipality to push for IRV. In 2009-2010 Californians for Electoral > Reform and the New America Foundation made a major IRV push in San > Jose. The city council is sympathetic/supportive of the idea. But a > common response from city gov't is to wait for someone else to try it > first. This is what San Jose did, deferring any decision until after > Oakland and San Leandro implemented their IRV in 2010 elections. > Also, budget problem get in the way since changing to a new balloting > system is expensive, even if the new system saves money in the long > run. > > So, on the one hand San Jose is primed for IRV implementation -- a > sympathetic city council and two near-by cities that had relatively > good experiences with IRV. On the other hand, how do we pay for the > change-over in a city wracked with budget deficits? > > BTW, a much better source for info on IRV is > http://www.fairvote.org/. Also, the common term used these days is > Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), which I think is a better description > than the marketing oriented "IRV." > > I have PDFs of IRV flyers if you need anything like that. > > Jim > > > > > > On 12/29/2011 1:50 AM, Spencer Graves wrote: > > Hello, All: > > > > > > 1. What specifically is the status of instant-runoff voting (IRV) > > in San Jos? and / or Santa Clara County? I remember having heard > > some discussion of this at Green Party meetings. I think we should > > suggest it to Occupy San Jos?. I believe they could easily be > > persuaded to embrace it. (There is a Wikipedia on IRV. The article > > looks pretty good to me, but if you say any way it could be > > improved and would like to discuss changes, please let me know. I'm > > an occasional Wikipedian and could help you understand their rules > > and perhaps make the changes you suggest if they also seem sensible > > to me.) > > > > > > 2. What other issues do we have with the City of San Jos?? I'd like > > to push them to switch from Wells Fargo to a local-only bank or > > Credit Union. (I've heard that California state law requires > > municipalities to use major banks, but I don't know the law on > > that. If you do, I'd like to know. I think we can get Occupy San > > Jos? behind a move to change this.) > > > > > > 3. I'd like to encourage everyone to sign up to attend the MoveOn > > event on Monday, Jan. 9 at the San Jos? City Hall Rotunda and maybe > > also Mayor Reed's State of the City address, Feb. 9; see below. > > Comments? > > > > > > Thanks, Spencer > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: > > [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City > > Address Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:33:42 -0800 From: Tim > > Bonnemann Reply-To: > > occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com To: > > occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com > > > > > > > > Well, > > > > It would be nice to come out with our own "State of the City" > > address, maybe the day before the mayor's: > > > > List the Occupy issues and how they apply locally. Dig through City > > Council minutes to show what if anything they have done in 2011 to > > address these issues. Mention the "innovative" ways the City treats > > concerned citizens/protesters and the damage (time, energy, money, > > lost income, reputation etc.) they've caused with their misguided > > eviction policy, citations and arrests. Compare current City > > Council priorities with what would be ours. That kind of thing. > > > > This might be a little project we could run over a few weeks > > leading up to February 9. Maybe involve a broader public (via blog, > > social media etc.), too. Like that original "We are the 99 percent" > > Tumblr, a "What's the state of (y)our city?" to capture some of the > > voices that likely won't be represented at the Feb 9 event. > > > > Mayor Reed's past SOTC speeches are here (with video): > > http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/news/videos/videos_SOTC.asp > > > > Tim > > > > > > On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Andrew Fitz wrote: > > > >> You gonna mic-check chuckie? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss > > mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss > mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Thu Dec 29 18:41:13 2011 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 02:41:13 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Standing Up to Obama on the Environment: Ten Small Green Groups That M ake a Big Difference Message-ID: <20111229.184113.30730.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> CounterPunch article: Jeffrey St. Clair blasts Obama's record on the environment and wildlife conservation, then lists 10 small groups that run very lean operations and continue to fight. I must confess that the only one I was familiar with was Buffalo Field Campaign. I'll certainly be checking out the others. http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/23/ten-small-green-groups-that-make-a-big-difference/ - Valerie ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4efd24f488d92687095st02vuc From snug.bug at hotmail.com Thu Dec 29 20:23:22 2011 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:23:22 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Standing Up to Obama on the Environment In-Reply-To: <20111229.184113.30730.