From kcarlyle at main.nc.us Mon Jun 2 08:41:21 2003 From: kcarlyle at main.nc.us (Kim Carlyle) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:41:21 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] SAF Message-ID: <001301c32904$4642d960$b56dc0d1@qew> Dear Friends, It is not too early to submit items for the Seventh Month Southern Appalachian Friend. Avoid the post-yearly-meeting rush! We'd appreciate your articles, opinions, news, comments, poetry, jokes, letters, commentaries by 07/01/2003. See y'all at Warren Wilson College. SAF eds. From moriah at preferred.com Wed Jun 4 11:36:36 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:36:36 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Women's Center at YM Message-ID: <074201c32ac2$1acefa60$0500a8c0@oem> ----- Original Message ----- From: Sara Rose Subject: Re: Center FIRST EVER SAYMA WOMEN'S CENTER TO CONVENE AT YEARLY MEETING The Women's Center will be open throughout yearly meeting sessions; to use for quiet time, journaling, conversation, dancing, projects, celebrations, etc. Nancy Whitt & Sara Rose will serve as co-convenors for the 2003 SAYMA Women's Center. Our initial meeting to discuss and plan activities for the weekend will take place Thursday during the workshop period ( 2-4 PM) closing with worship sharing from 4-4:30. Women's Worship will take place 9 to 10 every night, in our center. All women of all ages are invited to attend. Women are welcome to bring items to beautify our space, which will be reserved for our use only. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From freepolazzo at attbi.com Thu Jun 5 10:08:27 2003 From: freepolazzo at attbi.com (free polazzo) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:08:27 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] INS and outs Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20030605100118.02bc3828@mail.attbi.com> Hello Friends, My son, Chad, sent this email to me about his neighbor's very sad experience with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The information shared is important, but probably will not be covered by the Media. Please pass it on. Free Polazzo, >From: "Polazzo" >To: "free polazzo" >Subject: Fw: INS and outs >Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:53:19 -0400 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 > >This is referring to one of our neighbors. > >Chad > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Roger Swift >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:52 PM >Subject: INS and outs > >"Politics is the Art of making people Indifferent to what should concern >them." >-- Anonymous > >Please take the time: >Some of you may know Peter Riedel, my wonderful Canadian friend, artist and >next door neighbor. Peter is an outstanding man who has been applying for >a green >card for 4 years w/ little response or progress from the "authorities". >Recently married to his American bride Kim, he is the proud father of a >beautiful >6 mo old American son. Peter was called unexpectedly to fly to his dying >father's >bed side back in Canada to see him for the final time....his father died >in his arms >moments after his arrival. After 2 weeks of getting his elderly mother's >affairs in order, >Peter was expected back home in Atlanta to his young family this past Sun. >He was unfortunately detained by the INS at the border and is >being held against his will at an unknown location for an indefinite >period of time. >Apparently, he had insufficient paperwork... fairness,discretion and >simple common sense >be damned ! He has called his wife twice and knows not his fate. His lawyer >suggests, given the current "climate", Peter will probably be held >indefinitely, released, >and most likely be deported back to Canada. The "climate" does not include >due process >or rights and even an appeal to Rep. John Lewis' office reconfirmed this >impotence >of even our elected representatives to intervene! His wife and son are >making plans for >her to resign from her university teaching position, sell all cars and >possessions, vacate >our neighborhood and move to Canada....all which could take many months! >Peter is one of the most gentle and talented gentlemen I have ever had the >pleasure >to know. Our entire community is awestruck (see shock and awe) and alarmed >at how close and unreasonable administration policies may strike home! > >It reminds me of how at one time AIDS was viewed as just a homosexual >problem and >the nation at large was unconcerned. Well now it is more pervasive >and most have been >touched by the loss of a victim and now agree it is a real problem for >our entire society. > >As the ignorant and unenlightened masses of this great nation willingly >give up their >civil freedoms unique in world history under the guise of "protection", >they will ultimately be touched directly, as have our next door >neighbors. Maybe then, and only then, will they realize the sacred value >of their Constitutional granted civil rights as their TRUE PROTECTION! > > >" The best propaganda is that which works invisibly, penetrates the whole >of life >without the public having any knowledge at all of the propagandist >initiative," >-- Joseph Goebbels, Hitlers brilliant propaganda minister as told an audience >of film workers in 1941. > >For him, propaganda was not just a slogan , but an environment. >Entertainment films were just one part of that environment,a way of >reassuring >people that old habits and benign comforts were still available >under the fascist regime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at attbi.com Sat Jun 7 12:55:04 2003 From: jhminshall at attbi.com (Janet Minshall) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:55:04 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Truth, Equality and Community Message-ID: Hi SAYMA Friends, this came from Free's son, Chad. It is about one of his neighbors who has been living in the Lake Claire area of Atlanta. I forward it to let you know how close the government's current policies and rollback of freedoms has come to us. I often don't bother to relate the messages I send to the testimonies as I assume you can do that yourself. But I received a note from someone recently who couldn't see the relevance of one of my messages about economic effects so I'll be specific. This message is related to Friends'Testimonies on Truth, Equality and Community. Economic effects of the Administration's current policies are also specifically relevant to Truth, Equality and Community or the lack thereof. Janet Hello Friends, My son, Chad, sent this email to me about his neighbor's very sad experience with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The