From moriah at preferred.com Tue Feb 4 20:53:26 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 19:53:26 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] IMP^o^ 152 YM workshop proposal form Message-ID: <001301c2ccb1$2bee2420$0500a8c0@oem> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IMP ^o^ Bulletin 152 Workshop Proposal Form Yearly Meeting 2003 --------------------------------------------------- submit by 2-28-03 to Lee Ann Swarm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (from a copy of the form supplied by Lee Ann Swarm, Workshop Coordinator, YM 2003) <|> Workshop Proposal Form <|> Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting June 5 - 8, 2003, Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC <|> Form due back by February 28, 2003 (addresses below) <|> Theme -- Flames of Faith from Embers of Tradition: How Our Traditions Inspire Our Practice <|> Title of proposed workshop <|> Your name, address, phone number (& e-mail if applicable) <|> What led you to offer this workshop? <|> Tell us about your experience in leading workshops or any related experience. <|> Give us a brief (approximately 50-word) description of your workshop. (This information will be used to describe your workshop in the advance program to help Friends in selecting a workshop.) <|> Workshop sessions will either be 2 1/2 hours long or 70 minutes long. Workshops will be offered _*Thursday afternoon*_ (all long workshops) and _*Saturday afternoon*_ (both short and long workshops). Please help us in our planning by completing the following questions about your proposed workshop: >> Which length would best fit your workshop? >> Please specify which afternoon you would like to give your workshop. Would you be willing to give your workshop twice? (Be aware that you may have different people in each session.) >> Will the workshop be didactic? Interactive? >> Would you like the participants to be adults, youth, or both? >> Would you like the participants to be men, women, or both? >> Are there limits to the numbers of participants? Maximum? Minimum? >> Do you have particular requirements for your workshop? Equipment? Location? >> Are there any books or similar materials related to your workshop topic that you would like to see stocked in the bookstore at yearly meeting? <|> Please return this form by February 28, 2003, to: Lee Ann Swarm 432 Little Switzerland Road, Knoxville TN 37920 laswarm at ntown.com 865-579-6662 <|> Please contact Lee Ann with any question you may have. ~~~~~~ end ^o^ ~~~~~~ 1stpost 020403 ~~~~~~ _______________________________________ IMP ^o^ ... "Information Made Present" is a bulletin service of the SAYMA office to provide practical details to our geographically-challenged Yearly Meeting via our free list-server: semi-official information, bulletins that you can print, post, announce, publish, or pass around. Please address questions, corrections and additions to AdminAsst at sayma.org, 276-628-5852 (machine; in-person Tu/Th 5-7:30p), or SAYMA Admin Asst, PO Box 2191, Abingdon, VA 24212-2191. Thank you! ^o^ ----------------------------------------------------- To receive IMP^o^ bulletins, subscribe to the free list server, sayma at kitenet.net. You can e-mail to sayma-request at kitenet.net, writing only the word subscribe in the body of your e-mail message. You can also subscribe on the web at http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma. ------------------------------------------------------ From bright_crow at mindspring.com Fri Feb 14 11:56:35 2003 From: bright_crow at mindspring.com (Michael Austin Shell) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:56:35 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: WAGE PEACE by Mary Oliver Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030214105551.009ee380@pop.mindspring.com> > > WAGE PEACE by Mary Oliver > > > > Wage peace with your breath. > > Breathe in firemen and rubble, > > breathe out whole buildings and flocks of > > red wing blackbirds. > > > > Breathe in terrorists and breathe out sleeping children > > and freshly mown fields. > > > > Breathe in confusion and breathe out maple trees. > > Breathe in the fallen and breathe out lifelong friendships intact. > > > > Wage peace with your listening: hearing sirens, pray loud. > > Remember your tools: flower seeds, clothes pins, clean rivers. > > > > Make soup. > > Play music, learn the word for thank you in three languages. > > Learn to knit, and make a hat. > > Think of chaos as dancing raspberries, > > imagine grief as the outbreath of beauty or the gesture of fish. > > > > Swim for the other side. > > Wage peace. > > Never has the world seemed so fresh and precious. > > Have a cup of tea and rejoice. > > Act as if armistice has already arrived. > > Don't wait another minute. > > From listener at bellsouth.net Fri Feb 14 15:27:43 2003 From: listener at bellsouth.net (Kit Potter) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:27:43 -0600 Subject: [saymaListserv] A MUST READ Message-ID: <002c01c2d45f$265ce900$6401a8c0@potters> This is for your information. It is nice to know that there is at least one thinking, aware statesman in the Congress. Let's all write to thank Sen. Byrd! senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov I hope that this may inspire you all to write other letters as well, to challenge our representatives to speak up and challenge the