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20111229.184113.30730.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: I intend to launch a NoBOMBa 2012 campaign. Whenever the Obama Kids are out there on the street I'll be there too to tell them: "Don't Vote for War Criminals". If anybody has any doubt that Obama is a war criminal under the Nuremburg Principles, the Charter of the UN, and the UN Convention Against Torture, let me know and I'll back it up. B > From: vdf at juno.com > Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 02:41:13 +0000 > To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Standing Up to Obama on the Environment: Ten Small Green Groups That M ake a Big Difference > > CounterPunch article: > Jeffrey St. Clair blasts Obama's record on the environment and wildlife conservation, then lists 10 small groups that run very lean operations and continue to fight. I must confess that the only one I was familiar with was Buffalo Field Campaign. I'll certainly be checking out the others. > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/23/ten-small-green-groups-that-make-a-big-difference/ > > - Valerie > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 > The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4efd24f488d92687095st02vuc > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 23:53:22 2011 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:53:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Standing Up to Obama on the Environment In-Reply-To: References: <20111229.184113.30730.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <1325231602.23624.YahooMailNeo@web111101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I also heard that Obama has pardoned fewer prisoners than Bush had at this stage in his presidency. Not surprising considering his track record on deporation of undocumented immigrants (also worse than Bush). ? John Thielking From: Brian Good To: valerie face ; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Standing Up to Obama on the Environment I intend to launch a NoBOMBa 2012 campaign.? Whenever the Obama Kids are out there on the street I'll be there too to tell them: "Don't Vote for War Criminals". If anybody has any doubt that Obama is a war criminal under the Nuremburg Principles, the Charter of the UN, and the UN Convention Against Torture, let me know and I'll back it up. B > From: vdf at juno.com > Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 02:41:13 +0000 > To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Standing Up to Obama on the Environment: Ten Small Green Groups That M ake a Big Difference > > CounterPunch article: > Jeffrey St. Clair blasts Obama's record on the environment and wildlife conservation, then lists 10 small groups that run very lean operations and continue to fight. I must confess that the only one I was familiar with was Buffalo Field Campaign. I'll certainly be checking out the others. > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/23/ten-small-green-groups-that-make-a-big-difference/ > > - Valerie > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 > The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4efd24f488d92687095st02vuc > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Fri Dec 30 17:44:01 2011 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:44:01 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address In-Reply-To: <4EFCC4E8.6040400@prodsyse.com> References: <4EFC37F2.8050804@prodsyse.com> <4EFCB9A0.6040903@greens.org> <4EFCC4E8.6040400@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <4EFE68E1.8000807@greens.org> You're asking for a lot here, Spencer. It would be worth considering how well the arcane topic of electoral reform fits with, or how it would be received by, Occupy participants. Election systems is a topic that appeals mainly to policy wonks and math geeks interested in voting systems. Everyone else falls asleep when you talk about it. An article introducing the topic is appropriate. A 1-hour presentation seems way overboard. Most IRV presentations are 20 minutes. But you have to have an audience that really wants to learn about this, otherwise you'll be talking to room of sleeping people. Are you asking for someone to deliver a truckload of brochures, or do you want a master to print from? What are the MoveOn and State of the City events and would IRV be an appropriate topic for them? These are rhetorical questions implying that you don't just throw IRV at any audience and hope it sticks with them. All that being said, I'd like to work on an IRV introductory article. In addition to introducing the concept, I'd like to explain how IRV could turn Prop 14 (non-partisan primary) from a disaster