information shared is important, but probably will not be covered by the Media. Please pass it on. Free Polazzo, > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Roger Swift >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:52 PM >Subject: INS and outs > >"Politics is the Art of making people Indifferent to what should >concern them." >-- Anonymous > >Please take the time: >Some of you may know Peter Riedel, my wonderful Canadian friend, artist and >next door neighbor. Peter is an outstanding man who has been >applying for a green >card for 4 years w/ little response or progress from the "authorities". >Recently married to his American bride Kim, he is the proud father >of a beautiful >6 mo old American son. Peter was called unexpectedly to fly to his >dying father's >bed side back in Canada to see him for the final time....his father >died in his arms >moments after his arrival. After 2 weeks of getting his elderly >mother's affairs in order, >Peter was expected back home in Atlanta to his young family this past Sun. >He was unfortunately detained by the INS at the border and is >being held against his will at an unknown location for an >indefinite period of time. >Apparently, he had insufficient paperwork... fairness,discretion and >simple common sense >be damned ! He has called his wife twice and knows not his fate. His lawyer >suggests, given the current "climate", Peter will probably be held >indefinitely, released, >and most likely be deported back to Canada. The "climate" does not >include due process >or rights and even an appeal to Rep. John Lewis' office reconfirmed >this impotence >of even our elected representatives to intervene! His wife and son >are making plans for >her to resign from her university teaching position, sell all cars >and possessions, vacate >our neighborhood and move to Canada....all which could take many months! >Peter is one of the most gentle and talented gentlemen I have ever >had the pleasure >to know. Our entire community is awestruck (see shock and awe) and alarmed >at how close and unreasonable administration policies may strike home! > >It reminds me of how at one time AIDS was viewed as just a >homosexual problem and >the nation at large was unconcerned. Well now it is more pervasive >and most have been >touched by the loss of a victim and now agree it is a real problem >for our entire society. > >As the ignorant and unenlightened masses of this great nation >willingly give up their >civil freedoms unique in world history under the guise of >"protection", they will ultimately >be touched directly, as have our next door neighbors. Maybe then, >and only then, will they >realize the sacred value of their Constitutional granted civil >rights as their TRUE PROTECTION! > > >" The best propaganda is that which works invisibly, penetrates the >whole of life >without the public having any knowledge at all of the propagandist >initiative," >-- Joseph Goebbels, Hitlers brilliant propaganda minister as told an audience >of film workers in 1941. > >For him, propaganda was not just a slogan , but an environment. >Entertainment films were just one part of that environment,a way of reassuring >people that old habits and benign comforts were still available >under the fascist regime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bright_crow at mindspring.com Thu Jun 19 08:17:06 2003 From: bright_crow at mindspring.com (bright_crow at mindspring.com) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [saymaListserv] Is There Anything Left That Matters? by Joan Chittister, OSB Message-ID: <1527434.1056025026340.JavaMail.nobody@wamui09.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Friends, A very moving article, originally published in the National Catholic Reporter: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3565.htm Blessed Be, Michael. From listener at bellsouth.net Sat Jun 21 14:34:46 2003 From: listener at bellsouth.net (Kit Potter) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:34:46 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] 9/11: Please keep asking about this Message-ID: <002101c33823$c9fb0d30$6601a8c0@heyoka> I find this very disturbing - let's keep reminding the news media that we'd like to hear the results of the investigations. Homeland Security cannot address the problems if the government hasn't researched what the problems were to begin with! We may be wasting our money and we are certainly losing rights for no proven reason here. It would be good to be informed on this! This is a long article, but worth at least scanning, I feel. In the Light, Kit Bush's 9/11 Coverup? By Eric Boehlert Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence failures that took place on its watch. June 18, 2003 (Salon.com) For family members of those who died on Sept. 11, last week brought a rare chance to meet face-to-face with a man who has become a symbol of their dissatisfaction -- FBI director Robert Mueller. The bureau had quietly invited several dozen family members to Washington to hear a presentation on the war on terrorism, but for the small band of husbands, wives and parents who successfully lobbied Congress last year for an independent 9/11 commission to investigate the attacks, it was a chance to ask some of the troubling questions they have about that day. They weren't simply queries about the national security collapse that occurred on 9/11, and how a hijacked plane, flying hundreds of miles off course, was able to dive-bomb untouched into the Pentagon a full hour after the World Trade Center had already been attacked twice. Or how more than a dozen terrorists were able to enter America illegally and then live here undetected for weeks and months, and why U.S. intelligence sources failed to piece together significant clues that emerged in advance of the attack Family advocates also wanted to know why the government -- and specifically the Bush administration -- has been so reluctant to find answers to any of the obvious questions about what went wrong that day, why so little has been fixed, and why virtually nobody has accepted any responsibility for the glaring failures. While the administration of President George W. Bush is aggressively positioning itself as the world leader in the war on terrorism, some families of the Sept. 11 victims say that the facts increasingly contradict that script. The White House long opposed the formation of a blue-ribbon Sept. 11 commission, some say, and even now that panel is underfunded and struggling to build momentum. And, they say, the administration is suppressing a 900-page congressional study, possibly out of fear that the findings will be