From WB4D23 at aol.com Sun Jan 1 19:56:38 2012 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 22:56:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] GPCA Fiscal Policy [was re Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda...] Message-ID: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> January 1, 2012 Folks! I am writing to disagree with a fee things that Jim Stauffer wrote about the Fiscal Policy that was adopted at the Los Angeles General Assembly in December 2011. As was noted at the Plenary in response to Jim's question of "who wrote this?", Dana Silvernale wrote the initial proposal text. Dana (Humboldt County GP) has been on the GPUS Delegation for a number of years. The GPUS has a fiscal policy somewhat similar to what she produced and apparently served as a model for the proposal (with some modifications). Some may consider such procedures unnecessary. Others may believe it is a benefit to have a clear statement on the included subjects. Since it was adopted by the Plenary Delegates, it would seem the larger group of County GP representatives agreed with the latter perspective. Ordinarily, the Finance Committee would have been the group to receive the proposal for initial review. However, that committee has mostly been inactive since June 2011. That situation is getting better since the CC has appointed some additional members to the FC. However, under the circumstances, the GPCA Coordinating Committee agreed the proposal should go to the GA and approved the CC as sponsor. I suggest people go to the GPCA webpage and use the "Party" button to find it (either under procedures or Finance Committee, maybe). Or go to the Plenary page and find the proposal in the agenda. Write me privately if you can't find it. My view is that there is nothing wrong with the contents. If someone sees something troublesome, post your concerns to this list and we all can discuss whether some kind of amendment should be submitted to the Finance Committee for its review. Warner In a message dated 12/20/2011 12:53:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jims at greens.org writes: The fiscal policy passed with just a few of us voicing objections about its necessity, accuracy and the bizarre way it became a proposal. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 08:44:37 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 08:44:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> Message-ID: <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Folks, ? I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be of interest to you.? Check them out if you like/if you have time. Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking ? Small Businesses Are People TooA prime example of the contradictions within the movement and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is the case of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process (big businesses could merely petition a judge claiming violations of copyright and the sites would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a hearing could be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement are busy protesting this unconstitutional move by Congress, while at the same time pushing for passage of MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you support rights for small businesses or don't you? ? And ? Peacemovies.com The final post for 2011: Go to www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html?for a quick peek at the possibilities of legally streaming content for "free" that is often of higher quality, more original and almost always less violent than the typical Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, please donate generously to the site that provided the content. Thanks. Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Pagewww.peacemovies.com non-violent movies, family entertainment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Jan 3 21:33:32 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:33:32 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> Hi, John, et al.: It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim that repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business. I don't know if that is what is happening, but I would expect that Citizens United and similar organizations would be paying people to write messages on Facebook with claims like, ""SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process". Big money in politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what kinds of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following that with sample surveys to pick the strongest of several likely candidates, then (c) circulating that message in a variety of ways, often concealing the source. The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary impact on small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is that it would deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to increase their wealth and power at the expense of small businesses. (more on your Facebook page citing research that social mobility is lower in the US, where the power of corporations has grown substantially over the past 125 years, than in much of Europe, which reportedly does not have corporate personhood.) Spencer Graves On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: > > > Folks, > I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be of > interest to you. Check them out if you like/if you have time. > Thanks. > Sincerely, > John Thielking > Small Businesses Are People Too > > > > A prime example of the contradictions within the movement > and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is > the case of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would > deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property > (their domain names and access to their sites) without due > process (big businesses could merely petition a judge > claiming violations of copyright and the sites would be > shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a hearing could > be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement > are busy protesting this unconstitutional move by > Congress, while at the same time pushing for passage of > MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of > unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you > support rights for small businesses or don't you? > > And > > > Peacemovies.com > > > > The final post for 2011: Go to > www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html > for a quick > peek at the possibilities of legally streaming content for > "free" that is often of higher quality, more original and > almost always less violent than the typical Hollywood > fare. If you like what you just streamed, please donate > generously to the site that provided the content. Thanks. > > Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Page > > www.peacemovies.com > non-violent movies, family entertainment > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 carolineyacoub at att.net Tue Jan 3 21:40:27 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 21:40:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1325655627.24314.YahooMailRC@web181008.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> So Spencer, you don't really believe that the amendment, as it now stands, would hurt small business? I don't have much expertise in the business world, but I can't read it and feel sure about that. Caroline ________________________________ From: Spencer Graves To: John Thielking Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:33:32 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook Hi, John, et al.:? ?????? It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim that repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business.? I don't know if that is what is happening, but I would expect that Citizens United and similar organizations would be paying people to write messages on Facebook with claims like, ""SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process".? Big money in politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what kinds of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following that with sample surveys to pick the strongest of several likely candidates, then (c) circulating that message in a variety of ways, often concealing the source.? ????? The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary impact on small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is that it would deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to increase their wealth and power at the expense of small businesses.? ????? (more on your Facebook page citing research that social mobility is lower in the US, where the power of corporations has grown substantially over the past 125 years, than in much of Europe, which reportedly does not have corporate personhood.)? ????? Spencer Graves On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: Folks, > >I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be of interest to you.? >Check them out if you like/if you have time. >Thanks. > >Sincerely, > >John Thielking > >Small Businesses Are People TooA prime example of the contradictions within the >movement and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is the case of >the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web >sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without >due process (big businesses could merely petition a judge claiming violations of >copyright and the sites would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a >hearing could be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement are busy >protesting this unconstitutional move by Congress, while at the same time >pushing for passage of MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of >unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you support rights for >small businesses or don't you? > > >And > >Peacemovies.com >The final post for 2011: Go to www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html?for a quick >peek at the possibilities of legally streaming content for "free" that is often >of higher quality, more original and almost always less violent than the typical >Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, please donate generously to >the site that provided the content. Thanks. >Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Pagewww.peacemovies.com >non-violent movies, family entertainment > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 3 21:48:38 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:48:38 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <1325655627.24314.YahooMailRC@web181008.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> <1325655627.24314.YahooMailRC@web181008.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F03E836.9030400@prodsyse.com> On 1/3/2012 9:40 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: > So Spencer, you don't really believe that the amendment, as it now > stands, would hurt small business? I don't have much expertise in the > business world, but I can't read it and feel sure about that. I think the net impact will more likely be positive. Major corporations today provide the money that elect the politicians, who then spend a substantial portion of their time trying to enact verbiage written by lobbyists for their major contributors. This would not work if a critical mass of the electorate paid directly for serious investigative journalism that would tell them in more detail how this works and would make it clearer to the electorate which candidates would actually legislate in the interest of the bottom 99%. The business model of the commercial media is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers. The 1% does not what the public to know exactly the many ways in which they get welfare, and they can retaliate against honestly liberal media. They know they do not need to feed the mouth that bites them. I'd be surprised if passing that amendment would have an immediate, dramatic effect. However, it would make it more difficult for the 1% to buy congress and continue the current massive transfers of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. Spencer > Caroline > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Spencer Graves > *To:* John Thielking > *Cc:* "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" > *Sent:* Tue, January 3, 2012 9:33:32 PM > *Subject:* Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook > > Hi, John, et al.: > > > It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim > that repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business. I > don't know if that is what is happening, but I would expect that > Citizens United and similar organizations would be paying people to > write messages on Facebook with claims like, ""SOPA would deprive > small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names > and access to their sites) without due process". Big money in > politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what > kinds of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following that > with sample surveys to pick the strongest of several likely > candidates, then (c) circulating that message in a variety of ways, > often concealing the source. > > > The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary > impact on small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is > that it would deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to increase > their wealth and power at the expense of small businesses. > > > (more on your Facebook page citing research that social mobility > is lower in the US, where the power of corporations has grown > substantially over the past 125 years, than in much of Europe, which > reportedly does not have corporate personhood.) > > > Spencer Graves > > > On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: >> >> >> Folks, >> I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be >> of interest to you. Check them out if you like/if you >> have time. >> Thanks. >> Sincerely, >> John Thielking >> Small Businesses Are People Too >> >> >> >> A prime example of the contradictions within the movement >> and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is >> the case of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would >> deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property >> (their domain names and access to their sites) without >> due process (big businesses could merely petition a judge >> claiming violations of copyright and the sites would be >> shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a hearing could >> be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement >> are busy protesting this unconstitutional move by >> Congress, while at the same time pushing for passage of >> MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of >> unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you >> support rights for small businesses or don't you? >> >> And >> >> >> Peacemovies.com >> >> >> >> The final post for 2011: Go to >> www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html >> for a >> quick peek at the possibilities of legally streaming >> content for "free" that is often of higher quality, more >> original and almost always less violent than the typical >> Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, >> please donate generously to the site that provided the >> content. Thanks. >> >> Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Page >> >> www.peacemovies.com >> non-violent movies, family entertainment >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 carolineyacoub at att.net Tue Jan 3 21:52:18 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 21:52:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Arnold Relman on saving the U.S. medical system Message-ID: <1325656338.38870.YahooMailRC@web181015.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 1:01:34 PM Subject: Arnold Relman on saving the U.S. medical system Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:35:40 -0800 > >From: Don McCanne > >Subject: Arnold Relman on saving the U.S. medical system > > >The American Prospect >Jan-Feb/2012 >In Dire Health >By Arnold S. Relman > >Most people assume that insurance is an essential part of the health-care >system. Some think it should be provided through public programs like Medicare, >while others prefer to see it purchased from private insurance companies, but >the majority believe that insurance is needed to help pay the unpredictable and >often catastrophic expenses of medical care. That is why so much public policy >focuses on extending coverage to as many people as possible and controlling its >cost. I think this emphasis on insurance is mistaken. We would have a much >better and more affordable health-care system if the reimbursement of medical >expenses through public or private insurance plans was replaced by a >tax-supported universal access to comprehensive care, without bills for specific >services and without insurance plans to pay those bills. > >Insurance is not simply a mechanism for spreading financial risks and paying for >medical care. Because it usually tries to limit payments to providers, insurance >often is an intrusive third party in the doctor-patient relationship and, >particularly with private insurance, restricts the freedom of doctors and >patients to select the services, specialists, and facilities they want to use. > >Furthermore, all insurance plans have administrative expenses, and most private >plans take profits that add to the cost of their premiums. The billing and >collecting operations that are an integral part of any insured health system are >a major expense for doctors and hospitals as well. > >For-profit insurance companies, which control most of the private market, are >the greatest problem. They have a direct conflict of interest with their >customers, because a plan's net income is increased by avoiding coverage of >patients with serious illness (who, of course, are most in need of insurance), >restricting access to services, and limiting coverage of expensive medical >services. > >There is, however, a practical alternative to health insurance and the >fee-for-service system with which it is usually associated: a not-for-profit >system in which a public single payer provides universal access to comprehensive >private care delivered by primary-care physicians cooperating with medical >specialists in group-practice arrangements. > >I do not underestimate the complexity of the changes I am proposing. The odds >against it are daunting. Congress might not even begin to debate major reform >until the health system is near collapse. But what seems clear is that the best >- possibly the only - hope for achieving universal, affordable care lies in the >eventual elimination of private insurance and fee-for-service payment and in the >creation of a tax-supported system based on group practice. Although this >proposal makes good medical, social, and economic sense, its ultimate fate will >be decided in the political arena. It cannot become a reality without an >informed and aroused public bolstered by the medical profession's strong support >for the reform. > >(Arnold S. Relman is a professor emeritus of medicine and social medicine at >Harvard Medical School and the former editor of The New England Journal of >Medicine.) > >http://prospect.org/ (As of Jan. 3, Jan-Feb/2012 issue not yet posted online) > > >Comment:? It seems appropriate to begin the new year with the words of the >venerable Arnold Relman. Much media attention on reform will be misdirected this >year to implementation of the private-insurance-based Affordable Care Act and to >its challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Relman reminds us that instead we >need to move forward with informing and arousing the public in support of >fundamental reform that actually would bring affordable care to all. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Tue Jan 3 22:02:42 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:02:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <4F03E836.9030400@prodsyse.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> <1325655627.24314.YahooMailRC@web181008.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4F03E836.9030400@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1325656962.71981.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> It might keep them from buying Congress, but it can't keep them from buying the media. ________________________________ From: Spencer Graves To: Caroline Yacoub Cc: John Thielking ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:48:38 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook On 1/3/2012 9:40 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: So Spencer, you don't really believe that the amendment, as it now stands, would hurt small business? I don't have much expertise in the business world, but I can't read it and feel sure about that. ????? I think the net impact will more likely be positive.? Major corporations today provide the money that elect the politicians, who then spend a substantial portion of their time trying to enact verbiage written by lobbyists for their major contributors.? This would not work if a critical mass of the electorate paid directly for serious investigative journalism that would tell them in more detail how this works and would make it clearer to the electorate which candidates would actually legislate in the interest of the bottom 99%.? The business model of the commercial media is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.? The 1% does not what the public to know exactly the many ways in which they get welfare, and they can retaliate against honestly liberal media.? They know they do not need to feed the mouth that bites them.? ????? I'd be surprised if passing that amendment would have an immediate, dramatic effect.? However, it would make it more difficult for the 1% to buy congress and continue the current massive transfers of wealth from the 99% to the 1%.? ????? Spencer Caroline > > > > ________________________________ From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:33:32 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook > >Hi, John, et al.:? > > >?????? It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim that >repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business.? I don't know if that >is what is happening, but I would expect that Citizens United and similar >organizations would be paying people to write messages on Facebook with claims >like, ""SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property >(their domain names and access to their sites) without due process".? Big money >in politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what kinds >of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following that with sample >surveys to pick the strongest of several likely candidates, then (c) circulating >that message in a variety of ways, often concealing the source.? > > > >????? The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary impact on >small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is that it would >deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to increase their wealth and power >at the expense of small businesses.? > > > >????? (more on your Facebook page citing research that social mobility is lower >in the US, where the power of corporations has grown substantially over the past >125 years, than in much of Europe, which reportedly does not have corporate >personhood.)? > > > >????? Spencer Graves > > >On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: >Folks, >> >>I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be of interest to you.? >>Check them out if you like/if you have time. >>Thanks. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>John Thielking >> >>Small Businesses Are People TooA prime example of the contradictions within the >>movement and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is the case of >>the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web >>sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without >>due process (big businesses could merely petition a judge claiming violations of >>copyright and the sites would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a >>hearing could be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement are busy >>protesting this unconstitutional move by Congress, while at the same time >>pushing for passage of MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of >>unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you support rights for >>small businesses or don't you? >> >> >>And >> >>Peacemovies.com >>The final post for 2011: Go to www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html?for a quick >>peek at the possibilities of legally streaming content for "free" that is often >>of higher quality, more original and almost always less violent than the typical >>Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, please donate generously to >>the site that provided the content. Thanks. >>Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Pagewww.peacemovies.com >>non-violent movies, family entertainment >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 3 22:52:38 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:52:38 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <1325656962.71981.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> <1325655627.24314.YahooMailRC@web181008.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4F03E836.9030400@prodsyse.com> <1325656962.71981.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F03F736.3040807@prodsyse.com> On 1/3/2012 10:02 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: > It might keep them from buying Congress, but it can't keep them from > buying the media. Correct. However, if we can get control of congress, we can initiate a new trust busting era like that of Teddy Roosevelt. To get control of congress, a critical mass of the electorate will need to substantially reduce the time they spend with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox. If that seriously starts to happen, the media will be forced to offer more of what the public actually wants in order to retain their dwindling audience: Advertising rates are set based on the size and characteristics of their audience. If the media lose half of the top 10% opinion leaders, it could reduce their revenue by 15%, because that group has on average more money and buys more stuff. :-) Spencer > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Spencer Graves > *To:* Caroline Yacoub > *Cc:* John Thielking ; > "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" > *Sent:* Tue, January 3, 2012 9:48:38 PM > *Subject:* Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook > > On 1/3/2012 9:40 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: >> So Spencer, you don't really believe that the amendment, as it now >> stands, would hurt small business? I don't have much expertise in the >> business world, but I can't read it and feel sure about that. > > > I think the net impact will more likely be positive. Major > corporations today provide the money that elect the politicians, who > then spend a substantial portion of their time trying to enact > verbiage written by lobbyists for their major contributors. This > would not work if a critical mass of the electorate paid directly for > serious investigative journalism that would tell them in more detail > how this works and would make it clearer to the electorate which > candidates would actually legislate in the interest of the bottom > 99%. The business model of the commercial media is selling behavior > change in their audience to advertisers. The 1% does not what the > public to know exactly the many ways in which they get welfare, and > they can retaliate against honestly liberal media. They know they do > not need to feed the mouth that bites them. > > > I'd be surprised if passing that amendment would have an > immediate, dramatic effect. However, it would make it more difficult > for the 1% to buy congress and continue the current massive transfers > of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. > > > Spencer > > >> Caroline >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Spencer Graves >> *To:* John Thielking >> *Cc:* "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >> *Sent:* Tue, January 3, 2012 9:33:32 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook >> >> Hi, John, et al.: >> >> >> It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim >> that repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business. I >> don't know if that is what is happening, but I would expect that >> Citizens United and similar organizations would be paying people to >> write messages on Facebook with claims like, ""SOPA would deprive >> small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names >> and access to their sites) without due process". Big money in >> politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what >> kinds of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following >> that with sample surveys to pick the strongest of several likely >> candidates, then (c) circulating that message in a variety of ways, >> often concealing the source. >> >> >> The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary >> impact on small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is >> that it would deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to >> increase their wealth and power at the expense of small businesses. >> >> >> (more on your Facebook page citing research that social >> mobility is lower in the US, where the power of corporations has >> grown substantially over the past 125 years, than in much of Europe, >> which reportedly does not have corporate personhood.) >> >> >> Spencer Graves >> >> >> On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: >>> >>> >>> Folks, >>> I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be >>> of interest to you. Check them out if you like/if you >>> have time. >>> Thanks. >>> Sincerely, >>> John Thielking >>> Small Businesses Are People Too >>> >>> >>> >>> A prime example of the contradictions within the >>> movement and the need to think over carefully the MTA >>> Section 1 is the case of the Stop Online Piracy Act >>> (SOPA). SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web >>> sites) of their property (their domain names and access >>> to their sites) without due process (big businesses >>> could merely petition a judge claiming violations of >>> copyright and the sites would be shut down for a minimum >>> of 5 days before a hearing could be held to present >>> evidence). Some in the Occupy movement are busy >>> protesting this unconstitutional move by Congress, while >>> at the same time pushing for passage of MTA Section 1 >>> which would make their claims of unconstitutionality of >>> SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you support rights for >>> small businesses or don't you? >>> >>> And >>> >>> >>> Peacemovies.com >>> >>> >>> >>> The final post for 2011: Go to >>> www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html >>> for a >>> quick peek at the possibilities of legally streaming >>> content for "free" that is often of higher quality, more >>> original and almost always less violent than the typical >>> Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, >>> please donate generously to the site that provided the >>> content. Thanks. >>> >>> Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Page >>> >>> www.peacemovies.com >>> non-violent movies, family entertainment >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Jan 3 23:14:31 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 23:14:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <1325656962.71981.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> <1325655627.24314.YahooMailRC@web181008.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4F03E836.9030400@prodsyse.com> <1325656962.71981.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325661271.42410.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In discussing the proposed MTA?amendment with my room mate we kind of concluded that big corps that sell stock are not people, but private companies should be given more rights, as they?now have under the present system.? I've decided therefore to try to come up with amendment language that would target the top 2% of corps, namely those that sell stock.? This also goes along with a proposal that a person named Andrew suggested to me on the train going back from SLO to SJ after Xmas.? He mentioned to me that he is going to start a nonprofit that will organize small investor stockholders into voting blocks to present proposals at stockholder meetings.?I'm waiting for Andrew to finish writing his proposal before discussing this too much further. ? My amendment language might say something like: "Artificial entities [that sell?shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the?people in a manner to be determined by the?people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution?can be?used by artificial entities [that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' collective responsibility to the people.? In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the?people that is mandated to be disclosed?by legislation enacted by the?people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures."? ? This last clause could be called the "label it?clause"? to cover GMO's, chemical ingredients, etc as well as mandates of disclosures of news sources and funding sources for commercials.? The different uses of "people" and?"public" are intentional and not interchangeable.? ? If you want, you could even eliminate the "sell shares" parts and make it apply to all artificial entities without offending my sensibilities regarding the rights of small businesses.?I have put the "sell shares" parts above in brackets to more clearly deliniate the possibilities here. ?The need to be accountable would necessarily be much smaller for smaller businesses (except for those spewing lead emissions or something like that) and so the rights of small artificial entities would not be excessively trampled upon by using such language.? ? Try that one on for size.? Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking? ? I will also post this to Facebook. From: Caroline Yacoub To: Spencer Graves Cc: John Thielking ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook It might keep them from buying Congress, but it can't keep them from buying the media. From: Spencer Graves To: Caroline Yacoub Cc: John Thielking ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:48:38 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook On 1/3/2012 9:40 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: So Spencer, you don't really believe that the amendment, as it now stands, would hurt small business? I don't have much expertise in the business world, but I can't read it and feel sure about that. ????? I think the net impact will more likely be positive.? Major corporations today provide the money that elect the politicians, who then spend a substantial portion of their time trying to enact verbiage written by lobbyists for their major contributors.? This would not work if a critical mass of the electorate paid directly for serious investigative journalism that would tell them in more detail how this works and would make it clearer to the electorate which candidates would actually legislate in the interest of the bottom 99%.? The business model of the commercial media is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.? The 1% does not what the public to know exactly the many ways in which they get welfare, and they can retaliate against honestly liberal media.? They know they do not need to feed the mouth that bites them.? ????? I'd be surprised if passing that amendment would have an immediate, dramatic effect.? However, it would make it more difficult for the 1% to buy congress and continue the current massive transfers of wealth from the 99% to the 1%.? ????? Spencer Caroline > > > >From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:33:32 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook > >Hi, John, et al.:? > > >?????? It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim that repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business.? I don't know if that is what is happening, but I would expect that Citizens United and similar organizations would be paying people to write messages on Facebook with claims like, ""SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process".? Big money in politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what kinds of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following that with sample surveys to pick the strongest of several likely candidates, then (c) circulating that message in a variety of ways, often concealing the source.? > > >????? The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary impact on small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is that it would deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to increase their wealth and power at the expense of small businesses.? > > >????? (more on your Facebook page citing research that social mobility is lower in the US, where the power of corporations has grown substantially over the past 125 years, than in much of Europe, which reportedly does not have corporate personhood.)? > > >????? Spencer Graves > > >On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: >Folks, >> >>I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be of interest to you.? Check them out if you like/if you have time. >>Thanks. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>John Thielking >> >>Small Businesses Are People TooA prime example of the contradictions within the movement and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is the case of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process (big businesses could merely petition a judge claiming violations of copyright and the sites would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a hearing could be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement are busy protesting this unconstitutional move by Congress, while at the same time pushing for passage of MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you support rights for small businesses or don't you? >> >> >>And >> >>Peacemovies.com >>The final post for 2011: Go to www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html?for a quick peek at the possibilities of legally streaming content for "free" that is often of higher quality, more original and almost always less violent than the typical Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, please donate generously to the site that provided the content. Thanks. >>Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Pagewww.peacemovies.com >>non-violent movies, family entertainment >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ 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 Jan 4 08:17:53 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:17:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <1325661271.42410.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> <1325655627.24314.YahooMailRC@web181008.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4F03E836.9030400@prodsyse.com> <1325656962.71981.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1325661271.42410.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325693873.8486.YahooMailNeo@web111109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Spencer (and anyone else posting long comments to Facebook), ? I did not see the long list of references that you claimed you posted to Facebook. I have found that the Facebook software often automatically deletes comments that are entirely copy and pasted from somewhere else, such as when you spell check a long essay in Word and then copy-paste it into the Facebook comments interface.? The workarround for this "feature" of Facebook is to paste your comment into the interface and then add a small amount of original typing before and after the pasted part of your comment.?Then hit enter to cause your whole comment to post. ?The format looks like this: "original typing, pasted content, original typing".? This appears to be a "feature" of Facebook that allows quoting someone within an original comment but excludes people who post the same spam posting over and over. I hope this helps.? Keep on plugging away at this. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: John Thielking To: Caroline Yacoub ; Spencer Graves Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In discussing the proposed MTA?amendment with my room mate we kind of concluded that big corps that sell stock are not people, but private companies should be given more rights, as they?now have under the present system.? I've decided therefore to try to come up with amendment language that would target the top 2% of corps, namely those that sell stock.? This also goes along with a proposal that a person named Andrew suggested to me on the train going back from SLO to SJ after Xmas.? He mentioned to me that he is going to start a nonprofit that will organize small investor stockholders into voting blocks to present proposals at stockholder meetings.?I'm waiting for Andrew to finish writing his proposal before discussing this too much further. ? My amendment language might say something like: "Artificial entities [that sell?shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the?people in a manner to be determined by the?people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution?can be?used by artificial entities [that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' collective responsibility to the people.? In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the?people that is mandated to be disclosed?by legislation enacted by the?people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures."? This last clause could be called the "label it?clause"? to cover GMO's, chemical ingredients, etc as well as mandates of disclosures of news sources and funding sources for commercials.? The different uses of "people" and?"public" are intentional and not interchangeable.? If you want, you could even eliminate the "sell shares" parts and make it apply to all artificial entities without offending my sensibilities regarding the rights of small businesses.?I have put the "sell shares" parts above in brackets to more clearly deliniate the possibilities here. ?The need to be accountable would necessarily be much smaller for smaller businesses (except for those spewing lead emissions or something like that) and so the rights of small artificial entities would not be excessively trampled upon by using such language.? Try that one on for size.? Thanks. Sincerely, John Thielking? I will also post this to Facebook. From: Caroline Yacoub To: Spencer Graves Cc: John Thielking ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook It might keep them from buying Congress, but it can't keep them from buying the media. From: Spencer Graves To: Caroline Yacoub Cc: John Thielking ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:48:38 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook On 1/3/2012 9:40 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: So Spencer, you don't really believe that the amendment, as it now stands, would hurt small business? I don't have much expertise in the business world, but I can't read it and feel sure about that. ????? I think the net impact will more likely be positive.? Major corporations today provide the money that elect the politicians, who then spend a substantial portion of their time trying to enact verbiage written by lobbyists for their major contributors.? This would not work if a critical mass of the electorate paid directly for serious investigative journalism that would tell them in more detail how this works and would make it clearer to the electorate which candidates would actually legislate in the interest of the bottom 99%.? The business model of the commercial media is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.? The 1% does not what the public to know exactly the many ways in which they get welfare, and they can retaliate against honestly liberal media.? They know they do not need to feed the mouth that bites them.? ????? I'd be surprised if passing that amendment would have an immediate, dramatic effect.? However, it would make it more difficult for the 1% to buy congress and continue the current massive transfers of wealth from the 99% to the 1%.? ????? Spencer Caroline > > > >From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:33:32 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook > >Hi, John, et al.:? > > >?????? It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim that repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business.? I don't know if that is what is happening, but I would expect that Citizens United and similar organizations would be paying people to write messages on Facebook with claims like, ""SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process".? Big money in politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what kinds of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following that with sample surveys to pick the strongest of several likely candidates, then (c) circulating that message in a variety of ways, often concealing the source.? > > >????? The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary impact on small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is that it would deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to increase their wealth and power at the expense of small businesses.? > > >????? (more on your Facebook page citing research that social mobility is lower in the US, where the power of corporations has grown substantially over the past 125 years, than in much of Europe, which reportedly does not have corporate personhood.)? > > >????? Spencer Graves > > >On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: >Folks, >> >>I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be of interest to you.? Check them out if you like/if you have time. >>Thanks. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>John Thielking >> >>Small Businesses Are People TooA prime example of the contradictions within the movement and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is the case of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process (big businesses could merely petition a judge claiming violations of copyright and the sites would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a hearing could be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement are busy protesting this unconstitutional move by Congress, while at the same time pushing for passage of MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you support rights for small businesses or don't you? >> >> >>And >> >>Peacemovies.com >>The final post for 2011: Go to www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html?for a quick peek at the possibilities of legally streaming content for "free" that is often of higher quality, more original and almost always less violent than the typical Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, please donate generously to the site that provided the content. Thanks. >>Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Pagewww.peacemovies.com >>non-violent movies, family entertainment >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ 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 pagesincolor at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 09:29:20 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:29:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In-Reply-To: <1325693873.8486.YahooMailNeo@web111109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <2c2de.7c3690dc.3c3284f6@aol.com> <1325609077.71552.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F03E4AC.7060604@prodsyse.com> <1325655627.24314.YahooMailRC@web181008.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4F03E836.9030400@prodsyse.com> <1325656962.71981.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1325661271.42410.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1325693873.8486.YahooMailNeo@web111109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325698160.10546.YahooMailNeo@web111114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Below is the complete draft amendment that I am proposing.? Sections 2 is identical to and Section 3 is almost?identical to the MTA amendment, located here: http://movetoamend.org/amendment ? ? Section 1: Artificial entities [that sell shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the people in a manner to be determined by the people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution can be used by artificial entities [that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' collective and individual accountabilities to the people and requirements of service to the people. In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the people that is mandated to be disclosed by legislation enacted by the people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures. ? 