into an improvement. There are many IRV brochures available. It's a matter of determining which one will appeal to Occupy. Your other requests need more discussion. Jim On 12/29/2011 11:52 AM, Spencer Graves wrote: > Dear Jim: > > > Who is our best local expert on IRV? I'd like the following: > > > 1. A brief article of 100-300 words with a color photograph or some other > eye candy for the San Jos? Occup?er (Google "San Jose Occupier Newsletter" > or go to "https://sites.google.com/site/sanjoseoccupier/download"). > > > 2. Someone who could do a credible job in a 1 hour presentation, which we > could schedule through the Education and Research Committee of Occupy San > Jos?. > > > 3. A brochure to distribute to Occupy San Jos? soon to get them discussing > the idea. > > > 4. Some help in strategizing on how to get this issue introduced in the > Jan. 9 MoveOn event in the San Jos? City Hall Rotunday and the Feb. 9 State > of the City event. > > > The international Occupy movement and the affiliated Arab Spring is moving > and shaking the establishment. The mainstream media have already figured > out they can not ignore Occupy and retain audience, and there is now public > discussion of a few issues that were previously unmentionable. MoveOn and > the Democrats are trying to claim they are the 99% -- while still accepting > their huge campaign contributions from the ultra wealthy and still > delivering votes on anything that does not catch enough of the movement's > attention. > > > Spencer > > > On 12/29/2011 11:04 AM, Jim Stauffer wrote: >> I would say there's very little movement to implement IRV on the county >> level. The county seems to be waiting for one municipality to lead the >> way. >> >> San Jose, with half the population of the county, would be the best >> municipality to push for IRV. In 2009-2010 Californians for Electoral >> Reform and the New America Foundation made a major IRV push in San Jose. >> The city council is sympathetic/supportive of the idea. But a common >> response from city gov't is to wait for someone else to try it first. >> This is what San Jose did, deferring any decision until after Oakland and >> San Leandro implemented their IRV in 2010 elections. Also, budget problem >> get in the way since changing to a new balloting system is expensive, >> even if the new system saves money in the long run. >> >> So, on the one hand San Jose is primed for IRV implementation -- a >> sympathetic city council and two near-by cities that had relatively good >> experiences with IRV. On the other hand, how do we pay for the >> change-over in a city wracked with budget deficits? >> >> BTW, a much better source for info on IRV is http://www.fairvote.org/. >> Also, the common term used these days is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), >> which I think is a better description than the marketing oriented "IRV." >> >> I have PDFs of IRV flyers if you need anything like that. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/29/2011 1:50 AM, Spencer Graves wrote: >>> Hello, All: >>> >>> >>> 1. What specifically is the status of instant-runoff voting (IRV) in >>> San Jos? and / or Santa Clara County? I remember having heard some >>> discussion of this at Green Party meetings. I think we should suggest >>> it to Occupy San Jos?. I believe they could easily be persuaded to >>> embrace it. (There is a Wikipedia on IRV. The article looks pretty good >>> to me, but if you say any way it could be improved and would like to >>> discuss changes, please let me know. I'm an occasional Wikipedian and >>> could help you understand their rules and perhaps make the changes you >>> suggest if they also seem sensible to me.) >>> >>> >>> 2. What other issues do we have with the City of San Jos?? I'd like to >>> push them to switch from Wells Fargo to a local-only bank or Credit >>> Union. (I've heard that California state law requires municipalities to >>> use major banks, but I don't know the law on that. If you do, I'd like >>> to know. I think we can get Occupy San Jos? behind a move to change >>> this.) >>> >>> >>> 3. I'd like to encourage everyone to sign up to attend the MoveOn event >>> on Monday, Jan. 9 at the San Jos? City Hall Rotunda and maybe also >>> Mayor Reed's State of the City address, Feb. 9; see below. Comments? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Spencer >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: >>> February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address Date: Thu, 29 Dec >>> 2011 00:33:42 -0800 From: Tim Bonnemann >>> Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com To: >>> occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Well, >>> >>> It would be nice to come out with our own "State of the City" address, >>> maybe the day before the mayor's: >>> >>> List the Occupy issues and how they apply locally. Dig through City >>> Council minutes to show what if anything they have done in 2011 to >>> address these issues. Mention the "innovative" ways the City treats >>> concerned citizens/protesters and the damage (time, energy, money, lost >>> income, reputation etc.) they've caused with their misguided eviction >>> policy, citations and arrests. Compare current City Council priorities >>> with what would be ours. That kind of thing. >>> >>> This might be a little project we could run over a few weeks leading up >>> to February 9. Maybe involve a broader public (via blog, social media >>> etc.), too. Like that original "We are the 99 percent" Tumblr, a >>> "What's the state of (y)our city?" to capture some of the voices that >>> likely won't be represented at the Feb 9 event. >>> >>> Mayor Reed's past SOTC speeches are here (with video): >>> http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/news/videos/videos_SOTC.asp >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Andrew Fitz wrote: >>> >>>> You gonna mic-check chuckie? >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing >>> list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss >> _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing >> list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss >> > > > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure > Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: > 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com > From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Fri Dec 30 18:26:01 2011 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:26:01 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address In-Reply-To: <4EFE68E1.8000807@greens.org> References: <4EFC37F2.8050804@prodsyse.com> <4EFCB9A0.6040903@greens.org> <4EFCC4E8.6040400@prodsyse.com> <4EFE68E1.8000807@greens.org> Message-ID: <4EFE72B9.3090108@prodsyse.com> Dear Jim: Might it be feasible for you to draft a 100-300 word article on IRV and select a picture (maybe from the Wikipedia article on IRV)? The San Jos? Occup?er Newsletter is produced Saturday evenings by Pablo Ghenis. If you can produce this by, say, 6 PM, tomorrow, Saturday, it could appear in Sunday's Occup?er. Most of this group is keenly award of the deficiencies of our current electoral system, and they would love to have an opportunity to vote for anyone other than a candidate of the Party of Institutionalized Bribery (aka Republican and Democrat). Thanks, Spencer On 12/30/2011 5:44 PM, Jim Stauffer wrote: > You're asking for a lot here, Spencer. It would be worth considering > how well > the arcane topic of electoral reform fits with, or how it would be > received > by, Occupy participants. Election systems is a topic that appeals > mainly to > policy wonks and math geeks interested in voting systems. Everyone > else falls > asleep when you talk about it. > > An article introducing the topic is appropriate. A 1-hour presentation > seems > way overboard. Most IRV presentations are 20 minutes. But you have to > have an > audience that really wants to learn about this, otherwise you'll be > talking to > room of sleeping people. > > Are you asking for someone to deliver a truckload of brochures, or do > you want > a master to print from? > > What are the MoveOn and State of the City events and would IRV be an > appropriate topic for them? These are rhetorical questions implying > that you > don't just throw IRV at any audience and hope it sticks with them. > > All that being said, I'd like to work on an IRV introductory article. In > addition to introducing the concept, I'd like to explain how IRV could > turn > Prop 14 (non-partisan primary) from a disaster into an improvement. > > There are many IRV brochures available. It's a matter of determining > which one > will appeal to Occupy. > > Your other requests need more discussion. > > Jim > > > > On 12/29/2011 11:52 AM, Spencer Graves wrote: >> Dear Jim: >> >> >> Who is our best local expert on IRV? I'd like the following: >> >> >> 1. A brief article of 100-300 words with a color photograph or some >> other >> eye candy for the San Jos? Occup?er (Google "San Jose Occupier >> Newsletter" >> or go to "https://sites.google.com/site/sanjoseoccupier/download"). >> >> >> 2. Someone who could do a credible job in a 1 hour presentation, >> which we >> could schedule through the Education and Research Committee of Occupy >> San >> Jos?. >> >> >> 3. A brochure to distribute to Occupy San Jos? soon to get them >> discussing >> the idea. >> >> >> 4. Some help in strategizing on how to get this issue introduced in the >> Jan. 9 MoveOn event in the San Jos? City Hall Rotunday and the Feb. 9 >> State >> of the City event. >> >> >> The international Occupy movement and the affiliated Arab Spring is >> moving >> and shaking the establishment. The mainstream media have already figured >> out they can not ignore Occupy and retain audience, and there is now >> public >> discussion of a few issues that were previously unmentionable. MoveOn >> and >> the Democrats are trying to claim they are the 99% -- while still >> accepting >> their huge campaign contributions from the ultra wealthy and still >> delivering votes on anything that does not catch enough of the >> movement's >> attention. >> >> >> Spencer >> >> >> On 12/29/2011 11:04 AM, Jim Stauffer wrote: >>> I would say there's very little movement to implement IRV on the county >>> level. The county seems to be waiting for one municipality to lead the >>> way. >>> >>> San Jose, with half the population of the county, would be the best >>> municipality to push for IRV. In 2009-2010 Californians for Electoral >>> Reform and the New America Foundation made a major IRV push in San >>> Jose. >>> The city council is sympathetic/supportive of the idea. But a common >>> response from city gov't is to wait for someone else to try it first. >>> This is what San Jose did, deferring any decision until after >>> Oakland and >>> San Leandro implemented their IRV in 2010 elections. Also, budget >>> problem >>> get in the way since changing to a new balloting system is expensive, >>> even if the new system saves money in the long run. >>> >>> So, on the one hand San Jose is primed for IRV implementation -- a >>> sympathetic city council and two near-by cities that had relatively >>> good >>> experiences with IRV. On the other hand, how do we pay for the >>> change-over in a city wracked with budget deficits? >>> >>> BTW, a much better source for info on IRV is http://www.fairvote.org/. >>> Also, the common term used these days is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), >>> which I think is a better description than the marketing oriented >>> "IRV." >>> >>> I have PDFs of IRV flyers if you need anything like that. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/29/2011 1:50 AM, Spencer Graves wrote: >>>> Hello, All: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. What specifically is the status of instant-runoff voting (IRV) in >>>> San Jos? and / or Santa Clara County? I remember having heard some >>>> discussion of this at Green Party meetings. I think we should suggest >>>> it to Occupy San Jos?. I believe they could easily be persuaded to >>>> embrace it. (There is a Wikipedia on IRV. The article looks pretty >>>> good >>>> to me, but if you say any way it could be improved and would like to >>>> discuss changes, please let me know. I'm an occasional Wikipedian and >>>> could help you understand their rules and perhaps make the changes you >>>> suggest if they also seem sensible to me.) >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. What other issues do we have with the City of San Jos?? I'd like to >>>> push them to switch from Wells Fargo to a local-only bank or Credit >>>> Union. (I've heard that California state law requires >>>> municipalities to >>>> use major banks, but I don't know the law on that. If you do, I'd like >>>> to know. I think we can get Occupy San Jos? behind a move to change >>>> this.) >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. I'd like to encourage everyone to sign up to attend the MoveOn >>>> event >>>> on Monday, Jan. 9 at the San Jos? City Hall Rotunda and maybe also >>>> Mayor Reed's State of the City address, Feb. 9; see below. Comments? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, Spencer >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [occupy-san-jose] Re: >>>> February 9: San Jose 2012 State of the City Address Date: Thu, 29 Dec >>>> 2011 00:33:42 -0800 From: Tim Bonnemann >>>> Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com To: >>>> occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, >>>> >>>> It would be nice to come out with our own "State of the City" address, >>>> maybe the day before the mayor's: >>>> >>>> List the Occupy issues and how they apply locally. Dig through City >>>> Council minutes to show what if anything they have done in 2011 to >>>> address these issues. Mention the "innovative" ways the City treats >>>> concerned citizens/protesters and the damage (time, energy, money, >>>> lost >>>> income, reputation etc.) they've caused with their misguided eviction >>>> policy, citations and arrests. Compare current City Council priorities >>>> with what would be ours. That kind of thing. >>>> >>>> This might be a little project we could run over a few weeks >>>> leading up >>>> to February 9. Maybe involve a broader public (via blog, social media >>>> etc.), too. Like that original "We are the 99 percent" Tumblr, a >>>> "What's the state of (y)our city?" to capture some of the voices that >>>> likely won't be represented at the Feb 9 event. >>>> >>>> Mayor Reed's past SOTC speeches are here (with video): >>>> http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/news/videos/videos_SOTC.asp >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Andrew Fitz wrote: >>>> >>>>> You gonna mic-check chuckie? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss >>>> mailing >>>> list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss >>> _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing >>> list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss >>> -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San Jos?, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 web: www.structuremonitoring.com