politically damaging to Bush. "We've been fighting for nearly 21 months -- fighting the administration, the White House," says Monica Gabrielle. Her husband, Richard, an insurance broker who worked for Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center's Tower 2, died during the attacks. "As soon as we started looking for answers we were blocked, put off and ignored at every stop of the way. We were shocked. The White House is just blocking everything." Another 9/11 family advocate -- a former Bush supporter who requested anonymity -- was more blunt: "Bush has done everything in his power to squelch this [9/11] commission and prevent it from happening." Thus far, the administration has largely succeeded. Its stonewalling has gotten little news coverage, and there is scant evidence that the public is outraged. The national discussion has moved on -- to Iraq, to that country's still-missing weapons of mass destruction, to Laci Peterson. But there are increasing signs that White House efforts to blunt a full inquiry into the domestic failures that preceded Sept. 11 could emerge as an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign, in which Bush and his handlers hope to exploit 9/11 for maximum political advantage. Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat and former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has raised the profile of his presidential campaign with sharp criticism of Bush for both his administration's intelligence failures before Sept. 11 and its attempt to paper them over since. "The public has the right to know what its government has done and is doing to protect Americans and U.S. interests," Graham told Salon Monday. "Potential embarrassment isn't a good enough reason to keep these government materials secret." Other Democrats almost certainly will realize that the issue is one way to counter the public's belief that Bush has been an effective leader in the war on terrorism. Perhaps it was fear of a backlash that provoked Bush's staff to invite the Sept. 11 families to the Mueller seminar. But by the accounts of several people who attended the briefing at FBI headquarters, in a wing named after Bush's father, the mood was often contentious as the FBI chief and Department of Justice prosecutors answered questions for more than two hours. One flash point came during a sharp exchange about what the FBI had -- or had not -- done with several internal memos filed by field agents detailing concerns that al-Qaida operatives may be training at U.S. flight schools. Mueller confirmed that weeks before the Sept. 11 attack, one young FBI agent had seen two such memos but that she did not act on them. According to family representatives, Mueller defended the agent, saying she did not have the proper training or tools to take action on the information. But when pressed on how such egregious oversight was able to occur, the director grew defensive and then demanded: "What do you want me to do, fire her?" The remark was meant to be rhetorical, but in unison family members responded audibly: "Yes!" "We're the most skeptical audience Mueller will ever have, and I think it showed," says Sept. 11 widow Beverly Eckert, whose husband, Sean Rooney, died in the twin towers. "We want answers." Just over a year ago, the families' questions were at least being asked. During May 2002, controversy swirled when CBS News reported that five weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush had been briefed about an active plot by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida operatives to seize civilian aircraft. The revelations stood in stark contrast to White House spin in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that nobody in the administration or the intelligence community had "specific information" about a possible hijacking plot. Into that combustible mix came revelations that FBI special agents in Phoenix and Minnesota had warned their superiors about suspected al-Qaida operatives training at U.S. flight schools. For the White House, the "what did Bush know and when did he know it" narrative was its first real political crisis after Sept. 11, the first time the press along with Democrats were asking pointed questions -- and gaining traction by the day. Even the New York Post, usually a reliable White House ally, ran a headline that declared "Bush Knew"; the conservative Weekly Standard warned that "the administration is now in danger of looking as if it has engaged in a cover-up." But the White House, aided by global circumstances and a distractible news media, conspired to change the subject. First, a succession of senior administration officials made dire warnings about the certainty of suicide bombers striking inside America. Then, on June 6, 2002, the administration abruptly reversed itself and announced it was backing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, as first proposed by Democrats. And the White House made the historic announcement the same day FBI agent Colleen Rowley testified before Congress about her famous Minneapolis memo, ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security was the next day's top headline. Then, by last August, the Capitol was abuzz in talk of war with Iraq, and the buzz persisted for the next nine months. "Iraq changed everything with the press," says one victims' advocate whose wife died in Tower 1. "Nobody cares about this after Iraq." "It was a successful attempt to change the story," notes John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a nonprofit defense policy group. "From the White House's perspective, no good can come of these [9/11] investigations. So I think their approach has been entirely predictable, and easy to understand." Adding insult for some family activists was the fact that Bush used the 9/11 attacks as a justification for the war on Iraq. "I sat and listened to the State of the Union speech [last January] when Bush mentioned 9/11 12 or 13 times," recalls Kristin Breitweiser, whose husband, Ronald, was killed when United Flight 175 slammed into Tower 1. "At the same time, we were having trouble getting funding for the independent commission." Gabrielle was equally upset: "Bush has never personally met with the [9/11] families to discuss any of this, so for him to use Sept. 11 and its victims to justify his agenda, I myself am disgusted." In the face of today's public indifference, the victim activists have placed their faith in two investigations they hope will finally answer some key questions. Though the Sept. 11 attacks were arguably one of the decisive moments in U.S. history, both investigations appear mired in a deadly Beltway mixture of