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 positive freedom of the press, though the freedom to not speak is limited by Section 1 and Section 2. ? ? Happy reading. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: John Thielking To: John Thielking ; Caroline Yacoub ; Spencer Graves Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook Spencer (and anyone else posting long comments to Facebook), ? I did not see the long list of references that you claimed you posted to Facebook. I have found that the Facebook software often automatically deletes comments that are entirely copy and pasted from somewhere else, such as when you spell check a long essay in Word and then copy-paste it into the Facebook comments interface.? The workarround for this "feature" of Facebook is to paste your comment into the interface and then add a small amount of original typing before and after the pasted part of your comment.?Then hit enter to cause your whole comment to post. ?The format looks like this: "original typing, pasted content, original typing".? This appears to be a "feature" of Facebook that allows quoting someone within an original comment but excludes people who post the same spam posting over and over. I hope this helps.? Keep on plugging away at this. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: John Thielking To: Caroline Yacoub ; Spencer Graves Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook In discussing the proposed MTA?amendment with my room mate we kind of concluded that big corps that sell stock are not people, but private companies should be given more rights, as they?now have under the present system.? I've decided therefore to try to come up with amendment language that would target the top 2% of corps, namely those that sell stock.? This also goes along with a proposal that a person named Andrew suggested to me on the train going back from SLO to SJ after Xmas.? He mentioned to me that he is going to start a nonprofit that will organize small investor stockholders into voting blocks to present proposals at stockholder meetings.?I'm waiting for Andrew to finish writing his proposal before discussing this too much further. ? My amendment language might say something like: "Artificial entities [that sell?shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the?people in a manner to be determined by the?people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution?can be?used by artificial entities [that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' collective responsibility to the people.? In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the?people that is mandated to be disclosed?by legislation enacted by the?people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures."? This last clause could be called the "label it?clause"? to cover GMO's, chemical ingredients, etc as well as mandates of disclosures of news sources and funding sources for commercials.? The different uses of "people" and?"public" are intentional and not interchangeable.? If you want, you could even eliminate the "sell shares" parts and make it apply to all artificial entities without offending my sensibilities regarding the rights of small businesses.?I have put the "sell shares" parts above in brackets to more clearly deliniate the possibilities here. ?The need to be accountable would necessarily be much smaller for smaller businesses (except for those spewing lead emissions or something like that) and so the rights of small artificial entities would not be excessively trampled upon by using such language.? Try that one on for size.? Thanks. Sincerely, John Thielking? I will also post this to Facebook. From: Caroline Yacoub To: Spencer Graves Cc: John Thielking ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook It might keep them from buying Congress, but it can't keep them from buying the media. From: Spencer Graves To: Caroline Yacoub Cc: John Thielking ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:48:38 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook On 1/3/2012 9:40 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: So Spencer, you don't really believe that the amendment, as it now stands, would hurt small business? I don't have much expertise in the business world, but I can't read it and feel sure about that. ????? I think the net impact will more likely be positive.? Major corporations today provide the money that elect the politicians, who then spend a substantial portion of their time trying to enact verbiage written by lobbyists for their major contributors.? This would not work if a critical mass of the electorate paid directly for serious investigative journalism that would tell them in more detail how this works and would make it clearer to the electorate which candidates would actually legislate in the interest of the bottom 99%.? The business model of the commercial media is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.? The 1% does not what the public to know exactly the many ways in which they get welfare, and they can retaliate against honestly liberal media.? They know they do not need to feed the mouth that bites them.? ????? I'd be surprised if passing that amendment would have an immediate, dramatic effect.? However, it would make it more difficult for the 1% to buy congress and continue the current massive transfers of wealth from the 99% to the 1%.? ????? Spencer Caroline > > > >From: Spencer Graves >To: John Thielking >Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" >Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:33:32 PM >Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook > >Hi, John, et al.:? > > >?????? It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim that repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business.? I don't know if that is what is happening, but I would expect that Citizens United and similar organizations would be paying people to write messages on Facebook with claims like, ""SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process".? Big money in politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what kinds of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following that with sample surveys to pick the strongest of several likely candidates, then (c) circulating that message in a variety of ways, often concealing the source.? > > >????? The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary impact on small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is that it would deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to increase their wealth and power at the expense of small businesses.? > > >????? (more on your Facebook page citing research that social mobility is lower in the US, where the power of corporations has grown substantially over the past 125 years, than in much of Europe, which reportedly does not have corporate personhood.)? > > >????? Spencer Graves > > >On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: >Folks, >> >>I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be of interest to you.? Check them out if you like/if you have time. >>Thanks. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>John Thielking >> >>Small Businesses Are People TooA prime example of the contradictions within the movement and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is the case of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without due process (big businesses could merely petition a judge claiming violations of copyright and the sites would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a hearing could be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement are busy protesting this unconstitutional move by Congress, while at the same time pushing for passage of MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you support rights for small businesses or don't you? >> >> >>And >> >>Peacemovies.com >>The final post for 2011: Go to www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html?for a quick peek at the possibilities of legally streaming content for "free" that is often of higher quality, more original and almost always less violent than the typical Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, please donate generously to the site that provided the content. Thanks. >>Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Pagewww.peacemovies.com >>non-violent movies, family entertainment >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ 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 Jan 4 10:19:58 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:19:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook Message-ID: <1325701198.68561.androidMobile@web111415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Regulation and accountability for corporations yes.? Applying natural 'inalienable' rights to artificial nonhuman entities absolutely not. Alienable rights means regulatability by and accountability to government. Green is nature! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Wed Jan 4 16:41:03 2012 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:41:03 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: [SC-SM] Fwd: GPCA Fiscal Policy [was re Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda...] In-Reply-To: <4F04EF65.2050907@greens.org> References: <4F04EF65.2050907@greens.org> Message-ID: <4F04F19F.7050302@greens.org> This is in response to Warner's 1/1/12 message to this list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [SC-SM] Fwd: GPCA Fiscal Policy [was re Th. 15th Meeting / Party Draft Agenda...] Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:31:33 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer To: sc-sm at cagreens.org Warner - I'm afraid your dismissive comments don't even begin to address my concerns about this poorly written and ill conceived fiscal policy. And this is the same reception I got when raising these concerns at the GA. I believe the response to my question about who wrote this was that Mike F wrote the first draft and sent it to some finance committee in Humboldt for review. So the first problem is, this policy does not apply to the people who wrote and submitted the final draft. This policy applies to the party officers (including committee coordinators) of the GPCA, it does not apply to Humboldt or any other county. Meanwhile, the people to whom this does apply, the stakeholders in the GPCA, where never offered an opportunity to contribute to its creation nor offered an opportunity to review it. Mike's response to that was that it's in the agenda packet for anyone to review. That's a very poor rationalization. We have communication channels set up just for the purpose of communicating with party officers. When public policy is discussed in our platform we're always advocating for inclusion of the stakeholder in its creation. But we don't apply this principle to our internal policies? The document is poorly written. I'm a professional writer and I have two decades of experience writing policies for the GPCA. This one handles bylaws quotes improperly and erroneously uses the same numbering scheme as the bylaws. Both of these will cause confusion with the myriad of question that are bound to arise when trying to apply this thing. What parts of this proposal were pre-existing policies that didn't need GA approval and which were new concepts that did? That needs to be specified in any proposal that has this mix. The objectionable parts I find in this policy are the hyper-detailed accounting requirements being levied on a group of volunteers who don't necessarily have an accounting background. For example, now a committee's budget must be accounted at the project line item level. Before, a committee had a pot of money that they estimated would be distributed among their list of projects. If one project doesn't take off, it's funds could be used on the other projects if they ended up needing more funds. Now, any committee will have to go through a re-budgeting process if they find they need to use their funds in different proportions than they originally proposed. This is not an improvement, nor does it solve any known problem. It just creates more work and more bureaucracy for committee coordinators. I'll also point out that our state treasurer, Jeanne Rosenmeier, was in line behind me with her list of concerns about this proposal. Jeanne has a lot of experience with fiscal policies and agreed with me in private that this was a poor one. Are you as dismissive of Jeanne's concerns as you are with mine? Warner, your statement, "Some may consider such procedures unnecessary. Others may believe it is a benefit to have a clear statement on the included subjects." misses the point entirely and ascribes motives that are only conjecture. There are right and wrong was to go about authoring such policies, and this one was more about Mike's ego than any need of the GPCA. I also take exception with your conclusion about why the GA delegates accepted this thing. This was a low-attendance GA with only 36 delegates present for this proposal, and 29 voted in favor of it. This was an LA meeting. When have we ever had an LA meeting that wasn't dominated by Mike and his followers. No one I know went to this meeting thinking it would be anything but another Feinstein romp for getting his pet projects adopted as party policy. Is this news to you? Jim On 1/1/2012 11:24 PM, WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com wrote: > January 1, 2012 Below is an email that I wrote tonight to the GPSCC general > discussion email list. I am reposting it here because my comments may be of > interest to the GPSMC County Council members on this email list. Warner > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: WB4D23 at aol.com > To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: 1/1/2012 7:56:38 P.M. Pacific > Standard Time Subj: GPCA Fiscal Policy [was re Th. 15th Meeting / Party > Draft Agenda...] January 1, 2012 Folks! I am writing to disagree with a few > things that Jim Stauffer wrote about the Fiscal Policy that was adopted at > the Los Angeles General Assembly in December 2011. As was noted at the > Plenary in response to Jim's question of "who wrote this?", Dana Silvernale > wrote the initial proposal text. Dana (Humboldt County GP) has been on the > GPUS Delegation for a number of years. The GPUS has a fiscal policy > somewhat similar to what she produced and apparently served as a model for > the proposal (with some modifications). Some may consider such procedures > unnecessary. Others may believe it is a benefit to have a clear statement > on the included subjects. Since it was adopted by the Plenary Delegates, it > would seem the larger group of County GP representatives agreed with the > latter perspective. Ordinarily, the Finance Committee would have been the > group to receive the proposal for initial review. However, that committee > has mostly been inactive since June 2011. That situation is getting better > since the CC has appointed some additional members to the FC. However, > under the circumstances, the GPCA Coordinating Committee agreed the > proposal should go to the GA and approved the CC as sponsor. I suggest > people go to the GPCA webpage and use the "Party" button to find it (either > under procedures or Finance Committee, maybe). Or go to the Plenary page > and find the proposal in the agenda. Write me privately if you can't find > it. My view is that there is nothing wrong with the contents. If someone > sees something troublesome, post your concerns to this list and we all can > discuss whether some kind of amendment should be submitted to the Finance > Committee for its review. Warner In a message dated 12/20/2011 12:53:26 > P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jims at greens.org writes: > > The fiscal policy passed with just a few of us voicing objections about > its necessity, accuracy and the bizarre way it became a proposal. > > > > _______________________________________________ sc-sm mailing list > sc-sm at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-sm From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Fri Jan 6 13:25:36 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:25:36 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Marsha Feinland for US Senate? Message-ID: <4F0766D0.6020007@prodsyse.com> Are the Greens likely to propose someone to run against Feinstein this year? If "no" (and probably even if "yes"), I suggest we consider helping Marsha Feinland collect signatures required to reduce her fees for filing to run. Feinland is a member of the Peace and Freedom party. If you are interested, I encourage you to find her web site (I found it Googling for "Marsha Feinland") and send her an email asking whether and how you can sign -- and maybe get petitions to circulate and mail to her office. I signed a petition for her Wednesday night but I so far have not done more than that. 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 cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Fri Jan 6 15:54:51 2012 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:54:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Marsha Feinland for US Senate? Message-ID: <20120106235451.EE73A6A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> The P&F Party strategy is to fill the ballot with names as much as possible. In years past, when I was more active, I sometimes contacted local P&F candidates. I never found one who was running a serious campaign, even by Green Party standards. In most cases, they'd been recruited by the perennial Party leadership, and agreed to passively let their names be used. (That's the deal we had with Nader in '96. Did you even know Ralph Nader "ran" for President in '96? Passive candidacy doesn't work.) Two of them told me they'd reconsidered, but couldn't figure out how to withdraw. Volunteer if you like, but be aware that P&F "candidacy" means something different than you might expect. -Cameron From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Fri Jan 6 16:15:04 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:15:04 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Marsha Feinland for US Senate? In-Reply-To: <20120106235451.EE73A6A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> References: <20120106235451.EE73A6A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> Message-ID: <4F078E88.9000405@prodsyse.com> Hi, Cameron: Thanks for the input. She has a web site, though not much. Someone presented me with a petition asking for signatures for her, explaining that any signatures they collect would reduce her filing fees. When I heard she was P&F, I signed. Spencer On 1/6/2012 3:54 PM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > The P&F Party strategy is to fill the ballot with names > as much as possible. In years past, when I was more active, > I sometimes contacted local P&F candidates. I never found > one who was running a serious campaign, even by Green Party > standards. In most cases, they'd been recruited by the > perennial Party leadership, and agreed to passively let > their names be used. (That's the deal we had with Nader > in '96. Did you even know Ralph Nader "ran" for President > in '96? Passive candidacy doesn't work.) Two of them told > me they'd reconsidered, but couldn't figure out how to withdraw. > > Volunteer if you like, but be aware that P&F "candidacy" > means something different than you might expect. > > -Cameron > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 16:21:39 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 16:21:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Marsha Feinland for US Senate? Message-ID: <1325895699.30279.androidMobile@web111408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I've talked to her a bit - she's a good upstanding citizen IMO and a perennial P&F candidate. It's a shame the P&F party is so inactive.? I'd like it if the Greens really had some lefty competition. Green is now! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Fri Jan 6 17:46:21 2012 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:46:21 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Marsha Feinland for US Senate? In-Reply-To: <20120106235451.EE73A6A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> References: <20120106235451.EE73A6A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> Message-ID: <4F07A3ED.3070906@greens.org> Also, Marsha runs in every election, so there's nothing unique or special about this one. Is she really going to run a serious campaign this time? Do we want to support a socialist? Jim On 1/6/2012 3:54 PM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > > The P&F Party strategy is to fill the ballot with names > as much as possible. In years past, when I was more active, > I sometimes contacted local P&F candidates. I never found > one who was running a serious campaign, even by Green Party > standards. In most cases, they'd been recruited by the > perennial Party leadership, and agreed to passively let > their names be used. (That's the deal we had with Nader > in '96. Did you even know Ralph Nader "ran" for President > in '96? Passive candidacy doesn't work.) Two of them told > me they'd reconsidered, but couldn't figure out how to withdraw. > > Volunteer if you like, but be aware that P&F "candidacy" > means something different than you might expect. > > -Cameron > > > _______________________________________________ > sosfbay-discuss mailing list > sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss > From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 22:25:56 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 22:25:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD In-Reply-To: <1325917265.18213.YahooMailNeo@web111104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1325917265.18213.YahooMailNeo@web111104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325917556.91031.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Ok one more time.? This time the pdf file will be sent all by itself in a separate message so I don't go over the 80k limit.? How a few lines of text can take up 30k is a mystery to me. From: John Thielking To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 10:21 PM Subject: Re: ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Let's try this again.? My previous attempt was over the 80k limit for messages.? For some reason the pdf version of my flier is 69k while the .doc version is only 25k. Richard and all, ? Please use the attached pdf, not the .doc file if you decide to circulate my flier.? Thanks. ? John Thielking ? PS Please call Oakland mayor Jean Quan to complain about the ill treatment of Occupy Oakland protesters at the hands of OPD in the last few days.? For background on this, check out the archives of Flashpoints from Wed and Thurs of this week at www.kpfa.org. I called the Oakland mayor's office number this AM (510-444-2489) and unfortunately I was able to get through to a live operator with no problem.? In a just and sane world, this phone line should be jammed! Of the tv news that I watched last night, only ch 7 at 9pm carried an extensive report on this, virtually identical to the kpfa report.? Shame! From: John Thielking To: Richard Hobbs Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 8:38 AM Subject: Re: ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD ? Richard, ? I am holding off on endorsing the rally/rallies.? The Santa Clara County Green Party voted to endorse the rally for Jan 20th, but I officially "stood asside" when they "reached consensus". Please see the attached file for a copy of the flier that I am currently circulating.? My room mate also agrees with this flier and I have a total of 6 people who I know personally who agree with my general position on Move To Amend (I don't know all of their views about my flier yet).? I personally know of many fewer people than that who are willing to debate me from the other side. Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 22:33:25 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 22:33:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD In-Reply-To: <1325917629.87974.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1325917265.18213.YahooMailNeo@web111104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1325917556.91031.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1325917629.87974.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325918005.15264.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ?For some reason the discuss system reads a 69k file as having 95k, which is over the limit.? So I have pasted the contents of the .doc file below. ? John Thielking ? ? From: John Thielking To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 10:27 PM Subject: Re: ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD See the attached flier. But Wait! Small Businesses Are People Too! (and deserve their currently existing, limited 4thamendment and 14thamendment protections) Or do they? Occupy San Jose and Move To Amend currently have a feel good and no-specific-language-endorsed rally planned for Friday, Jan 20th from 12pm to 1:30PM at St James Park in downtown San Jose, CA to kick off their campaign to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision commonly referred to as Citizens United that allows Super PACS to spend unlimited amounts of corporate donated money on behalf of or against candidates for political office and for or against ballot measures. That part is fine. What I have a problem with is that without endorsing specific language for a constitutional amendment, their feel good rally will also be endorsing the idea of ?abolishing corporate personhood?. Indeed, the rally itself is located across from the very courthouse where a decision was handed down in the late 1800's that was misquoted in the court records and haphazardly established that corporations are people under the constitution of the US, at least in a fairly limited sense. The problem arises when you examine the specific language of the proposed amendment to abolish corporate personhood and think carefully about how this might impact your life as a small business owner. If you run your business out of your house, will the cops be able to break into your house without a warrant and have that search stand up in court later if they were ?only? searching for business related items? Can your property, of which only your LLC has title to, be taken arbitrarily without just compensation? These concerns are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to explaining the potential problems with the proposed amendment, which is listed in full below and which can be accessed in its current form by visiting: http://movetoamend.org/amendment Move to Amend 28th Amendment Section 1 [A corporation is not 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. As an alternative to the MTA proposed amendment, I have come up with the following language, which in the spirit of the Occupy movement targets only the top 2% of corporations, which often pay fewer taxes than the bottom 98% of corporations, and which also issue stock to members of the public. Note that some people object to letting privately held corporations off the hook, so if you take out the parts [enclosed in brackets] the amendment language can be modified to make all corporations equally accountable to the people regardless of weather or not they issue stock to the public. Having additional responsibilities imposed, instead of taking rights away, is a better approach because responsibilities necessarily increase with the scale/size of the corporation being regulated and hence the very smallest businesses will escape from the additional burden of this amendment largely unscathed, while the excesses of the big boys will be effectively reigned in. Most importantly, the current 4th and 14th amendment protections and precedents established for businesses of all sizes under the current form of the US Constitution are not overturned by this amendment language. Section 1: Artificial entities [that sell shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the people in a manner to be determined by the people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution can be used by artificial entities[that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' being held collectively and individually accountable to the people or against the requirements of their service to the people. In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the people that is mandated to be disclosed by legislation enacted by the people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures. 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 positive freedom of the press, though the freedom to not speak is limited by Section 1 and Section 2. Further discussion of these issues may be had be e-mailing John Thielking at pagesincolor at yahoo.comor by visiting John's Community Page on Facebook, titled: ?Small Businesses Are People Too?. John also has a second Community Page on Facebook called Peacemovies.com, that discusses where you can find reviews of the latest nonviolent movies in theaters and where you can find out how to legally stream non-Hollywood and mostly nonviolent content over the web for free. Or you can find out about this directly by visiting http://www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html. Flier paid for by Peacemovies.com and distributed by a volunteer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 00:51:45 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 00:51:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Re: ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Message-ID: <1325926305.80068.androidMobile@web111414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> See response below -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 01:00:44 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 01:00:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Message-ID: <1325926844.84455.androidMobile@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> By the way John, you'll recall we already endorsed the rally (at the December meeting), and in case you weren't aware we've already endorsed MTA the organization some months back. And in case you weren't aware we've already endorsed MTA the organization some months back. And BTW I'm sorry but IMO small businesses aren't "people" as your Facebook page asserts any more than any other artificial entity is a person. That's just common sense. That's why we endorsed the organization and the rally. Artificial entities have a chokehold on the planet right now and unless we end their oppression quickly, humynity and all higher life forms are severely endangered. Green is humyn and natural! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 01:08:44 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 01:08:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Message-ID: <1325927324.77079.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John, since I don't see other Greens sharing your concerns about Move To Amend I'm wondering if you'd be willing to discontinue this particular discussion on this particular email list so that we can focus on more consensually based Green Party topics? Green is occupying the ballot! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 09:48:27 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:48:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD In-Reply-To: <1325927324.77079.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1325927324.77079.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325958507.35459.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Will I stop talking about this here? Not likely.?I have one more major anouncement scheduled for Sunday (or a little later)?when Andrew will have released his proposal about?organizing stockholders into voting blocks. After that I will probably pipe down for awhile. ?I know of one other person who reads these comments of mine on this thread and shares my concerns, but isn't responding to the group.? If anything that one person is concerned about why there isn't a broader debate on here about this.? In my view, ultimately what we are dealing with here is a deeply ingrained American Exceptionalism.? It used to be called racism, when we were dealing with Whites' Exeptionalism towards Blacks.? It also rears it's ugly head when Occupy butts heads with the cops and most often Occupy is on the losing end. What I am proposing with this is that we get away from American Exceptionalism, where I or you have special rights but no one else does, and move towards a place where we add positive values to our discourse and to our constitution instead of taking away rights or priveledges from certain classes. As long as we are taking away rights from certain entities, we have no moral ground left to stand on when they come for us and wish to haul us away to a concentration camp.? They are just doing to us what we trained them to do.? We need to start training them to do something else and do it quick before we all "hang" either litterally or figuratively, together or separately.? I am guilty of this too.? If it weren't for my own Exceptionalism, I would have left out the parts of my amendment proposal in brackets.? So there you go. I did get one Occupy member (out of the two who were there yesterday) to look at my flier.? Her intial reaction was that my proposal does sound more fair than MTA's amendment and she will research it a bit more (looking at the original Santa Clara County court decision as well as Citizen's United) and get back to me.? So there you have it Drew.? You should be happy that I didn't throw my weight arround and block the endorsement of MTA or the rally in the first place and just let the rest go.? That's what is fair and democratic (er I mean Green), not asking me to shut up.? Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: Drew To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org" ; "rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com" Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 1:08 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD John, since I don't see other Greens sharing your concerns about Move To Amend I'm wondering if you'd be willing to discontinue this particular discussion on this particular email list so that we can focus on more consensually based Green Party topics? Green is occupying the ballot! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Drew ; To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2012 9:00:44 AM By the way John, you'll recall we already endorsed the rally (at the December meeting), and in case you weren't aware we've already endorsed MTA the organization some months back. And in case you weren't aware we've already endorsed MTA the organization some months back. And BTW I'm sorry but IMO small businesses aren't "people" as your Facebook page asserts any more than any other artificial entity is a person. That's just common sense. That's why we endorsed the organization and the rally. Artificial entities have a chokehold on the planet right now and unless we end their oppression quickly, humynity and all higher life forms are severely endangered. Green is humyn and natural! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: John Thielking ; To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2012 6:33:25 AM ?For some reason the discuss system reads a 69k file as having 95k, which is over the limit.? So I have pasted the contents of the .doc file below. ? John Thielking ? ? From: John Thielking To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 10:27 PM Subject: Re: ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD See the attached flier. But Wait! Small Businesses Are People Too! (and deserve their currently existing, limited 4thamendment and 14thamendment protections) Or do they? Occupy San Jose and Move To Amend currently have a feel good and no-specific-language-endorsed rally planned for Friday, Jan 20th from 12pm to 1:30PM at St James Park in downtown San Jose, CA to kick off their campaign to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision commonly referred to as Citizens United that allows Super PACS to spend unlimited amounts of corporate donated money on behalf of or against candidates for political office and for or against ballot measures. That part is fine. What I have a problem with is that without endorsing specific language for a constitutional amendment, their feel good rally will also be endorsing the idea of ?abolishing corporate personhood?. Indeed, the rally itself is located across from the very courthouse where a decision was handed down in the late 1800's that was misquoted in the court records and haphazardly established that corporations are people under the constitution of the US, at least in a fairly limited sense. The problem arises when you examine the specific language of the proposed amendment to abolish corporate personhood and think carefully about how this might impact your life as a small business owner. If you run your business out of your house, will the cops be able to break into your house without a warrant and have that search stand up in court later if they were ?only? searching for business related items? Can your property, of which only your LLC has title to, be taken arbitrarily without just compensation? These concerns are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to explaining the potential problems with the proposed amendment, which is listed in full below and which can be accessed in its current form by visiting: http://movetoamend.org/amendment Move to Amend 28th Amendment Section 1 [A corporation is not 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. As an alternative to the MTA proposed amendment, I have come up with the following language, which in the spirit of the Occupy movement targets only the top 2% of corporations, which often pay fewer taxes than the bottom 98% of corporations, and which also issue stock to members of the public. Note that some people object to letting privately held corporations off the hook, so if you take out the parts [enclosed in brackets] the amendment language can be modified to make all corporations equally accountable to the people regardless of weather or not they issue stock to the public. Having additional responsibilities imposed, instead of taking rights away, is a better approach because responsibilities necessarily increase with the scale/size of the corporation being regulated and hence the very smallest businesses will escape from the additional burden of this amendment largely unscathed, while the excesses of the big boys will be effectively reigned in. Most importantly, the current 4th and 14th amendment protections and precedents established for businesses of all sizes under the current form of the US Constitution are not overturned by this amendment language. Section 1: Artificial entities [that sell shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the people in a manner to be determined by the people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution can be used by artificial entities[that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' being held collectively and individually accountable to the people or against the requirements of their service to the people. In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the people that is mandated to be disclosed by legislation enacted by the people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures. 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 positive freedom of the press, though the freedom to not speak is limited by Section 1 and Section 2. Further discussion of these issues may be had be e-mailing John Thielking at pagesincolor at yahoo.comor by visiting John's Community Page on Facebook, titled: ?Small Businesses Are People Too?. John also has a second Community Page on Facebook called Peacemovies.com, that discusses where you can find reviews of the latest nonviolent movies in theaters and where you can find out how to legally stream non-Hollywood and mostly nonviolent content over the web for free. Or you can find out about this directly by visiting http://www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html. Flier paid for by Peacemovies.com and distributed by a volunteer. _______________________________________________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 Sat Jan 7 12:14:14 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:14:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD In-Reply-To: <1325958507.35459.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1325927324.77079.androidMobile@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1325958507.35459.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325967254.1146.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> One more little quibble and then I will shut up for today.? I just now realized that the economics of political campaigns, at least in was it (Iowa?) that we just witnessed where it is estimated that Super Pacs spent something like $200 per voter to get people to vote one way or the other, this just doesn't make economic sense anymore.? For $200 per voter, you could afford to send campaign workers paid $20 per hour from each of 10 campaigns to sit in each individual voter's living room for an hour and have a full on debate. This isn't about debates anymore.? It is about command and control.? We need to get people to use their remote controls to switch channels and get off watching Fox or ABC, etc and switch to their local Community Access tv station, which is listed on http://www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html? or do something simillar like at least watch some Ron Paul videos on Youtube.com or something.? Maybe even the Section 2 of MTA isn't really needed, if people would just wake up and spend some time researching how they want to vote based on resources other than their tvs.? Viewership of tv is way down anyway, and hardly represents the majority of voters anyway. Just a thought.?We need to have a debate and a constitution that reflects?21st century realities and values, not stuff left over from what we could have had in the 19th century, if only...??I will go away now until at least Sunday afternoon, unless someone else picks up the discussion. ? John Thielking From: John Thielking To: Drew ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org" Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Will I stop talking about this here? Not likely.?I have one more major anouncement scheduled for Sunday (or a little later)?when Andrew will have released his proposal about?organizing stockholders into voting blocks. After that I will probably pipe down for awhile. ?I know of one other person who reads these comments of mine on this thread and shares my concerns, but isn't responding to the group.? If anything that one person is concerned about why there isn't a broader debate on here about this.? In my view, ultimately what we are dealing with here is a deeply ingrained American Exceptionalism.? It used to be called racism, when we were dealing with Whites' Exeptionalism towards Blacks.? It also rears it's ugly head when Occupy butts heads with the cops and most often Occupy is on the losing end. What I am proposing with this is that we get away from American Exceptionalism, where I or you have special rights but no one else does, and move towards a place where we add positive values to our discourse and to our constitution instead of taking away rights or priveledges from certain classes. As long as we are taking away rights from certain entities, we have no moral ground left to stand on when they come for us and wish to haul us away to a concentration camp.? They are just doing to us what we trained them to do.? We need to start training them to do something else and do it quick before we all "hang" either litterally or figuratively, together or separately.? I am guilty of this too.? If it weren't for my own Exceptionalism, I would have left out the parts of my amendment proposal in brackets.? So there you go. I did get one Occupy member (out of the two who were there yesterday) to look at my flier.? Her intial reaction was that my proposal does sound more fair than MTA's amendment and she will research it a bit more (looking at the original Santa Clara County court decision as well as Citizen's United) and get back to me.? So there you have it Drew.? You should be happy that I didn't throw my weight arround and block the endorsement of MTA or the rally in the first place and just let the rest go.? That's what is fair and democratic (er I mean Green), not asking me to shut up.? Thanks. Sincerely, John Thielking From: Drew To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org" ; "rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com" Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 1:08 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD John, since I don't see other Greens sharing your concerns about Move To Amend I'm wondering if you'd be willing to discontinue this particular discussion on this particular email list so that we can focus on more consensually based Green Party topics? Green is occupying the ballot! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Drew ; To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2012 9:00:44 AM By the way John, you'll recall we already endorsed the rally (at the December meeting), and in case you weren't aware we've already endorsed MTA the organization some months back. And in case you weren't aware we've already endorsed MTA the organization some months back. And BTW I'm sorry but IMO small businesses aren't "people" as your Facebook page asserts any more than any other artificial entity is a person. That's just common sense. That's why we endorsed the organization and the rally. Artificial entities have a chokehold on the planet right now and unless we end their oppression quickly, humynity and all higher life forms are severely endangered. Green is humyn and natural! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: John Thielking ; To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org ; Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2012 6:33:25 AM ?For some reason the discuss system reads a 69k file as having 95k, which is over the limit.? So I have pasted the contents of the .doc file below. ? John Thielking ? ? From: John Thielking To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 10:27 PM Subject: Re: ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD See the attached flier. But Wait! Small Businesses Are People Too! (and deserve their currently existing, limited 4thamendment and 14thamendment protections) Or do they? Occupy San Jose and Move To Amend currently have a feel good and no-specific-language-endorsed rally planned for Friday, Jan 20th from 12pm to 1:30PM at St James Park in downtown San Jose, CA to kick off their campaign to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision commonly referred to as Citizens United that allows Super PACS to spend unlimited amounts of corporate donated money on behalf of or against candidates for political office and for or against ballot measures. That part is fine. What I have a problem with is that without endorsing specific language for a constitutional amendment, their feel good rally will also be endorsing the idea of ?abolishing corporate personhood?. Indeed, the rally itself is located across from the very courthouse where a decision was handed down in the late 1800's that was misquoted in the court records and haphazardly established that corporations are people under the constitution of the US, at least in a fairly limited sense. The problem arises when you examine the specific language of the proposed amendment to abolish corporate personhood and think carefully about how this might impact your life as a small business owner. If you run your business out of your house, will the cops be able to break into your house without a warrant and have that search stand up in court later if they were ?only? searching for business related items? Can your property, of which only your LLC has title to, be taken arbitrarily without just compensation? These concerns are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to explaining the potential problems with the proposed amendment, which is listed in full below and which can be accessed in its current form by visiting: http://movetoamend.org/amendment Move to Amend 28th Amendment Section 1 [A corporation is not 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. As an alternative to the MTA proposed amendment, I have come up with the following language, which in the spirit of the Occupy movement targets only the top 2% of corporations, which often pay fewer taxes than the bottom 98% of corporations, and which also issue stock to members of the public. Note that some people object to letting privately held corporations off the hook, so if you take out the parts [enclosed in brackets] the amendment language can be modified to make all corporations equally accountable to the people regardless of weather or not they issue stock to the public. Having additional responsibilities imposed, instead of taking rights away, is a better approach because responsibilities necessarily increase with the scale/size of the corporation being regulated and hence the very smallest businesses will escape from the additional burden of this amendment largely unscathed, while the excesses of the big boys will be effectively reigned in. Most importantly, the current 4th and 14th amendment protections and precedents established for businesses of all sizes under the current form of the US Constitution are not overturned by this amendment language. Section 1: Artificial entities [that sell shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the people in a manner to be determined by the people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution can be used by artificial entities[that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' being held collectively and individually accountable to the people or against the requirements of their service to the people. In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the people that is mandated to be disclosed by legislation enacted by the people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures. 