administration. (Remember to get yourself to a peaceful inner place before writing........breathe deeply and often! Life is good for us.) Peace, Kit Subject: Sen. Robert Byrd's Address to U.S. Senate Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:11:21 -0500 US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003 To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From earthsteward at urisp.net Thu Feb 20 22:27:28 2003 From: earthsteward at urisp.net (Daryl Bergquist) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:27:28 -0000 Subject: [saymaListserv] Hope in time of Crisis Message-ID: <3E2F806D.60F763AA@urisp.net> Dear Friends, 1/22/03 This is an amazing time to be alive. We feel hopeful for positive changes for our planet. We sense that we are living in a time similar to when the Berlin wall came down, the Soviet Union collapsed, apartheid ended in South Africa, segregation ended in this country, and India gained independence. A committed spiritually grounded people can make significant change in the world without using violence. The force of Love is very powerful. Love can overcome anything. For 4 months now we have been meeting the first Monday at 6:00 p.m. Standing in the cold and dark, being warmed by our candles and a loving spirit, we gather for spiritual readings, prayer and songs of peace on the steps of the Blount County courthouse. The Blount County Committee Committee for Peace and Justice, has ranged in participants from 17 to 27 people from age 9 to over 80. The group is becoming a haven of peace and a nurturing community of people of many faiths. Yesterday, a group of us took a petition pulled together by the MoveOn organization, to the office of Congressman Robert Aderholt. This petition had names and comments from all over District 4 which spans North Central Alabama from the Georgia to the Mississippi borders. The petition asks Congress and George Bush to "Let the Inspections Work". Nationwide this petition has over 300,000 signatures and was delivered simultaneously yesterday, to over 400 members of Congress. We ask you to sign this petition at www.moveon.org . You may want to prepare your comment to your representatives and George Bush before you sign. The television ad which MoveOn placed is also viewable at the web site - very powerful - and has now been on most major news programs as a topic in & of itself! Friday, a delegation of us will be returning to Congressman Robert Aderholt's office to talk with his district aid, Paul Housel, to share our concerns about the build-up toward increased war with Iraq, and to begin an on-going conversation and relationship with Paul Housel, and we hope, Robert Aderholt as well. An additional way that we (that's you, too) can share our concerns is to call the White House comment line at 202 456-1111 during regular business hours. George Bush is expected to make a decision this weekend as to whether to increase the war with Iraq and to comment on this during his State of the Union Address to Congress on Monday evening. And above all, pray. Pray for the world's leaders that they will know, and do, what is right. Pray for the children, and all of us, that we will live in, and create, a world that is peaceful, just and loving. Pray for guidance and strength in your life. And know that in praying you will be joining millions of people of all faiths around the world. With Love, Daryl Bergquist and Sara Rose "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." M.K. Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moriah at preferred.com Thu Feb 27 15:21:48 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:21:48 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Primakov Meets With Hussein, Opportunity For Bush To Save Face Message-ID: <060501c2de96$c0c398e0$0500a8c0@oem> Friends, >From the local (Washington Co, VA) peace group (APEC) list-serve, forwarded by Rachel Bliss. ^o^ Mary Calhoun Foxfire FM SAYMA ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Smith Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: [AriseAction] Primakov Meets With Hussein, U.S. Energy CompaniesInvited Back, Back Primakov Proposal, Opportunity For Bush To Save Face Subject: Peace Prospects Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:58:20 -0500 From: Dennis Burke CPPAX >From Stratfor, a global intelligence service: Sources: Iraq Agrees To Full Compliance With Inspectors Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, reputed to be a personal friend of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, made a lightning visit to Baghdad on Feb. 23. The purpose and results of the meeting are shrouded in secrecy, apart from a statement by Moscow that Hussein was asked -- and agreed -- to cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors. Reliable Stratfor sources within the Russian government say Hussein indeed has promised to cooperate with the inspectors' demands --including that Baghdad scrap its al Samoud 2 missile program by March 1, an announcement that sources expect to be forthcoming within days. The importance of the meeting stretches much further, however. Sources say the Iraqi leader has agreed to a proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin -- previously discussed between Russian, French and German leaders -- that Baghdad formally invite U.N. peacekeepers within the next 10 days or so to back up weapons inspectors. This, sources