bureaucratic morass and political sniping. The first was a bipartisan joint inquiry conducted by the House and Senate examining intelligence and law-enforcement failures that led up to the Sept. 11 attack. Its relatively narrow scope came about after Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney personally phoned then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., in late January 2002, pressuring him to limit the congressional investigation surrounding Sept. 11. Despite budget restraints and complaints from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that the White House had "slow-walked and stonewalled" the joint inquiry, the panel's 900-page report was completed late last year. Today it remains stuck in national security limbo as the joint inquiry staff negotiates with the White House and its intelligence agencies over what portions can and cannot be released in the public version of the report. The release date has already been pushed back several times as the declassification process drags on into its seventh month. Even the Republican chairman of the joint inquiry, Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, a former CIA operations officer, has expressed deep frustration at the pace of the process. "It appears the joint intelligence committee did too good of a job," quips Breitweiser. Indeed, last fall the New York Times reported that "the findings of a joint committee have been far more damaging than most officials at either agency expected when the panel's inquiry began [in early 2002]." The report is expected to detail disturbing lapses in counterterrorism at the CIA and FBI, where warnings about the Sept. 11 attacks went unheeded. They're revelations that are sure to be uncomfortable for the administration. "I understand when you have national security issues, that's fine," says Breitweiser. "But I hope [the delay] is about national security issues and it's not about embarrassment. Because for people to be holding up making this nation safe because they fear embarrassment, I don't have any time for that. We need to fix the egregious errors of 9/11." Raising concerns about the joint inquiry review process was the revelation that the administration wanted some information that had already been made public during open hearings to be reclassified in the joint inquiry report. Also alarming was the news from this spring when former Rep. and current 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer, an Indiana Democrat, tried to read transcripts from the joint inquiry's closed-door hearings. Even though he had actually served on the joint inquiry a year earlier, Department of Justice attorneys refused to let him read the transcripts, insisting that the White House needed five days to decide whether it wanted to exert executive privilege to keep the information under wraps. The White House eventually relented. "It was upsetting to find out the White House was trying to block the independent commission's access to the joint inquiry information, when we all know the mandate that created the independent commission states clearly that the commission is to use the joint inquiry as a starting-off point," notes Breitweiser, who also voted for Bush in 2000. "So why would they be blocking access to that?" Today, the negotiating continues over what gets declassified. "We're making some headway. It's a very long, complicated process. But the public deserves to be told as much as we can tell them about what happened on Sept. 11," reports Eleanor Hill, who directed the joint inquiry staff. Asked whether she's happy with the level of cooperation she's receiving from the administration's intelligence community, Hill responded: "I'll reserve judgment on that." As Breitweiser noted, the joint inquiry report is supposed to serve as a springboard for the independent 9/11 commission, which is charged with taking a much broader view of the terrorist attack -- everything from border security to immigration. (A classified version of the joint inquiry report has already been made available to the commission.) Known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the panel has been bogged down by delays in obtaining security clearances, setting guidelines for how the group would handle classified material, and selecting members. The White House first proposed Henry Kissinger to chair the panel, which provoked some bitter complaints. Kissinger eventually withdrew after refusing to make public the list of his consulting clients. "I would've thought it'd be further along by now," says Gabrielle. "The length of time it's taken to get up and running is astonishing." Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg calls the panel's inquiry "the most important investigation ever done in American history, given its scope." The final report, due next May, will be "the definitive account of what took place on Sept. 11," he says, "how it could happen and what went wrong, as well as what worked and what did not work and what recommendation would we have for the American government and the American people to make it safer." But the investigation almost never happened at all. Family advocates complain it was created virtually in spite of the White House; they point to the extraordinary game of hardball the administration practiced right on the eve of last year's midterm elections when it derailed a bipartisan congressional deal to form the commission, citing concerns with its potential scope and subpoena power. Members of both parties who had already scheduled a press conference to announce the panel were stunned by the turn of events. Weeks after the 2002 election, and following a candlelight vigil by 9/11 victim families held in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House, the independent commission was finally formed, more than a year after the terrorists attacked. "Bush begrudgingly signed [the commission] into law," complains one family advocate. "Since it was created, he's done everything to take the teeth out of it. His fingerprints and Karl Rove's are all over this." "If President Bush and the administration are not happy with the independent commission, then it's their own fault because all they had to do was set up a commission on their own," adds Breitweiser. "But they didn't, so it was left to other people to make sure it got done. Undeniably the administration has dragged its feet." In the past the White House has denied the charge, insisting it's cooperating with the commission. Yet even during hearings, that cooperation has seemed lackluster at best. Unlike congressional inquiries, the commission's witnesses have not been asked to testify under oath. As a