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 positive freedom of the press, though the freedom to not speak is limited by Section 1 and Section 2. Further discussion of these issues may be had be e-mailing John Thielking at pagesincolor at yahoo.comor by visiting John's Community Page on Facebook, titled: ?Small Businesses Are People Too?. John also has a second Community Page on Facebook called Peacemovies.com, that discusses where you can find reviews of the latest nonviolent movies in theaters and where you can find out how to legally stream non-Hollywood and mostly nonviolent content over the web for free. Or you can find out about this directly by visiting http://www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html. Flier paid for by Peacemovies.com and distributed by a volunteer. _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Jan 7 12:22:20 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:22:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Message-ID: <1325967740.70787.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> My take is that American Exceptionalism is exactly what lead to the bizarre and dangeroud form of artificial personhood being granted the rights that only real people should have - as I'd explained before in most all of the rest of the world artificial entities are considered fictitious legal "persons" yes, and are given "rights", yes, but not inalienable rights that are hard wired into the constitution in a way that IMO only real people should be protected.? In the rest of the world the government and legal system are recognized as having the ability to freely regulate artificial entities - as I believe common sense would agree, but you're arguing against. John, really IMO you're discussion points have been made here and to continue on this list is just beating a dead horse.? I agree however that the matter is worthy of discussion within the MTA - just not here since there is where you could actually impact the wording of the amendment but here we really can't. It makes sense to address the question with those that have direct input on it and leave off the rest of us who don't see the merit in your proposal and who's discussion list needs to focus on items that we share in common, not those of only one member who has been given full opportunity to state his peace but hasn't persuaded the group to his point of view. Green is care! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Sat Jan 7 13:09:01 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:09:01 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD In-Reply-To: <1325967740.70787.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1325967740.70787.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F08B46D.2090504@prodsyse.com> Hi, John and Drew: JOHN: Citizens United surely must know about Move to Amend by now and doubtless is spending lots of money to figure out how to defeat it. The standard approach to this kind of thing is to run focus groups and sample surveys to identify what kind of ad campaign would convince the public that they need corporations to be above the law. The claim that small businesses need to be "person" under the law is, in my judgment, exactly the kind of thing that could be identified by focus groups and sample surveys as an argument that could be used to defeat Move to Amend. As long as big businesses are people under the law, natural persons and small businesses are subject to the whims of the wealthy. DREW: How do you know that the US and Iraq are the only two countries that have corporate personhood? I'd like to make sure before I repeat that too many times. Spencer On 1/7/2012 12:22 PM, Drew wrote: > > My take is that American Exceptionalism is exactly what lead to the > bizarre and dangeroud form of artificial personhood being granted the > rights that only real people should have - as I'd explained before in > most all of the rest of the world artificial entities are considered > fictitious legal "persons" yes, and are given "rights", yes, but not > inalienable rights that are hard wired into the constitution in a way > that IMO only real people should be protected. In the rest of the > world the government and legal system are recognized as having the > ability to freely regulate artificial entities - as I believe common > sense would agree, but you're arguing against. > > John, really IMO you're discussion points have been made here and to > continue on this list is just beating a dead horse. I agree however > that the matter is worthy of discussion within the MTA - just not here > since there is where you could actually impact the wording of the > amendment but here we really can't. It makes sense to address the > question with those that have direct input on it and leave off the > rest of us who don't see the merit in your proposal and who's > discussion list needs to focus on items that we share in common, not > those of only one member who has been given full opportunity to state > his peace but hasn't persuaded the group to his point of view. > > Green is care! > > 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 Sat Jan 7 13:24:37 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:24:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD In-Reply-To: <4F08B46D.2090504@prodsyse.com> References: <1325967740.70787.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F08B46D.2090504@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1325971477.19680.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The ink was scarcely dry on my previous post when I ran across this beauty http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/? and left the following comment: ? This article in part is already more disinformation.? NDAA section 1021 is separate and distinct from Section 1022.? Section 1021 is silent on weather it does not apply to US Citizens and so by default IT DOES apply to US citizens.? Only Section 1022 specifically states (and implies in the title of the section) that it does not apply to US citizens. If the concerns of this article are valid, this is just one more example of two sides duking it out using American Exceptionalism as the core of their argument. Various Congresspeople introduce amendments to limit the rights of artificial entities in agreement with various Occupy factions and what do we get in response? Surprise surprise, we get a bill that says that lo and behold some people can be declared to be non people.? We need to wake up and start living in the 21st century, instead of the 19th century. That goes for both sides of the debates. ? Spencer: ? If we enact amendments that state positive values and gaurantee accountability (as opposed to merely mandating that Congress invent new Uber rights for corps) then Corporations will no longer be unaccountable and above the law. Focus groups or no focus groups. ? John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org" Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Hi, John and Drew:? JOHN:? ????? Citizens United surely must know about Move to Amend by now and doubtless is spending lots of money to figure out how to defeat it. The standard approach to this kind of thing is to run focus groups and sample surveys to identify what kind of ad campaign would convince the public that they need corporations to be above the law. ????? The claim that small businesses need to be ?person? under the law is, in my judgment, exactly the kind of thing that could be identified by focus groups and sample surveys as an argument that could be used to defeat Move to Amend. As long as big businesses are people under the law, natural persons and small businesses are subject to the whims of the wealthy.DREW:? How do you know that the US and Iraq are the only two countries that have corporate personhood?? I'd like to make sure before I repeat that too many times.? ????? Spencer ????? On 1/7/2012 12:22 PM, Drew wrote: My take is that American Exceptionalism is exactly what lead to the bizarre and dangeroud form of artificial personhood being granted the rights that only real people should have - as I'd explained before in most all of the rest of the world artificial entities are considered fictitious legal "persons" yes, and are given "rights", yes, but not inalienable rights that are hard wired into the constitution in a way that IMO only real people should be protected. In the rest of the world the government and legal system are recognized as having the ability to freely regulate artificial entities - as I believe common sense would agree, but you're arguing against. >John, really IMO you're discussion points have been made here and to continue on this list is just beating a dead horse. I agree however that the matter is worthy of discussion within the MTA - just not here since there is where you could actually impact the wording of the amendment but here we really can't. It makes sense to address the question with those that have direct input on it and leave off the rest of us who don't see the merit in your proposal and who's discussion list needs to focus on items that we share in common, not those of only one member who has been given full opportunity to state his peace but hasn't persuaded the group to his point of view. >Green is care! > >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 _______________________________________________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 Sat Jan 7 14:18:48 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 14:18:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD In-Reply-To: <1325971477.19680.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1325967740.70787.androidMobile@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F08B46D.2090504@prodsyse.com> <1325971477.19680.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325974728.6224.YahooMailNeo@web111111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I'm afraid that Drew's dead horse is about to be turned into hamburger.?(Besides, there are actually 2 people on this list who have expressed interest in the discussion directly, besides Drew and Spencer.?? One by e-mail and one at the GP meeting last time.? When MTA comes up with an e-mail discussion list I will be happy to continue the conversation over there, but I don't see one yet.)?? I found this article http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/uk-drug-companies-retain-tight-grip-on-medical-profession-162370.html? while reading the Epoch Times yesterday.? It seems that despite the lack of inalienable corporate personhood in the UK, drug companies are doing just fine and they are doing an admirable job (not) of escaping most forms of accountability.? This may be a good reason to have my positive values amendment Section 1 instead of merely taking rights away and replacing them with "softer rights" in the form of statutes.? ? There was also a piece of good news located here: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/nuclear-power-industry-in-weakened-state-168618.htm I'm not sure if this is just a propoganda piece designed to put us back to sleep on the issue of nuclear power or if it really is a real bit of good news, but apparently the nuke industry is only able to build 10% of the number of new nuclear power plants by 2020 compared to their original goal established in 2002. ? I apologize in advance for the long load times for the Epoch Times web pages.? I can never imagine the value of loading up a web page with so many MB of images and CSS or whatever it is that they put there that it runs and loads terribly slowly on most computers. Oh well. ? John Thielking From: John Thielking To: Spencer Graves ; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org" Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD The ink was scarcely dry on my previous post when I ran across this beauty http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/? and left the following comment: ? This article in part is already more disinformation.? NDAA section 1021 is separate and distinct from Section 1022.? Section 1021 is silent on weather it does not apply to US Citizens and so by default IT DOES apply to US citizens.? Only Section 1022 specifically states (and implies in the title of the section) that it does not apply to US citizens. If the concerns of this article are valid, this is just one more example of two sides duking it out using American Exceptionalism as the core of their argument. Various Congresspeople introduce amendments to limit the rights of artificial entities in agreement with various Occupy factions and what do we get in response? Surprise surprise, we get a bill that says that lo and behold some people can be declared to be non people.? We need to wake up and start living in the 21st century, instead of the 19th century. That goes for both sides of the debates. Spencer: If we enact amendments that state positive values and gaurantee accountability (as opposed to merely mandating that Congress invent new Uber rights for corps) then Corporations will no longer be unaccountable and above the law. Focus groups or no focus groups. John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org" Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] ENDORSE MOVE TO AMEND RALLY & FORWARD Hi, John and Drew:? JOHN:? ????? Citizens United surely must know about Move to Amend by now and doubtless is spending lots of money to figure out how to defeat it. The standard approach to this kind of thing is to run focus groups and sample surveys to identify what kind of ad campaign would convince the public that they need corporations to be above the law. ????? The claim that small businesses need to be ?person? under the law is, in my judgment, exactly the kind of thing that could be identified by focus groups and sample surveys as an argument that could be used to defeat Move to Amend. As long as big businesses are people under the law, natural persons and small businesses are subject to the whims of the wealthy. DREW:? How do you know that the US and Iraq are the only two countries that have corporate personhood?? I'd like to make sure before I repeat that too many times.? ????? Spencer ????? On 1/7/2012 12:22 PM, Drew wrote: My take is that American Exceptionalism is exactly what lead to the bizarre and dangeroud form of artificial personhood being granted the rights that only real people should have - as I'd explained before in most all of the rest of the world artificial entities are considered fictitious legal "persons" yes, and are given "rights", yes, but not inalienable rights that are hard wired into the constitution in a way that IMO only real people should be protected. In the rest of the world the government and legal system are recognized as having the ability to freely regulate artificial entities - as I believe common sense would agree, but you're arguing against. >John, really IMO you're discussion points have been made here and to continue on this list is just beating a dead horse. I agree however that the matter is worthy of discussion within the MTA - just not here since there is where you could actually impact the wording of the amendment but here we really can't. It makes sense to address the question with those that have direct input on it and leave off the rest of us who don't see the merit in your proposal and who's discussion list needs to focus on items that we share in common, not those of only one member who has been given full opportunity to state his peace but hasn't persuaded the group to his point of view. >Green is care! >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 _______________________________________________ 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 pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 15:24:24 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:24:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: New type of Corporations in CA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1325978664.34641.YahooMailNeo@web111111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> This is what I am talking about when I say we need ideas and legislation from the 21st century.? See the link below: ? John Thielking ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Richard Hobbs To: Undisclosed-Recipient at yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 2:17 PM Subject: New type of Corporations in CA Thanks to Julio Castillo for the following: ? Benefit Corps! http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23280 ** julio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerrygras at earthlink.net Sat Jan 7 17:15:02 2012 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:15:02 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] "Time for a Real Debate: Are Corporations People?" Message-ID: <4F08EE16.1080201@earthlink.net> FYI, from the guy who has for a long time been advocating a Corporate Responsibility Amendment: "Time for a Real Debate: Are Corporations People?" http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/07-2 Gerry From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sun Jan 8 06:59:33 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 06:59:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] "Time for a Real Debate: Are Corporations People?" In-Reply-To: <4F08EE16.1080201@earthlink.net> References: <4F08EE16.1080201@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1326034773.54656.YahooMailNeo@web111116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> My only regret about this article is that the author wasn't more specific about what kinds of laws need to be passed.? I'm sure that Drew, Spencer and I would all agree (to dissagree) by claiming that the article supports our individual positions.? I for one, see this article as a call for 21st century laws to address the problem, similar to the new form of corporations allowed by CA law that was mentioned by Richard Hobbs in my previous e-mail and possibly including the positive values version of MTA Section 1 that I proposed earlier. ? John Thielking From: Gerry Gras To: GPSCC Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 5:15 PM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] "Time for a Real Debate: Are Corporations People?" FYI, from the guy who has for a long time been advocating a Corporate Responsibility Amendment: "Time for a Real Debate: Are Corporations People?" ? ? http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/07-2 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 rob.means at electric-bikes.com Fri Jan 6 17:03:19 2012 From: rob.means at electric-bikes.com (Rob Means) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:03:19 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Other Voices article for the Milpitas Post Message-ID: <1325898199.12675.89.camel@robs-laptop> Other Voices article for the Milpitas Post Corporations are NOT people. Money is NOT speech. So says the popular movement working for a Constitutional Amendment that rescinds the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case. These concepts ? that corporations have inherent Constitution rights and that money is a form of speech ? are completely made up by the Court. Created from nothing but their own lawyerly thinking. No such doctrine has ever been passed by state or federal legislatures nor signed by any governor or president. To the contrary, throughout our country's history legislatures have passed laws limiting corporate involvement in politics. As Americans, we enjoyed a hundred years of legal jurisprudence in most states forbidding corporate expenditures. Corporations could be dissolved and their executives imprisoned for spending money in any way to influence an election. Things have really changed, and Supreme Court decisions caused that change. Here is how our Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski puts it: ?The 5-4 decision in the case of the Federal Elections Commission vs. Citizens United held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts to influence election outcomes. It effectively invited corporations to spend wildly on campaigns. Big Business has accepted the invitation. The Citizens United decision essentially unraveled 100 years of legal precedent limiting corporate influence in elections. It reversed prior Supreme Court decisions, repealed key portions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and weakened various state laws limiting corporate campaign expenditures. The ruling stated that there is virtually no distinction between the First Amendment rights of people and of corporations, and that independent campaign expenditures by corporations do not contribute to corruption or the appearance of corruption. The majority on the court got it wrong.? (For more background on the case, watch the 9-minute video ?The Story of Citizens United v. FEC? at http://snipurl.com/21kvcaf ) So, Assemblyman Wieckowski is pushing back by introducing a resolution (AJR 22) calling upon Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification that would overturn the Citizens United ruling. If passed, California will be the second state to do so, and will join a growing nationwide list of legislatures, organizations and cities. An estimated 50 similar resolutions have been passed in cities that range from small like Duluth, MN,Missoula, MT, Boulder, CO, South Miami, FL, and Richmond, CA to huge ones like Los Angeles (on Dec. 6) and New York (Jan. 4). Although individual city councils, and even State legislatures, have no direct say in what will become of proposed constitutional amendment to counter the Citizens United, such resolutions are markers of public support and are critical to building the movement. The campaign in Los Angeles, for example, drew endorsements from a long list of organizations including Common Cause, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Environmental Caucus of the CA Democratic Party, MoveOn LA, Democracy for America, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and California Clean Money Campaign. (For a complete list of all resolutions passed to date see: http://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map ) If those two made-up doctrines are overturned by a Constitutional Amendment, we have an entirely new playing field that allows us to continue the democratic experiment that is the United States. However, it won't happen without a nationwide movement of people committed to their country. Those of us who have prospered in this country, or have taken an oath to uphold the U. S. Constitution, or simply believe that government of, by and for the people is better than corporate rule, are obligated to join the movement. And Friday, January 20 at noon offers a wonderful opportunity. Here is how MoveToAmend.org puts it: ?Inspired by our friends at Occupy Wall Street, and Dr. Cornel West, Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark the second anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision! Occupy the Courts will be a one day occupation of Federal courthouses across the country,including the U.S. Supreme Courtin Washington, D.C., on Friday January 20, 2012. Americans across the country are on the march, and they ... carry signs that say, ?Corporations are NOT people! Money is NOT Speech!? And they are chanting those truths at the top of their lungs! The time has come to make these truths evident to the courts.? It is time to take back our democracy. Corporations are NOT people. Money is NOT speech. Join me in St. James park, across the street from the Old Courthouse, 161 N. 1st Street, San Jose, noon ? 1:30pm, as we declare our independence from corporate power! Learn more at http://movetoamend.org/occupythecourts/ -- 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 WB4D23 at aol.com Sun Jan 8 18:36:53 2012 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:36:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Only one (Democratic Party) candidate for State Senate District 15 Message-ID: <10412.1f81d4d1.3c3bacc5@aol.com> According to a Saturday San Jose Mercury News article, incumbent (Republican) State Senator Blakeslee has decided not to run for re-election in SD15 unless the California Supreme Court reinstates the previous State Senate Districts statewide -- in which case apparently he would run for re-election in what was Abel Maldanado's "old District". The declared Democratic Party candidate is Bill Monning (who, imo, is ok). Both the old and new SD15 boundaries included portions of southern Santa Clara County (e.g., Morgan Hill area in both old and new lines). A GP candidate would need to get going immediately to get a petition effort going to collect signatures-in-lieu of filing fee. Under Prop 14, signatures would not need to be only from GP registered voters. Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Mon Jan 9 07:29:00 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:29:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Discussion Migration Message-ID: <1326122940.54883.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hello All, ? I have been having a discussion with the Green Party on their e-mail list about my concerns about MTA Section 1 of the proposed constitutional amendment and my alternate proposal. It was suggested that I move the conversation over to the scc-mta-general list.? For those of you on the GP list who have not signed up for the MTA group, I will give you until 9PM Monday Jan 9th, 2012 to get approved by the moderator before I start the discussion on the MTA list. To sign up to be?a member of the MTA list, send an e-mail to scc-mta-general-subscribe at yahoogroups.com .? I also signed up for the Education Committee list, but that list only has 3 people on it so it seems that it would be better to have the discussion happen on the general list that has 36 people on it.? If there are any concerns about my using this course of action, please let me know by 9pm tonight. Thank you. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking pagesincolor at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Mon Jan 9 15:14:35 2012 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:14:35 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Discussion Migration In-Reply-To: <1326122940.54883.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1326122940.54883.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F0B74DB.6090609@charter.net> John, There are many things happening regarding getting money out of politics and especially the Citizen United challenge. Bernie Saunders, MTA, an OWS specific position that was, just this week, agreed to by consensus with the original OWS general assembly in Zucotti Park. Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC interviewed Marge Baker from People for the American Way who talked about Citizens United and mentioned a coalition of grassroots organizations working on this including MTA. It may be very beneficial to understand how this all fits together rather than just pushing MTA to change something now. Check the clip at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37560195/#45933205 It is headlined Overturning Citizens United. Check also Next Step for the 99% on the same page... it is also about the amendment. On 1/9/2012 7:29 AM, John Thielking wrote: > Hello All, > I have been having a discussion with the Green Party on their e-mail > list about my concerns about MTA Section 1 of the proposed > constitutional amendment and my alternate proposal. It was suggested > that I move the conversation over to the scc-mta-general list. For > those of you on the GP list who have not signed up for the MTA group, > I will give you until 9PM Monday Jan 9th, 2012 to get approved by the > moderator before I start the discussion on the MTA list. To sign up to > be a member of the MTA list, send an e-mail to > scc-mta-general-subscribe at yahoogroups.com > . I also signed up > for the Education Committee list, but that list only has 3 people on > it so it seems that it would be better to have the discussion happen > on the general list that has 36 people on it. If there are any > concerns about my using this course of action, please let me know by > 9pm tonight. Thank you. > Sincerely, > John Thielking > pagesincolor at yahoo.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 pagesincolor at yahoo.com Mon Jan 9 21:55:54 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:55:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Discussion Migration In-Reply-To: <4F0B74DB.6090609@charter.net> References: <1326122940.54883.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F0B74DB.6090609@charter.net> Message-ID: <1326174954.32514.YahooMailNeo@web111102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Wes and All, ? With all due respect, I think it is necessary for me to say my piece, especially since OWS NY passed a resolution that essentially codifies MTA Section 1, but also goes further than even the Green Party discussion in opposition to my position did by?implying that under no circumstances should artificial entities have personhood type rights.? As Drew Johnson on the Green Party discussion list pointed out, in many countries corporations have limited personhood codified in statutes, not in their constitutions. According to him, only Iraq and the US have corporate personhood that springs from their constitutions.? In my view some kind of rights for corporations are needed if only to insure fair treatment of corporations by each other in contract law and so on. The 14th amendment may be helpfull in this regard under current law and I can cite a specific example of how this principle affects my own small business on the Internet if you like. In my view, at least some of these rights must be inalienable to insure that legislatures don't just arbitrarily pass any old law that is fundamnetally unjust, regardless of what the statutes, in say the UK for example, say about "softer rights" for corporations.? Rather than taking rights away, we should add resposibilities and obligations that corporations have to live up to to the Constitution and make the effect of that part of the Constitution be?unavoidable by any argument that attempts to invoke the?other parts of the Constitution.? See below for a specific example of how to do this. ? I will try to keep this as short as possible, to make sure it makes the rounds without going over the message size limit of 80k. ? OWS in NY passed the following resolution according to the video about the 99% that Wes pointed me to: ? "...to firmly establish that money is not speech, that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and that the rights of human beings will never again be granted to fictitious entities or property." ? Below?is the text from the flier that I have been circulating a little bit here and there in downtown San Jose: ? But Wait! Small Businesses Are People Too! (and deserve their currently existing, limited 4thamendment and 14thamendment protections) Or do they? Occupy San Jose and Move To Amend currently have a feel good and no-specific-language-endorsed rally planned for Friday, Jan 20th from 12pm to 1:30PM at St James Park in downtown San Jose, CA to kick off their campaign to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision commonly referred to as Citizens United that allows Super PACS to spend unlimited amounts of corporate donated money on behalf of or against candidates for political office and for or against ballot measures. That part is fine. What I have a problem with is that without endorsing specific language for a constitutional amendment, their feel good rally will also be endorsing the idea of ?abolishing corporate personhood?. Indeed, the rally itself is located across from the very courthouse where a decision was handed down in the late 1800's that was misquoted in the court records and haphazardly established that corporations are people under the constitution of the US, at least in a fairly limited sense. The problem arises when you examine the specific language of the proposed amendment to abolish corporate personhood and think carefully about how this might impact your life as a small business owner. If you run your business out of your house, will the cops be able to break into your house without a warrant and have that search stand up in court later if they were ?only? searching for business related items? Can your property, of which only your LLC has title to, be taken arbitrarily without just compensation? These concerns are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to explaining the potential problems with the proposed amendment, which is listed in full below and which can be accessed in its current form by visiting: http://movetoamend.org/amendment Move to Amend 28th Amendment Section 1 [A corporation is not 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. As an alternative to the MTA proposed amendment, I have come up with the following language, which in the spirit of the Occupy movement targets only the top 2% of corporations, which often pay fewer taxes than the bottom 98% of corporations, and which also issue stock to members of the public. Note that some people object to letting privately held corporations off the hook, so if you take out the parts [enclosed in brackets] the amendment language can be modified to make all corporations equally accountable to the people regardless of weather or not they issue stock to the public. Having additional responsibilities imposed, instead of taking rights away, is a better approach because responsibilities necessarily increase with the scale/size of the corporation being regulated and hence the very smallest businesses will escape from the additional burden of this amendment largely unscathed, while the excesses of the big boys will be effectively reigned in. Most importantly, the current 4th and 14th amendment protections and precedents established for businesses of all sizes under the current form of the US Constitution are not overturned by this amendment language. Section 1: Artificial entities [that sell shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the people in a manner to be determined by the people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution can be used by artificial entities[that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' being held collectively and individually accountable to the people or against the requirements of their service to the people. In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the people that is mandated to be disclosed by legislation enacted by the people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures. 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 positive freedom of the press, though the freedom to not speak is limited by Section 1 and Section 2. Further discussion of these issues may be had be e-mailing John Thielking at pagesincolor at yahoo.comor by visiting John's Community Page on Facebook, titled: ?Small Businesses Are People Too?. John also has a second Community Page on Facebook called Peacemovies.com, that discusses where you can find reviews of the latest nonviolent movies in theaters and where you can find out how to legally stream non-Hollywood and mostly nonviolent content over the web for free. Or you can find out about this directly by visiting http://www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html. Flier paid for by Peacemovies.com and distributed by a volunteer. From: Wes Rolley To: John Thielking ; Post South SF Bay discuss Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Discussion Migration John, There are many things happening regarding getting money out of politics and especially the Citizen United challenge.? Bernie Saunders, MTA, an OWS specific position that was, just this week,? agreed to by consensus with the original OWS general assembly in Zucotti Park.? Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC interviewed Marge Baker from People for the American Way who talked about Citizens United and mentioned a coalition of grassroots organizations working on this including MTA. ?? It may be very beneficial to understand how this all fits together rather than just pushing MTA to change something now. Check the clip at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37560195/#45933205 It is headlined Overturning Citizens United. Check also Next Step for the 99% on the same page... it is also about the amendment. On 1/9/2012 7:29 AM, John Thielking wrote: Hello All, > >I have been having a discussion with the Green Party on their e-mail list about my concerns about MTA Section 1 of the proposed constitutional amendment and my alternate proposal. It was suggested that I move the conversation over to the scc-mta-general list.? For those of you on the GP list who have not signed up for the MTA group, I will give you until 9PM Monday Jan 9th, 2012 to get approved by the moderator before I start the discussion on the MTA list. To sign up to be?a member of the MTA list, send an e-mail to >scc-mta-general-subscribe at yahoogroups.com .? I also signed up for the Education Committee list, but that list only has 3 people on it so it seems that it would be better to have the discussion happen on the general list that has 36 people on it.? If there are any concerns about my using this course of action, please let me know by 9pm tonight. Thank you. > >Sincerely, > >John Thielking >pagesincolor at yahoo.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 pagesincolor at yahoo.com Mon Jan 9 22:07:24 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 22:07:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Discussion Migration In-Reply-To: <1326174954.32514.YahooMailNeo@web111102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1326122940.54883.YahooMailNeo@web111112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F0B74DB.6090609@charter.net> <1326174954.32514.YahooMailNeo@web111102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1326175644.40846.YahooMailNeo@web111111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Oops.? Let's try posting that to the right list.? The MTA list. From: John Thielking To: Wes Rolley ; Post South SF Bay discuss Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Discussion Migration Wes and All, ? With all due respect, I think it is necessary for me to say my piece, especially since OWS NY passed a resolution that essentially codifies MTA Section 1, but also goes further than even the Green Party discussion in opposition to my position did by?implying that under no circumstances should artificial entities have personhood type rights.? As Drew Johnson on the Green Party discussion list pointed out, in many countries corporations have limited personhood codified in statutes, not in their constitutions. According to him, only Iraq and the US have corporate personhood that springs from their constitutions.? In my view some kind of rights for corporations are needed if only to insure fair treatment of corporations by each other in contract law and so on. The 14th amendment may be helpfull in this regard under current law and I can cite a specific example of how this principle affects my own small business on the Internet if you like. In my view, at least some of these rights must be inalienable to insure that legislatures don't just arbitrarily pass any old law that is fundamnetally unjust, regardless of what the statutes, in say the UK for example, say about "softer rights" for corporations.? Rather than taking rights away, we should add resposibilities and obligations that corporations have to live up to to the Constitution and make the effect of that part of the Constitution be?unavoidable by any argument that attempts to invoke the?other parts of the Constitution.? See below for a specific example of how to do this. ? I will try to keep this as short as possible, to make sure it makes the rounds without going over the message size limit of 80k. ? OWS in NY passed the following resolution according to the video about the 99% that Wes pointed me to: ? "...to firmly establish that money is not speech, that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and that the rights of human beings will never again be granted to fictitious entities or property." ? Below?is the text from the flier that I have been circulating a little bit here and there in downtown San Jose: But Wait! Small Businesses Are People Too! (and deserve their currently existing, limited 4thamendment and 14thamendment protections) Or do they? Occupy San Jose and Move To Amend currently have a feel good and no-specific-language-endorsed rally planned for Friday, Jan 20th from 12pm to 1:30PM at St James Park in downtown San Jose, CA to kick off their campaign to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision commonly referred to as Citizens United that allows Super PACS to spend unlimited amounts of corporate donated money on behalf of or against candidates for political office and for or against ballot measures. That part is fine. What I have a problem with is that without endorsing specific language for a constitutional amendment, their feel good rally will also be endorsing the idea of ?abolishing corporate personhood?. Indeed, the rally itself is located across from the very courthouse where a decision was handed down in the late 1800's that was misquoted in the court records and haphazardly established that corporations are people under the constitution of the US, at least in a fairly limited sense. The problem arises when you examine the specific language of the proposed amendment to abolish corporate personhood and think carefully about how this might impact your life as a small business owner. If you run your business out of your house, will the cops be able to break into your house without a warrant and have that search stand up in court later if they were ?only? searching for business related items? Can your property, of which only your LLC has title to, be taken arbitrarily without just compensation? These concerns are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to explaining the potential problems with the proposed amendment, which is listed in full below and which can be accessed in its current form by visiting: http://movetoamend.org/amendment Move to Amend 28th Amendment Section 1 [A corporation is not 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. As an alternative to the MTA proposed amendment, I have come up with the following language, which in the spirit of the Occupy movement targets only the top 2% of corporations, which often pay fewer taxes than the bottom 98% of corporations, and which also issue stock to members of the public. Note that some people object to letting privately held corporations off the hook, so if you take out the parts [enclosed in brackets] the amendment language can be modified to make all corporations equally accountable to the people regardless of weather or not they issue stock to the public. Having additional responsibilities imposed, instead of taking rights away, is a better approach because responsibilities necessarily increase with the scale/size of the corporation being regulated and hence the very smallest businesses will escape from the additional burden of this amendment largely unscathed, while the excesses of the big boys will be effectively reigned in. Most importantly, the current 4th and 14th amendment protections and precedents established for businesses of all sizes under the current form of the US Constitution are not overturned by this amendment language. Section 1: Artificial entities [that sell shares of themselves and/or their subsidiaries to the public] shall be accountable to and serve the people in a manner to be determined by the people and/or by the federal, state or local legislatures. No part of the constitution can be used by artificial entities[that sell shares to the public] to argue against such entities' being held collectively and individually accountable to the people or against the requirements of their service to the people. In no event shall an artificial entity [that sells shares to the public] be exempt from disclosing information to the people that is mandated to be disclosed by legislation enacted by the people and/or the federal, state or local legislatures. 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 positive freedom of the press, though the freedom to not speak is limited by Section 1 and Section 2. Further discussion of these issues may be had be e-mailing John Thielking at pagesincolor at yahoo.comor by visiting John's Community Page on Facebook, titled: ?Small Businesses Are People Too?. John also has a second Community Page on Facebook called Peacemovies.com, that discusses where you can find reviews of the latest nonviolent movies in theaters and where you can find out how to legally stream non-Hollywood and mostly nonviolent content over the web for free. Or you can find out about this directly by visiting http://www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html. Flier paid for by Peacemovies.com and distributed by a volunteer. From: Wes Rolley To: John Thielking ; Post South SF Bay discuss Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Discussion Migration John, There are many things happening regarding getting money out of politics and especially the Citizen United challenge.? Bernie Saunders, MTA, an OWS specific position that was, just this week,? agreed to by consensus with the original OWS general assembly in Zucotti Park.? Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC interviewed Marge Baker from People for the American Way who talked about Citizens United and mentioned a coalition of grassroots organizations working on this including MTA. ?? It may be very beneficial to understand how this all fits together rather than just pushing MTA to change something now. Check the clip at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37560195/#45933205 It is headlined Overturning Citizens United. Check also Next Step for the 99% on the same page... it is also about the amendment. On 1/9/2012 7:29 AM, John Thielking wrote: Hello All, > >I have been having a discussion with the Green Party on their e-mail list about my concerns about MTA Section 1 of the proposed constitutional amendment and my alternate proposal. It was suggested that I move the conversation over to the scc-mta-general list.? For those of you on the GP list who have not signed up for the MTA group, I will give you until 9PM Monday Jan 9th, 2012 to get approved by the moderator before I start the discussion on the MTA list. To sign up to be?a member of the MTA list, send an e-mail to >scc-mta-general-subscribe at yahoogroups.com .? I also signed up for the Education Committee list, but that list only has 3 people on it so it seems that it would be better to have the discussion happen on the general list that has 36 people on it.? If there are any concerns about my using this course of action, please let me know by 9pm tonight. Thank you. > >Sincerely, > >John Thielking >pagesincolor at yahoo.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Mon Jan 9 22:08:18 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 22:08:18 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] California DISCLOSE Act Passes in Assembly Committee Message-ID: The bill would require those who pay for political ads to clearly identify themselves--no more hiding behind "Committee for Fairness in Taxes". Trent Lange of CAClean.org reports that the vote in Committee was 5-0 with one abstention after 115 DISCLOSE supporters packed the hearing room. He reports that 5 new assemblypersons signed on as co-authors, and petitions bearing 15,000 signatures were turned over to the Speaker. Thanks to Caroline, Fred, Gloria, Andrea, Rob, Carol and Jules, and Dr. Paul Rea for showing up for the rally on Saturday. Next step, a hearing at the Appropriations Committee, tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 19th. We can do this! B -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 10 10:58:21 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:58:21 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] fppc filings Message-ID: <4F0C8A4D.9080600@sbcglobal.net> I have returned from vacation and the fppc filings were mailed in on time. From carolineyacoub at att.net Tue Jan 10 19:37:47 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:37:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) Message-ID: <1326253067.78590.