say, would show the world that Iraq will be unconditionally disarmed under strict and fully enforceable U.N. deadlines, with peacekeepers staying on in Iraq until the task is complete. Sources also say that Hussein has asked Putin to deliver a secret offer to U.S. and British energy giants, inviting them back to Iraq as major industry players roughly 30 years after they were ousted from the country. The companies could return to Iraq immediately if Washington calls off its planned invasion. On Feb. 24, Vladimir Voloshin -- the head of Russia's presidential administration -- left Moscow for Washington, where he is likely to deliver that message to President George W. Bush. The choice of Voloshin as a diplomatic envoy is highly unusual, because he focuses on managing Russia's internal affairs and has never been dispatched in this way before. Voloshin also will brief U.S. leaders on other aspects of the discussion between Primakov and Hussein. The ultimate goal of this visit is to persuade the Bush administration that Iraq will be disarmed to such a point that it not only will be unable to threaten U.S. and Israeli forces for years to come, but would be unable to resist a U.S. invasion if Washington deems it necessary to attack Iraq in the future. If Washington is at least partly receptive to this message and to Hussein's promises, a second meeting between Primakov and Hussein likely will result. If intelligence from Stratfor sources is correct, the Bush administration could save face by claiming that Iraq's true disarmament was reached only through U.S. military pressure. Putin already has called British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac to convey details of the Primakov meeting. Sources say Chirac was enthusiastic about the proposal, and that Blair has also reacted favorably. But the fate of the proposal rests with Washington. The Bush administration's reaction at this point is far from clear. The proposal would not achieve Washington's two main goals in Iraq: regime change and a new base for U.S. forces in the Middle East. However, as the costs of war continue to pile up, the Russian proposal could be considered a face-saving exit for Washington. The ultimate decision likely will come down to Bush administration advisers -- including former U.S. President George H.W. Bush -- who will weigh the risks involved for the current president's re-election plans and the U.S. geopolitical stance as a whole. At this point, we believe the Bush administration will reject Hussein's overtures and Putin's proposal. But there will be more to the story: Last minute-attempts to block or promote the war will continue within the U.N. Security Council and possibly involving a second trip by Primakov to Baghdad. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT AriseAction, the mailing list of the Arise Peace and Solidarity Committee To post a message, write to AriseAction at yahoogroups.com To join AriseAction send an email to AriseAction-subscribe at yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe send an email to AriseAction-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com The AriseAction Archives are at http://www.yahoogroups.com/messages/AriseAction Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. From moriah at preferred.com Thu Feb 27 15:29:24 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:29:24 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Iraq "option" must = true test Message-ID: <060601c2de96$c27fa0c0$0500a8c0@oem> Friends, A message to some elected officials. Mary Calhoun Foxfire FM SAYMA ----- Original Message ----- From: Mary Calhoun To: ; secretaryState ; senatorAllen ; BidenSenator ; WarnerSenator ; ; ; Boucher9th ; ByrdSenator ; RepRahall (WV) Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 2:19 PM Subject: Iraq "option" must = true test | Dear President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, | Secretary of State Powell, | Senator Warren, Senator Allen, Representative Boucher, | Senator Kucinich, Senator Byrd, Senator Biden, | Representative Rahall, | | For the test of Saddam Hussein to be real, we must be willing to think | of his disarming. | | As we presume courtroom innocence even for habitual criminals, we must | allow for the chance that the Iraqi government will do the right thing. | Americans are often proud of our court system. We could also be proud | to apply a similar test to Iraq, even if Iraqi cooperation was as | grudging as that of a hardened criminal and his or her defense lawyer. | | I urge you to press for more effective inspections in Iraq -- | -- maintain U2 flights | -- share intelligence better | -- hire experienced ex-UNSCOM inspectors | -- establish no-drive/no-fly zones at sites to be inspected | -- demolish sites that Iraq attempts to "sanitize" | | Democracy is as democracy does. The important word about US intentions | toward Iraq must be "test." I don't think democracy will follow from | hard rhetoric suggesting that US attack on Iraq is inevitable no matter | what its leader does. I believe such certainty of invasion can only | encourage Saddam Hussein to cooperate less. | | I fear history will not thank the US should we neglect the all-important | "if." If we are not truly presenting an attitude-of-option to Iraq | then we're labeling and making assumptions. If we use words of | possibility to mask a decision already made, then