result, federal officials under Bush's command have not always been forthcoming. At their May 23 public hearing in Washington, commissioners were trying to piece together what, if any, defensive measures the government took on the morning of Sept. 11. Specifically, they wanted to know whether the military's North American Aerospace Defense Command, once notified by the Federal Aviation Administration, should have been able to scramble jets in order to intercept some of the hijacked aircraft. Yet 20 months after the attack, 9/11 commissioners still could not get straight answers from NORAD and FAA representatives who testified as to when the FAA notified NORAD about the wayward jets on the morning of 9/11. Adding to the general confusion that day was baffling testimony by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta. "I don't think we ever thought of an airplane being used as a missile," he told the commissioners. But it was widely reported last year that several government studies had warned of just such a scenario. For months, the commission was struggling to get by on a minuscule budget of $3 million. That low funding and the yearlong delay in creating the commission stand in stark contrast to previous panels formed to investigate momentous disasters in American history. For instance, on April 15, 1912, the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg, killing approximately 1,500 of its 2,200 passengers. According to historians, Titanic survivors began disembarking in New York at 10 o'clock on the night of April 18. The next morning at 10:30, a special panel of the Senate Commerce Committee was gaveled into session inside the ornate East Room of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. Last year, when Cheney called Daschle to urge him to limit any hearings into 9/11, the V.P. argued it would drain sources away from the war on terrorism. By contrast, just 11 days after Japanese bombers hit the U.S. with a sneak attack killing nearly 3,000 people, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order creating a commission to "ascertain and report the facts relating to the attack made by Japanese armed forces upon the Territory of Hawaii on December 7, 1941 ... and to provide bases for sound decisions whether any derelictions of duty or errors of judgment on the part of United States Army or Navy personnel contributed to such successes as were achieved by the enemy on the occasion mentioned." It was the first of eight government-led investigations into the Pearl Harbor. The Warren Commission, headed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, was formed just seven days after President Kennedy was assassinated. Last February, after seven astronauts died when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated 200,000 feet above Texas, NASA's Columbia Accident Investigation Board was created 90 minutes after the incident; $50 million was immediately set aside for the probe. And in just four months, the board has already made public significant findings about the crash investigation. By contrast, nearly two years after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the 9/11 commission only recently opened up its New York City office. The commission's budget has been increased to $14 million, but many experts say that's still far short of the sum needed to do the job right. Given that perspective, there's a growing sense among some 9/11 advocates that the news media have let them -- and the nation -- down. "I'm very disappointed in the press," says Breitweiser. "I think it's disgusting the independent commission is doing the most important work for this nation and it's not even reported in the New York Times or on the nightly news. I've been scheduled to go on 'Meet the Press' and 'Hardball' so many times and I'm always canceled. Frankly I'd like nothing better than to go head to head with Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press.' Because somebody needs to ask the questions and I don't understand why nobody is." Among frustrated family members of Sept. 11 victims, there's a feeling they're losing the battle of time in their struggle to get answers from the Bush administration. "There's a very, very small window to effect changes," says one 9/11 widower, Bill Harvey. "And unfortunately, that window is closing." � Copyright 2003 salon.com http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3830.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 13004 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhminshall at attbi.com Tue Jun 24 13:45:22 2003 From: jhminshall at attbi.com (Janet Minshall) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:45:22 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Re: Monthly ECN Connections In-Reply-To: <013501c33a58$1935dfc0$966dc0d1@qew> References: <013501c33a58$1935dfc0$966dc0d1@qew> Message-ID: Dear Susan Carlyle, I really appreciate the work you and Kim do on behalf of the environment both in SAYMA and in FCUN. I agree with much of what is written by/for FCUN. In response to the epistle submitted by Kim I too am concerned that the media do not provide full and accurate information. I am more concerned, however, that Friends are picking up inaccurate information from other sources and passing it on as established fact. There are two quotes which very much need correction: "...wealth increases for the already wealthy while conditions of life steadily worsen for many impoverished people worldwide." "Although the agreements are promoted in terms of creating jobs and reducing poverty,there are now more unemployed and impoverished people." The two statements quoted above from the June ECN Connections in the epistle from FCUN are not factual. Yes, "wealth increases for the already wealthy", but "conditions of life do not steadily worsen for many impoverished people." In fact, according to United Nations data, conditions of life and average incomes have steadily risen all over the world for many, many years. Actually, the only places in the world where poverty is still increasing are in remote areas of China and India. These are areas where one aspect of globalization,moving jobs away from affluent workers in the US to impoverished workers in the rest of the world, has not yet reached. Everywhere that globalization has reached both employment and incomes have increased, sometimes dramatically, for the poor. I know this is contrary to the information you have been given, but it is true. Those who oppose globalization and the actions of multinational corporations most aggressively are the US labor unions which do not want US jobs and union dues, on which they depend financially, to