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I'm glad to see that I'm not the last person still worrying about climate change. I think this is an exceptional argument to use against climate change deniers. Caroline ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Tue, January 10, 2012 7:30:49 PM Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) >Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:10:46 -0800 >Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) >From: Thomas Scott Tucker > > > >Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) > >As soon as it encounters environmental issues, the ideology of the new right >becomes ensnared in its own contradictions. > >By George Monbiot > >The Guardian, 6th January 2012 >http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/ > >Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important >environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly >unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won?t hold it against the author. > >In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating >challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they >have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems. > >Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and >libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights. Briefly >stated, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was >just, then those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish, >without social restraints or obligations to other people. > >Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state >or by anyone else. Any interference with or damage to the value of their >property without their consent ? even by taxation ? is an unwarranted >infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the >Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups which call >themselves ?free market thinktanks? and much of the new right in the UK. > >It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates >the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess >the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as >freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to >address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently >self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of >those with wealth and power. But for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let >us accept it. > >Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the >owner?s consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner?s freedoms. What >this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues, >they?re stuffed. > >Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the >physical beauty of the area surrounding people?s homes (and therefore their >value), all these, if the libertarians did not possess a shocking set of >double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other >people?s property. > >The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the >consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid >rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be >regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor >have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow >mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that >they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies. > >Nor have they ? or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers ? obtained >the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the >atmosphere, altering global temperatures and ? through rising sea levels, >droughts, storms and other impacts ? damaging the property of many people. > >As Bruenig says, ?Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on >some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever >be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify >the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect >the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause >damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from >those affected. They are the ethical equivalent ? for honest libertarians ? >of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else?s window.? > >So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is >so often associated with climate change denial and the playing down or >dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the >owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise >to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people?s >property ? including their bodies. > >This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty >reality and crumples like a Coke can. Any honest and thorough application of >this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners >of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or >recognition of the rights of other people. Libertarianism becomes >self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental >issues. So they must be denied. > >www.monbiot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Jan 10 20:01:37 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:01:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) In-Reply-To: <1326253067.78590.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1326253067.78590.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1326254497.12787.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Caroline, ? This is an excellent article.? I am reminded of a Native American argument that I heard recently: Native Americans assume responsibility for taking care of the Earth, rather than assert that they have rights.? Something to add to my MTA argument.? Maybe we need an amendment that asserts that people as well as corps have responsibilities.? That would make the CEO's who always seem to testify "I don't recall" squirm a bit more.? Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: Caroline Yacoub To: sosfbay-discuss Cc: shantidreams at yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:37 PM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) I'm glad to see that I'm not the last person still worrying about climate change. I think this is an exceptional argument to use against climate change deniers. Caroline ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Tue, January 10, 2012 7:30:49 PM Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) >Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:10:46 -0800 >Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) >From: Thomas Scott Tucker > > > >Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) > >As soon as it encounters environmental issues, the ideology of the new right >becomes ensnared in its own contradictions. > >By George Monbiot > >The Guardian, 6th January 2012 >http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/ > >Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important >environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly >unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won?t hold it against the author. > >In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating >challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they >have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems. > >Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and >libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights. Briefly >stated, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was >just, then those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish, >without social restraints or obligations to other people. > >Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state >or by anyone else. Any interference with or damage to the value of their >property without their consent ? even by taxation ? is an unwarranted >infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the >Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups which call >themselves ?free market thinktanks? and much of the new right in the UK. > >It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates >the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess >the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as >freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to >address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently >self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of >those with wealth and power. But for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let >us accept it. > >Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the >owner?s consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner?s freedoms. What >this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues, >they?re stuffed. > >Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the >physical beauty of the area surrounding people?s homes (and therefore their >value), all these, if the libertarians did not possess a shocking set of >double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other >people?s property. > >The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the >consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid >rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be >regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor >have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow >mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that >they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies. > >Nor have they ? or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers ? obtained >the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the >atmosphere, altering global temperatures and ? through rising sea levels, >droughts, storms and other impacts ? damaging the property of many people. > >As Bruenig says, ?Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on >some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever >be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify >the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect >the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause >damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from >those affected. They are the ethical equivalent ? for honest libertarians ? >of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else?s window.? > >So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is >so often associated with climate change denial and the playing down or >dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the >owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise >to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people?s >property ? including their bodies. > >This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty >reality and crumples like a Coke can. Any honest and thorough application of >this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners >of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or >recognition of the rights of other people. Libertarianism becomes >self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental >issues. So they must be denied. > >www.monbiot.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 cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Tue Jan 10 20:46:11 2012 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:46:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) Message-ID: <20120111044611.F339D6A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> Maybe we should all go back and read Orwell's "1984" again. One of Big Brother's most powerful and important techniques was removing words from the language, or changing their meaning so they are no longer worth using. We have lost "recycle." It used to mean reclaiming stuff from the waste stream and making the same stuff out of it. Steel and aluminum are recycled that way. But now it means separating your trash into multiple bins. No new water bottles are made from "recycled" water bottles. The plastic is changed when the bottles are formed, and it can't be vacuum-formed again. And a lot of large properties just mix all the bins together and send it all to the landfill, notably Disneyland and UC Berkeley. You can "recycle" to your heart's content at Berkeley, and not a speck of petroleum or aluminum is saved. We've lost "feminist." It used to be about empowerment and acceptance and liberation and nonviolence. Now, in mainstream usage, it's about weirdness and anger and resentment. We've lost "organic." Once upon a time, organic farming was sustainable and decentralized. Now they clearcut ancient rainforest to grow "organic" palm oil for junk food to sell at Walmart. And we've lost "Libertarian." John Locke, Henry David Thoreau, and Thomas Jefferson were ("classical") libertarians. They would not recognize the ideology of Mises and Rand and Cato. This property-rights religion of the new "Libertarians" is new. When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ??? neither more nor less.' (Carroll, Through the Looking Glass) Let's avoid these meaningless terms. They get in the way. That's why the noise machine goes to the trouble of destroying language, to make it harder for folks to communicate. -Cameron From snug.bug at hotmail.com Tue Jan 10 22:07:30 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:07:30 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) In-Reply-To: <1326254497.12787.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1326253067.78590.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, <1326254497.12787.YahooMailNeo@web111107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Can't resist chiming in to add that CEO's under oath ARE the corporation, and feel that their fiduciary duty to their stockholders trumps their oath to tell the truth. There is no personal responsibility. That's why the British Ltd. companies were formed in the first place, right? So the liability did not extend to the perps? Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:01:37 -0800 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com To: carolineyacoub at att.net; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org CC: shantidreams at yahoo.com Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) Caroline, This is an excellent article. I am reminded of a Native American argument that I heard recently: Native Americans assume responsibility for taking care of the Earth, rather than assert that they have rights. Something to add to my MTA argument. Maybe we need an amendment that asserts that people as well as corps have responsibilities. That would make the CEO's who always seem to testify "I don't recall" squirm a bit more. Thanks. Sincerely, John Thielking From: Caroline Yacoub To: sosfbay-discuss Cc: shantidreams at yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:37 PM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) I'm glad to see that I'm not the last person still worrying about climate change. I think this is an exceptional argument to use against climate change deniers. Caroline ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Tue, January 10, 2012 7:30:49 PM Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) >Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:10:46 -0800 >Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) >From: Thomas Scott Tucker > > > >Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot) > >As soon as it encounters environmental issues, the ideology of the new right >becomes ensnared in its own contradictions. > >By George Monbiot > >The Guardian, 6th January 2012 >http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/ > >Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important >environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly >unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won?t hold it against the author. > >In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating >challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they >have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems. > >Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and >libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights. Briefly >stated, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was >just, then those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish, >without social restraints or obligations to other people. > >Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state >or by anyone else. Any interference with or damage to the value of their >property without their consent ? even by taxation ? is an unwarranted >infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the >Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups which call >themselves ?free market thinktanks? and much of the new right in the UK. > >It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates >the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess >the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as >freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to >address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently >self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of >those with wealth and power. But for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let >us accept it. > >Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the >owner?s consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner?s freedoms. What >this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues, >they?re stuffed. > >Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the >physical beauty of the area surrounding people?s homes (and therefore their >value), all these, if the libertarians did not possess a shocking set of >double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other >people?s property. > >The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the >consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid >rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be >regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor >have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow >mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that >they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies. > >Nor have they ? or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers ? obtained >the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the >atmosphere, altering global temperatures and ? through rising sea levels, >droughts, storms and other impacts ? damaging the property of many people. > >As Bruenig says, ?Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on >some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever >be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify >the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect >the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause >damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from >those affected. They are the ethical equivalent ? for honest libertarians ? >of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else?s window.? > >So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is >so often associated with climate change denial and the playing down or >dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the >owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise >to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people?s >property ? including their bodies. > >This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty >reality and crumples like a Coke can. Any honest and thorough application of >this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners >of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or >recognition of the rights of other people. Libertarianism becomes >self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental >issues. So they must be denied. > >www.monbiot.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Wed Jan 11 16:42:30 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:42:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Awakening The Dreamer Workshop Message-ID: <1326328950.26312.YahooMailNeo@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ?I recently attended this workshop and found it to be an extremely?uplifting transformative experience - it was gentle, focusing, connecting and energizing. I want to recommend it to all my friends as a way of seeing new possibilities on how we can reshape our society in a peaceful and sustainable evolutionary way.? There was no particular group, solution, philosophy, political party?or religion?promoted and?there was no?appeal for?money so?I can recommend it?fully to everyone.??The workshop will be given again soon locally and I will let people know more details as they emerge. ? Green is inevitable! ? Drew Discover Your Power to Create a Thriving, Just, and Sustainable World Awakening the Dreamer is a worldwide initiative that has inspired thousands of people to realize their tremendous potential as agents of change. Our workshops equip you to take on the challenges and opportunities of this moment in history, make a positive impact on your community, and live a fulfilling a life. ? http://www.awakeningthedreamer.org/ Awakening the Dreamer This?workshop illuminates the root causes of the challenges facing humanity, the extraordinary possibilities emerging at this time in history, and your unique role in creating our shared future. From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Wed Jan 11 20:47:14 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:47:14 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] next Monday, Jan. 16, 6:30 - 9 PM: Wiki Workshop and Geek Pizza Party Message-ID: <4F0E65D2.4090006@prodsyse.com> Next Monday, Henry Gage and I will facilitate a first "Wiki Workshop and Geek Pizza Party" at the San Jos? Peace & Justice Center, 48 S. 7th St., San Jos?. Some of the real revolutionaries today are people who contribute anonymously to Wikipedia. Their standards for research have made them arguably the most trusted source for information on almost anything. The Wikipedia article on the "Stop Online Piracy Act" received over a million views in the month between Nov. 24 and Dec. 24. Work to improve the content of such a page can have a large impact. You don't need need to be a computer wizard or even own a computer to help with this. We need people who can search for information on the web and use research computers at the San Jos? King Library. We hope to create a series of workshops on this topic to help us document what we are doing using Wikis owned by the Occupy movement as well as contributing to "THE" Wikipedia. Training and peer support will be provided. *** RSVP: If you plan to come, could you please let me know? It will help me now how much pizza to buy. (If you don't RSVP but decide at the last minute you want to come, please come.) 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 From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 12 15:52:43 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:52:43 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] election of county council members Message-ID: <4F0F724B.7030104@sbcglobal.net> This can certainly be an agenda item for our January meeting. It is from an email that I received from the Registrar of Voters office while I was away on vacation visiting family. Oops! It is time dated. Our county council must swing into action if they wish to change from an election of county council members to some other form of determining county council members. If they do not take action the situation remains the same, i.e., we have the Green Party voters elect our county council members. Jim Doyle Hello Jim, Attached is the memo I received from the Secretary of State?s Office. It states that now county central committees have the right to remove the selection of central committee members from the ballot entirely and develop an alternate method to elect your membership. I need to know if the Green Party county council will continue to conduct elections in the same manner as before, which follows the Elections Code, or will you develop your own method and take it off of the June 5, 2012 ballot? Please respond to me at my contact information below by January 23, 2012. If I have not received a response by that date, our office will continue to conduct your elections in the same manner as we have been pursuant to Elections Code. Thank you Shannon Bushey Manager, Candidate & Public Services Division Registrar of Voters PO Box 611360 San Jose, CA 95161-1360 408.282.3041 Office 408.998-7356 Fax shannon.bushey at rov.sccgov.org The attachment is a 4 page pdf file with a full complement of legalese and a sample letter for the various Registrars of Voters to use. I can email a copy of it to anyone who wishes to read the Secretary of State letter sent to all California Registrars of Voters. However, the essential statement, the action item, is in the email from our Registrar of Voters. From gerrygras at earthlink.net Fri Jan 13 17:05:24 2012 From: gerrygras at earthlink.net (Gerry Gras) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:05:24 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] 20 Groops Support Jan. 20 MTA Rally In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F10D4D4.9050307@earthlink.net> GPSCC is not on this list of endorsers for the MTA event, one week from today. But I thought GPSCC did endorse it. So what's the story? Gerry Richard Hobbs wrote: > If your organization has not endorsed this critical event taking place > in over 100 cities on January 20, please do so today! Forward the > attached flyers in English and Spanish to your contact lists or contact > SCCMOVETOAMEND at GMAIL.COM if you can > endorse the event or help on the day of. > Thank you! > Richard Hobbs, On Behalf of SCC MTA > > *Endorsements for Jan. 20 MTA Rally* > > Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 9423 > > Citizens for Environmental and Economic Justice > > Dream Menders > > South Bay Labor Council > > Working Partnerships > > NextGen Bay Area > > Acterra > > San Jose Peace and Justice Center > > Peninsula Peace and Justice Center > > Veterans for Peace Chapter 101 > > Edge for Economic Justice > > Ethical Culture Society of Silicon Valley > > CHAM > > Human Agenda > > San Jose Older Women's League > > San Jose Women's International League for Peace and Freedom > > Ethical Culture San Jose > > Vets for Peace > > our developing world > > Holy Redeemer Lutheran Church > From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Fri Jan 13 17:08:53 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:08:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] 20 Groops Support Jan. 20 MTA Rally Message-ID: <1326503333.27309.androidMobile@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Yes, I just wrote Richard to tell him that. Green is humane! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Fri Jan 13 19:53:57 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:53:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] The struggle for freedom Message-ID: <1326513237.14014.androidMobile@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> On MLK weekend as we work towards liberating humyns and other animals, the ecosphere and the planet from racism, corporatism and other tyrannical "isms", I'm reminded of this marvelous quote from Frederick Douglass (c. 1817 - 1885) who was such an key leader in the struggle for freedom and human rights for enslaved African Americans: "Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lighting ; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle.? Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will." Green is NOW! Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at aceweb.com Fri Jan 13 20:57:29 2012 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:57:29 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Guantanamo: Ten Years Too Many Message-ID: <4F110B39.7050800@aceweb.com> See my pictures of a protest about it at the Federal Building in SF: http://tian.greens.org/SanFrancisco/FederalBuilding/Guantanamo10Years/index.html -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: added pictures and words about my new plot. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Wyoming quarter. From tnharter at aceweb.com Fri Jan 13 21:07:00 2012 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:07:00 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] County Council Elections In-Reply-To: <4F10B3D7.2070101@greens.org> References: <4F0CF598.7010601@greens.org> <4F10B3D7.2070101@greens.org> Message-ID: <4F110D74.80501@aceweb.com> My question is, "Who out there is willing to run for County Council this year?" Please reply to this thread... -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: added pictures and words about Guantanamo. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Wyoming quarter. From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 14 12:17:50 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:17:50 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] county council elections Message-ID: <4F11E2EE.1040700@sbcglobal.net> Tian has posed the question "Who out there is willing to run for County Council this year?" My recollection is that four people had indicated their willingness at the November meeting - John, Merriam, Tian, and Jim Doyle. Is that correct? Are there any others who anounced at the December meeting? From eric at philosopherswheel.com Sat Jan 14 15:02:29 2012 From: eric at philosopherswheel.com (Eric A. Meece) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:02:29 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Mirkarimi In-Reply-To: <4F11E2EE.1040700@sbcglobal.net> References: <4F11E2EE.1040700@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: I'm dissappointed that Ross Mirkarimi is having troubles, and also dissappointed that he is no longer a Green. Just sayin'. I thought he has been a great guy for us, and an effective politician. From WB4D23 at aol.com Sun Jan 15 17:27:56 2012 From: WB4D23 at aol.com (WB4D23 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:27:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: A Green Party invitation to a voter registration training in Oakland Feb 4 Message-ID: <12835.50934322.3c44d71c@aol.com> This is an updated message about the GROW voter registration training program in Oakland Saturday February 4th. Warner ____________________________________ From: marnie at cagreens.org Sent: 1/12/2012 2:46:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time Subj: A Green Party invitation Hi -- We're happy to invite you to support the launch of our Green Party voter registration drive. Our goal is to register 100,000 new Greens in CA this year. Why now? * To give CA voters a choice to join a party that believes in peace, justice, grassroots democracy and ecological wisdom. * To elect more Greens to local office. * To maintain ballot access for our Green Party candidates Here are 3 ways you can support our voter registration drive. (1) Attend our first voter registration orientation and action in 2012 When: Saturday February 4, 10:30am - 2:00pm Where: Niebyl-Proctor Library, 6501 Telegraph Ave, Oakland, CA Who: All volunteers who want to help with our voter registration drive and grassroots organizing Learn more and RSVP: http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/voter_registration_training (2) Volunteer 1 hour (or more) for our voter registration drive in your neighborhood. http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/volunteerdetail We will connect you with a voter registration drive coordinator near you. (3) Make a donation of $5 (or more). https://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/donate Please contact us if you have any questions or ideas for how to grow our party this year. Peace, Marnie Glickman, Managing Director of the Green Party of CA marnie at cagreens.org || 415.259.7121 Alex Shantz, member of the Green Party of CA Coordinating Committee alexshantz at gmail.com P.S. Please connect with us on the web. _ www.cagreens.org www.twitter.com/gpca www.facebook.com/cagreens _ (http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/?e=124e874d9193278a646f655bff7fed7f68f0be33&utm_source=cagreens&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=voteregtraininv&n=1) -=-=- Green Party of California ? PO Box 485, 485, San Francisco, CA 94104 This email was sent to wsb3attyca at aol.com. To stop receiving emails, _click here_ (http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/unsubscribe?e=124e874d9193278a646f655bff7fed7f68f0be33&utm_source=cagreens&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=vote regtraininv&n=2) . -=-=- Created with _NationBuilder_ (http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/r?u=http://nationbuilder.com/&utm_campaign=voteregtraininv&n=3&e=124e874d9193278a646f655 bff7fed7f68f0be33&utm_source=cagreens&utm_medium=email) , the essential toolkit for a new generation of leaders and creators. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Mon Jan 16 00:38:18 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:38:18 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] California DISCLOSE Act In-Reply-To: <4F13D682.4070404@sonic.net> References: , <4F13D682.4070404@sonic.net> Message-ID: The CA DISCLOSE Act, which will require those who bankroll political ads to clearly identify themselves on the ad, faces a crucial hearing on Thursday the 19th. You can help with 2 quick phone calls: 1) Call Assembly Speaker John Perez (916-319-2046) and ask him to vote for AB 1148, the CA DISCLOSE Act, and to do everything he can to help pass it (he can do a lot). Leave a voicemail message if they don't answer. And let us know you called, at www.YesFairElections.org . 2) Call your Assemblymember to thank him for supporting AB 1148, the California DISCLOSE Act. Rich Gordon 916- 319-2021; Jerry Hill 916-319-2019; Paul Fong 916-319-2022. Also report this call, http://www.yesfairelections.org/ Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Mon Jan 16 20:27:21 2012 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:27:21 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Suggestion for our website: link to SCC-MTA January 20 event page Message-ID: <20120116.202721.32424.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Hi folks, Since it has been confirmed that we endorsed the January 20 Move To Amend "Occupy the Courts" event, I suggest that we put a link to http://scc-mta.org/jan20 on our website. Respectfully, Valerie ~*~*~*~ One thought from the following program is that when we bemoan the lack of handmade products in our lives we are wrong. Mr. Daisey believes that there are more handmade products available now than ever before. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f14f91863c2a15bab8bst05vuc From palmheaven at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 21:13:55 2012 From: palmheaven at gmail.com (Sustainable Handyman) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:13:55 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Tomorrow, Tuesday is OCCUPY CONGRESS day Message-ID: I plan on hanging out at my Congressperson's office as much as I can tomorrow (Zoe Lofgren) with my laptop and a bunch of office type work. Any other Greens interested in this effort? Roy III -- Retired Greenbuilder CA General Contractor B #756438 - inactive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at aceweb.com Mon Jan 16 23:56:00 2012 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:56:00 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Carol Brouillet for Congress Kickoff Party! Message-ID: <4F152990.5070403@aceweb.com> When: Saturday evening, 7ish to start. Where: My clubhouse. Details: http://tian.greens.org/MountainView/My/Clubhouse/CampaignKickoff11/PartyAnoucement.shtml NOTE: If you want to run for anything (for example County Council) this event will be a great place to collect Green signatures. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest addition: pictures and words about Guantanamo after ten years. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Wyoming quarter. From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Jan 17 08:26:23 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Online Debate About SOPA 12:30PM Eastern 1-17-12 (Today at 9:30 AM PST) In-Reply-To: <4F152990.5070403@aceweb.com> References: <4F152990.5070403@aceweb.com> Message-ID: <1326817583.12159.YahooMailNeo@web111114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> If you want to be informed and participate in an online debate about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) please RSVP at the link below.? The talk is scheduled to start today at 9:30AM Pacific Time.? Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking ? PS www.peacemovies.com already has a protest page in place of the homepage for the entire week, from 1-16-12 to 1-20-12 to show what the minimum of an enforcement action looks like under SOPA (your site goes down for a minimum of 5 days before you can dispute the charges before a judge). ? http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/rsvp_sopa_briefing/?source=link-typ&referring_akid=6349.981582.5banso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Tue Jan 17 09:08:24 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:08:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee Election via County Polling In-Reply-To: <4F1532CC.9040009@aceweb.com> References: <23f3a.1a1cbfbb.3c464aa9@aol.com> <4F1532CC.9040009@aceweb.com> Message-ID: <1326820104.81563.YahooMailRC@web181013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> So are you going to vbe our on-line designated person? Fine with me. I like your proposal. Count me in. Caroline ________________________________ From: Tian Harter To: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Cc: mkmusic at greens.org; andi at wrytor.com; carolineyacoub at att.net; j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net; MKmusic03 at aol.com; TNHarter at aol.com Sent: Tue, January 17, 2012 12:35:24 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee Election via County Polling Ummm... This needs to be handled by the 20th, which is before next county meeting. I looked at the bios of all four candidates, and none of them bother me. How about we give each of them one vote? That's my proposal, but I'm open to other ideas... Not going to do anything till I hear enough voices on this. Tian WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com wrote: > GPSCC CC Members:? San Mateo GP has voted.? Can you?? Deadline is this Friday >January 20th.? The GPSCC has four votes.? Warner >? >? ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >? ? From: contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? To: Contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? Sent: 12/20/2011 2:33:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time >? ? Subj: [gpca-cocos] [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee >? ? Election via County Polling >? ? ? ? ? GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE > >? ? This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List.? For more >? ? information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, >? ? please do not hit reply.? Follow the contact directions >? ? stated in the email. > > > > >? ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >? ? Dear GPCA active county organization > >? ? This is to notify you of the commencement of a one-month on-line vote to >? ? fill vacant seats on the GPCA Coordinating Committee. The voting period >? ? will run from December 20, 2011 through January 20, 2012. > >? ? Your county may submit as many ballots as the number of delegates >? ? allocated to your county for the December 2011 General Assembly in Los >? ? Angeles. That list is here: > >? ? Alameda 10 >? ? Contra Costa 3 >? ? El Dorado 1 >? ? Fresno 2 >? ? Humboldt 3 >? ? Lake 1 >? ? LA 24 >? ? Marin 2 >? ? Mendocino 2 >? ? Monterey 1 >? ? Napa 1 >? ? Nevada 1 >? ? Orange 8 >? ? Riverside 3 >? ? Sacramento 4 >? ? San Diego 7 >? ? San Francisco 9 >? ? San Luis Obispo 2 >? ? San Mateo 3 >? ? Santa Clara 4 >? ? Shasta 1 >? ? Sonoma 4 >? ? Ventura? 3 > >? ? Candidate Bios > >? ? Stevie Luther >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Stevie_Luther > > >? ? Nancy Mancias >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Nancy_Mancias > > >? ? Marla Bernstein >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Marla_Bernstein > > >? ? Maxine Daniels >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Maxine_Daniels > > >? ? How to vote: > >? ? 1. Designate one person to act as the online ballot entry person for >? ? your >? ? county. > >? ? 2. After your county's discussions, use the sample ballot below to rank >? ? the candidates in order of preference, as described in the sections >? ? below. >? ? Fill out one sample ballot for each delegate allocated to your county. > >? ? 3. Send your county's ballots to cc-election at cagreens.org >? ? . > > >? ? Voting Theory > >? ? On a ranked choice ballot, you indicate "yes" votes by entering a >? ? ranking >? ? for candidates. You rank all candidates of whom you approve for the >? ? office >? ? in order of preference.? In addition to the candidates, the ballot also >? ? contains an "NOC" (no other choice) option which is used to indicate the >? ? end of your voting if you do not rank all candidates. Also remember >? ? that a >? ? candidate must receive more votes than NOC to win a seat, so ranking NOC >? ? as your last choice indicates a "no" vote for the candidates that >? ? you did >? ? not rank. If you do not rank NOC, that indicates an "abstention" for the >? ? candidates that you did not rank. > >? ? Voting Process > >? ? YES -- For all candidates of whom you approve for the Coordinating >? ? Committee, rank those candidates in order of your preference, starting >? ? with "1" for your first choice. Rank only one candidate in each row >? ? of the >? ? ballot. Continue ranking all candidates of whom you approve. > >? ? NO -- For all candidates of whom you DO NOT approve for the Coordinating >? ? Committee, do not write a ranking number on the ballot. > >? ? NOC -- If you do not rank all candidates, give NOC your last ranking to >? ? indicate a "no" vote for the unranked candidates.? The votes cast for >? ? NOC create a second threshold that winning candidates must pass. If you >? ? just stop ranking candidates without ranking NOC, this acts more like an >? ? abstention; it neither helps nor hinders the unranked candidates. >? ? Ranking >? ? NOC as your last choice gives an affirmative "no" vote to the unranked >? ? candidates. > >? ? Sample Ballot for two candidates for two open seats for remainder of >? ? spring 2011 - spring 2013 > >? ? Place one X in each row to indicate your ranking. > >? ? My first choice is >? ? ___ Stevie Luther ____ Nancy Mancias ____ NOC > >? ? My second choice is >? ? ___ Stevie Luther ____ Nancy Mancias____ NOC > > >? ? Sample Ballot for two candidates for three open seats for remainder of >? ? spring 2010 - spring 2012 > >? ? Place one X in each row to indicate your ranking. > >? ? My first choice is? >? ? ___ Marla Bernstein____ Maxine Daniels____ NOC > >? ? My second choice is? >? ? ___ Marla Bernstein____ Maxine Daniels____ NOC > > >? ? _______________________________________________ >? ? Contacts2006 mailing list >? ? Contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 >? ? _______________________________________________ >? ? gpca-cocos mailing list >? ? gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest addition: pictures and words about Guantanamo after ten years. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Utah quarter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at aceweb.com Tue Jan 17 13:17:34 2012 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:17:34 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] [Fwd: What California Can Learn from Latin America - Sat, Jan 28!!!] Message-ID: <4F15E56E.9010606@aceweb.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What California Can Learn from Latin America - Sat, Jan 28!!! Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:37:06 -0800 From: Laura Wells To: Laura Wells FORWARD FREELY! You won't want to miss this, so if you have Saturday, January 28 free, come to a forum called ?*What California Can Learn from Latin America*.? It?s a People?s Movement Assembly co-sponsored by the East Bay Social Forum 2012. There are 140 seats at the Humanist Hall and we hope to fill them all. Bring friends: the ideal person to bring would be someone working for a better world who does not realize there are a lot of great changes (not perfect!) happening in Latin America that California can learn from and apply here. There's a great line-up, including peace activist *Cindy Sheehan*; former Consul General of Venezuela *Mart?n S?nchez*; KPFA host and Richmond Progressive Alliance *Andr?s Soto*; Move to Amend *David Cobb, *Friend of Landless Workers Movement *Charlotte Casey,* and more. * Saturday, January 28 ? 10am-4pm, check-in at 9:30 am * Humanist Hall, 390 27th St bet. Broadway & Telegraph, Oakland * $5-20 donation, no one turned away * BRING A BROWN BAG LUNCH! * *Occupy Successes* in the morning; panels and break-out groups all day Another World is Possible! *East Bay Social Forum 2012* www.eastbaysocialforum.org - FLYER ON HOME PAGE http://www.facebook.com/pages/East-Bay-Social-Forum/196032793754422 ** -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest addition: pictures and words about Guantanamo after ten years. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Utah quarter. From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Jan 17 16:50:06 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:50:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Please cancel Green Party Movie Night for Jan 20, 2012 In-Reply-To: <1326847652.45164.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1109073641178.1103934123272.743.12.99235502@scheduler> <1326847652.45164.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1326847806.67640.YahooMailNeo@web111106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message bounced from GPchat.? Let's try that again. ________________________________ From: John Thielking To: "shelby.minister at yahoo.com" Cc: Merriam ; sosfbay discussion group Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Please cancel Green Party Movie Night for Jan 20, 2012 Shelby, ? I believe we have reached consensus among the people putting on the Green Party Movie Night (Merriam, Caroline and myself) that the event will be cancelled for Jan 20, 2012.? We will show Dr. Strangelove next month.?Merriam wants to do phone banking for MTA?this month at that time instead.?Please post a note to that effect in place of the current listing.? Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Jan 17 18:15:41 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:15:41 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. 26: Betsy Wolf-Graves to talk on Secure Communities Message-ID: <4F162B4D.7000805@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: Could start the next meeting, Jan. 26, with Betsy Wolf-Graves talking about the work of PACT (People Acting in Community Together) that convinced the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to opt out of the "Secure Communities" program to get tough on "illegal aliens"? Below please find a summary of their work. See you then. Best Wishes, Spencer Santa Clara County, a Progressive Voice Against Secure Communities October 18th may go down in the history of immigration reform as a landmark day. On that day the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted NOT to follow demands of the federal government on "Secure Communities" because (a) it's against the philosophy of our County and (b) it is an unfunded federal mandate. The issue was detainers: notices to the sheriff?s staff to hold an individual and do a background check on that person. PACT (People Acting in Community Together) started at least two years ago trying to understand a new program called Secure Communities. The intent of this program seemed to be to deport undocumented immigrants. It was already generating concern in our local immigrant community. Grass roots groups came together. Strategy sessions developed plans to contact decision makers, utilize the expertise of group members, consult with the County?s legal team and with the chair of the committee responsible for understanding and dealing with Secure Communities, the Public Safety and Justice Committee, chaired by Supervisor George Shirakawa. PACT also worked with Zoe Lofgren, who represents part of San Jos? in the US House of Representatives. She is a senior member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. The program had been represented to her as voluntary but was being sold to Santa Clara County as mandatory. She was so troubled by that discrepancy that she ordered an investigation, which should make it easier for Santa Clara County to sustain their decision last Oct. 18 to opt out of "Secure Communities". However, the issue is not dead. PACT is continuing to meet to ensure that the recent Board of Supervisors' decision is actually translated into reality. -- 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 vdf at juno.com Tue Jan 17 18:53:19 2012 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:53:19 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee El ection via County Polling Message-ID: <20120117.185319.24747.2@webmail03.vgs.untd.com> Hi folks, I have read the bios and I don't see anything that bothers me. I suggest that we give each candidate 2 first place votes and 2 second place votes. Thus, our ballots 1 and 2 for "Candidates to fill two open Coordinating Committee at-large seats for the remainder of the spring 2011- spring 2013 term" would have 1 - Stevie Luther 2 - Nancy Mancias and our ballots 3 and 4 for those seats would have 1 - Nancy Mancias 2 - Stevie Luther Then our ballots 1 and 2 for "Candidates to fill two open Coordinating Committee at-large seats for the remainder of the spring 2012- spring 2014 term" would have 1 - Marla Bernstein 2 - Maxine Daniels and our ballots 3 and 4 for those seats would have 1 - Maxine Daniels 2 - Marla Bernstein BTW, it's great to see this on sosfbay-discuss! Respectfully, Valerie ~*~*~*~ One thought from the following program is that when we bemoan the lack of handmade products in our lives we are wrong. Mr. Daisey believes that there are more handmade products available now than ever before. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory Please note: message attached ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f163470d5edd388a5cst01vuc -------------- next part -------------- So are you going to vbe our on-line designated person? Fine with me. I like your proposal. Count me in. Caroline ________________________________ From: Tian Harter To: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Cc: mkmusic at greens.org; andi at wrytor.com; carolineyacoub at att.net; j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net; MKmusic03 at aol.com; TNHarter at aol.com Sent: Tue, January 17, 2012 12:35:24 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee Election via County Polling Ummm... This needs to be handled by the 20th, which is before next county meeting. I looked at the bios of all four candidates, and none of them bother me. How about we give each of them one vote? That's my proposal, but I'm open to other ideas... Not going to do anything till I hear enough voices on this. Tian WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com wrote: > GPSCC CC Members:? San Mateo GP has voted.? Can you?? Deadline is this Friday >January 20th.? The GPSCC has four votes.? Warner >? >? ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >? ? From: contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? To: Contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? Sent: 12/20/2011 2:33:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time >? ? Subj: [gpca-cocos] [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee >? ? Election via County Polling >? ? ? ? ? GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE > >? ? This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List.? For more >? ? information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, >? ? please do not hit reply.? Follow the contact directions >? ? stated in the email. > > > > >? ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >? ? Dear GPCA active county organization > >? ? This is to notify you of the commencement of a one-month on-line vote to >? ? fill vacant seats on the GPCA Coordinating Committee. The voting period >? ? will run from December 20, 2011 through January 20, 2012. > >? ? Your county may submit as many ballots as the number of delegates >? ? allocated to your county for the December 2011 General Assembly in Los >? ? Angeles. That list is here: > >? ? Alameda 10 >? ? Contra Costa 3 >? ? El Dorado 1 >? ? Fresno 2 >? ? Humboldt 3 >? ? Lake 1 >? ? LA 24 >? ? Marin 2 >? ? Mendocino 2 >? ? Monterey 1 >? ? Napa 1 >? ? Nevada 1 >? ? Orange 8 >? ? Riverside 3 >? ? Sacramento 4 >? ? San Diego 7 >? ? San Francisco 9 >? ? San Luis Obispo 2 >? ? San Mateo 3 >? ? Santa Clara 4 >? ? Shasta 1 >? ? Sonoma 4 >? ? Ventura? 3 > >? ? Candidate Bios > >? ? Stevie Luther >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Stevie_Luther > > >? ? Nancy Mancias >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Nancy_Mancias > > >? ? Marla Bernstein >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Marla_Bernstein > > >? ? Maxine Daniels >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Maxine_Daniels > > >? ? How to vote: > >? ? 1. Designate one person to act as the online ballot entry person for >? ? your >? ? county. > >? ? 2. After your county's discussions, use the sample ballot below to rank >? ? the candidates in order of preference, as described in the sections >? ? below. >? ? Fill out one sample ballot for each delegate allocated to your county. > >? ? 3. Send your county's ballots to cc-election at cagreens.org >? ? . > > >? ? Voting Theory > >? ? On a ranked choice ballot, you indicate "yes" votes by entering a >? ? ranking >? ? for candidates. You rank all candidates of whom you approve for the >? ? office >? ? in order of preference.? In addition to the candidates, the ballot also >? ? contains an "NOC" (no other choice) option which is used to indicate the >? ? end of your voting if you do not rank all candidates. Also remember >? ? that a >? ? candidate must receive more votes than NOC to win a seat, so ranking NOC >? ? as your last choice indicates a "no" vote for the candidates that >? ? you did >? ? not rank. If you do not rank NOC, that indicates an "abstention" for the >? ? candidates that you did not rank. > >? ? Voting Process > >? ? YES -- For all candidates of whom you approve for the Coordinating >? ? Committee, rank those candidates in order of your preference, starting >? ? with "1" for your first choice. Rank only one candidate in each row >? ? of the >? ? ballot. Continue ranking all candidates of whom you approve. > >? ? NO -- For all candidates of whom you DO NOT approve for the Coordinating >? ? Committee, do not write a ranking number on the ballot. > >? ? NOC -- If you do not rank all candidates, give NOC your last ranking to >? ? indicate a "no" vote for the unranked candidates.? The votes cast for >? ? NOC create a second threshold that winning candidates must pass. If you >? ? just stop ranking candidates without ranking NOC, this acts more like an >? ? abstention; it neither helps nor hinders the unranked candidates. >? ? Ranking >? ? NOC as your last choice gives an affirmative "no" vote to the unranked >? ? candidates. > >? ? Sample Ballot for two candidates for two open seats for remainder of >? ? spring 2011 - spring 2013 > >? ? Place one X in each row to indicate your ranking. > >? ? My first choice is >? ? ___ Stevie Luther ____ Nancy Mancias ____ NOC > >? ? My second choice is >? ? ___ Stevie Luther ____ Nancy Mancias____ NOC > > >? ? Sample Ballot for two candidates for three open seats for remainder of >? ? spring 2010 - spring 2012 > >? ? Place one X in each row to indicate your ranking. > >? ? My first choice is? >? ? ___ Marla Bernstein____ Maxine Daniels____ NOC > >? ? My second choice is? >? ? ___ Marla Bernstein____ Maxine Daniels____ NOC > > >? ? _______________________________________________ >? ? Contacts2006 mailing list >? ? Contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 >? ? _______________________________________________ >? ? gpca-cocos mailing list >? ? gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest addition: pictures and words about Guantanamo after ten years. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Utah quarter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Tue Jan 17 20:19:09 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:19:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee El ection via County Polling Message-ID: <1326860349.27418.androidMobile@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I can't say I know it for a fact but when I read the bios they all look to me to be Mike Feinstein / Marnie Glickman recruits and if my guess is accurate this election would pretty much lock up the CC for that faction.? If accurate I'm not sure what response I'd take. Someone could directly ask them about this issue. If I get really motivated I might, but someone else could just as easily. Green is NOW! http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Jan 17 20:52:28 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:52:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: The internet is going dark tomorrow In-Reply-To: <5ef41e97f96dd8bae8a1c990d84670f6@bounce.bluestatedigital.com> References: <5ef41e97f96dd8bae8a1c990d84670f6@bounce.bluestatedigital.com> Message-ID: <1326862348.54173.YahooMailNeo@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Check this out.? It's on for tomorrow. I'm not waiting for SOPA to pass.? Check the Peace Center for copies of my Peacemovies 6-8 page paper and ink newsletter that I hope to publish weekly, starting this Friday. I may end up charging $1 per copy at bookstores, like Revolution Newspaper does for theirs, but it will be free at the Peace Center to start with. ? John Thielking ? ? ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jochai from Access To: John Thielking Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:45 PM Subject: The internet is going dark tomorrow Dear John, Much of the internet is going dark tomorrow to protest an ill-conceived law that the US Congress is proposing in the name of stopping online piracy, but at great expense to free speech and the integrity of the internet. Given the huge sway the US has over the operation of the internet, many see it as the biggest threat to internet freedom ever. That is why I?m on my way to DC right now to meet with a number of key Senators about the law, known as the PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House. We are up against a dangerous piece of legislation that seriously threatens digital rights, innovation, and the integrity of the internet. In my bag is an important document. It is a?letter?to the US Senate?which Access coordinated, bringing together dozens of human rights groups from around the world including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders, calling on them to ?stand for human rights, defend the open internet, and reject the PROTECT IP Act.? I?ll be delivering this letter to the Senate, which Washington insiders say will have a real impact in switching some Senators votes, but this fight is far from over. This legislation is coming up for a major vote in just seven days, and unless we act now, it might very possibly become law. Tomorrow there will be a huge protest in New York City outside of the offices of Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, who are both co-sponsors of the PROTECT IP Act. If you?re in the City or anywhere near it, I urge you to join the Access team and countless others at this Emergency NY Tech Meetup. Look for the big banner with the Access logo and the names of all the signatories of the letter from the human rights community on it. Details can be found here:?http://nytm.org/sos/ If you?re in the US, but not in NYC, there are protests happening tomorrow in?San Francisco,?Seattle, and?many other places. I urge you to attend if you?re in these cities! If you?re not, please contact your Senators while they?re home for the January recess. This legislation will also seriously affect non-US websites and users as well. As we explain in the letter, this legislation, which targets foreign websites, would create a double jurisdiction problem, whereby non-U.S.-based sites must determine whether a site is legal in both the country it is operating in and the United States, or face losing access to payment providers, advertising, and links to their site. Moreover, this legislation would send an unequivocal message that censoring the web is not only acceptable, but encouraged. If you?re not in the US, join sites like Reddit, BoingBoing, Tumblr, Wikipedia, CREDO, WordPress, and countless other sites, and of course Access, in blacking out your site. Or talk about it on Twitter, Facebook, G+, make sure your friends know that the internet is going on strike tomorrow. The internet is a key enabler of human rights and innovation, and decisions over its governance should not be made hastily. With each passing day the claims for urgency for copyright legislation whither, from the demonstrably false data used to make economic arguments about losses and jobs,[1]?to the efficacy of DNS filtering,[2]?to the baseless claims that countries like Spain, Egypt, or Sweden have lost their film industries due to piracy.[3] Nothing short of a global outcry is going to defeat this terrible legislation. Cheers, Jochai Ben-Avie Access Policy Director ? [1]http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/ [2]http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2011/12/22/sopa-and-our-2010-circumvention-study/ [3]http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/04100017081/chris-dodd-resorting-to-outright-lying-desperate-attempt-to-get-sopa-passed.shtml To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.accessnow.org/unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shelby.minister at yahoo.com Tue Jan 17 17:42:20 2012 From: shelby.minister at yahoo.com (Shelby Minister) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:42:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Please cancel Green Party Movie Night for Jan 20, 2012 In-Reply-To: <1326847652.45164.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1109073641178.1103934123272.743.12.99235502@scheduler> <1326847652.45164.YahooMailNeo@web111103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1326850940.45405.YahooMailNeo@web161505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> ok i have edited the calendar to say that it has been canceled ? Shelby Minister 510-978-9076 shelby.minister at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: John Thielking To: "shelby.minister at yahoo.com" Cc: Merriam ; sosfbay discussion group Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Please cancel Green Party Movie Night for Jan 20, 2012 Shelby, ? I believe we have reached consensus among the people putting on the Green Party Movie Night (Merriam, Caroline and myself) that the event will be cancelled for Jan 20, 2012.? We will show Dr. Strangelove next month.?Merriam wants to do phone banking for MTA?this month at that time instead.?Please post a note to that effect in place of the current listing.? Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking ________________________________ From: San Jose Peace and Justice Center To: pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:55 PM Subject: Reflections on the Egyptian Revolution & Other Upcoming Events Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Calendar January 11, 2012 In This Issue... ??? Reflections on the Egyptian Revolution ? Documentary: The Future of Food ? Beyond Terror: America After Bin Laden ?? How the Green Economy Can Save?Humanity From Itself ?? Building a Cooperative Society After Capitalism ?? MLK 83rd Birthday Celebration ?? Financial Friday March ?? Free Documentary: The Future of Food ? MLK Birthday Sing Along ? General Assembly Occupy San Jose? ? Mindful Interactions 1: Presence & Observation in Non-violence ? Universal Declaration of Human Rights ? Wiki Wkshp & Geek Pizza Party ? Code Pink Roundtable on Struggle of Hyatt Hotel Workers ? ON AIR: Blood on the Tracks? Spanish for Activists? ?? Use GoodSearch!? ?? Regular Scheduled Peace Vigils?? ?? Quick Links...? Our Website Facebook? Spring Peace TimesBlog? ? ? CLICK HERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A DONATION TO SAN JOSE PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER? ? ? ? Did you know that every time you use good search as a search engine, a donation can go to the San Jose Peace and Justice Center? Just click here and choose San Jose Peace and Justice Center as your charity. You can even add a good search toolbar to your screen.? ? Reflections on the Egyptian Revolution ? Friday, January 13 2012 @ 6:30 PM San Jose Peace and Justice Center 48 S 7th St? ? Noura Khouri and Shimaa Helmy will show slides & video and speak on a variety of current topics such as the role of women and social media in the Arab Spring, the economic, political and cultural contexts in relation to the uprisings that have been taking place, the experience of being an activist in Egypt with the current situation there, especially in the face of the US backed military regime. ? ? Noura Khouri is a Palestinian American community organizer and human rights activist from the Bay Area. Inspired by the Arab Spring she recently returned from Cairo, Egypt, where she went for 8 months to witness this revolutionary process, first hand. Since her return she has been active with Occupy Oakland and working to connect the issues and movements more broadly; she will share info about her experiences. Shimaa Helmy is an Egyptian activist from Cairo, Egypt. She organized and participated in the Jan25 uprising from day one, and has been in the U.S on a speaking tour about her participation in the Egyptian uprising.She also became very active with the Occupy movement especially in #OWS NY and is working on connecting American and Egyptian activists. ? Networking 6:30 pm Program 7:00 pm Fundraiser to support the activism work of Shimaa and Noura. No one turned away. Documentary: "The Future of Food" ? Thursday January 12 2012, 7PM San Jose Peace and Justice Center 48 S 7th St? ? THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery store shelves for the past decade. >From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed about the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply. Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, The Future of Food examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture. Presentation by Joyce M Eden from the California ballot Initiative campaign to Label GMOs. Suggested Donation $5-10. No one turned away for lack of funds. Beyond Terror: America After Bin Laden? Thursday, January 12 2012 @ 7 PM Cemex Auditorium, Zambrano Hall, Stanford 641 Knight Way Stanford? ? Lawrence Wright (author, screenwriter, playwright, and a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine) will be in conversation with Tobias Wolff (English, Stanford) and Martha Crenshaw (Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford). Wright's history of al-Qaeda, "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11," was published to immediate and widespread acclaim, spending eight weeks on The New York Times best seller list and being translated into twenty-five languages. It was nominated for the National Book Award and won the Lionel Gelber Award for nonfiction, the Los Angeles Times Award for History, the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize, the New York Public Library Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism, and the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. The NYU School of Journalism recently honored the book as one of the ten best works of journalism in the previous decade. This event is sponsored by Center for Ethics in Society How the Green Economy Can?Save Humanity from Itself? Thursday, January 12 2012 7?PM Unitarian Universalists of San Mateo 300 E. Santa Inez San Mateo? ? Peace Action of San Mateo Countywill present a talk by Dr. Kevin Danaher, co-founder of Global Exchange, the celebrated San Francisco-based environmental and human rights organization. Kevin will talk about "How the Green Economy Can Save Humanity from Itself." ? While no longer in the staff of Global Exchange (though still a member of its Board), his new position with the San Francisco Department of the Environment has already provided him with insights about green technology as a basis for our economy and as a counterpoint to the business-as-usual thinking of the corporate world and the military. On January 12 he will share new thoughts about converting work by corporations and the military to a greener process. ? The Unitarian Universalists is wheelchair accessible; enter the hall on the Ellsworth side. ? MORE INFO: Email: smpa at sanmateopeaceaction.org Phone: 650-342-8244 This event is sponsored by Peace Action of San Mateo County Building a Cooperative Society After Capitalism ? Thursday, January 12 2012 @ 7 PM CHAM Office? 949 E. San Fernando Street San Jose ? Facilitator: Sandy Perry Building a cooperative society out of the ruins of capitalism. We will examine historical examples of cooperative societies in indigenous cultures and review advocates of common ownership over the centuries from Jesus to Lenin. Finally, we will explore why common ownership is the answer to the economic problems of the age of robotics. This event is sponsored by People's Classroom - Occupy San Jose Martin Luther King Jr.?83rd Birthday Celebration "Where Do We Go From Here?" ? Friday?January 13, 2012 12-3PM Martin Luther King Jr Library? E San Fernando St and 4th St San Jose Honoring the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.D, "Where Do?We Go From Here?" ? 12-12:30 PM- Libation Ceremony (4th St Lobby, 1st Floor) 12:35-1:20 PM- Dr. King Birthday?Cake Ceremonial (King Collection Area, 3rd Floor) Speakers: Jane Light- Director, San Jose Public Library Ruth Kifer- Dean, San Jose State Library Sam Liccardo- Councilmember, San Jose Dr. Glen O. Toney-?Member of the Board of Trustees, California State University? Dr. Mohammad Qayoumi- President, San Jose State University Teresa Castellanos- Coordinator, Immigrant Relations and Integration Services, Office of Human Relations, Santa Clara County Dr. Sharat G. Lin- President, San Jose Peace & Justice Center Dr. Ruth Wilson- Chair, Department of African American Studies, San Jose State University ? Musical Peformance by Jasmin Mohib ? 1:30-1:45 PM- Dr. Glen O. Toney 1:45-3 PM- Minister Barry Houston- The House of Sankofa ? Sponsored By The Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library, San Jose State University, The Cultural Heritage Center, Dr. Martin Luther King Legacy Committee, Jaliya, Inc., San Jose Peace & Justice Center, and the San Jose Credit Union ? For more information visit www.sjpl.org/event or call 408-808-2173 Financial Friday Direct Action March? ? Friday, January 13 2012 @ 4PM City Hall Plaza 4th & Santa Clara St. San Jose? ? Join Occupy San Jose for our weekly direct action agains our predatory local financial institutions. We will be shutting down the banks, educating people about their predatory practices and other fun actions. We will spend approx 30 minutes agreeing on targets and tactics, then march to a financial institution in downtown San Jose. Action will end around 6pm when banks close. Free Documentary: The Future of Food ? Saturday, January?14 2012 @ 1:30?PM Niles Discovery Church 255 H Street at 3rd Fremont ?? "The Future of Food" offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically modified engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery store shelves for the past decade. This film examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture.? ? Sponsored by Tri-City Documentaries Second Saturday Series?? Martin Luther King Birthday Community Sing Along! ? Saturday January 14 2012 @ 8PM? Fellowship Hall, 1st Presbyterian Church 1140 Cowper Street Palo Alto ? Bring your voices and we'll sing the great songs of the civil rights, peace, and labor movements ... together! Snacks and Birthday Cake provided during intermission.? ? Featuring Folk This! with Marcus Duskin and friends...? ? Free, contributions will be requested.? ? This event is sponsored by Peninsula Peace and Justice Center?? General Assembly- Occupy San Jose Sunday, January?15 2012 @ 12 PM Occupy San Jose - City Hall Plaza 4th & Santa Clara St. San Jose ? Occupy San Jose has General Assemblies every Wednesday and Sunday. This is where we practice participatory democracy and build consensus to push our movement forward. Join us for a General Assembly to see what real democracy looks like. Mindful Interactions 1: Presence & Observation in Nonviolent Communication? ? Sunday January 15, 2012 @ 4PM? San Jose Peace & Justice Center 48 South 7th Street ? Mindful Interactions is a 4-part course in Nonviolent Communication Facilitator: Bob Neiderman, Silicon Valley Nonviolent Communication? The purpose of Mindful Interactions is to help people resolve differences without resorting to violence or other forms of conflict. I believe that most conflicts are the result of incomplete understanding of one's own needs and the needs of others. Nonviolent Communication (NVC) helps us become clear on these needs as it builds presence and connection. ? Class 1: Introduction to Nonviolent Communication- how it works to create compassion and understanding in the speaker and the listener. This class will focus on presence and observation, the starting points for NVC Suggested Donation: $0-5 to help pay $25 center-use fee. No one turned away for lack of funds.? ? This event is sponsored by Occupy San Jose Universal Declaration of Human Rights ? Sunday January 15 2012 @ 4 PM Morse Street Meeting House 1041 Morse Street San Jose? ? Article 4: Discussion? No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. Slavery and slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. (including sweat shops and sex trafficking) This event is sponsored by Ethical Culture of Silicon Valley? Wiki Workshop & Geek Pizza Party ? Monday January 16 2012 @ 6:30 PM San Jos? Peace & Justice Center 48 S. 7th St. San Jos?? ? The Wikipedia article on the "Stop Online Piracy Act" received over 1,000,000 views in the month between Nov. 24 and Dec. 24. Work to improve the content of such a page can have a large impact. The Green Party of Santa Clara County and 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. Bring a notebook computer if you have one, but come if you are interested even if you don't own a computer. We will change and add to an Occupy Wiki as well as "THE Wikipedia". We will discuss the interests and desires of participants, select things to change, 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, which can help you with other things you want to do.) ? FACILITATORS: Henry Gage and Spencer Graves ? This event is sponsored by Green Party of Santa Clara Countty ? Event URL: http://www.cagreens.org/santaclara/ ON AIR: Blood on the Tracks ?? Blood on the Tracks recounts the life of S. Brian Willson. His story begins in small-town, rural America, where he grew up as a "Commie-hating, baseball-loving Baptist," moves through life-changing experiences in Viet Nam, Nicaragua and elsewhere, and culminates with his commitment to a localized, sustainable lifestyle. Brian spoke and autographed copies of his book at the Peace & Justice Center. The title refers to the incident at Concord Naval Weapons Center, where a train ran over Willson, severing his legs as he and others were protesting U.S. involvement in Central America. ? ?The most recent production from the 48South7thteam is available online and on TV. Comcast Channel 15 in San Jose and Campbell broadcasts 48South7th every Tuesday at 8pm.?? Code Pink Roundtable on Struggle of Hyatt Hotel Housekeepers ? Tuesday, January 17 2012 @ 7 PM San Jose Peace & Justice Center? 48 South 7th Street ? Martha Reyes and her sister Lorena were among many Hyatt employees whose faces were pasted atop bikini-clad cartoon images on the company's bulletin board. Humiliated, Martha Reyes tore down the photographs of herself and her sister. Both sisters were later fired by the hotel. ? You are invited to meet and hear from Hyatt Hotel housekeepers Martha & Lorena Reyes and discuss how to build the struggle to get justice for themn for other Hyatt workers and other low wage workers.? ? Spanish For Activists ? Spanish for Activists meets every Wednesday at the San Jose Peace and Justice Center at 6:30 pm.Learn conversational Spanish in a laid back environment with other activists! Use GoodSearch for Browsing the Internet! San Jose Peace and Justice Center - Collins Foundation needs your help to win the $500 donation in the GoodSearch Registration contest! ? You can help your charity win by spreading the word to friends, family and colleagues and asking them to help you support San Jose Peace and Justice Center - Collins Foundation. Please click here...? ? Regularly Scheduled Peace Vigils Mondays, 5-6 p.m. in San Jose: Corner of Market & San Carlos Streets, south end of Cesar Chavez Park?(near Convention CenterLight Rail Station).? Justice for Palestinians weekly protest against Apartheid Israeli occupation, aggression & terror. ? Wednesdays, 4:45-6 p.m. in Palo Alto:? Peace vigil at the corner of Embarcadero and El Camino Real.? ??? ? ??? ? Thursday, 3:30-4:30 p.m. in Hayward: Minipark, Located at Foothill? & D Streets. You are invited to attend a weekly Palestine Vigil. South Alameda County Peace and Justice Coalition's signs call to Americans: "End the Occupation of Palestine & Iraq", "No Apartheid Wall in Palestine", "Stop Aid to Israel" ?Fourth Fridays 12:10 to 12:50 pm in Sunnyvale:At the corner of Mathilda Avenue and 3rd Avenue in front of the Lockheed Martin main gate. Please join the Pacific Life Community?for a monthly?vigil against nuclear weapons.?? Fridays, 5-6 p.m. in San Jose: In front of the Martin Luther King Library, 150 E. San Fernando Street. Please join us at the Friday Peace Vigil.? Saturdays, 11:30 a.m. - 2 p.m. in San Jose:? Winchester and Stevens Creek, near Valley Fair and Santana Row. Forward email This email was sent to pagesincolor at yahoo.com by shelby.minister at yahoo.com | ? Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe? | Privacy Policy. San Jose Peace and Justice Center| 48 South 7th St| San Jose| CA| 95112 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Wed Jan 18 10:18:21 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:18:21 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Do-or-Die Time for CA DISCLOSE Act Message-ID: AB1148 is coming up for a vital vote in the Appropriations Committee Thursday. This bill would help reduce corporate influence in our democratic processes by requiring the funders of political ads to identify themselves in the ad. We've already seen that when the voters know that Texas Oil, or the insurance companies, or PG&E is behind a ballot initiative, the voters know to vote against it. Please sign the online petition in support of AB 1148 now. http://www.caclean.org/petition When you sign this online, it will generate an email to the Assembly speaker, to the members of the Appropriations Committee, and to your local Assemblyperson. Please call Assembly Speaker Perez's office at 916.319.2046. Identify yourself by name, and ask him to do everything he can to help pass AB1148. If they don't answer, leave a message on the machine. Let's fight back against anonymous unlimited spending unleashed by Citizens United!! Please forward this email widely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Wed Jan 18 12:43:55 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:43:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee El ection via County Polling In-Reply-To: <20120117.185319.24747.2@webmail03.vgs.untd.com> References: <20120117.185319.24747.2@webmail03.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <1326919435.6869.YahooMailRC@web181001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Wow! Thanks Valerie for setting that up so nicely. I agree wholeheartedly. Caroline ________________________________ From: Valerie D. Face To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: Tue, January 17, 2012 6:53:19 PM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee El ection via County Polling Hi folks, I have read the bios and I don't see anything that bothers me. I suggest that we give each candidate 2 first place votes and 2 second place votes. Thus, our ballots 1 and 2 for "Candidates to fill two open Coordinating Committee at-large seats for the remainder of the spring 2011- spring 2013 term" would have 1 - Stevie Luther 2 - Nancy Mancias and our ballots 3 and 4 for those seats would have 1 - Nancy Mancias 2 - Stevie Luther Then our ballots 1 and 2 for "Candidates to fill two open Coordinating Committee at-large seats for the remainder of the spring 2012- spring 2014 term" would have 1 - Marla Bernstein 2 - Maxine Daniels and our ballots 3 and 4 for those seats would have 1 - Maxine Daniels 2 - Marla Bernstein BTW, it's great to see this on sosfbay-discuss! Respectfully, Valerie ~*~*~*~ One thought from the following program is that when we bemoan the lack of handmade products in our lives we are wrong.? Mr. Daisey believes that there are more handmade products available now than ever before. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory Please note: message attached ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f163470d5edd388a5cst01vuc So are you going to vbe our on-line designated person? Fine with me. I like your proposal. Count me in. Caroline ________________________________ From: Tian Harter To: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com Cc: mkmusic at greens.org; andi at wrytor.com; carolineyacoub at att.net; j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net; MKmusic03 at aol.com; TNHarter at aol.com Sent: Tue, January 17, 2012 12:35:24 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee Election via County Polling Ummm... This needs to be handled by the 20th, which is before next county meeting. I looked at the bios of all four candidates, and none of them bother me. How about we give each of them one vote? That's my proposal, but I'm open to other ideas... Not going to do anything till I hear enough voices on this. Tian WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com wrote: > GPSCC CC Members:? San Mateo GP has voted.? Can you?? Deadline is this Friday >January 20th.? The GPSCC has four votes.? Warner >? >? ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >? ? From: contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? To: Contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? Sent: 12/20/2011 2:33:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time >? ? Subj: [gpca-cocos] [GPCA Official Notice] Coordinating Committee >? ? Election via County Polling >? ? ? ? ? GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE > >? ? This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List.? For more >? ? information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, >? ? please do not hit reply.? Follow the contact directions >? ? stated in the email. > > > > >? ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >? ? Dear GPCA active county organization > >? ? This is to notify you of the commencement of a one-month on-line vote to >? ? fill vacant seats on the GPCA Coordinating Committee. The voting period >? ? will run from December 20, 2011 through January 20, 2012. > >? ? Your county may submit as many ballots as the number of delegates >? ? allocated to your county for the December 2011 General Assembly in Los >? ? Angeles. That list is here: > >? ? Alameda 10 >? ? Contra Costa 3 >? ? El Dorado 1 >? ? Fresno 2 >? ? Humboldt 3 >? ? Lake 1 >? ? LA 24 >? ? Marin 2 >? ? Mendocino 2 >? ? Monterey 1 >? ? Napa 1 >? ? Nevada 1 >? ? Orange 8 >? ? Riverside 3 >? ? Sacramento 4 >? ? San Diego 7 >? ? San Francisco 9 >? ? San Luis Obispo 2 >? ? San Mateo 3 >? ? Santa Clara 4 >? ? Shasta 1 >? ? Sonoma 4 >? ? Ventura? 3 > >? ? Candidate Bios > >? ? Stevie Luther >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Stevie_Luther > > >? ? Nancy Mancias >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Nancy_Mancias > > >? ? Marla Bernstein >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Marla_Bernstein > > >? ? Maxine Daniels >? ? >http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates#Maxine_Daniels > > >? ? How to vote: > >? ? 1. Designate one person to act as the online ballot entry person for >? ? your >? ? county. > >? ? 2. After your county's discussions, use the sample ballot below to rank >? ? the candidates in order of preference, as described in the sections >? ? below. >? ? Fill out one sample ballot for each delegate allocated to your county. > >? ? 3. Send your county's ballots to cc-election at cagreens.org >? ? . > > >? ? Voting Theory > >? ? On a ranked choice ballot, you indicate "yes" votes by entering a >? ? ranking >? ? for candidates. You rank all candidates of whom you approve for the >? ? office >? ? in order of preference.? In addition to the candidates, the ballot also >? ? contains an "NOC" (no other choice) option which is used to indicate the >? ? end of your voting if you do not rank all candidates. Also remember >? ? that a >? ? candidate must receive more votes than NOC to win a seat, so ranking NOC >? ? as your last choice indicates a "no" vote for the candidates that >? ? you did >? ? not rank. If you do not rank NOC, that indicates an "abstention" for the >? ? candidates that you did not rank. > >? ? Voting Process > >? ? YES -- For all candidates of whom you approve for the Coordinating >? ? Committee, rank those candidates in order of your preference, starting >? ? with "1" for your first choice. Rank only one candidate in each row >? ? of the >? ? ballot. Continue ranking all candidates of whom you approve. > >? ? NO -- For all candidates of whom you DO NOT approve for the Coordinating >? ? Committee, do not write a ranking number on the ballot. > >? ? NOC -- If you do not rank all candidates, give NOC your last ranking to >? ? indicate a "no" vote for the unranked candidates.? The votes cast for >? ? NOC create a second threshold that winning candidates must pass. If you >? ? just stop ranking candidates without ranking NOC, this acts more like an >? ? abstention; it neither helps nor hinders the unranked candidates. >? ? Ranking >? ? NOC as your last choice gives an affirmative "no" vote to the unranked >? ? candidates. > >? ? Sample Ballot for two candidates for two open seats for remainder of >? ? spring 2011 - spring 2013 > >? ? Place one X in each row to indicate your ranking. > >? ? My first choice is >? ? ___ Stevie Luther ____ Nancy Mancias ____ NOC > >? ? My second choice is >? ? ___ Stevie Luther ____ Nancy Mancias____ NOC > > >? ? Sample Ballot for two candidates for three open seats for remainder of >? ? spring 2010 - spring 2012 > >? ? Place one X in each row to indicate your ranking. > >? ? My first choice is? >? ? ___ Marla Bernstein____ Maxine Daniels____ NOC > >? ? My second choice is? >? ? ___ Marla Bernstein____ Maxine Daniels____ NOC > > >? ? _______________________________________________ >? ? Contacts2006 mailing list >? ? Contacts2006 at cagreens.org >? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 >? ? _______________________________________________ >? ? gpca-cocos mailing list >? ? gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest addition: pictures and words about Guantanamo after ten years. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Utah quarter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Wed Jan 18 12:50:00 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:50:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Urgent SB 810 Alert - Call Today EASY! Message-ID: <1326919800.41210.YahooMailRC@web181020.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I just called the two senators whose number are listed below. It took LESS THAN A MINUTE to give my name and city and to say I urged the senator to vote yes on SB810. I urge you to tak A MINUTE to do the same. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: shane que hee Sent: Wed, January 18, 2012 11:55:04 AM Subject: Urgent SB 810 Alert - Call Today Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:47:12 -0500 (EST) >From: dbechler >Subject: Urgent SB 810 Alert - Call Today > > > ? > > >Urgent SB 810 Alert >Decision to Move SB 810 to a Senate Floor to Be Made on Thursday at 10am - 24 >Hours from now. >We Need Everyone to Contact Legislators Today (Wed) >And >We Need Volunteers to Call Constituents in Key Senate Districts to Encourage >calls to their Senator for SB 810 > >Dear Supporters of SB 810, the California Healthcare Insurance Act, > >We need thousands of calls or emails to Senators Steinberg, Kehoe, and your >State Senator today. You can find your State Senator here. > >On Thursday, January 19, State Senate leaders Darrel Steinberg (Senate pro tem) >and Christine Kehoe (chair of Appropriations Committee) will decide if SB 810 >will be voted on by the full Senate. A key factor in making their decision will >be the support they hear from other State Senators. We need the other Senators >to let them know that their phones are ringing off the hook from constituents. > >Please call to make a simple request that you want the Senate to pass SB 810. >SB 810 will deliver healthcare to everyone and spend our resources wisely by >removing the insurance industry from our lives. > >Senator Steinberg can be reached at >916-651-4006 or Senator.Steinberg at senate.ca.gov > >Senator Kehoe can be reached at >916-651-4039 or Senator.Kehoe at senate.ca.gov > >Your State Senator can be found here. > >Please let us know if you have called and who is your State Senator. > >We also need volunteers to call constituents in key senate districts today. I >will send you a script and numbers. >We have the names and phone numbers of thousands of SB 810 supporters who do not >have emails. Our experience has shown that people are activated 20 times more by >a phone call than an email alert. > >Please let me know how many calls you can make. > >Thank you, >Don Bechler >Chair - Single Payer Now >415-695-7891 >www.singlepayernow.net > > >Single Payer Now survives on the generosity of our supporters. >Please consider making a donation. > > >www.SinglePayerNow.net | 415-695-7891 | dbechler at value.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Wed Jan 18 13:40:26 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:40:26 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] FW: Critical condition for DISCLOSE Act: please call In-Reply-To: <4F17366E.7040801@sonic.net> References: <4F17366E.7040801@sonic.net> Message-ID: We need you to make some phone calls directly to committee members to ask them to support AB1148, the CA DISCLOSE Act, the bill that would require the funders of political ads to identify themselves in the ad. No more hiding behind vague names like "Committee for Responsible Freedom"! > > So far we've focused on calls to Speaker John Perez and Appropriations > chair Felipe Fuentes and on generating calls from constituents of other > committee members. Our phone bankers have done an incredible job, > generating hundreds of calls! But we also now need to get a good number > more calls into the other committee members that are on the fence. > > Please take five minutes and call these Appropriations Committee members > The numbers are below. These are all Democratic members that have not > yet committed to vote Yes on AB 1148. All you have to say is something > like that you're calling "to ask for them to vote Yes on AB 1148, the > California DISCLOSE Act, because people around the state are watching > that they vote for a transparent election system." If you're activist > Democrat, you can mention how much you and other activist Democrats care > about and are watching the bill. > > Please report any interesting responses to: > > http://www.YesFairElections.org/report > > Here are the names and numbers. Call through as many as you can -- it > will just take a few minutes, because all they'll want to do is take > down your message! > > Felipe Fuentes, Chair D-39 (916) 319-2039: Sylmar, San Fernando, > Pacoima, Arleta, Mission Hills, Panorama City, North Hills, Sun Valley & > part of Lakeview Terrace, Van Nuys & N Hollywood > > Bob Blumenfield D-40 (916) 319-2040: Canoga Park, Encino, Granada > Hills, Lake Balboa, North Hills, Northridge, Reseda, Sherman Oaks, > Tarzana, Van Nuys, West Hills, Winnetka & Woodland Hills > > Charles Calderon D-58 (916) 319-2058: All or portions of Downey, > Whittier, East La Mirada, East Los Angeles, Hacienda Heights, Industry, > Montebello, Pico Rivera, Rowland Heights, South San Gabriel, and South > San Jose Hills > > Jose Solorio D-69 (916) 319-2069: Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana > > Mike Davis D-48 (916) 319-2048: Westmont, parts of Los Angeles > > Mike Gatto D-43 (916) 319-2043: Burbank, most of Glendale, parts of Los > Angeles > > Isadore Hall III D-52 (916) 319-2052: Compton, East Compton, Paramount, > & parts of Florence-Graham, Long Beach, Los Angeles, & Willowbrook > > Ricardo Lara D-50 (916) 319-2050: Bell, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, > Commerce, Cudahy, Lynwood, South Gate > > > Remember to report any interesting responses to: > > http://www.YesFairElections.org/report > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Wed Jan 18 16:34:54 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:34:54 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Boxer & Feinstein are co-sponsors of PIPA / SOPA. Wikipedia tells you how to write them. Please do it. Message-ID: <4F17652E.4050405@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: I'd like to encourage you to respond to the request from Wikipedia for you to contact your representatives and senators, asking them to support an open Internet including opposing the "Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the US House and the "PROTECT IP ACT (PIPA)" in the US Senate. Senators Boxer and Feinstein are both co-sponsors of PIPA, so they need to hear your concerns about that bill. Below please find emails I sent to Boxer, Feinstein, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren. If you try any English language Wikipedia site today, it will provide a form that should make it fairly easy for you to contact your representatives and senators. The primary issue is the future of democracy itself, and whether we will continue to increase welfare for the wealthy while further impoverishing the rest of us. The commercial media in the US has a major conflict of interest in disseminating any honest information about the real political decisions in Washington. They make huge profits selling ads during election years. They also do not want to offend major corporations, who could spend their substantial advertising budgets elsewhere. For these reasons, Most of the political reporting in the commercial media focuses on the "horse race", avoiding content such as the fact that ultrawealthy campaign contributors routinely get between $300 and $7,000 return on every dollar spent on campaign contributions. Solyndra executives collected roughly $100,000 for Obama and received $500,000,000 in federal loan guarantees. This only made the news, because Solyndra went bankrupt. If you value democracy, please follow the invitation of Wikipedia to contact your US senators and representative. My emails to them are copied below. I also encourage you to forward this (or create your own version) and send to all your email contacts. Thanks, Spencer ######################### email to Senators Boxer and Feinstein: Dear Senator: Could you please reconsider your sponsorship of the PROTECT IP Act? I side with the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, Wikipedia, Google, and many others this legislation would have a chilling effect on public debate worldwide. Beyond this, I believe this industry should be broken up, because they have abused their oligopolistic powers in many ways. For example, from what I read, Pakistan is on the verge of becoming a failed state, largely because of biased reporting in the US that has pushed the Obama administration to do what they have done to create this fiasco. Similarly, they stampeded the US into invading Iraq in 2003 by failing to report that Saddam Hussein had received his weapons of mass destruction from the US, according to the 1994 Riegle Report of the US Senate Committee on Banking, etc. Sincerely, Spencer Graves email to Representative Lofgren: Dear Representative Lofgren: Thanks for your opposition to SOPA. I side with the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, Wikipedia, Google, and many others this legislation would have a chilling effect on public debate worldwide. Beyond this, I believe that the multiple extensions of the copyright law beyond the 28 years stipulated in the first copyright act passed in the US does NOT promote the useful arts, as described by the US constitution. We need copyright law, but copyrights beyond 28 years simply provide rents to bribery. Sincerely, Spencer Graves -- 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 wrolley at charter.net Thu Jan 19 08:16:50 2012 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:16:50 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Stop SOPA. Keep the internet open. In-Reply-To: <7162029dbb1f42f8a1cf9ab214a9934e@JerryMcNerney.org> References: <7162029dbb1f42f8a1cf9ab214a9934e@JerryMcNerney.org> Message-ID: <4F1841F2.5090509@charter.net> The position of one of our Congress Critters. > In response to the Stop Online Piracy Act, Rep. Jerry McNerney > released a statement. > > ?As a person with copyrighted works, I remain concerned about the > protection of creative works. Despite this, I strongly oppose SOPA as > it stands. I have heard from many of the people I represent who are > worried about their right to free speech on the Internet, and I agree > with their concerns. > > ?Freedom of speech is one of the rights we cherish the most in the > United States. Any law that would threaten that fundamental right is > flawed and must not be allowed to move forward. > > ?Our economic power has always been based on innovation and the free > flow of ideas. The thinkers and creators in our country have always > showed remarkable ingenuity, and stopping the stream of information on > the Internet would put the United States at an international disadvantage. > > ?We must remain committed to American advancement that comes from the > freedoms we hold most dear. This is what will continue our progress > and keep us competitive in the global market.? > From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Thu Jan 19 09:15:45 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:15:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message (About PIPA) In-Reply-To: <90C2AA73EB0B4B809EF22AFA4C2885D0@senate.ussenate.us> References: <90C2AA73EB0B4B809EF22AFA4C2885D0@senate.ussenate.us> Message-ID: <1326993345.85586.YahooMailNeo@web111102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Well, at least?Feinstein's form letter addresses the issue I wrote to her about, which is more than I can say about Barbara Boxer. ? John Thielking ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "senator at feinstein.senate.gov" To: pagesincolor at yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:02 AM Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message ? Dear? Mr. Thielking : ? I received your letter expressing opposition to the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," commonly known as the "PROTECT IP Act."