we would be bullying. | If we let inspections be weaker than they could be, we shoot ourselves | in the foot. If much cost of lives and treasure comes from a | test-that-never-truly-was, our international role will be sadly | tarnished. | | For our own sake, for everyone's future, Iraq must truly have an option. | Our police know that negative language doesn't improve a hostage | negotiation. We don't just make assumptions about a criminal holding | hostages. We commit to do what it takes to end the confrontation | without loss of life. We have learned to apply this wisdom and patience | at home in our democracy; we must keep the same thought in mind while | confronting Iraq. The hostages include half the Iraqi population (those | under 15 years old), the future of democracy in Iraq, the image of the | US, and the safety of our citizens from terrorism. | | Please do what's called for to make UN inspections effective. | | Sincerely, | | Mary Calhoun | 165 Jackson St | Abingdon VA From pennywright at earthlink.net Thu Feb 27 16:26:30 2003 From: pennywright at earthlink.net (Penelope Wright) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:26:30 -0600 Subject: [saymaListserv] Men's, women's and FLGC centers at yearly meeting sessions Message-ID: <004501c2de9e$887715e0$ed9850d8@oemcomputer> Greetings SAYMA Friends, I write to you as Adult Program Coordinator for our yearly meeting sessions to be held June 5-8, 2003 at Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC. It has long been our custom to have various centers where like-minded Friends can join in worship and friendship. There has been little formal organization for these centers over the years. In fact, sometimes the centers have spontaneously formed. But it makes for smoother planning for time and space if these centers can be intentionally planned. In an effort to bring about this intentional organization, this year the Adult Program will be taking these centers under its care. Thus I seek to hear from you concerning two items: A. Is there need for: - a men's center - a women's center - a center for FLGC - other centers? B. Are there Friends who are led to come forward as convenors of these centers? Details of what the duties of a convenor entail will be provided by me upon request. Please email me directly at pennywright at earthlink.net or call 615-298-1385 as soon as possible with your responses so the committee can include this information in our planning and the final schedule. Please note that I will be out of town March 6-11. Even if you are not personally led to respond to this request, would you be so kind as to print this out and announce it at your meeting's next worship? In Peace, Penelope Wright -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lingle at bellsouth.net Fri Feb 28 09:32:19 2003 From: lingle at bellsouth.net (Larry Ingle) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:32:19 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Men's, women's and FLGC centers at yearly meeting sessions Message-ID: <20030228134301.IUEP17886.imf12bis.bellsouth.net@[208.60.234.189]> I have long wondered how these groups ("centers") got started. Until sometime late in the 20th century separate meetings, as far as I can discover, were never authorized by Friends. All meetings for worship were always open to anyone, women, children, men, old, young, black, white, educated, illiterate--in short, everyone. (There were separate meetings for discipline for women and men by the late 1660s, but meetings for worship remained open to and for all.) I have heard the reasons that proponents of these groups have given; they are simply not convincing. Why can't SAYMA take the lead in ending a practice that is so contrary to our tradition? (There's also a practical concern: in the past couple of yearly meetings, these separate gatherings have usurped meetings for worship for the entire yearly meeting. Now there's something that demands our planners's attention and efforts.) For what it's worth. Larry Ingle Chattanooga ---------- From: "Penelope Wright" To: "sayma list serve" Subject: [saymaListserv] Men's, women's and FLGC centers at yearly meeting sessions Date: Thu, Feb 27, 2003, 3:26 PM Greetings SAYMA Friends, I write to you as Adult Program Coordinator for our yearly meeting sessions to be held June 5-8, 2003 at Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC. It has long been our custom to have various centers where like-minded Friends can join in worship and friendship. There has been little formal organization for these centers over the years. In fact, sometimes the centers have spontaneously formed. But it makes for smoother planning for time and space if these centers can be intentionally planned. In an effort to bring about this intentional organization, this year the Adult Program will be taking these centers under its care. Thus I seek to hear from you concerning two items: A. Is there need for: - a men's center - a women's center - a center for FLGC - other centers? B. Are there Friends who are led to come forward as convenors of these centers? Details of what the duties of a convenor entail will be provided by me upon request. Please email me directly at pennywright at earthlink.net or call 615-298-1385 as soon as possible with your responses so the committee can include this information in our planning and the final schedule. Please note that I