fall. Powerful labor unions, unfortunately, are the source of much of the misinformation repeated as fact among Friends. Similarly, some NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) which serve the poor realize that their mandate is fast disappearing as the poor they serve are brought out of poverty. Please have someone in FCUN do the research from unbiased sources such as the relevant committees of the United Nations and write about it for Friends. It will show that what I am saying here is true. Sincerely, Janet Minshall >from ECN Connections- June 2003 > > > >An Epistle from Friends Committee on Unity with Nature on the FTAA >To Friends Everywhere: > >Those of us who are U.S. citizens have witnessed with horror and shame as >our government has undermined international treaties and institutions, used >an endless "War on Terror" as a pretext for permanently enlarging its >powers, embraced a doctrine of preemptive war, and invaded Iraq. We are now >faced with the prospect of another U.S. initiative, the proposed Free Trade >Area of the Americas (FTAA), that we believe will intensify social injustice >and institutional and ecological violence, and lead to more physical >violence. >Human activities damaging to the earth's ecosystems continue to expand, and >wealth increases for the already wealthy while conditions of life steadily >worsen for many impoverished people worldwide. U.S. government policies and >the international trade agreements they have promoted, instead of remedying >these inequities, seem to be intensifying them. >In truth, these agreements have primarily promoted the productivity and >profitability of large corporations by reducing legal constraints on their >activities. Although the agreements are promoted in terms of creating jobs >and reducing poverty, there are now more unemployed and impoverished people. >In addition, more land and resources have been diverted to the corporate >industrial process, wealth and power are more concentrated, the biosphere is >more polluted, and the ability of governments to promote general welfare has >progressively weakened. >Expanding international trade already taxes the environment by increasing >the use of fossil fuels and the rate at which fragile ecosystems are >exploited. Treaties like the earlier NAFTA and the proposed FTAA exacerbate >this stress by granting "rights" to corporations which supercede and can >even nullify national and local laws intended to protect people and the >environment. The proposed FTAA would impose in this hemisphere additional >"rights" for global corporate and financial interests that the community of >nations has previously refused to grant through the World Trade >Organization(WTO). >Friends Committee on Unity with Nature is concerned that the U.S. media do >not provide full and accurate information about the effects of current trade >and investment policies on working people, on the impoverished, and on local >ecosystems in other nations and in our own. We are further concerned that >the secrecy of the FTAA negotiations has severely limited public knowledge >of and consultation on its process. >On a finite planet, policies that give priority to assuring high returns on >the speculative financial investments of the already wealthy cannot lead to >either conservation or right sharing of the Earth's resources. Right >sharing, conservation, and restoring the Earth's ecological integrity must >become the priorities of public policy. >We believe this issue is as urgent as the new doctrine of preemptive war, >and one that Friends cannot in good conscience ignore. We are grateful for >the leadership of the American Friends Service Committee in the Interfaith >Working Group on International Trade and Investment and support the >principles advanced in the statement, "An Interfaith Statement on >International Trade and Investment." >(see) >We ask monthly meetings and individual Friends to inform themselves as fully >as possible about the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, and to seek >Divine Guidance in considering how to fulfill our obligations, as citizens >of the United States and the world, to promote peace, justice, and the >restoration of the earth's ecological integrity. >--submitted by Kim Carlyle > From kcarlyle at main.nc.us Thu Jun 26 18:32:11 2003 From: kcarlyle at main.nc.us (Kim Carlyle) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:32:11 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Re: Monthly ECN Connections References: <013501c33a58$1935dfc0$966dc0d1@qew> Message-ID: <007001c33c32$e7545180$b66dc0d1@qew> Dear Janet (and SAYMA Friends), Thank you for your interest in and appreciation of the work of FCUN. I'm a bit puzzled about why the response was copied to our yearly meeting listserve, perhaps it was a mistake. In any event, it provides the opportunity to raise awareness among Friends, as is our intention in the closing of the epistle: "We ask monthly meetings and individual Friends to inform themselves as fully as possible about the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, and to seek Divine Guidance in considering how to fulfill our obligations, as citizens of the United States and the world, to promote peace, justice, and the restoration of the earth's ecological integrity." Your criticisms are justified. Many readers would interpret the statements as you did. Your comments will be helpful as we continue to seek truth on these issues. Please allow me, however, to explain the intent of these statements to which you have raised concerns. The FCUN epistle was a collaboration of many Friends in consultation with AFSC folks who are working on these issues. Regarding the first objection, I consulted with the source of this particular phrasing who explained that the reaction was "as if it said people are generally getting poorer in monetary terms and in relation to the things money can buy. It does not say that. It says 'the conditions of life are worsening.' This is a very much different consideration, and I think can be supported on many objective grounds. In human and social terms the conditions of life for people working, for example, long hours in low wage factory jobs in toxic environments are frequently worse than the conditions of subsistence village life they, or their parents, have left. The modernization of poverty is a relative consideration with respect to the environmental and social conditions in which people live. People who live in urban areas are frequently worse off even though they have more money than they were when they lived in a rural village. They are at a much greater comparative disadvantage with respect to the economic