? I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.? ? The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) gives both copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to take action against websites that are "dedicated to infringing activities."? These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying.? ? The bill does not violate First Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech.? ? America's copyright industry is an important economic engine, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated and stolen.? The protection of intellectual property is particularly vital to California's thriving film, music, and high-technology industries.? ? I understand you have concerns about the "PROTECT IP Act."? While I voted in favor of this bill when it was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have also been working with California high-technology businesses to improve the bill and to address the concerns of high-tech businesses, public interest groups and others.? I recognize the bill needs further changes to prevent it from imposing undue burdens on legitimate businesses and activities, and I will be working to make the improvements, either by working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) or through amendments on the Senate floor.? ? On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "PROTECT IP Act" for consideration by the full Senate.? Please know I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on this legislation.? As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced similar legislation, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (H.R. 3261), in the House of Representatives.? ? Once again, thank you for sharing your views.? I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you.? If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.? ? ??????????Wishing you a happy 2012. Sincerely yours, ??Dianne Feinstein ?????????United States Senator Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website, Feinstein.senate.gov.? You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up.? Feel free to checkout my YouTube Page. ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Thu Jan 19 09:28:55 2012 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:28:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message (About PIPA) In-Reply-To: <1326993345.85586.YahooMailNeo@web111102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120119172855.AED406A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> > These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, >enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods = >with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures >designed to protect against copying. The bill does not violate Fir= >st Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech. I suspect the Senator knows her claim above is a lie. Various courts in the US and worldwide have ruled that computer programming is a form of artistic expression and speech. "evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying" includes such activities as writing software to operate the standard DVD drive that comes with any laptop or desktop computer. As I understand it, SOPA practically outlaws the creation and distribution of free and open source operating systems for the most widely used computer hardware. If Hollywood has its way, you will have to pay Microsoft or Apple for the privilege of playing your own DVDs on your own computer, and nobody will be allowed to offer you a truly free alternative. -Cameron in Santa Clara From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Thu Jan 19 10:13:07 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:13:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message (About PIPA) In-Reply-To: <20120119172855.AED406A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> References: <1326993345.85586.YahooMailNeo@web111102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20120119172855.AED406A9B0@truffula.sj.ca.us> Message-ID: <1326996787.38585.YahooMailNeo@web111115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Good points Cameron, ? Half seriously, I'm wondering if I should change the name of my site from Peacemovies.com to Warmovies.com, since that appears to be the state of affairs between Hollywood and it's end users, regardless of how much violence is depicted in each movie.? Sigh.... and here I was thinking that I had picked a relatively hassle free corner of the universe to use to express my activism. Oh well.?If my original marketing survey is accurrate, Hollywood will have to reform (produce more nonviolent movies) or face extinction. 90% of the people would be happy watching a nonviolent movie, but only 50% are satisfied with a typical violent movie. Though there is the caveat that some of the people who specifically want to watch a violent movie end up?watching the same movie 10 times. ?The newsletter vol 1 no 1 is at the Peace Center already by the way. ? John Thielking From: Cameron L. Spitzer To: pagesincolor at yahoo.com; scc-mta-general at yahoogroups.com; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message (About PIPA) > These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, >enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods = >with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures >designed to protect against copying.? The bill does not violate Fir= >st Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech. I suspect the Senator knows her claim above is a lie.? Various courts in the US and worldwide have ruled that computer programming is a form of artistic expression and speech. "evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying" includes such activities as writing software to operate the standard DVD drive that comes with any laptop or desktop computer.? As I understand it, SOPA practically outlaws the creation and distribution of free and open source operating systems for the most widely used computer hardware. If Hollywood has its way, you will have to pay Microsoft or Apple for the privilege of playing your own DVDs on your own computer, and nobody will be allowed to offer you a truly free alternative. -Cameron in Santa Clara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Jan 19 13:45:17 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:45:17 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [occupy-san-jose] Update on Sacto DISCLOSE Act (AB 1148) Saturday March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F188EED.7080202@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: Occupy San Jos? has a contingent going to Sacramento tomorrow; see below. Spencer -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [occupy-san-jose] Update on Sacto DISCLOSE Act (AB 1148) Saturday March Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:41:30 -0800 From: iq4rent Reply-To: occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com To: , , , , , , , , , Rally starts @ 1 in Sacto @ Capitol. I hope to see many of you there. 1) Joseph will be speaking AS OSJ (a student organizer and a state assembly candidate) 2) There will NOT be buses taking anyone there :( Maybe we can organize carpools (mine's already full) Remember that OSJ is the only Occupation that has endorsed the DISCLOSE Act (press release tomorrow) http://www.caclean.org/progress/ab1148.php Please forward like crazy :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Thu Jan 19 23:00:05 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:00:05 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act Passes in Appropriatioons Committee Message-ID: The bill, AB1148, requires that funders of political ads identify themselves in the ads. The vote today was 12-5, split along party lines. Having passed in two committees, the bill now goes to the Assembly floor, where it will need a 2/3 vote to pass. That means every Democrat and 2 Republicans have to vote for it. Polls show that 80% of voters support the concept of this legislation, but it's going to take a demonstration of political muscle to get this passed. San Jose Mercury editorial in favor of AB 1148: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_19761557 Los Angeles Daily News editorial in favor of AB 1148: http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_19769340 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Thu Jan 19 23:30:12 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:30:12 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] CCR Files Complain with U.N. for U.S. Interference in Foreign Courts Message-ID: Complaint is based on memos obtained through wikileaks, and alleges that the documents "unquestionably demonstrate that senior U.S. officials - including an Ambassador, diplomatic staff, and two members of the U.S. Senate - actively and surreptitiously met with senior members of the Spanish Government, Administration and prosecutorial authorities to express critical views of, and seek information about, ongoing criminal investigations and preferred courses of action in relation to those investigations, and engage in discussions with Spanish officials in an attempt to interfere in the judicial process and thereby prejudice the cases in favor of the American defendants." It alleges that the documents reveal that U.S. "officials both implicitly and explicitly acknowledge that their attempts to interfere with criminal proceedings are utterly improper." It alleges that "interventions in Belgium, Germany, and Italy suggest that they are demonstrative of a systematic pattern and practice of abuse aimed at protecting U.S. interests from adverse judicial findings abroad." It concludes that "Breaches of judicial independence foster a culture of impunity that is incompatible with international and domestic obligations to prosecute authors of human rights violations. . . . [V]arious high-ranking members of the U.S. and Spanish Administrations were engaged in inappropriate and unwarranted interference with the Spanish judicial process. They have done so with the explicit aim of disturbing the integrity of at least three separate ongoing legal proceedings before the Spanish courts with a view to shielding potential U.S. defendants allegedly responsible for gross human rights violations from criminal liability." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgshurt69 at aol.com Fri Jan 20 00:14:14 2012 From: jgshurt69 at aol.com (jgshurt69 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:14:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Sheriff Ross Message-ID: <8CEA562A169A2EF-2268-80AA@webmail-d076.sysops.aol.com> Here is full agreement with KAMRAN on all points, except.....is it true that Ross has 2 priors on DV? He is still innocent, but his wife asked for the documentation. Violence is NOTHING NEW for dimocrats. He re-joined 'em. Why? Re-election? Now...perdition what's more to be revealed? Jeffrey in san bruno "Why would any Green want to be in law enforcement? Individuals are individuals and for many criteria, they can be anywhere on the bell curve. However in their capacity as enforcer of "the law", persons can only be as good as the laws they enforce. Since the existing laws are inadequate, as far as the national welfare, welfare of the majority, is concerned why would anyone swear to uphold them? Enforcement of unjust laws is perpetration of insidious, violence. Is it not that we claim we want to change things electorally... by running for offices to change the existing laws? Suppose, someone, due to no personal fault, but because of systemic foul-ups gets behind their mortgage. What would a "Green" Sherrif do when they are told to go and evict that person? And what about the...........? I know, Ross had changed his voter registration to Dem. Party. But he claimed he is still the same person. I see no reason to support any "Green" running for such positions." _______________________________________________ cal-forum mailing list cal-forum at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 20 12:05:22 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:05:22 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ROV request re county council elections Message-ID: <4F19C902.1000504@sbcglobal.net> I received a reminder call from the Registrar of Voters office yesterday. Here is a copy of an email from the ROV that I posted roughly a week ago: Hello Jim, Attached is the memo I received from the Secretary of State?s Office. It states that now county central committees have the right to remove the selection of central committee members from the ballot entirely and develop an alternate method to elect your membership. I need to know if the Green Party county council will continue to conduct elections in the same manner as before, which follows the Elections Code, or will you develop your own method and take it off of the June 5, 2012 ballot? Please respond to me at my contact information below by January 23, 2012. If I have not received a response by that date, our office will continue to conduct your elections in the same manner as we have been pursuant to Elections Code. Thank you. Shannon Bushey Manager, Candidate & Public Services Division Registrar of Voters PO Box 611360 San Jose, CA 95161-1360 408.282.3041 Office 408.998-7356 Fax shannon.bushey at rov.sccgov.org There is a simple solution. Do nothing. Then the elections for GPSCC CC will be conducted as before. The current County Council could make a decision and instruct the ROV that we will conduct our elections for GOSCC CC in a different manner if they so chose. The email was sent to me shortly before while I was on vacation. I posted this notice to the list about a week ago which was after I returned from vacation. From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 20 16:00:57 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:00:57 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] county polling Message-ID: <4F1A0039.3020209@sbcglobal.net> Sanda wrote to the joint San Mateo Santa clara county contacts list " To Santa Clara CC, I realize that somehow the timing of this vote did not work with the Santa Clara county meeting schedule, but I thought you might have some ability to make decisions by email or phone. Your vote would be welcome. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ REMINDER less than TWO WEEKS - Coordinating Committee Election via County Polling Dear GPCA active county organization This is to notify you of the commencement of a one-month on-line vote to fill vacant seats on the GPCA Coordinating Committee. The voting period will run from December 20, 2011 through January 20, 2012. " From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 20 16:09:15 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:09:15 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] county voter registration drive contact person(s) Message-ID: <4F1A022B.3010605@sbcglobal.net> Wes forwarded the following email to me Fwd: [GROW] need local voter reg contacts Deadline for names is 1/23. Here is a list of the counties that have identified contacts so far. *Contra Costa: Tim Laidman Fresno: Richard Gomez nate136_66 at yahoo.com Humboldt: Steve Luther, stevie.luther at gmail.com Marin: Marnie Glickman, marnie at cagreens.org Napa: Alex Shantz, alexshantz at gmail.com Orange: Ron Rodarte, rrodarte at cox.net San Diego: Hugh Moore, hmpeace at cox.ne Shasta: Mark Hansen, marquequark at yahoo.com Sonoma: Tim Smith, Rioryon at aol.com Ventura, Kendra Gonazalez, earthworks_works at yahoo.com * Marnie From carolineyacoub at att.net Sat Jan 21 12:50:12 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:50:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: BREAKING: Supreme Court renamed 'Supreme Koch' Message-ID: <1327179012.26345.YahooMailRC@web181003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "Andrew Boyd, The Other 98%" To: carolineyacoub at att.net Sent: Sat, January 21, 2012 10:58:07 AM Subject: BREAKING: Supreme Court renamed 'Supreme Koch' Dear Caroline, To mark the 2nd anniversary of the criminal Citizens United ruling, we just renamed the Supreme Court to a more appropriate name: the Supreme Koch, giving naming rights to the Koch Brothers who've profited more from the ruling than any other members of the Super Rich. And best of all, we caught it on tape. Watch the video, and help us spread the word: let 5 friends know about it NOW. We have big plans for taking back the Supreme Court this year, and can't wait to keep up the pressure on the defenders of "corporate personhood."?This is just the first step, and if you can take a minute to share our video on Facebook and tweet about our page on Twitter, we'd appreciate it immensely. As the action started, it looked a little like this: ...and you'll have to watch the video to see what happened next. Click here to watch our video, and make sure to let at least 5 friends know about it. And a big shout-out to our allies who helped us make this possible: Health Care For America Now, Backbone Campaign, Greenpeace USA, Velvet Revolution and AFSCME. And, most importantly, thank YOU for making this movement real. Sincerely, Andrew Boyd, The Other 98% ________________________________ The Other 98% is making democracy work for the rest of us. Like what we do? You can donate to support this movement right now. Our website is http://other98.com/. This email was sent to carolineyacoub at att.net. You can unsubscribe from our list at any time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tnharter at aceweb.com Sat Jan 21 14:25:24 2012 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:25:24 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. meeting Message-ID: <4F1B3B54.8030202@aceweb.com> I will be making the agenda for theFebruary Green Party of Santa Clara County meeting unless someone else tells me they will do it very soon. Please submit agenda items as replies to this post. So far all I have is "I would like 10 minutes to talk about tabling, schwag making (otherwise known as fund raising), and the registration drive." from Caroline. -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: blacked out the background as part of STOP SOPA!. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Utah quarter. From tnharter at aceweb.com Sat Jan 21 14:27:29 2012 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:27:29 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Carol Brouillet for Congress kickoff party this evening! Message-ID: <4F1B3BD1.7020502@aceweb.com> Come on down! If you need details, please visit: http://tian.greens.org/MountainView/My/Clubhouse/CampaignKickoff11/PartyAnoucement.shtml Hope to see you there! -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: blacked out the background as part of STOP SOPA!. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on a Utah quarter. From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Sat Jan 21 14:29:02 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:29:02 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. meeting In-Reply-To: <4F1B3B54.8030202@aceweb.com> References: <4F1B3B54.8030202@aceweb.com> Message-ID: <4F1B3C2E.1050004@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: Could start the next meeting, Jan. 26, with Betsy Wolf-Graves talking about the work of PACT (People Acting in Community Together) that convinced the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to opt out of the "Secure Communities" program to get tough on "illegal aliens"? Below please find a summary of their work. See you then. Best Wishes, Spencer Santa Clara County, a Progressive Voice Against Secure Communities October 18th may go down in the history of immigration reform as a landmark day. On that day the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted NOT to follow demands of the federal government on "Secure Communities" because (a) it's against the philosophy of our County and (b) it is an unfunded federal mandate. The issue was detainers: notices to the sheriff?s staff to hold an individual and do a background check on that person. PACT (People Acting in Community Together) started at least two years ago trying to understand a new program called Secure Communities. The intent of this program seemed to be to deport undocumented immigrants. It was already generating concern in our local immigrant community. Grass roots groups came together. Strategy sessions developed plans to contact decision makers, utilize the expertise of group members, consult with the County?s legal team and with the chair of the committee responsible for understanding and dealing with Secure Communities, the Public Safety and Justice Committee, chaired by Supervisor George Shirakawa. PACT also worked with Zoe Lofgren, who represents part of San Jos? in the US House of Representatives. She is a senior member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. The program had been represented to her as voluntary but was being sold to Santa Clara County as mandatory. She was so troubled by that discrepancy that she ordered an investigation, which should make it easier for Santa Clara County to sustain their decision last Oct. 18 to opt out of "Secure Communities". However, the issue is not dead. PACT is continuing to meet to ensure that the recent Board of Supervisors' decision is actually translated into reality. On 1/21/2012 2:25 PM, Tian Harter wrote: > I will be making the agenda for theFebruary Green Party of Santa Clara > County meeting unless someone else tells me they will do it very soon. > > Please submit agenda items as replies to this post. > > So far all I have is "I would like 10 minutes to talk about tabling, > schwag making (otherwise known as fund raising), and the registration > drive." from Caroline. -- 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 snug.bug at hotmail.com Sat Jan 21 15:38:51 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:38:51 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act Needs Your Help--Now! Message-ID: Having passed the two committees in the state legislature, the CA DISCLOSE Act* comes up for a vote on the assembly floor 1/31. That is just ten days away. A 2/3 vote in favor will allow the bill to pass into law this year. If we only get 50%, the best we get is a ballot initiative in 2014. Since 80% of voters support the concept, it will surely pass then, but I'd rather get this done now and save 2014 for "Green 2014". We need people to make phone calls to hot prospects--they've already signed the petition--and ask them to contact their on-the-fence state legislators and ask for a yes vote on AB 1148.* Because our window of opportunity is very small--6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m--we need many, many callers to help. If you're shy on the phone, that's all the more reason to do this. You work from a script, you're calling friendly people, and practice makes perfect. It's a great confidence-builder. (Also, if you work the 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm shift, you'll mostly be leaving voicemails.) This bill is the first brick in the wall to get Big Money out of the democratic processes. Please help us get it done now. You can start by signing the petition in support of the bill at caclean.org (right column, second item). Then tell me you want to do the phone-bank training, and I'll sign you up. Brian * The CA DISCLOSE Act, AB 1148, will require that those who fund political ads identify themselves. No more hiding behind names like "Committee for More Jobs". They'll have to say, "This ad funded by EXXON, Halliburton, and General Atomics". Recent experience shows that when the voters know that ballot initiatives are sponsored by interests such as "Texas Oil", PG&E, and Mercury Insurance, they know to vote them down. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Sat Jan 21 16:03:06 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:03:06 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act Needs Your Help--Now! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F1B523A.7060209@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: On 1/21/2012 3:38 PM, Brian Good wrote: > > Having passed the two committees in the state legislature, the CA > DISCLOSE > Act* comes up for a vote on the assembly floor 1/31. That is just ten > days away. > > A 2/3 vote in favor will allow the bill to pass into law this year. > If we only get > 50%, the best we get is a ballot initiative in 2014. Since 80% of > voters support > the concept, it will surely pass then, but I'd rather get this done > now and save > 2014 for "Green 2014". I'm less convinced with Brian that it would pass as a ballot initiative, because we can count on substantial opposition from the media as well as people with money, because anything that reduces the effectiveness of advertising is a direct threat to their profitability. Consequently, I would expect that people with money would likely run focus groups to figure out how to convince the public that it's a bad idea, then spend lavishly on ads to drive home their argument. That's how health care reform was defeated in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. (Oh, yes: The Obama administration actually passed a health care bill, but the bill that was passed was mostly a giveaway to the insurance companies and so-called ethical health care industry.) Spencer > > We need people to make phone calls to hot prospects--they've > already signed > the petition--and ask them to contact their on-the-fence state > legislators and ask > for a yes vote on AB 1148.* > > Because our window of opportunity is very small--6:30 p.m. to 8:00 > p.m--we > need many, many callers to help. If you're shy on the phone, that's > all the more > reason to do this. You work from a script, you're calling friendly > people, and > practice makes perfect. It's a great confidence-builder. (Also, if > you work the > 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm shift, you'll mostly be leaving voicemails.) > > This bill is the first brick in the wall to get Big Money out of the > democratic > processes. Please help us get it done now. > > You can start by signing the petition in support of the bill at > caclean.org > (right column, second item). Then tell me you want to do the phone-bank > training, and I'll sign you up. > > Brian > > > * The CA DISCLOSE Act, AB 1148, will require that those who fund political > ads identify themselves. No more hiding behind names like "Committee for > More Jobs". They'll have to say, "This ad funded by EXXON, Halliburton, > and General Atomics". Recent experience shows that when the voters know > that ballot initiatives are sponsored by interests such as "Texas > Oil", PG&E, > and Mercury Insurance, they know to vote them down. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 snug.bug at hotmail.com Sat Jan 21 16:43:56 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:43:56 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act Needs Your Help--Now! In-Reply-To: <4F1B523A.7060209@prodsyse.com> References: , <4F1B523A.7060209@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: You're right, Spencer, we can expect a well-financed and desperately dishonest campaign against the CA DISCLOSE Act if it goes to the public in 2014. CA Clean Money conceived the California DISCLOSE Act after a dirty trick mounted by the opposition to our previous effort, Prop. 15*, which would have provided for public finance of the Sec'y of State race in California. Anonymous entities. probably funded by the lobbyists' lobby, sent out millions of postcards to voters that gave the impression of coming from the Democratic Party, and asked voters to vote for Sen. Boxer and Rep. Pelosi--and also to vote against Prop. 15. The Democratic Party did not oppose Prop. 15. A showdown in 2014 with these scumbags may take enormous efforts. Which is all the more reason we need to marshall our efforts in the next ten days to do everything we can to get AB1148 passed on 1/31 by a 2/3 majority--so we can spend 2014 on Green 2014. Brian * Prop. 15 in 2010 would have provided for Public Finance of the Sec'y of State race in California. Arizona and Maine already have public finance laws, and it works very well. Under Prop. 15 the registration fees on lobbyists would have been raised from $10 a year to a couple hundred dollars, and that would have generated $4 million every election cycle to fund the Sec'y of State election. A candidate who proved his or her viability by raising a certain amount of $5 donations (something like $50,000 or $75,000) would qualify for $1 million in funds for the campaign. Imagine if the Greens had $1,000,000 to run a professional campaign for this office--with paid staffers, real offices, quality printing, billboards. Moneyed interests are scared to death of public finance. Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:03:06 -0800 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com To: snug.bug at hotmail.com CC: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act Needs Your Help--Now! Hello, All: On 1/21/2012 3:38 PM, Brian Good wrote: Having passed the two committees in the state legislature, the CA DISCLOSE Act* comes up for a vote on the assembly floor 1/31. That is just ten days away. A 2/3 vote in favor will allow the bill to pass into law this year. If we only get 50%, the best we get is a ballot initiative in 2014. Since 80% of voters support the concept, it will surely pass then, but I'd rather get this done now and save 2014 for "Green 2014". I'm less convinced with Brian that it would pass as a ballot initiative, because we can count on substantial opposition from the media as well as people with money, because anything that reduces the effectiveness of advertising is a direct threat to their profitability. Consequently, I would expect that people with money would likely run focus groups to figure out how to convince the public that it's a bad idea, then spend lavishly on ads to drive home their argument. That's how health care reform was defeated in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. (Oh, yes: The Obama administration actually passed a health care bill, but the bill that was passed was mostly a giveaway to the insurance companies and so-called ethical health care industry.) Spencer We need people to make phone calls to hot prospects--they've already signed the petition--and ask them to contact their on-the-fence state legislators and ask for a yes vote on AB 1148.* Because our window of opportunity is very small--6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m--we need many, many callers to help. If you're shy on the phone, that's all the more reason to do this. You work from a script, you're calling friendly people, and practice makes perfect. It's a great confidence-builder. (Also, if you work the 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm shift, you'll mostly be leaving voicemails.) This bill is the first brick in the wall to get Big Money out of the democratic processes. Please help us get it done now. You can start by signing the petition in support of the bill at caclean.org (right column, second item). Then tell me you want to do the phone-bank training, and I'll sign you up. Brian * The CA DISCLOSE Act, AB 1148, will require that those who fund political ads identify themselves. No more hiding behind names like "Committee for More Jobs". They'll have to say, "This ad funded by EXXON, Halliburton, and General Atomics". Recent experience shows that when the voters know that ballot initiatives are sponsored by interests such as "Texas Oil", PG&E, and Mercury Insurance, they know to vote them down. _______________________________________________ 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 j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 21 21:06:56 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:06:56 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] agenda(?) topic Message-ID: <4F1B9970.2070904@sbcglobal.net> In an email on the sc-sm list Sanda Everette posed the question I do keep wondering why it is OK for the Green Party of Canada to have a party leader and an executive director, but not for the other GPCA. From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Sat Jan 21 21:23:18 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:23:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] agenda(?) topic Message-ID: <1327209798.52812.androidMobile@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In my opinion the main reason American Greens are deathly afraid of the centralization the having one Fuhrer is because many fear the Mike Feinstein or another similar? Narcissistic Personality Disordered individual like Mike would do to the national party what he has done to the California Green Party. Since Sanda is an enabler of Mike she probably would be very okay with that. I would not. If we ever choose to have co-spokespeople it must be more than one with limited power and never to be Mike Feinstein.? He is too power hungry and too anti-Green values to ever entrust that way, and even now he should be removed and banned from ALL leadership positions given the insanity he has imposed on the party consistently over many years. http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com Sat Jan 21 21:52:27 2012 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com (Drew) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:52:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] agenda(?) topic Message-ID: <1327211547.57271.androidMobile@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> And never face the issues, right? Mike Feinstein and his takeover of the party are the issue. http://JillStein.org Drew Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrolley at charter.net Sun Jan 22 08:13:41 2012 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:13:41 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. meeting Message-ID: <4F1C35B5.2060207@charter.net> As a political party, it is incumbent on the GPCA to protect its ballot access. In recent years, that has fallen drastically. With a GPCA target of 100,000 new Greens to be registered, each county needs to take on it's share. If you divvy up that large number based on current registration, Santa Clara County needs to register a little over 4,000 new Greens by the November election. While Santa Clara County GP has an active tabling program, I don't see that this will bring in 4,000 new Greens... based on past history. So, how do we get to that number? I suggest that it needs new ideas and some organizational structure for getting beyond our tabling efforts. At least, we should have a committee to refine those ideas and agree that part of each monthly meeting should be a simple report on the current status of the effort... how many new Greens have been attracted. Maybe, if we measure progress, we will have more progress. 10->15 min. From cls at truffula.sj.ca.us Sun Jan 22 10:33:03 2012 From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] registration drive challenge, Re: Agenda for Jan. meeting Message-ID: <20120122183303.399EF6A9A8@truffula.sj.ca.us> Our registration efforts over the last ten years have been impaired by an inability to collect and organize and retain contact information. New people write their names on a clipboard, and it sits in someone's garage for a year or two, and we discard it. Normal political organizations use computer software for that task. But we are not a normal political organization, we are uniquely reluctant to use computerized tools, Facebook, Gmail, and SMS notwithstanding. (The reasons *why* Greens prove uniquely averse to computer literacy are irrelevant, we just are, and we're not going to change. It took enormous, sustained, pervasive peer pressure to get us on Facebook, Gmail, and SMS. That peer pressure doesn't exist for other network services, and there's peer pressure to *avoid* any service you have to learn about or understand to use well.) At the local campaign, county, and state levels, free tools have been provided and no volunteers found who would actually learn and use them. I didn't even use the systems I installed, and neither did anyone else, not the custom system we had ten years ago and not today's world-wide standard, civicrm. Our state and national parties use commercial service bureaus instead, and that's expensive and risky. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Any renewed registration drive for our county must be designed for pencil, paper, voice phone, and photocopies. If our tablers have to touch a computer to record a new volunteer, that volunteer will be lost. If our volunteers have to learn to use *any* software tools, they will drop out of that part of the project. We would be insane to insist we're going to respond any differently this time. Best, -Cameron in San Jose >Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:13:41 -0800 >From: Wes Rolley >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; > rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 >To: Post South SF Bay discuss >Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. meeting >As a political party, it is incumbent on the GPCA to protect its ballot >access. In recent years, that has fallen drastically. >With a GPCA target of 100,000 new Greens to be registered, each county >needs to take on it's share. If you divvy up that large number based on >current registration, Santa Clara County needs to register a little over >4,000 new Greens by the November election. >While Santa Clara County GP has an active tabling program, I don't see >that this will bring in 4,000 new Greens... based on past history. So, >how do we get to that number? I suggest that it needs new ideas and >some organizational structure for getting beyond our tabling efforts. >At least, we should have a committee to refine those ideas and agree >that part of each monthly meeting should be a simple report on the >current status of the effort... how many new Greens have been >attracted. Maybe, if we measure progress, we will have more progress. From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Sun Jan 22 11:18:30 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:18:30 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] registration drive challenge, Re: Agenda for Jan. meeting In-Reply-To: <20120122183303.399EF6A9A8@truffula.sj.ca.us> References: <20120122183303.399EF6A9A8@truffula.sj.ca.us> Message-ID: <4F1C6106.8000006@prodsyse.com> If Cameron's assessment is accurate, it goes a long way to explaining our shrinking numbers. When I mentioned I was doing something with the Green Party, a 30-something friend of mine said, "Aging Hippy." I think an overwhelming majority of the electorate, and a far greater majority of the Occupy movement, supports our platform far more than that of any other political party in the US today, but they largely accept the brainwash that voting for us is throwing away their votes. I think the reality is that voting for any candidate whose campaign budget exceeds what can reasonably be raised from Joe and Linda Middleclass is voting for bribery, and the only votes that count are for candidates who can NOT afford television advertising. The US government will continue to be sold to the highest bidder -- one dollar one vote -- other candidates are elected in sufficient numbers to turn this around. Many younger folks are doing things with Occupy. They could be supporting us, but we need to teach ourselves how to meet them on their turf. I'm also talking to myself with this: I have accounts with Facebook and Twitter, but I've done very little with them. By the way, you are welcome to attend a "Wiki Workshop" at the San Jos? Peace and Justice Center today starting at 2 or 2:30 PM today after the San Jos? Occupy General Assembly. Spencer On 1/22/2012 10:33 AM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > Our registration efforts over the last ten years have been > impaired by an inability to collect and organize and retain > contact information. New people write their names on a clipboard, > and it sits in someone's garage for a year or two, and > we discard it. > > Normal political organizations use computer software for that > task. But we are not a normal political organization, we > are uniquely reluctant to use computerized tools, > Facebook, Gmail, and SMS notwithstanding. > (The reasons *why* Greens prove uniquely averse to computer literacy > are irrelevant, we just are, and we're not going to change. > It took enormous, sustained, pervasive peer pressure to get > us on Facebook, Gmail, and SMS. That peer pressure doesn't exist > for other network services, and there's peer pressure to *avoid* > any service you have to learn about or understand to use well.) > At the local campaign, county, and state levels, free tools > have been provided and no volunteers found who would > actually learn and use them. I didn't even use the systems I > installed, and neither did anyone else, not the custom system > we had ten years ago and not today's world-wide standard, civicrm. > Our state and national parties use commercial service bureaus > instead, and that's expensive and risky. > > They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing > over and over and expecting a different result. > Any renewed registration drive for our county must be > designed for pencil, paper, voice phone, and photocopies. > If our tablers have to touch a computer to record a new > volunteer, that volunteer will be lost. If our volunteers have > to learn to use *any* software tools, they will drop out of > that part of the project. We would be insane > to insist we're going to respond any differently this time. > > Best, > -Cameron in San Jose > > > > > >> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:13:41 -0800 >> From: Wes Rolley >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; >> rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 >> To: Post South SF Bay discuss >> Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. meeting >> As a political party, it is incumbent on the GPCA to protect its ballot >> access. In recent years, that has fallen drastically. >> With a GPCA target of 100,000 new Greens to be registered, each county >> needs to take on it's share. If you divvy up that large number based on >> current registration, Santa Clara County needs to register a little over >> 4,000 new Greens by the November election. >> While Santa Clara County GP has an active tabling program, I don't see >> that this will bring in 4,000 new Greens... based on past history. So, >> how do we get to that number? I suggest that it needs new ideas and >> some organizational structure for getting beyond our tabling efforts. >> At least, we should have a committee to refine those ideas and agree >> that part of each monthly meeting should be a simple report on the >> current status of the effort... how many new Greens have been >> attracted. Maybe, if we measure progress, we will have more progress. > _______________________________________________ > 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 snug.bug at hotmail.com Sun Jan 22 12:24:36 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:24:36 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] agenda(?) topic In-Reply-To: <1327209798.52812.androidMobile@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1327209798.52812.androidMobile@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In the 9/11 Truth movement becausewe have widely divergent knowledge bases, interests, agendas, standards of evidence, and priorities of values, we often have bitter disagreements about effective strategies, associations, and style. Many of us have a somewhat paranoid world view, many of us take on more work than we can do perfectly, and charges that some of us are infiltrating saboteurs are easily leveled and difficult to settle. Experienced truth movement activists have widely accepted the principle that in conflicts we should focus on discussing counter-productive behaviors, and not on public psychoanalysis or speculations on the motivations of our adversaries, which can get into circular recriminations accomplishing nothing but disruption and ill will. If we never arrive at a consensus about the proper psychiatric diagnosis of Joe Schmoe and we will never have proof that he is or is not paid by the DHS to disrupt us, debating these only wastes time and distracts from the important question of identifying and squelching counterproductive behaviors and activities. At best we gain only the understanding that Joe Schmoe is bad news--and we already knew that. At worst we squander energy and out of sheer fatigue stampede into snitch-jacketing and embittering a useful ally. Our experience with disruption leads us to set aside motivations and focus instead on whether the behaviors help us or hurt us. Why discuss personalities if the behaviors have already been identified as harmful? Debating behavior brings us to principles guiding all of us in effective cooperation in serving the goals of the movement. An excellent statement of guidelines is posted here: http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3227 Here's the section on disruptors: Dealing with destructive and divisive behavior 1) Identify and critique behavior that is harmful to the movement (i.e. speculative theories without evidence and activists who engage in disruptive behavior, divisive incidents, etc). Challenge leaders who unreasonably continue to support and tolerate such damaging behavior. 2) Refuse to debate solidly debunked theories by simply referencing responsible websites, articles, and blogs which have already refuted such claims 3) Discourage unnecessary and unproductive antagonism (i.e. infighting, personal attacks, gossip, etc.) that wastes time and causes divisiveness. 4) Avoid the divisive labeling of individuals and groups.(i.e. shill, agent etc) 5) Be aware and vigilant concerning the presence of agent provocateurs within the movement. Do not engage in witch hunts or unsubstantiated accusations. Treat those who continually, and despite consultation, act in word and deed in the manner of agent provocateurs, as such. While these people can rarely be proven to be agents, they should be treated as counterproductive and untrustworthy. Such groups and individuals should not be engaged in unproductive ways, such as aggression, name-calling, personal attacks, etc. Instead, the substance of their destructive behavior should be detailed, after which they should be avoided when possible. If appropriate, exclusionary action (banning from forums or groups, removal of links from websites, cancellation of speaking engagements etc.) or in extreme cases legal action should be taken. 6) Do not allow the proliferation of irresponsible information or damaging behavior simply because the individuals or groups in question maintain a certain reputation or notoriety within the movement. The fact that someone may ?have done good work in the past? is never a valid excuse to tolerate damaging participation in the present. The movement must be about truth and justice rather than character and popularity. In Summary: It is in our experience that group unity is not achieved by ignoring divisiveness. It is achieved through civil critique and a constructive response to the disruptive behavior. Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:23:18 -0800 From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org; j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net CC: sanda at greens.org Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] agenda(?) topic In my opinion the main reason American Greens are deathly afraid of the centralization the having one Fuhrer is because many fear the Mike Feinstein or another similar Narcissistic Personality Disordered individual like Mike would do to the national party what he has done to the California Green Party. Since Sanda is an enabler of Mike she probably would be very okay with that. I would not. If we ever choose to have co-spokespeople it must be more than one with limited power and never to be Mike Feinstein. He is too power hungry and too anti-Green values to ever entrust that way, and even now he should be removed and banned from ALL leadership positions given the insanity he has imposed on the party consistently over many years. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Sun Jan 22 13:39:14 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:39:14 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] registration drive challenge, Re: Agenda for Jan. meeting In-Reply-To: <20120122183303.399EF6A9A8@truffula.sj.ca.us> References: <20120122183303.399EF6A9A8@truffula.sj.ca.us> Message-ID: Most of my activism these days is with two organizations--a worldwide educational 501(c)3 with 18,000 members and a California political group with 40,000 registered supporters. Neither of these organizations could function effectively without our databases and internet tools and our conference-call services with internet screen-sharing functionality. The educational group's 20 committees employ volunteers Skyping in from all over the world, they maintain elaborate internet-accessible data depositories to facilitate collaborative projects, and it keeps its base informed with a regular internet newsletter that invites people to volunteer for or contribute to particular projects. In the political group we can create lists of our supporters sorted by assembly district or volunteer status or even by zip code. Face-to-face meetings are fun, but when I'm behind in my work and all of my work is on the internet, it's hard to justify the travel time, let alone the meeting time. I think I saw a list of 600 registered Greens in Palo Alto alone. I've only ever met about ten of them that I know of. If we had a proper database we could target email announcements of local functions to local members, we could inform our people statewide of the registration project, and we could stir up enthusiasm for specific projects. Paper and pencil have their place in collecting contact information on the street and at meetings, but a culture of computer-phobia is guaranteed to alienate young people who want to get stuff done. Using teleconferencing and internet screensharing, it's possible to teach even technophobes to volunteer collaborative effort to the cause without even leaving their homes. If we want to make change in the 21st Century we have to live in the 21st Century or we'll be left behind. > To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:33:03 -0800 > From: cls at truffula.sj.ca.us > Subject: [GPSCC-chat] registration drive challenge, Re: Agenda for Jan. meeting > > > Our registration efforts over the last ten years have been > impaired by an inability to collect and organize and retain > contact information. New people write their names on a clipboard, > and it sits in someone's garage for a year or two, and > we discard it. > > Normal political organizations use computer software for that > task. But we are not a normal political organization, we > are uniquely reluctant to use computerized tools, > Facebook, Gmail, and SMS notwithstanding. > (The reasons *why* Greens prove uniquely averse to computer literacy > are irrelevant, we just are, and we're not going to change. > It took enormous, sustained, pervasive peer pressure to get > us on Facebook, Gmail, and SMS. That peer pressure doesn't exist > for other network services, and there's peer pressure to *avoid* > any service you have to learn about or understand to use well.) > At the local campaign, county, and state levels, free tools > have been provided and no volunteers found who would > actually learn and use them. I didn't even use the systems I > installed, and neither did anyone else, not the custom system > we had ten years ago and not today's world-wide standard, civicrm. > Our state and national parties use commercial service bureaus > instead, and that's expensive and risky. > > They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing > over and over and expecting a different result. > Any renewed registration drive for our county must be > designed for pencil, paper, voice phone, and photocopies. > If our tablers have to touch a computer to record a new > volunteer, that volunteer will be lost. If our volunteers have > to learn to use *any* software tools, they will drop out of > that part of the project. We would be insane > to insist we're going to respond any differently this time. > > Best, > -Cameron in San Jose > > > > > > >Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:13:41 -0800 > >From: Wes Rolley > >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; > > rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 > >To: Post South SF Bay discuss > >Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. meeting > > >As a political party, it is incumbent on the GPCA to protect its ballot > >access. In recent years, that has fallen drastically. > > >With a GPCA target of 100,000 new Greens to be registered, each county > >needs to take on it's share. If you divvy up that large number based on > >current registration, Santa Clara County needs to register a little over > >4,000 new Greens by the November election. > > >While Santa Clara County GP has an active tabling program, I don't see > >that this will bring in 4,000 new Greens... based on past history. So, > >how do we get to that number? I suggest that it needs new ideas and > >some organizational structure for getting beyond our tabling efforts. > >At least, we should have a committee to refine those ideas and agree > >that part of each monthly meeting should be a simple report on the > >current status of the effort... how many new Greens have been > >attracted. Maybe, if we measure progress, we will have more progress. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jan 22 19:42:20 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:42:20 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?California_Disclose_Act_and_Tuesday?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=2C_Jan=2E_24=2C_1=3A30_PM=3A__San_Jos=E9_City_Council_Mee?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ting?= Message-ID: <4F1CD71C.6010706@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: As Brian has indicated on this list, the California Disclose Act would require more complete disclosure of the source of funding for advertisements for candidates and initiatives (www.caclean.org/progress/ab1148.php ). It is scheduled for a vote in the California Assembly on Jan. 31. If it gets a 2/3 majority, it could become law this year, if I understand correctly. If it gets a simple majority, we can at best hope to get an initiative in a 2014 election, where we can expect that big money will do their focus groups and figure out how to defame this so the public thinks it's bad. (They have demonstrated a great ability to make the electorate believe that black is white and white black.) I therefore encourage you to go to "www.cleanmoney.org" and sign their petition if you haven't already (second item under "Get involved" in the left hand column of www.caclean.org "). I also encourage you to try to find out how your representatives in the California Assembly and Senate feel about this and write them asking how how they feel about this and asking for their support if you cannot find their position or thanking them if they support it or asking them to reconsider if they oppose. You can find them by selecting "Find my representative" near the top middle at "http://assembly.ca.gov ", and entering your address. I just did this (without bothering to research their positions), sending the following to both my California Assembly and Senate representatives: * What is your position on the California Disclose Act? It is my impression that it is needed. Thanks, Spencer Graves Also, at today's Occupy San Jos? General Assembly, Shaunn Cartwright asked us to please attend Tuesday's City Council meeting and express your support for a City Council resolution supporting the California Disclose Act . The current agenda indicates that the City Council meets in closed session at 9 AM and open session at 1:30 PM (www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20120124/20120124a.pdf), with this being item 3.3 under "3. Strategic Support Services" right after "3.1. Report of the City Manager" and "3.2. Labor Negotiations Update", with a recommendation that the latter be heard at 9 AM. Shaunn said that Mayor Reed opposes this, and it's on the agenda for Tuesday only because enough Occupiers appeared at an earlier meeting to speak for it that it was referred to committees and the City administration for their evaluation. That evaluation has now been competed and is available via the web links above. It can be passed Tuesday provided enough people appear in time and ask for a minute to make a brief statement supporting it. Unless Shaunn clarifies why she suggested arriving by 3 PM, I encourage you to arrive before 1:30 with material to read or otherwise help you be productive while waiting for this issue to be considered. Thanks to Brian, Shaunn and others for their hard work on this issue. 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 wrolley at charter.net Mon Jan 23 07:41:06 2012 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:41:06 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. meeting In-Reply-To: <1327255782.12736.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <4F1C35B5.2060207@charter.net> <1327255782.12736.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F1D7F92.2010600@charter.net> Caroline, I am copying this to the entire mailing list, as I think it is valuable information for all. As you know, the redistricting for 2012 election changes a lot of things, especially for S. County. Previously, Gilroy and Morgan Hill were not in the same district for any office. Now, they share some, including the one you referenced. * State Senate District:* It was SD 15 and Republican Sam Blakeslee was the office holder. Blakeslee is a moderate Republican in many ways: against nuclear energy as unsafe... especially Diablo Canyon... and he understands climate change. He is also a strong supporter of education measures and refused to sign the Norquist no-tax pledge. However, Blakeslee has said that he will not run if the new districting stands a court test, since the Republican / Democrat registration numbers now favor Democrats. No new Republican challenger has come forward. The one announced Democrat is current Santa Cruz (and Morgan Hill) Assemblyman, Bill Monning. The new district includes all of Santa Cruz and San Luis Obispo Countries, plus parts of Monterey and Santa Clara Counties. Santa Clara portion is Morgan Hill, San Martin, Gilroy. Monterey portion is Monterey, Pacific Grove, etc. but not Salinas. It is my opinion that the best chance for a Green would come from San Luis Obispo County if one is going to run. * State Assembly Districts:* Morgan Hill is currently in State Assembly District 27 with Santa Cruz County. It is the only part of Santa Clara County in this district. Gilroy is in AD 28 along with Salinas. Current AD 27 office holder, Bill Monning is running for SD 17 in 2012. Current AD 28 office Holder, ex-Watsonville mayor Luis Alejo, is running for the new AD 30 seat. Morgan Hill and Gilroy are both in the new AD 30. That district also includes most of Wastonville, Much of Salinas, San Benito County and a large section of the Salinas Valley in S. Monterey County (King City) etc. Hollister resident, Bob Bernosky, announced last week that he will run against Alejo in a repeat of the 2010 AD 28 race where Alejo won 61% to 39%. *Congressional District*: Morgan Hill is currently in CD 11, where Jerry McNerney (D) is the officeholder. That is the new District 9 where McNerney has 4 Repubican challengers, one (Ricky Gill) has serious money... more that McNerney. Gilroy is curretly in District 15 represented by Mike Honda (D). In the new 2012 districts, Morgan Hill is in Zoe Lofgren's District 19. It is obvious that MH is the tail on San Jose's dog. Gilroy is mostly in District 20... some of N. Gilroy is in CD 19. Current Officeholder is Sam Farr (D-70 yrs) and he is running for re-election. This would be his 11th term. The 20th CD is mostly a Central Coast district and Salinas is the biggest population center. Net: I don't see that S. County will have a big effect on any of these elections unless there is someone from one of the major population centers in each district to support. On 1/22/2012 10:09 AM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: > Are you doing anything in the south county? We heard there is a > district down there where one of the "major party" candidates has > dropped out. That seems like a perfect opportunity for us to run > somebody and be one of the top two for November. I personally don't > know anybody down there but you, but I do have a van and am willing > to haul people down there to do signature gathering, registration, > and precinct walking. Can you find us a candidate? Caroline > > ------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 23 12:38:52 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:38:52 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] banning fracking Message-ID: <4F1DC55C.9040500@sbcglobal.net> See *http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175492/t *for an article describing the efforts of the state of New York to ban fracking. Some localities have banned it, others are working on a ban. Large - 40,000 - numbers of signatures on petitions have been submitted. The downsides of fracking are presented along with the effects on a few communities. From wrolley at charter.net Mon Jan 23 13:16:19 2012 From: wrolley at charter.net (Wes Rolley) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:16:19 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Energy Efficiency works Message-ID: <4F1DCE23.7080800@charter.net> I subscribe to the newsletters from Architecture 2030. The organization was founded by Dr. Ed Mazria, a renowned architect currently working out of Santa Fe. I first ran in to Mazria watching a webcast presentation jointly spored by the Architecture Institute of America and the NY Academy of Sciences. He shared the time with NASA's Dr. Jim Hansen. This latest newsletter begins with good news: > Each year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes > its forecast for U.S. building energy consumption. Since the 2030 > Challenge was issued, this outlook has vastly improved. *A HEALTHY > DECLINE* > The following graph shows the EIA's 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 Annual > Energy Outlook (AEO) projections to the year 2030, clearly > illustrating that estimates of residential and commercial building > energy use to 2030 have been dropping dramatically since 2005 -- by > nearly 70% -- due to considerable movement within the Building Sector > to improve building design and efficiency. You can read the entire newsletter here: http://architecture2030.org/enews/news_012312.html This is one of the most important ways to combat global warming. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Mon Jan 23 19:16:58 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:16:58 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] San Jose City Council to consider CA DISCLOSE Act, Tues, arrive 1:40 PM In-Reply-To: <02839363BA87B447B34ECE391D0DC6541B8BA76A@ex01.sjcity.net> References: <02839363BA87B447B34ECE391D0DC6541B8BA76A@ex01.sjcity.net> Message-ID: <4F1E22AA.6080503@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: The San Jos? City Council is set to consider tomorrow whether it wants to endorse the California Disclose Act. I've heard that Mayor Reed is opposed to it, but between 4 and 7 of the 10 City Council members are for it. Shaunn Cartwright, Occupy San Jos? Media Committee, recommends we come and register to speak on the issue. Council member Ash Kalra, a strong supporter, suggested we arrive at 1:40 PM to be safe; see below. Shaunn said she thought Mayor Reed would have killed this in December but for the number of people who appeared to speak for it. Now we need people to help ensure its approval. Thanks, Spencer -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: What time Tuesday for the CA DISCLOSE Act issue? Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:23:04 -0800 From: District2 To: Spencer Graves CC: iq4rent Hello Spencer, There's no certain time for the item to be discussed but I think that arriving at 1:40 pm would be safe. Sincerely, Ash Kalra Councilmember, District 2 City of San Jose 200 E. Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Check out the District 2 Website: www.sjdistrict2.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*Spencer Graves [mailto:spencer.graves at prodsyse.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2012 3:08 AM *To:* District2 *Cc:* iq4rent *Subject:* What time Tuesday for the CA DISCLOSE Act issue? Dear Councilperson Kalra: What time would you suggest people come for the City Council discussion of the California DISCLOSE Act in the Council meeting Tuesday PM? Shaunn Cartwright (see below) has asked people to come for this at 3 PM. I ask, because my naive review of the published agenda for Tuesday suggests it could potentially come as early as 1:40 PM. However, that's only a guess on my part based only on the position of this as is item 3.3 on the published agenda, with item 3.2 being listed for the morning closed session and 3.1 being a report by the City Manager. Thanks, Spencer -------- Original Message -------- *Subject: * RE: [occupy-san-jose] California Disclose Act and Tuesday, Jan. 24, 1:30 PM: San Jos? City Council Meeting *Date: * Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:33:09 -0800 *From: * iq4rent *Reply-To: * occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com *To: * , Please ask Ash what time we should be there tomorrow for the council vote on the DISCLOSE Act. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:30:07 -0800 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com To: iq4rent at hotmail.com ; occupy-san-jose at googlegroups.com Subject: [occupy-san-jose] California Disclose Act and Tuesday, Jan. 24, 1:30 PM: San Jos? City Council Meeting Hello, All: The California Disclose Act would require more complete disclosure of the source of funding for advertisements for candidates and initiatives (www.caclean.org/progress/ab1148.php ). It is scheduled for a vote in the California Assembly on Jan. 31. If it gets a 2/3 majority, it could become law this year, if I understand correctly. If it gets a simple majority, we can at best hope to get an initiative in a 2014 election, where we can expect that big money will do their focus groups and figure out how to defame this so the public thinks it's bad. (They have demonstrated a great ability to make the electorate believe that black is white and white black.) I therefore encourage you to go to "www.cleanmoney.org " and sign their petition if you haven't already (second item under "Get involved" in the left hand column of www.caclean.org "). I also encourage you to try to find out how your representatives in the California Assembly and Senate feel about this and write them asking how how they feel about this and asking for their support if you cannot find their position or thanking them if they support it or asking them to reconsider if they oppose. You can find them by selecting "Find my representative" near the top middle at "http://assembly.ca.gov ", and entering your address. I just did this (without bothering to research their positions), sending the following to both my California Assembly and Senate representatives: * What is your position on the California Disclose Act? It is my impression that it is needed. Thanks, Spencer Graves Also, at today's General Assembly, Shaunn asked us to please attend Tuesday's City Council meeting and express your support for a City Council resolution supporting the California Disclose Act . Shaunn suggested we arrive at 3 PM. I'm confused about the meeting time, because a web page for the San Jos? City Council meetings says they meet Tuesdays at 1:30 and Thursdays at 7 PM (www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/agenda.asp ). The current agenda indicates that the City Council meets in closed session at 9 AM and open session at 1:30 PM (www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20120124/20120124a.pdf ), with this being item 3.3 under "3. Strategic Support Services" right after "3.1. Report of the City Manager" and "3.2. Labor Negotiations Update", with a recommendation that the latter be heard at 9 AM. Shaunn said that Mayor Reed opposes this, and it's on the agenda for Tuesday only because enough Occupiers appeared at an earlier meeting to speak for it that it was referred to committees and the City administration for their evaluation. That evaluation has now been competed and is available via the web links above. It can be passed Tuesday provided enough people appear in time and ask for a minute to make a brief statement supporting it. Unless Shaunn clarifies why she suggested arriving by 3 PM, I encourage you to arrive before 1:30 with material to read or otherwise help you be productive while waiting for this issue to be considered. Thanks to Shaunn and others for their hard work on this issue. 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 spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com Mon Jan 23 19:17:57 2012 From: spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:17:57 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: CA DISCLOSE Act moves to Assembly Floor! In-Reply-To: <1109123203865.1101176124554.47026.5.43182501@scheduler> References: <1109123203865.1101176124554.47026.5.43182501@scheduler> Message-ID: <4F1E22E5.8000607@structuremonitoring.com> Hello, All: Below please find a list of co-sponsors of the Californial Disclose Act. If you have not already contacted you representatives in the California Assembly and Senate (and maybe even if you have), thank your representatives if they are listed as co-sponsors and ask their position if they are not. Thanks, Spencer -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CA DISCLOSE Act moves to Assembly Floor! Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:33:08 -0500 (EST) From: Trent Lange, CA Clean Money Reply-To: newsletter at caclean.org To: spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com You're receiving this email because of your support for Fair Elections. Please confirm your interest in receiving email and add newsletter at caclean.org to your address book to keep getting occasional alerts. You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails. From the California Clean Money Campaign *Have you signed the online petition yet to email your message to the Assembly? Have you forwarded it to your friends? * "I urge all Assemblymembers and State Senators to actively support AB 1148, the California DISCLOSE Act, because political ads should have to show who /really/ pays for them." Sign the Petition! AB 1148, the /California DISCLOSE Act/, has reached the Assembly floor! After thousands of phone calls and emails from AB 1148 supporters, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee Thursday voted AB 1148, the /California DISCLOSE Act/, to the Assembly floor for a full vote by the end of the month. Coming two days before the second anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous /Citizens United/ decision that unleashed unlimited anonymous spending on campaigns across the country, the vote moves forward a bill that would shine a spotlight on political spending so voters know who is behind the ads they're seeing. *AB 1148 has achieved tremendous support because it requires one simple and yet game-changing thing*: That non-candidate political ads having funders who give more than $10,000 be required to prominently show their top three funders and their logos, instead of fine print disclosures of fake committee names like /"California Jobs Initiative"./ Assembly Speaker John P?rez joins 30 other Assemblymembers as a co-author! We are especially excited that Assembly Speaker John P?rez has joined 30 other Assembly co-authors of AB 1148 in the fight for real transparency and disclosure in political advertising. His active leadership could make a huge difference in its passage. *Check out the honor roll of co-authors at the bottom of this email* and be sure to thank them if you're a constituent! *If your Assemblymember isn't a co-author yet*, ask them to become one! (Reply to this email if you'd like to join a possible constituent meeting in your district this week). Five Newspapers Editorialize in Favor of AB 1148! Illustrating the across-the-board support for AB 1148 is the fact that five newspapers editorialized in favor of it in the last week, from the /San Jose Mercury News/ to the conservative /San Bernardino Sun./ Shining a light on political ads /San Bernardino Sun, Editorial, 1/21/12/ "The time is right for AB 1148; the Assembly Appropriations Committee passed it Thursday. It faces future challenges in Sacramento, however, where lawmakers benefit the most from political ads on their behalf." *OUR VIEW: Who's behind that ad? A fair question * /Bakersfield Californian, Editorial, 1/21/12/ "If super PACs can spend millions to influence our votes, shouldn't we know who's truly behind them?... Now California lawmakers have an opportunity to do something about the situation: The California DISCLOSE Act." Editorial: Keep political ads accountable /Los Angeles Daily News, Editorial, 1/19/12/ "California needs AB 1148. Fuentes, who has expressed concern about the cost of putting the measure on the ballot if it passes in the Legislature, hasn't said whether he supports the bill. For the sake of voters, he should." Mercury News editorial: Let California Voters See Who Funds Campaign Ads /San Jose Mercury News, Editorial, 1/18/12/ "California lawmakers have an opportunity to shine light into the shadows that can hide the big money donors who pay for political campaign ads... This is a step toward giving voters the information we need to identify who's backing political campaigns." Our View: Keep donors' names public /Pasadena Star-News, Editorial, 1/21/12/ "Misleading political ads are a huge problem in California. In 2010, more than $235 million was spent on state ballot measure advertisements. Most of the ads were paid for by groups with mysterious origins and innocuous-sounding names, according to the /California Clean Money Campaign/, which is the force behind this bill..." *But the fight has just begun. *Why? As currently written, AB 1148 will require a 2/3 vote to get through the Assembly, and powerful interests don't want it to because they want special interests to be able to keep hiding when they pay for ads.* **Will 2/3 of the Assembly take this opportunity to do something about it, as described by the Bakersfield Californian?* Or will a handful of them reject what 84% of voters are calling for because they benefit the most from political ads on their behalf, as the San Bernardino Sun worries? We're going to need all the help we can get from you to pass it, so sign the online petition to email your Assemblymember and Assembly leaders if you haven't yet, forward this email to your friends and lists so they can sign, and get ready for more actions you can take to help it pass! JOIN OUR STATEWIDE VIRTUAL PHONE BANKS THIS WEEK! Last week our callers made over 1,300 phone calls to supporters in key Appropriations Committee members asking them to call their Assemblymember about AB 1148, a key part of its passage. This week, with your help, we're going to call California Clean Money Campaign supporters in other key districts, asking them to tell their Assemblymembers to vote Yes on AB 1148. Your calls will be using our virtual phone bank software on your computer so that you'll receive a script and a list of names to call right from your own home. We'll be starting the virtual phone banks with a statewide conference call. It will give an update on the status of the campaign, an overview of why these calls are so critical, and a training on how to use the system if you haven't been trained yet. Virtual phone banks will be happening in the evenings tonight (Monday), Wednesday night, Thursday night, and the following Sunday and Monday nights at 6:30pm (training at 6:00pm). Afternoon virtual phone banks will be happening every weekday this week and next Monday (1/31) at 1:00pm (training at 12:30pm): *Register to join one or more of our virtual phonebanks! * Thank you for your commitment to Clean Money and Fair Elections. Together, we will pass the California DISCLOSE Act as a first step towards Fair Elections and a democracy that is truly of, by, and for the people. Our success depends upon you, as it always has. -- Trent, Craig, Jo, Nancy, Robin, and the rest of the California Clean Money Campaign team Co-Authors of AB 1148 *Author * Assemblymember Julia Brownley, Chair of Assembly Education Committee *Principal Co-Author* Assemblymember Paul Fong, Chair of Assembly Elections Committee *Co-Authors* Assembly Speaker John P?rez Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Fiona Ma Assemblymember Luis Alejo Assemblymember Michael Allen Assemblymember Tom Ammiano Assemblymember Toni Atkins Assemblymember Jim Beall, Jr. Assemblymember Susan Bonilla Assemblymember Bob Blumenfield Assemblymember StevenBradford Assemblymember Joan Buchanan Assemblymember Betsy Butler Assemblymember Mike Eng Assemblymember Mike Feuer Assemblymember Mike Gatto Assemblymember Rich Gordon Assemblymember Mary Hayashi Assemblymember Mary Hern?ndez Assemblymember Jerry Hill Assemblymember Ben Hueso Assemblymember Jared Huffman Assemblymember Holly Mitchell Assemblymember Bill Monning Assemblymember Anthony Portantino Assemblymember Nancy Skinner Assemblymember Sandr? Swanson Assemblymember Bob Weickowski Assemblymember Das Williams Assemblymember Mariko Yamada Senator Loni Hancock Senator Mark Leno Senator Fran Pavley Senator Leland Yee *Sponsor * California Clean Money Campaign *See the full list of over 250 endorsers * *Have your organization endorse * *Endorse yourself! * Sign the Petition! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Join the California Clean Money Campaign* The California Clean Money Campaign is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization whose vision is to achieve an open and accountable government that is responsive to the needs of all Californians by building statewide support for full disclosure and public funding of election campaigns. All our support comes from individuals and non-profit foundations, with no funding from corporations or unions. Forward email This email was sent to spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com by newsletter at caclean.org | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe ^(TM) | Privacy Policy . California Clean Money Campaign| 3916 S. Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 109| Culver City| CA| 90230 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Mon Jan 23 19:21:14 2012 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:21:14 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Did we vote in the Coordinating Committee Election via County Polling? Message-ID: <20120123.192114.379.3@webmail06.vgs.untd.com> Hi folks, Last week there was some discussion on this list about the Coordinating Committee Election via County Polling. Did our county submit any votes? Valerie ____________________________________________________________ 60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27 Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f1e23f8a43e762ee39st02vuc From snug.bug at hotmail.com Tue Jan 24 10:42:04 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:42:04 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Breaking News! Dieboild Software Glitch Accidentally Reveals 2012 Election Resuilts Message-ID: Onion News Network reports. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ojmOESqVeak <<>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Tue Jan 24 19:21:25 2012 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:21:25 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay to appear on GreenStream soon Message-ID: <20120124.192125.27344.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> FYI, Green presidential candidates Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay will appear on GreenStream soon (now that the State of the Union address is over): http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus Valerie ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f1f7586d93d468d1e4st01vuc From snug.bug at hotmail.com Wed Jan 25 10:13:38 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:13:38 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Advertisements for Democracy Message-ID: San Jose Raging Grannies Shirley Kinoshita and Essie Baradar render a 90-second song, "The Ninety-Nine Percent". http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=izcQSmBRVUA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Wed Jan 25 12:29:09 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:29:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] EU May Vote Soon On ACTA (Mother of SOPA) Message-ID: <1327523349.61294.YahooMailNeo@web111114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >From http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/01/491533.html ? ? Home | Mobile Version | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support Us A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues. EU May Vote Soon On ACTA (Mother of SOPA) John Thielking | 25.01.2012 19:32 | Analysis | Repression | Technology | World ACTA is the international version of the SOPA/PIPA laws in the US that would seriously restrict Internet freedoms. Under ACTA, information would be copyrightable for the first time, a bold step by the 1% towards the dark side. ?http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/ According to the first video in the above article on Forbes, ACTA would usher in a brand new era where information is copyrighted. Under traditional copyright law and interpretations of that law by the US courts, information can not be copyrighted (only the exact words used to convey the information can be copyrighted, simillar to the difference between a design patent vs an original patent). Reference: Access-Right: The Future Of Digital Copyright Law by Zohar Efroni. If an orginal patent level of copyright can be obtained on information under ACTA, this not only makes fair use impossible, but it could have an effect simillar to patenting seeds in that once certain information is patented it may not be allowed to be distributed by people other than the patent holder even if the other people had the information in their posession prior to the patent/copyright being claimed/granted. This is just nuts and even flies in the face of precident under patent law governing original patents! Though there is precident for granting design patent level of copyright to such works and then having their further distribution suppressed, such as in the case of the song "Happy Birthday" which has been copyrighted even after everyone on the planet already knew the song. You are now required to pay royalties every time this song is sung (at least if it is recorded and broadcast). Under ACTA, you wouldn't even be able to teach the song, nevermind record it, without paying. You might not even be able to sing a song when someone has a birthday (a different song) because the information that you should sing a song for someone on their birthday is also originally patented. Ludicrous! To help stop ACTA from going into force, please petition the EU to vote it down when it comes up next. There is a petition to sign here: ?https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/just-say-no-to-acta John Thielking e-mail: pagesincolor at yahoo.com Homepage: www.peacemovies.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vdf at juno.com Wed Jan 25 18:40:44 2012 From: vdf at juno.com (Valerie D. Face) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:40:44 GMT Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Live chat with Jill Stein NOW (following her People's State of the Uni on Address) Message-ID: <20120125.184044.18325.2@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> FYI, you can join the chat with Jill Stein on GreenStream right now: http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f20bd52573ed3c11f0st03vuc From tnharter at aceweb.com Wed Jan 25 19:33:30 2012 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:33:30 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Corporations are not people! Message-ID: <4F20C98A.2050803@aceweb.com> Please visit the below URL to check out my pictures from the march in San Jose last Friday: http://tian.greens.org/SanJose/StJamesPark/FriJan20th12.html -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: added pictures from San Jose Bike Party's Circus Ride. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on an Oklahoma quarter. From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Wed Jan 25 19:37:30 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:37:30 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Help prevent a foreclosure Message-ID: <4F20CA7A.1010100@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: Gloria Takla, age 72, was steered into a negative amortization loan by a Chase loan shark 7 years ago. As a result of that and other problems, her home was scheduled to be sold at auction on Dec. 14. That sale was postponed to Feb. 14 as a result of a demonstration by Occupy Redwood City, Occupy San Jos? and and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE, www.calorganize.org ) that Occupied a Chase branch in Redwood City and got Chase to agree to a two month stay of execution. Tomorrow, Thursday, January 26, at 4 PM, people from Occupy Redwood City, Occupy San Jos?, and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE, www.calorganize.org ) will converge on the Valley Fair branch of Chase at 2915 Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jos?. Please join the demonstration if you can. Whether or not you can come tomorrow, please call 214-626-9067 and ask Chase loan modification manager Hector Sevelen why Gloria does not qualify for the federal program. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 26 11:17:49 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:17:49 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Elizabeth Warren on the Daily Show Message-ID: <4F21A6DD.7090009@sbcglobal.net> A delightful video showing the "punch" Elizabeth Warren has, her repartees with Jon Colbert of the Daily Show *http://tinyurl.com/79hl5l4 * From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 26 14:14:19 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:14:19 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] benefits of big government Message-ID: <4F21D03B.5050700@sbcglobal.net> /Christian Parenti has an article at/ *http://tinyurl.com/88fqf57 */titled /*Why Climate Change Will Make You Love Big Government A Secret History of Free Enterprise and the Government That Made It Possible * /that provides numerous examples of "big" government benefits here a sample /As for flood insurance, the federal government is pretty much the only place to get it. The National Flood Insurance Program has written 5.5 million policies in more than 21,000 communities covering $1.2 trillion worth of property. As for the vaunted private market, for-profit insurance companies write between 180,000 and 200,000 policies in a given year. / //and here some history / One can trace the origins of state participation in the economy back to at least the founding of the republic: from Alexander Hamilton?s First Bank of the United States, which refloated the entire post-revolutionary economy when it bought otherwise worthless colonial debts at face value; to Henry Clay?s half-realized program of public investment and planning called the American System; to the New York State-funded Erie Canal, which made the future Big Apple the economic focus of the eastern seaboard; to the railroads, built on government land grants, that took the economy west and tied the nation together; to New Deal programs that helped pulled the country out of the Great Depression and built much of the infrastructure we still use like the Hoover Dam, scores of major bridges, hospitals, schools, and so on; to the government-funded and sponsored interstate highway system launched in the late 1950s; to the similarly funded space race, and beyond. It?s simple enough: big government investments (and thus big government) has been central to the remarkable economic dynamism of the country. From tnharter at aceweb.com Thu Jan 26 16:28:20 2012 From: tnharter at aceweb.com (Tian Harter) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:28:20 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Agenda for Jan. meeting In-Reply-To: <4F1C35B5.2060207@charter.net> References: <4F1C35B5.2060207@charter.net> Message-ID: <4F21EFA4.9090101@aceweb.com> This is what I have for the agenda. Please let me know of any changes you want in the next ten minutes, I'm printing them then. - Tian Green Party of Santa Clara County Proposed Agenda for Thursday 26, 2011 Speaker: Betsy Wolf-Graves talking about the work of PACT (People Acting in Community Together) that convinced the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to opt out of the "Secure Communities" program to get tough on "illegal aliens"? Selection of Facilitator, Note Taker, Timekeeper, Vibes Watcher 8 min Introductions, Announcements, Finalizing Agenda 12 min Selection of Agenda Preparer for next meeting 3 min Treasurer's report: 1 min Jim D tabling, schwag making (otherwise known as fund raising), and the registration drive Caroline -- Tian http://tian.greens.org Latest change: added pictures from San Jose Bike Party's Circus Ride. The 5 actions 1 world pin is on an Oklahoma quarter. From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Thu Jan 26 21:55:50 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:55:50 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Green party Jan. meeting Message-ID: <4F223C66.3000800@prodsyse.com> facilitator: Jim Doyle Vibeswatcher: Fred Timekeeper: Merriam notetaker: Spencer agenda for next month: Jim Doyle 1 minute speech in February: Merriam. Speaker: Betsy Wolf-Graves talking about the work of Santa Clara Coalition Against S-Com, which convinced the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to opt out of the "Secure Communities" program to get though on "illegal aliens". They started working with PACT (People Acting in Community Together), which however could not get agreement from their member organizations to support a program against S-Com. S-Com's stated purpose was to identify and deport as many criminal illegal aliens as possible. It started in 2008, but immigration groups did not find out about it until 2010. Zoe Lofgren was assured that any county that wanted to could opt out. However, in 2009, state governors were told that they did NOT have a choice, that the program was mandatory. The Coalition focused on Detainers, which required more work from local law enforcement with no increase in funds -- an unfunded mandate. Shirakawa is co-chair of the safety committee of Santa Clara County. The Coalition came and spoke at hearing's of the Santa Clara County safety committee on S-Com. In the first year, 2009, 200,000+ were deported. Oct. 18, 2011, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to officially opt out of S-Com. Lofgren accused Janet Napolitano of being a liar in telling Lofgren that the program was voluntary and telling state and local officials that the program was mandatory. One evaluation by a law school concluded that ICE's failure to live by their own guidelines is a feature of the program, not an aberration. Members of the Santa Clara Coalition against S-Com include Siren, Asian Law Alliance, Sacred Heart, De-Bug, and others, many (all?) of them have their own budgets. Introductions: In attendance: Jim Doyle, Fred Duperault, Caroline Yacoub, Merriam Kathaleen, Betsy Wolf-Graves, Spencer Graves Announcements: Finalizing Agenda Treasurer's report: $2,651. after reimbursing Spencer for printing expenses. Some funds have been transferred from BBVA to Provident CU. He still has to get Warner on the signature card for ProvidentCU and transfer one automatic payment from BBVA to ProvidentCU. Tabling, schwag, registration drive: Caroline: We have a lot of issues going on. Next tabling: Junior State ~ April. Earth Day, ~April. Training for registration, Saturday, Feb. 4, in Berkeley. California Disclose Act: The City of San Jos? became the first city in California to endorse the California DISCLOSE Act. It would help if we followed up with Greens and ask them to follow up before next Monday. Movie Night: Go to Jillstein.org to get her State of the Union speech. 45 minutes. Propose to show it at the Campbell public library. Jim Doyle will call the Campbell library to see if we can get a room, when, the charge, and whether it has a projector and screen. Merriam to call Tian about getting his clubhouse for this. Cupertino cement plant: Cupertino Board of Supervisors voted to allow the privatization of the public road .. . -- 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 snug.bug at hotmail.com Thu Jan 26 22:32:53 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:32:53 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] 13-Year-Old FInds Fibonacchi Series in Tree Branching; Creates Improved Solar Array Message-ID: http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2011/aidan.html He was looking for a mathematical pattern in the spiral array of branches, and wondered if this layout was to optimize catching light. He then used solar panels to build a model tree, and raced its performance against a comparable conventional fixed solar panel. The tree layout produced 20% more electricity and collected sun for 2-1/2 hours longer. In December, the tree produced 50% more electricity and functioned 50% more hours. I've sure as hell spent enough hours, weeks, and months looking at trees in the sunlight. Now why didn't I think of that? I'm intrigued by the ease with which a column-based solar "tree" could track the sun by simple rotation. Branches could rotate too for fine adjustment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolineyacoub at att.net Fri Jan 27 14:55:55 2012 From: carolineyacoub at att.net (Caroline Yacoub) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: URGENT SB 810 still alive - your calls needed to win! In-Reply-To: <1327633514.45076.YahooMailClassic@web80604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, References: <1327633514.45076.YahooMailClassic@web80604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, Message-ID: <1327704955.80777.YahooMailRC@web181004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Lynn Huidekoper To: Lynn Huidekoper Sent: Thu, January 26, 2012 8:57:36 PM Subject: URGENT SB 810 still alive - your calls needed to win! SB810 was voted on today. It needed 21 votes. It got 19. 2 Dem. Senators voted No(Calderon and Correa). 4 Democrat Senators were absent for the vote. 810 still has a chance of passing if 2 of the 4 vote Yes by Tuesday, Jan. 31, the last day for bills from last year. Please inundate the phones of the 4 Senators who are members of the Black and Latino Caucuses who are highlighted below. ? Thanks! ________________________________ --- On Thu, 1/26/12, Pilar Schiavo wrote: >From: Pilar Schiavo >Subject: SB 810 still alive - your calls needed to win! >To: "Pilar Schiavo" >Date: Thursday, January 26, 2012, 11:58 AM > > >Hi folks, > > >? >They just took SB 810 up for a 2nd time today because there were members >?absent? during the first vote. Calderon was the only one who voted who was >previously ?absent?, he voted NO. Correa was the other NO in the first vote. The >others who were in the room but did not vote were: Padilla, Wright, Vargas, >Rubio. So SB 810 failed by only 2 votes ? 19 to 15. We need 21 to win. > >? >We still have another chance though?SB 810 is on ?Reconsideration? and can be >brought up again if the votes change. This will likely happen on Tuesday January >31st - our last day to pass it. > >? >Please call the following legislators who DID NOT VOTE todayand tell them: >? >?I?m disappointed that the Senator did not cast a vote for SB 810 on the Senate >Floor. Senator Leno plans to bring it up again on Reconsideration and I ask the >Senator to support SB 810 then. It?s the only real solution to the healthcare >crisis care crisis that saves the state billions, guarantees healthcare for all >Californians, and controls costs, while eliminating the denials of care and >restrictions of provider choice imposed by private insurance companies.? > >? >Check here to see if you are represented by them: >http://senate.ca.gov/senatedistricts > >? >? >Senator Alex Padilla (Pacoima/LA area) >Email: Senator.Padilla at sen.ca.gov >Phone: (916) 651-4020 >? >Senator Juan Vargas (San Diego area) >Email: Juan.Vargas at sen.ca.gov >Phone: (916) 651-4040 >Senator Michael Rubio (Fresno/Bakersfield area) >Email: Michael.Rubio at sen.ca.gov >Phone:?