will be out of town March 6-11. Even if you are not personally led to respond to this request, would you be so kind as to print this out and announce it at your meeting's next worship? In Peace, Penelope Wright _______________________________________________ Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list sayma at kitenet.net http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moriah at preferred.com Fri Feb 28 20:14:06 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:14:06 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Kiesling Letter {diplomat resigns in opposition} Message-ID: <000401c2df89$b1745520$0500a8c0@oem> Oh my! (Posted on a local peace group list) ^o^ Mary Calhoun Foxfire FM SAYMA ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Brooks To: APEC Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: [apec] John Brady Kiesling Letter of Resignation to S.O.S. ColinPowell | John Brady Kiesling Letter of Resignation to S.O.S. Colin PowellPlease Read & Distribute this thoughtful Resignation Letter: | | EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of resignation written by John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat for twenty years, a civil servant to four Presidents. The letter below, delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is quite possibly the most eloquent statement of dissent thus far put forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New York Times story which reports on this remarkable event can be found after Kiesling's letter. - wrp | | U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling | Letter of Resignation, to: | Secretary of State Colin L. Powell | | ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003 | | Dear Mr. Secretary: | | I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. | | It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. | | The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. | | The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? | | We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. | | We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto? | | I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? | | Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests. | | I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. | | John Brady Kiesling | | --- | | U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War' | By Felicity Barringer | New York Times | | Thursday 27 February 2003 | | UNITED NATIONS < A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq. | | The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, "Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson." | | Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years, said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing Thomas Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision. | | He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by the expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues. | | "No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed," he said. "Too much has been invested in the war." | | Louis Fintor, a State Department spokesman, said he had no information on Mr. Kiesling's decision and it was department policy not to comment on personnel matters. | | In his letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a friend of Mr. Kiesling's, the diplomat wrote Mr. Powell: "We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners." | | His letter continued: "Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests." | | It is rare but not unheard-of for a diplomat, immersed in the State Department's culture of public support for policy, regardless of private feelings, to resign with this kind of public blast. From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's Balkans policy. | | Asked if his views were widely shared among his diplomatic colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said: "No one of my colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team game < we have a very strong premium on loyalty." | | (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) | | | _______________________________________________ | APEC's Discussion List | Web Site: www.apecpeace.org | | To unsubscribe, email apec-request at kitenet.net | and type the word unsubscribe in the subject line | -- do not include a message. | From bright_crow at mindspring.com Fri Feb 28 22:38:59 2003 From: bright_crow at mindspring.com (Michael Austin Shell) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:38:59 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Proposed Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030228213824.00a00300@pop.mindspring.com> Friends, Some of you already know about this proposed legislation. It is the most disturbing, most threatening piece of work I have seen yet from this government. Please share the following as widely as possible...and consider what we need to do as Quakers and others to prevent its passage. Blessed Be, Michael. <><><><><><><><><><><><><> Patriot Act's Big Brother by David Cole In early February, the Center for Public Integrity disclosed a leaked draft of the Bush Administration's next round in the war on terrorism--the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA). The draft legislation, stamped Confidential and dated January 9, 2003, appears to be in final form but has not yet been introduced in