world around them than are those who have not become dependent on transnational capital. These may seem to some folks like rather subtle points, but an analysis that does not take them into account is not seeing the whole picture. "Further to the discussion, I chose the word "impoverished" precisely because is does not mean simply a lack of money. It means, as well, 'deprived of natural richness and strength.' It includes quality of life considerations and how people feel about the way things are going for them. Plenty of people, even in the U.S., have money in their pocket but have a sense that the conditions of life are worsening, that their own life, and the environment of life in general, is increasingly being 'deprived of natural richness and strength.' Again, this may seem a little subtle, but it is an important reality." Regarding the second objection, perhaps the numbers from some statistical analyses do indicate that there are more people employed (and perhaps the exact phrasing in the epistle might have been better), but the point is that while quantity may have increased, quality of employment has declined. Are temporary workers included in the statistic? Child laborers? Are the workers properly compensated? The list of questions goes on. The real issues are employment security, income security, and adequate income. Again, from one of the authors: "The issue is not whether transnationals create jobs, but whether those jobs exist in a reasonably sustainable and supportive socioeconomic context. If they don't, then the statistics give a false picture of the situation. The plant moves on, the jobs disappear, people left behind are worse off than before. The jobs may reappear elsewhere. More plants get built in the lowest wage areas and the employment figures keep looking positive. But human development and the development of human communities in healthy ecosystems is not at the heart of the process. Economists will say that's not what business is for." But, as Friends, perhaps we have a duty to help change the way business is done so that it not only includes the concepts of human betterment and ecological integrity, but makes them a priority. To explore these issues further, Quaker Eco-Witness will devote the next issue of "Quaker Eco-Bulletin" to international trade agreements. Friends can subscribe electronically to QEB by sending a message to QEW at FCUN.org. QEB is also distributed as an insert to "BeFriending Creation," FCUN's bi-monthly newsletter. Subscribe by sending a message to FCUN at FCUN.org. Also if you would like to be included in the distribution of SAYMA's Ecological Concerns Network newsletter (the source of this exchange), "ECN Connections," please let me know. Thanks again, Janet (and SAYMA Friends). EarthPeace, Kim Carlyle SAYMA representative to FCUN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet Minshall" Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: [saymaListserv] Re: Monthly ECN Connections > ...There are two quotes which very much need correction: > "...wealth increases for the already wealthy while conditions of life steadily > worsen for many impoverished people worldwide." > > "Although the agreements are promoted in terms of creating jobs > and reducing poverty,there are now more unemployed and impoverished people." > From jhminshall at attbi.com Sat Jun 28 13:46:25 2003 From: jhminshall at attbi.com (Janet Minshall) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:46:25 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Re: Monthly ECN Connections Message-ID: Hi Kim, Thanks for your response. I,too, thought this was more than just a message from one Friend to another and so I included all SAYMA Friends (as best the Kitenet list reflects all SAYMA Friends) in my reply and reprinted the whole epistle that I was responding to. In this message I have included the complete chain of messages so that anyone who is interested and who did not see the earlier ones can join fully in the discussion. I really appreciate your being so straightforward in your message. It highlights a concern I've had for awhile about middle class Friends assuming that they think like, and can say speak for, people living in LDCs (Less Developed Countries) to explain how they feel about working in a business developed by Americans or Western Europeans, and how that affects their culture and the rest of their lives. In fact, the epistle just transfers the frustrations, problems and feelings of people working in the US to others who live in very different cultures and have very different concerns and values. I have done some work, partly supported by SAYMA funds, twice in Africa -- once in 1986 and again later in 1988. In both instances I was hoping to start, with the help and guidance of East African Friends, an economic development project which would express the concerns of US Friends. This was not a leading "out of the blue" but rather the dying wish for continuance of work begun by Marjorie Fox, a Philadelphia Friend. Marjorie sojourned with Atlanta Friends while in chemo-therapy for cancer at a local hospital. When it was clear that she was not winning her cancer battle, she let it be known that she fervently hoped the work she had done in East Africa would continue after she died. What I learned in East Africa was life-changing. It concerned cultural differences and how they literally blind us to cultures apart from our own. I think what I'm saying can be best expressed by the following exchange of letters the initial one written by a SAYMA Friend to Jack Powelson, an emeritus professor of Economics at the University of Colorado. I serve on the Editorial Board for his free online newsletter "The Quaker Economist", and responded not knowing if he had the time to respond himself: Jack, the problem is that the "unfettered" competition is causing illness by pollution, global warming and is depleting sustainable resources. At some point the cost of illness and environmental change has to be figured in the buying and selling prices. Also it is unfair to the entire globe to make products in places where there is no effective lobby to protect the environment - Regulation is probably the least way - but someone need so to pay for the dollars in health care and environmental degradation. In addition, from health statistics, we know that small farmers are healthier when then can sell their products. Large factory farms undercut them and cause them to move to cities. American farmers are subsidized by cheap fuel, wonderful roads, and generous benefits. You are right, it would be better if there was less regulation, but only when subsidies to favor rich countries were also