(916) 651-4016 >? >Senator Rod Wright (Los Angeles area) >Email: Senator.Wright at sen.ca.gov >Phone: (916) 651-4025 >? >? >? >Pilar Schiavo >Campaign Coordinator >Campaign for a Healthy California >phone:800.745.3090 >cell:510-385-4213 >fax:510.273.1715 >email:info at HealthyCaliforniaCampaign.org >web:www.HealthyCaliforniaCampaign.org >? >? > >California Alliance for Retired Americans / Physicians for a National Health >Program ? California / California Health Professional Student Alliance / > >Communication Workers of America? District 9 / Health Care For All / Single >Payer Now / California Nurses Association / California OneCare / > >California School Employee Association / Democracy For America / The Progressive >Caucus of California / Progressive Democrats of America > >? >? > >This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information >intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.? If you >are not the intended recipient, your should delete this message.? If you are not >the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this >message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > >? >? >? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7751 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 182 bytes Desc: not available URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Sat Jan 28 10:07:45 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:07:45 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Occupy San Jose TV Coverage at Chase Bank Protesting Foreclosure Message-ID: Looks like David Ledesma with a very nicely-made sign. Another sign: "Occupy the Facts". KTVU coverage: http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/san-jose-occupy-protesters-unite-with-woman-facing/vFtB3/ KRON: http://p.castfire.com/PWB3S/video/853115/853115_2012-01-26-203715.6771.m4v -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snug.bug at hotmail.com Sun Jan 29 12:09:27 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:09:27 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Starting 1/27/12 for 1 week only FREE on Hulu - Revenge of the Electric Car In-Reply-To: References: <1327789011.43818.YahooMailRC@web80701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, , Message-ID: Free on Hulu for one week- http://www.hulu.com/watch/322022/revenge-of-the-electric-car -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgshurt69 at aol.com Mon Jan 30 11:36:50 2012 From: jgshurt69 at aol.com (jgshurt69 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:36:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: February 15, OCCUPY SF FORUM on ELECTORAL POLITICS In-Reply-To: <8CEAD959D6FC54B-19B4-16075@webmail-m047.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CEAD959D6FC54B-19B4-16075@webmail-m047.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CEAD9DA580807A-19B4-1692B@webmail-m047.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: jgshurt69 To: gpsmc-cc Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2012 10:39 am Subject: Fwd: February 15, OCCUPY SF FORUM on ELECTORAL POLITICS Great chance to meet OCCUPY andSupport REAL ELECTORAL CHANGE.Tickets $10 and underclick on tinyurl websiteor purchase from US at the door.jeffrey-----Original Message-----From: Frank Scafani To: Anne Silver Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2012 7:58 amSubject: February 15, public forum "Which Way Forward"Please attend, and please forward widely --?? ?? Hello, I'm a member of a new group, the SF99% Coalition (http://sf99percent.org/), that's been supporting OccupySF, wants to stop the wars, protect public services, tax the rich, and protect the environment.???The Occupy movement has changed the national conversation from budget cutting to disparities of power and wealth between rich and poor.??The SF 99% Coalition wants to figure out how to take the next step and build on that, to find the most effective approach to making real political and social change in our country, now.??So we've organized a public forum with speakers who represent diverse approaches to progressive change, on Wednesday February 15 in San Francisco.??Please join us there! ?See the image below for more details, but if you don't see it, you can find the same one if you click on: http://tinyurl.com/87vhf8u . ?You can find a link for ordering tickets there as well as on our website's home page, or just go to: ?http://tinyurl.com/6vbut45?. ?Tickets are $10 but if you can't pay all or any of it, you're still welcome to attend. ?And if you agree with us that this looks like it will be a worthwhile discussion, please send this email to other activists, friends and/or those in organizations who might want to attend.??Thanks!If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "peopleofCA12" group.To post to this group, send email to people-of-ca12 at googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to people-of-ca12+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/people-of-ca12?hl=en. From jims at greens.org Mon Jan 30 16:49:34 2012 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:49:34 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: BAY AREA EVENT: International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier In-Reply-To: <4F273A31.4060901@greens.org> References: <4F273A31.4060901@greens.org> Message-ID: <4F273A9E.4010300@greens.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: BAY AREA EVENT: International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:47:45 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer To: updates at cagreens.org -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: confirm 2b4be1aeca2079a7f3bcc4e8cc6eee2abe68d934 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:04:24 -0800 From: Dorothy Kemeny To: sosfbay-news-request at cagreens.org, gpca-grow at lists.riseup.net, gpca at cagreens.org Dear Fellow Greens, The Leonard Peltier Defense Offence Committee sent an email to me about an event that San Jose is holding 2/4/12 on the occasion of International Day of Solidarity. I subscribed to this list so that I could tell you about it. The attached file has that information. [Attachment is posted below] At the Fullerton GA the state party approved the forming of the Free Leonard Peltier Caucus, declaring Oct. 12 Leonard Peltier Day and putting out petitions for clemency for Leonard. This is an effort to grow the party through social justice actions. The petition can be accessed at www.petitiononline.com/greens/petition.html . A celebration is being planned at CSULA this coming October for Leonard Peltier Day and a LA contingency is making plans to meet up with the Leonard Peltier Walkers for Human Rights, who are bringing awareness to the plight of political prisoners by walking across the nation to arrive in DC on May 18. It would be great if Greens across the nation would come out to support their effort. I know that the Northern CA Greens are very active and I hope you can participate in this endeavor. Good luck. Dorothy Kemeny, member LA County Council ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT San Jose Standing with Leonard Peltier: Two is Better than One San Jose, California: International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier. Join our standouts for Leonard Peltier on February 4th and 6th On February 4th, gather in front of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Library at the corner of 4th Street and Santa Clara Street, 1:00-3:00 p.m. Join the 06 February standout in support of Leonard Peltier at the corner of Market Street and San Carlos Street (south end of Chavez Plaza). Come support Leonard Peltier and distribute case literature to auto passengers and pedestrians. Bring signs, posters, banners. Suggestions: "Leonard Peltier - 36 Years Justice Denied," "Bill of Rights is another Broken Treaty - Free Leonard Peltier," or "Leonard Peltier is Innocent." Sponsored by LPDOC Chapter - Silicon Valley. Do you plan to join us or have questions? Contact Donna Wallach at408-293-4774 or 408-569-6608, or by e-mail at dbwall at earthlink.net. From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Jan 31 03:41:09 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:41:09 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Fwd: [SBM] NEW UPDATE! Join LPDOC Chapter Silicon Valley in International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier on Sat 4th Feb. & Mon. 6th Feb. 2012 In-Reply-To: <4F2796C0.7010200@prodsyse.com> References: <4F2796C0.7010200@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <4F27D355.8010205@prodsyse.com> Anyone interested in actions in solidarity with Leonard Peltier this Saturday and next Monday? If yes, see below. Spencer -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SBM] NEW UPDATE! Join LPDOC Chapter Silicon Valley in International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier on Sat 4th Feb.& Mon. 6th Feb. 2012 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:38:03 -0800 From: Donna Wallach To: sbm, south_bay_activists Greetings all I have added an additional day to participate in the International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier. Here are the dates, times and locations to join LPDOC Chapter Silicon Valley to stand in solidarity with Leonard Peltier and demand freedom for him! *Please note the correct address locations for both actions:* *LPDOC Chapter Silicon Valley will participate in this International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier in San Jose on Saturday 4th February and on Monday 6th February 2012. Please join us. Please read below for all the info.* *Date: Saturday 4th February 2012* *Time: 1:00pm - 3:00pm* *Location: MLK Library, 150 East San Fernando Street (corner of 4th Street), San Jose, CA 95112* * * * * *Date: Monday 6th February 2012* *Time: 5:00pm - 6:00pm* *Location: corner of Market Street and San Carlos Street (south end of Cesar Chavez Plaza), San Jose, CA* (across the street from new Marriot Hotel and old Saint Claire Hotel and close to San Jose Convention Center) On both days we will hold the banner Free Leonard Peltier! Free All Political Prisoners! And we will distribute the fold-up brochure on Leonard Peltier. Suggestions for posters to hold at the protest: * Leonard Peltier - 36 Years Justice Denied * Bill of Rights is another Broken Treaty - Free Leonard Peltier * Leonard Peltier is Innocent *Please reply if you plan on joining us! * *Please reply if you have any questions.* Please read below for the call issued by LPDOC for the International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier on 4th February 2012. *Looking forward to a large crowd demanding justice for Leonard!* in solidarity Donna Wallach LPDOC Chapter Silicon Valley (h) 408-293-4774 (cell) 408-569-6608 04 February 2012: International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier *International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier: Clemency Now!* The Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee calls on supporters worldwide to protest against the injustice suffered by Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier. Gather on February 4, 2012, at every federal court house and U.S. embassy or consulate worldwide to demand the freedom of a man wrongfully convicted and illegal imprisoned for 36 years! Leonard Peltier is a Native American activist wrongfully accused in 1975 in connection with the shooting deaths of two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Government documents show that, without any evidence at all, the FBI decided from the beginning of its investigation to 'lock Peltier into the case'. U.S. prosecutors knowingly presented false statements to a Canadian court to extradite Mr. Peltier to the U.S. The statements were signed by a woman who was forced by FBI agents to say she was an eyewitness. The government has long since admitted that the woman was not present during the shootings. Meanwhile, in a separate trial in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Mr. Peltier's co-defendants were acquitted by reason of self defense. Had Leonard been tried with his co-defendants, he also would have been acquitted. Unhappy with the outcome of the Cedar Rapids trial, prosecutors set the stage for Mr. Peltier's conviction. His trial was moved to an area known for its anti-Indian sentiment?Fargo, North Dakota. The trial judge had a reputation for ruling against Indians, and a juror is known to have made racist comments during Mr. Peltier's trial. FBI documents prove that the U.S. government went so far as to manufacture the so-called murder weapon, the most critical evidence in the prosecution's case. A ballistics test proved, however, that the gun and shell casings entered into evidence didn't match. The FBI hid this fact from the jury. Mr. Peltier was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. According to court records, the United States Attorney who prosecuted the case has twice admitted that no one even knows who fired the fatal shots. Leonard Peltier is 67 years old and in poor health. An accomplished author and artist, Mr. Peltier is renowned for his humanitarian achievements. In 2009, Leonard was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for the sixth consecutive year. Although the courts have acknowledged evidence of government misconduct?including forcing witnesses to lie and hiding ballistics evidence reflecting his innocence?Mr. Peltier has been denied a new trial on a legal technicality. Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, 55 Members of Congress and others?including a judge who sat as a member of the court in two of Mr. Peltier?s appeals?have all called for his immediate release. The Courts may not be able to act but Barack Obama, as President, can. Please join with us to free an innocent man. On February 4, 2012, tell Obama to grant clemency to Leonard Peltier. Scheduled events will be announced and details provided at http://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info/. From betsy237 at prodsyse.com Mon Jan 30 22:21:56 2012 From: betsy237 at prodsyse.com (Betsy Wolf-Graves) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:21:56 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [Sosfbay-news] Fwd: BAY AREA EVENT: International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier In-Reply-To: <4F273A9E.4010300@greens.org> References: <4F273A9E.4010300@greens.org> Message-ID: <4F278884.6060206@prodsyse.com> Donna: I got this off the Greens list. What more do you know about this day of solidarity that you can tell the Greens? Betsy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Sosfbay-news] Fwd: BAY AREA EVENT: International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:49:34 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer GPSCC , GPSCC News To: GPSCC , GPSCC News -------- Original Message -------- Subject: BAY AREA EVENT: International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:47:45 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer To: updates at cagreens.org -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: confirm 2b4be1aeca2079a7f3bcc4e8cc6eee2abe68d934 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:04:24 -0800 From: Dorothy Kemeny To: sosfbay-news-request at cagreens.org, gpca-grow at lists.riseup.net, gpca at cagreens.org Dear Fellow Greens, The Leonard Peltier Defense Offence Committee sent an email to me about an event that San Jose is holding 2/4/12 on the occasion of International Day of Solidarity. I subscribed to this list so that I could tell you about it. The attached file has that information. [Attachment is posted below] At the Fullerton GA the state party approved the forming of the Free Leonard Peltier Caucus, declaring Oct. 12 Leonard Peltier Day and putting out petitions for clemency for Leonard. This is an effort to grow the party through social justice actions. The petition can be accessed at www.petitiononline.com/greens/petition.html . A celebration is being planned at CSULA this coming October for Leonard Peltier Day and a LA contingency is making plans to meet up with the Leonard Peltier Walkers for Human Rights, who are bringing awareness to the plight of political prisoners by walking across the nation to arrive in DC on May 18. It would be great if Greens across the nation would come out to support their effort. I know that the Northern CA Greens are very active and I hope you can participate in this endeavor. Good luck. Dorothy Kemeny, member LA County Council ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT San Jose Standing with Leonard Peltier: Two is Better than One San Jose, California: International Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier. Join our standouts for Leonard Peltier on February 4th and 6th On February 4th, gather in front of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Library at the corner of 4th Street and Santa Clara Street, 1:00-3:00 p.m. Join the 06 February standout in support of Leonard Peltier at the corner of Market Street and San Carlos Street (south end of Chavez Plaza). Come support Leonard Peltier and distribute case literature to auto passengers and pedestrians. Bring signs, posters, banners. Suggestions: "Leonard Peltier - 36 Years Justice Denied," "Bill of Rights is another Broken Treaty - Free Leonard Peltier," or "Leonard Peltier is Innocent." Sponsored by LPDOC Chapter - Silicon Valley. Do you plan to join us or have questions? Contact Donna Wallach at408-293-4774 or 408-569-6608, or by e-mail at dbwall at earthlink.net. _______________________________________________ sosfbay-news mailing list is moderated. Post to sosfbay-news at cagreens.org Reply to sender or sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-news From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Jan 31 11:40:48 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:40:48 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ACTA = International treaty worse than SOPA? In-Reply-To: <8CEAE18FD7B261E-8D4-29FB1@webmail-d148.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CEAE18FD7B261E-8D4-29FB1@webmail-d148.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4F2843C0.8040400@prodsyse.com> Hello, All: If you have a few minutes to spare, I encourage you to sign two online petitions to try to stop yet another power grab by the 1%: The "Anti-Counterfitting Trade Agreement (ACTA)" is reportedly worse than the Stop On-line Piracy Act (SOPA) in may ways. The following two online petitions are trying to stop this in the European Parliament, which may be its last stop before becoming law having already been signed by the US (with the standard news blackout we can expect on anything that might affect the power of the major commercial media): * https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/just-say-no-to-acta (John Thielking asked us to sign this one on Jan. 25.) * http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_acta/?vl For those who would like more information, I recommend the Wikipedia article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement) and the articles mentioned below. The following summarizes the biggest problems I've heard reported: 1. It includes a special ACTA Committee empowered to amend the agreement without public or judicial review. Thus, any safeguards that might be part of the current agreement could be easily removed. 2. It empowers governments to take down Internet Service Providers (ISPs), not just web sites, it doesn't like. I don't know what recourse a targeted web site or ISP might have to the courts, but any they might have now could be removed by the ACTA Committee. 3. Security forces at airports and border crossings are authorized to search your cell phone, MP3 player or computer for pirate copies of anything and confiscate or destroy it if they find something they don't like. (No search warrant required.) 4. ACTA was negotiated in secret and signed by the US and several other countries. The Bush and Obama administrations successfully quashed Freedom of Information Act requests on the grounds that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security." The two petitions above are mercifully short. I read and signed both in less than a minute. Thanks, Spencer On 1/31/2012 2:19 AM, mkmusic03 at aol.com wrote: > Hi Spencer. > Do you know about ACTA? The horrible twin to SOPA. > Merriam > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dalia Hashad - Avaaz.org > To: mkmusic03 > Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2012 5:59 pm > Subject: ACTA: The new threat to the net > > Dear friends, > > > > *A new global treaty could allow corporations to police everything > that we do on the Internet.* Last week 3 million of us successfully > pushed back the US censorship bills -- *if we act now, we can get the > EU Parliament to bury this new threat* to all of us: > > Click here to sign the petition > > > Last week, 3 million of us beat back America's attack on our Internet! > -- but there is an even bigger threat out there, and our global > movement for freedom online is perfectly poised to kill it for good. > > *ACTA -- a global treaty -- could allow corporations to censor the > Internet.* Negotiated in secret by a small number of rich countries > and corporate powers, it would set up a shadowy new > anti-counterfeiting body to allow private interests to police > everything that we do online and impose massive penalties -- even > prison sentences -- against people they say have harmed their business. > > *Europe is deciding right now whether to sign ACTA -- and without > them, this global attack on Internet freedom will collapse.* We know > they have opposed ACTA before, but some members of Parliament are > wavering -- *let's give them the push they need to reject the > treaty.* Sign the petition -- we'll do a spectacular delivery in > Brussels when we reach 500,000 signatures: > > http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_acta/?vl > > > It's outrageous -- governments of four-fifths of the world?s people > were excluded from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement > (ACTA) negotiations and *unelected bureaucrats have worked closely > with corporate lobbyists to craft new rules and a dangerously powerful > enforcement regime.* ACTA would initially cover the US, EU and 9 other > countries, then be rolled out across the world. But if we can get the > EU to say no now, the treaty will lose momentum and could stall for good. > > The oppressively strict regulations could mean people everywhere are > punished for simple acts such as sharing a newspaper article or > uploading a video of a party where copyrighted music is played. Sold > as a trade agreement to protect copyrights, *ACTA could also ban > lifesaving generic drugs and threaten local farmers' access to the > seeds they need.* And, amazingly, the ACTA committee will have carte > blanche to change its own rules and sanctions with no democratic scrutiny. > > *Big corporate interests are pushing hard for this, but the EU > Parliament stands in the way.* Let's send a loud call to > Parliamentarians to face down the lobbies and stand firm for Internet > freedom. Sign now and send to everyone you know: > > http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_acta/?vl > > > Last week, we saw the strength of our collective power when millions > of us joined forces to stop the US from passing an Internet censorship > law that would have struck at the heart of the Internet. We also > showed the world how powerful our voices can be. Let's raise them > again to tackle this new threat. > > With hope and determination, > > Dalia, Alice, Pascal, Emma, Ricken, Maria Paz and the rest of the > Avaaz team > > More information: > > If You Thought SOPA Was Bad, Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA > http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/ > > > ACTA vs. SOPA: Five Reasons ACTA is Scarier Threat to Internet Freedom > http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/286925/20120124/acta-sopa-reasons-scarier-threat-internet-freedom.htm?cid=2 > > > What's Wrong With ACTA > http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.1/whats-wrong-with-ACTA > > The secret treaty: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and Its > Impact on Access to Medicines > http://www.msfaccess.org/content/secret-treaty-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta-and-its-impact-access-medicines > > > > *Support the Avaaz Community!* > We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from > governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the > smallest contributions go a long way. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > * > Avaaz.org is a 10-million-person global campaign network* that works > to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global > decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) > Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread > across 13 countries on 4 continents and operates in 14 languages. > Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here > , or follow us on > Facebook or Twitter > . > > This message was sent to mkmusic03 at aol.com . > To change your email address, language, or other information, contact > us via this form . To > unsubscribe, send an email to unsubscribe at avaaz.org > or click here > . > > To contact Avaaz, please *do not reply to this email.* Instead, write > to us at www.avaaz.org/en/contact > or call us at +1-888-922-8229 > (US). -- 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 snug.bug at hotmail.com Tue Jan 31 12:30:58 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:30:58 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act 2 Votes Shy Message-ID: We needed a 2/3 majority--every Democrat and 2 Republicans. We got every Democrat except Cathleen Galgiani (Stockton), and we only got one Republican, Nathan Fletcher (San Diego). So even though we failed to win the vote, we showed that the Republican Party is willing to vote down legislation that 80% of voters (and over 75% of Republicans) favor. Wait'll next year. We'll introduce it again, and this time we'll win. I'm finding working at the CA State level very stimulating. Most people don't even know who their state legislators are, and a couple of dozen calls from constituents lights a fire under their assembly reps. By phonebanking, people from all over the state can converge electronically to rouse the supporters in targeted assembly districts. And there is a very clear difference between Republicans and Democrats at the state level. I understand that Ms. Galgiani is termed out after this year, so her assembly seat will be opening up, and she plans to run for state senate. I will be very interested to look into who finances Ms. Galgiani, and there's an excellent research resource, maplight, that has a lot of information on CA state legislators and their campaign contributors. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spencer.graves at prodsyse.com Tue Jan 31 13:14:01 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:01 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act 2 Votes Shy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F285999.5010603@prodsyse.com> Hi, Brian: Why did this need a 2/3 majority? Thanks, Spencer On 1/31/2012 12:30 PM, Brian Good wrote: > > We needed a 2/3 majority--every Democrat and 2 Republicans. > > We got every Democrat except Cathleen Galgiani (Stockton), and we > only got one > Republican, Nathan Fletcher (San Diego). > > So even though we failed to win the vote, we showed that the > Republican Party > is willing to vote down legislation that 80% of voters (and over 75% > of Republicans) > favor. > > Wait'll next year. We'll introduce it again, and this time we'll win. > > I'm finding working at the CA State level very stimulating. Most > people don't even > know who their state legislators are, and a couple of dozen calls from > constituents lights > a fire under their assembly reps. By phonebanking, people from all > over the state can > converge electronically to rouse the supporters in targeted assembly > districts. And there > is a very clear difference between Republicans and Democrats at the > state level. > > I understand that Ms. Galgiani is termed out after this year, so her > assembly seat will be > opening up, and she plans to run for state senate. > > I will be very interested to look into who finances Ms. Galgiani, > and there's an excellent > research resource, maplight, that has a lot of information on CA state > legislators and their > campaign contributors. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 snug.bug at hotmail.com Tue Jan 31 13:50:57 2012 From: snug.bug at hotmail.com (Brian Good) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:50:57 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act 2 Votes Shy In-Reply-To: <4F285999.5010603@prodsyse.com> References: , <4F285999.5010603@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: Excellent question! To get the bill out on the assembly floor today we had to first get through the Elections Committee and the Appropriations Committee. The chair of the Appropriations Committee, Felipe Fuentes (San Fernando), seemed very reluctant to support the bill. His concern reportedly was that putting the initiative on the ballot would require printing an extra page in the voter's handbook (IIRC the cost would have been $250,000). My understanding (and I could be wrong) was that the bill provided that if we got the 2/3 of the assembly, then the bill would go to the Governor for signature this year, but if we got only 51% then the issue would be placed on the ballot in 2014. I believe the Appropriations Committee altered the bill to remove the simple-majority-and-ballot-initiative option before they voted (strictly along party lines) to put the bill on the floor. Also, I was wrong about re-introducing the bill next year. The heroic Nancy Neff informs me that we'll re-introduce it this year. (Shucks, I thought I might actually find some time to work on my novel sometime this year.) Brian Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:01 -0800 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com To: snug.bug at hotmail.com CC: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] CA DISCLOSE Act 2 Votes Shy Hi, Brian: Why did this need a 2/3 majority? Thanks, Spencer On 1/31/2012 12:30 PM, Brian Good wrote: We needed a 2/3 majority--every Democrat and 2 Republicans. We got every Democrat except Cathleen Galgiani (Stockton), and we only got one Republican, Nathan Fletcher (San Diego). So even though we failed to win the vote, we showed that the Republican Party is willing to vote down legislation that 80% of voters (and over 75% of Republicans) favor. Wait'll next year. We'll introduce it again, and this time we'll win. I'm finding working at the CA State level very stimulating. Most people don't even know who their state legislators are, and a couple of dozen calls from constituents lights a fire under their assembly reps. By phonebanking, people from all over the state can converge electronically to rouse the supporters in targeted assembly districts. And there is a very clear difference between Republicans and Democrats at the state level. I understand that Ms. Galgiani is termed out after this year, so her assembly seat will be opening up, and she plans to run for state senate. I will be very interested to look into who finances Ms. Galgiani, and there's an excellent research resource, maplight, that has a lot of information on CA state legislators and their campaign contributors. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 31 14:46:21 2012 From: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com (Spencer Graves) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:46:21 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: MTA Actions: A Job Well Done! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F286F3D.4050008@prodsyse.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: MTA Actions: A Job Well Done! Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:39:39 -0800 From: Richard Hobbs To: ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Move to Amend *To:* richhobbs at msn.com *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2012 9:13 AM *Subject:* A Job Well Done! */ The National Campaign to End Corporate Personhood and Demand Democracy!/* Move to Amend *About* *| **Donate* *| **Get Involved* /*Occupy the Courts: a Phenomenal Success!*/ Dear Richard, Thanks to you and many others, our *?Occupy the Courts? events on January 20 turned out better than we ever imagined!* Events protesting Citizens United took place at 138 federal courthouses, in parks and plazas, and at the Supreme Court. Far too numerous to mention here (including over 1200 print/online articles and 450+ TV/radio clips!), please check here for a round-up of the news stories . We were able to stage protests at federal courthouses in 48 states, and bring thousands upon thousands of our fellow citizens out on a week-day, in the middle of winter. It was a measure of the *great grassroots organizing going on* within this coalition. Amending the Constitution to abolish corporate personhood requires us to work in our own communities to build support for it. ?Occupy the Courts? show us that when we all pull together, we succeed. So *pat yourself on the back for a job well done!* Going forward, *Move to Amend will continue to lead the fight against corporate personhood and ?money is speech.?* In order to do so, and meet the growing demand for information and resources, we have recently upgraded our database to better serve you. You?ve probably already noticed that our emails look a little different. Our new system has improved our communications ability tenfold and offers a lot more flexibility ? but it does come at an expense. */Help us succeed in all of our efforts ? /**/become a sustaining member today ! /* ?Occupy the Courts? taught us that when we are able to focus attention on our mission instead of on raising money, *we can accomplish great things*. *If every Move to Amend member contributed **just $10 a month *(the cost of a movie ticket) we could focus our attention entirely on the Movement to Amend and passing the 28th Amendment . *Please become a Move to Amend monthly sustaining donor!* In solidarity, /Ben Manski, Nancy Price, David Cobb, Leesa "George" Friday, Jerome Scott, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Lisa Graves, Laura Bonham/ Move to Amend Executive Committee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MOVE TO AMEND* PO Box 610, Eureka CA 95502 | (707) 269-0984 **| www.MoveToAmend.org ** * You are subscribed to this list as richhobbs at msn.com. Click here to unsubscribe . empowered by Salsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pagesincolor at yahoo.com Tue Jan 31 15:35:54 2012 From: pagesincolor at yahoo.com (John Thielking) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:35:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ACTA = International treaty worse than SOPA? In-Reply-To: <4F2843C0.8040400@prodsyse.com> References: <8CEAE18FD7B261E-8D4-29FB1@webmail-d148.sysops.aol.com> <4F2843C0.8040400@prodsyse.com> Message-ID: <1328052954.92866.YahooMailNeo@web111113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Spencer, ? Thanks for sending this around.? I have a plan with Pre-Paid Legal (I think they changed their name to legal shield or something since I signed up).? Anyway, for a measely $37 per month, I do have a lawyer on tap to answer my personal and small business related questions about ACTA.? I've already submitted two questions: 1)Does ACTA change copyright law to allow for copyrighting of information (currently the only way information as opposed to the exact form of prose is copyrighted is through terms of use contracts on individual web sites or other specific licensing agreements) and 2) Does ACTA usher in a police state online to enforce the new regime.? I will know the answers to those basic questions shortly.? If anyone wants to ask me a question about ACTA I can ask it of my lawyer if I have standing (if it would also affect me) under my plan. I have 6 more pages left on my 10 page limit for the topic I'm currently on with my lawyer, so keep the questions short. Of course, I can not represent that my questions and answers will be translated accurately, so this is not a solicitation to provide legal advice.? For that you would have to pay the $37 per month yourself.??Thanks. ? Sincerely, ? John Thielking From: Spencer Graves To: GPSCC Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:40 AM Subject: [GPSCC-chat] ACTA = International treaty worse than SOPA? Hello, All:? ????? If you have a few minutes to spare, I encourage you to sign two online petitions to try to stop yet another power grab by the 1%:? The "Anti-Counterfitting Trade Agreement (ACTA)" is reportedly worse than the Stop On-line Piracy Act (SOPA) in may ways.? The following two online petitions are trying to stop this in the European Parliament, which may be its last stop before becoming law having already been signed by the US (with the standard news blackout we can expect on anything that might affect the power of the major commercial media):? ??? ??????? * https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/just-say-no-to-acta (John Thielking asked us to sign this one on Jan. 25.)? ??? ??????? * http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_acta/?cl=1547510096&v=12300????? For those who would like more information, I recommend the Wikipedia article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement) and the articles mentioned below.? The following summarizes the biggest problems I've heard reported:? ??? ??????? 1.? It includes a special ACTA Committee empowered to amend the agreement without public or judicial review.? Thus, any safeguards that might be part of the current agreement could be easily removed.? ??? ??????? 2.? It empowers governments to take down Internet Service Providers (ISPs), not just web sites, it doesn't like.? I don't know what recourse a targeted web site or ISP might have to the courts, but any they might have now could be removed by the ACTA Committee.? ??? ??????? 3.? Security forces at airports and border crossings are authorized to search your cell phone, MP3 player or computer for pirate copies of anything and confiscate or destroy it if they find something they don't like.? (No search warrant required.)? ??? ??????? 4.? ACTA was negotiated in secret and signed by the US and several other countries.? The Bush and Obama administrations successfully quashed Freedom of Information Act requests on the grounds that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security."?? ????? The two petitions above are mercifully short.? I read and signed both in less than a minute.? ????? Thanks, ????? Spencer On 1/31/2012 2:19 AM, mkmusic03 at aol.com wrote: Hi Spencer. > >Do you know about ACTA?? The horrible twin to SOPA. > >Merriam? > >-----Original Message-----From: Dalia Hashad - Avaaz.org To: mkmusic03 Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2012 5:59 pmSubject: ACTA: The new threat to the net >Dear friends, > > >A new global treaty could allow corporations to police everything that we do on the Internet. Last week 3 million of us successfully pushed back the US censorship bills --?if we act now, we can get the EU Parliament to bury this new threat?to all of us:? > Last week, 3 million of us beat back America's attack on our Internet! -- but?there is an even bigger threat out there, and our global movement for freedom online is perfectly poised to kill it for good.ACTA -- a global treaty -- could allow corporations to censor the Internet. Negotiated in secret by a small number of rich countries and corporate powers,?it would set up a shadowy new anti-counterfeiting body to allow private interests to police everything that we do online and impose massive penalties?-- even prison sentences -- against people they say have harmed their business.Europe is deciding right now whether to sign ACTA -- and without them, this global attack on Internet freedom will collapse. We know they have opposed ACTA before, but some members of Parliament are wavering --?let's give them the push they need to reject the treaty.?Sign the petition -- we'll do a spectacular delivery in Brussels when we reach 500,000 signatures:http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_acta/?vlIt's outrageous -- governments of four-fifths of the world?s people were excluded from the?Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)?negotiations and?unelected bureaucrats have worked closely with corporate lobbyists to craft new rules and a dangerously powerful enforcement regime.?ACTA would initially cover the US, EU and 9 other countries, then be rolled out across the world. But if we can get the EU to say no now, the treaty will lose momentum and could stall for good.The oppressively strict regulations could mean people everywhere are punished for simple acts such as sharing a newspaper article or uploading a video of a party where copyrighted music is played. Sold as a trade agreement to protect copyrights,?ACTA could also ban lifesaving generic drugs and threaten local farmers' access to the seeds they need.?And, amazingly, the ACTA committee will have carte blanche to change its own rules and sanctions with no democratic scrutiny.Big corporate interests are pushing hard for this, but the EU Parliament stands in the way.?Let's send a loud call to Parliamentarians to face down the lobbies and stand firm for Internet freedom. Sign now and send to everyone you know:http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_acta/?vlLast week, we saw the strength of our collective power when millions of us joined forces to stop the US from passing an Internet censorship law that would have struck at the heart of the Internet. We also showed the world how powerful our voices can be. Let's raise them again to tackle this new threat.With hope and determination, Dalia, Alice, Pascal, Emma, Ricken, Maria Paz and the rest of the Avaaz team More information: If You Thought SOPA Was Bad, Just Wait Until You Meet ACTAhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/ ACTA vs. SOPA: Five Reasons ACTA is Scarier Threat to Internet Freedomhttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/286925/20120124/acta-sopa-reasons-scarier-threat-internet-freedom.htm?cid=2 What's Wrong With ACTAhttp://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.1/whats-wrong-with-ACTA The secret treaty: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and Its Impact on Access to Medicineshttp://www.msfaccess.org/content/secret-treaty-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta-and-its-impact-access-medicines >Support the Avaaz Community! >We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way. > >Avaaz.org is a 10-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 13 countries on 4 continents and operates in 14 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter. > >This message was sent to mkmusic03 at aol.com. To change your email address, language, or other information, contact us via this form. To unsubscribe, send an email to unsubscribe at avaaz.org or click here. > >To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us at www.avaaz.org/en/contact or call us at +1-888-922-8229 (US). -- 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 j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 31 17:16:37 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:16:37 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] new members of GPCA CC Message-ID: <4F289275.4090601@sbcglobal.net> GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions stated in the email. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You recently participated in an election for at-large reps to the Coordinating Committee at which time four new members were elected: See their bios at http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/coordinating-committee-at-large-candidates Marla Bernstein Maxine Daniel Stevie Luther Nancy Mancias All members of the Coordinating Committee can be found at http://www.cagreens.org/committees/coordinating The CC had a weekend retreat on January 28-29 at which time we elected a new male co-coordinator, Alex Shantz of Napa County (North County) and alternate, Warner Bloomberg of Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley). We also appointed CC liaisons to all Standing Committees and Working Groups. (note: with three additional women, we have added to the gender balance of the Coordinating Committee which now has 7 woman members and 10 male members, and if you add our alternates, 5 women and 1 man, we are in great shape.) Sanda Everette, co-chair, GPCA Coordinating Committee sanda at greens.org Alex Shantz, co-chair, GPCA Coordinating Committee alexshantz at gmail.com _______________________________________________ Contacts2006 mailing list Contacts2006 at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 From j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 31 17:41:12 2012 From: j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net (Jim Doyle) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:41:12 -0800 Subject: [GPSCC-chat] input on ballot statement Message-ID: <4F289838.40107@sbcglobal.net> GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions stated in the email. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We are seeking input on GPCA's ballot statement. Our most recent statement is included on a website http://www.cagreens.org/elections/ballot-statements with all previous ballot statements and is reproduced below: **************************** Green Party Californians need living-wage jobs, affordable housing, sustainable energy, single-payer health care and progressive taxation. Greens support vibrant economically sustainable communities, preserving environments, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and developing safe clean energy sources. Greens oppose bailouts and corporate personhood. Greens advocate: Sustainable Economics: Supporting workplace representation, creating living-wage jobs, affordable housing, public transportation, and sustainable energy. Implementing fair graduated taxation on one's ability to pay, eliminating government subsidies to corporations, and implementing carbon taxes. Ending government indebtedness and deficit spending. Constitutional Rights: Supporting habeas corpus, repealing mandatory sentencing, and amending the Three Strikes Law. Repealing the Patriot Act, withdrawing from Iraq and ending preemptive wars. Requiring presidential election by popular vote, equal access to debates and state ballots, ranked choice voting and reliable counting methods. Environment protection: Promoting public-owned safe, clean renewable energy. Reducing global warming through efficiency, conservation and fossil fuel taxes. Protecting endangered species, agricultural land, and opposing sprawl developments. Social justice: Supporting single-payer healthcare and free public education. Supporting undocumented immigrants' right to work. Ending torture and unwarranted surveillance. Greens want government accountability, a vibrant economy, sustainable environments, social justice and Constitutional rights for all. Green Party of California P.O. Box 2828, Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 448-3437 Website: www.cagreens.org ******************************************* This request is based on an email that we recently received from our liaison to the Secretary of State, Jared Laiti CC, I received a letter from the SOS "once again offering CA's qualified political parties the opportunity to provide" statements for the primary ballot "should space allow." But apparently they will have space for it on their website regardless. The statement has to be 200 words. "Solicitations for donations, references to other political parties, and references to candidates in other political parties will not be accepted." Our address, phone number, and web address are not subject to the word limit. I am to submit our statement no later than 5 PM on 2/16/12, by snail mail or fax apparently - note that I do not have personal access to a fax but I can scan and email a letter to someone who does.. It does not say what happens if we fail to submit a statement, hopefully that won't be an issue. Jared SOS Liaison ********************** If you have input, please send it to one of the two GPCA Coordinating Committee co-chairs Sanda Everette, co-chair, GPCA Coordinating Committee sanda at greens.org Alex Shantz, co-chair, GPCA Coordinating Committee alexshantz at gmail.com _______________________________________________ Contacts2006 mailing list Contacts2006 at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006