Congress. Presumably the Administration had determined that the timing would be more propitious for passage--meaning less propitious for reasoned debate--after we go to war with Iraq. But it is one thing to play politics with the timing of a farm bill; it is another matter to do so with a bill that would radically alter our rights and freedoms. If the Patriot Act was so named to imply that those who question its sweeping new powers of surveillance, detention and prosecution are traitors, the DSEA takes that theme one giant step further. It provides that any citizen, even native-born, who supports even the lawful activities of an organization the executive branch deems "terrorist" is presumptively stripped of his or her citizenship. To date, the "war on terrorism" has largely been directed at noncitizens, especially Arabs and Muslims. But the DSEA would actually turn citizens associated with "terrorist" groups into aliens. They would then be subject to the deportation power, which the DSEA would expand to give the Attorney General the authority to deport any noncitizen whose presence he deems a threat to our "national defense, foreign policy or economic interests." One federal court of appeals has already ruled that this standard is not susceptible to judicial review. So this provision would give the Attorney General unreviewable authority to deport any noncitizen he chooses, with no need to prove that the person has engaged in any criminal or harmful conduct. A US citizen stripped of his citizenship and ordered deported would presumably have nowhere to go. But another provision authorizes the Attorney General to deport persons "to any country or region regardless of whether the country or region has a government." And failing deportation to Somalia (or a similar place), the Justice Department has issued a regulation empowering it to detain indefinitely suspected terrorists who are ordered deported but cannot be removed because they are stateless or their country of origin refuses to take them back. Other provisions are designed to further insulate the war on terrorism from public and judicial scrutiny. The bill would authorize secret arrests, a practice common in totalitarian regimes but never before authorized in the United States. It would terminate court orders barring illegal police spying entered before September 11, 2001, without regard to the need for judicial supervision. It would allow secret government wiretaps and searches without even a warrant from the supersecret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when Congress has authorized the use of force. And it would give the government the same access to credit reports as private companies, without judicial supervision. Historically, we have imposed a higher threshold, and judicial oversight, on government access to such private information, because government has the motive and the wherewithal to abuse the information in ways private companies generally do not. But the trajectory of the war on terrorism is probably best illustrated by an obscure provision that would eliminate the distinction between domestic terrorism and international terrorism for a host of investigatory purposes. The Administration's argument sounds reasonable enough--terrorism is terrorism, whether it's within the United States or has an international component. But in the Patriot Act debates, the Administration argued that it should be afforded broader surveillance powers over "international terrorism" because such acts are simultaneously a matter of domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence. Because foreign intelligence gathering has traditionally been subject to looser standards than criminal law enforcement, the government argued, the looser standards should extend to domestic investigations of "international terrorism." But now it proposes to extend the same loose standards to investigations of wholly domestic crimes. The DSEA's treatment of expatriation and domestic terrorism are harbingers of things to come. Thus far, much of the war on terrorism has been targeted at foreign nationals and sold to the American people on that ground. Americans' rights are not at stake, the argument goes, because we're concerned with "international" crime committed mostly by "aliens." With the DSEA, however, the Administration seeks to transgress both the alien-citizen line, by turning citizens into aliens for their political ties, and the domestic-international line, extending to wholly domestic criminal-law-enforcement tools that were previously reserved for international terrorism investigations. How will Congress respond? Thus far, when citizens' rights have been directly threatened, Congress has taken civil liberties seriously. Most recently, it blocked the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness data-mining program. But it blocked it only as applied to US citizens. As long as the Pentagon violates only foreign nationals' privacy, Congress in effect said, Go ahead. But that tactic--protecting citizens' rights while ignoring those of foreign nationals--is untenable, not only on moral grounds but because if the Administration gets its way, we are all potentially "aliens." This article can be found on the web at: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030317&s=cole Visit The Nation http://www.thenation.com/ Subscribe to The Nation: https://ssl.thenation.com/