eliminated. My response was: I don't know if Jack will answer your most recent message or not. Since you and I have nearly had this conversation several times at yearly meeting, I thought I'd give you my two cents worth. You're trying to change the system to what YOU think it should be whereas, if the decision were left to the people in developing countries the answers would be different. You have worked in India and I in Africa. We know, because we have seen it first hand, that huge wooded areas have been denuded by local people who are desperate for firewood to cook with and to burn for heat. The consciousness of the people I've spoken with in Africa is completely concentrated on immediate survival and they really do not give a hang about the environment or the expansion of the desert into previously arable land or the depletion of sustainable resources. But while they spend much of their time searching for anything that will burn, what they really want is the opportunity to work. They don't care if American workers make twice as much for the work that's offered. They realize to some extent that their country is without infrastructure and so the companies that relocate there will have to build and maintain roads, and a water supply and generators and a more functional communications system in order to have what they need to begin to produce. The ordinary people just want the chance to begin earning and saving so that after they have repaired their houses and have bought clothes for their children, they can then work toward things like electrical wiring and indoor plumbing for themselves. And the women, who now walk miles a day carrying water, want to save together to install a hand or electrical pump nearby. You can talk to them until you lose your voice and while they may say they understand and agree with you you will not really have changed their priorities until you change their economic situation. What economists have learned from studying economic history is that people need a higher standard of living and some economic security in order to care about larger, less immediate issues. Once they have more, they begin to think about things like pollution, population control and even global warming. It happens mostly by itself. We don't really have to convince them of anything. What our multinational corporations can do and are doing is to give them the opportunity to work. Unless you recognize the change of consciousness which follows economic development, you'll never understand how to effectively change economic realities. You cannot start at the end point (the environment and global warming). You have to start closer to the beginning (economic development and jobs). There is an exceptionally good 18-page insert called A Survey of The Global Environment in The Economist magazine of July 6th to 12th which supports many of your concerns but enlarges the discussion to include comments and related issues from economists. Best Regards, Janet From: "Kim Carlyle" To: "Janet Minshall" Cc: "Listserve SAYMA" Subject: Re: [saymaListserv] Re: Monthly ECN Connections Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:32:11 -0400 X-Priority: 3 Dear Janet (and SAYMA Friends), Thank you for your interest in and appreciation of the work of FCUN. I'm a bit puzzled about why the response was copied to our yearly meeting listserve, perhaps it was a mistake. In any event, it provides the opportunity to raise awareness among Friends, as is our intention in the closing of the epistle: "We ask monthly meetings and individual Friends to inform themselves as fully as possible about the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, and to seek Divine Guidance in considering how to fulfill our obligations, as citizens of the United States and the world, to promote peace, justice, and the restoration of the earth's ecological integrity." Your criticisms are justified. Many readers would interpret the statements as you did. Your comments will be helpful as we continue to seek truth on these issues. Please allow me, however, to explain the intent of these statements to which you have raised concerns. The FCUN epistle was a collaboration of many Friends in consultation with AFSC folks who are working on these issues. Regarding the first objection, I consulted with the source of this particular phrasing who explained that the reaction was "as if it said people are generally getting poorer in monetary terms and in relation to the things money can buy. It does not say that. It says 'the conditions of life are worsening.' This is a very much different consideration, and I think can be supported on many objective grounds. In human and social terms the conditions of life for people working, for example, long hours in low wage factory jobs in toxic environments are frequently worse than the conditions of subsistence village life they, or their parents, have left. The modernization of poverty is a relative consideration with respect to the environmental and social conditions in which people live. People who live in urban areas are frequently worse off even though they have more money than they were when they lived in a rural village. They are at a much greater comparative disadvantage with respect to the economic world around them than are those who have not become dependent on transnational capital. These may seem to some folks like rather subtle points, but an analysis that does not take them into account is not seeing the whole picture. "Further to the discussion, I chose the word "impoverished" precisely because is does not mean simply a lack of money. It means, as well, 'deprived of natural richness and strength.' It includes quality of life considerations and how people feel about the way things are going for them. Plenty of people, even in the U.S., have money in their pocket but have a sense that the conditions of life are worsening, that their own life, and the environment of life in general, is increasingly being 'deprived of natural richness and strength.' Again, this may seem a little subtle, but it is an important reality." Regarding the second objection, perhaps the numbers from some statistical analyses do indicate that there are more people employed (and perhaps the exact phrasing in the epistle might have been better), but the point is that while quantity may have increased, quality of employment has declined. Are temporary workers included in the statistic? Child laborers? Are the workers properly compensated? The list of questions goes on. The real issues are employment security, income security, and adequate income. Again, from one of the authors: "The issue is not whether transnationals create jobs, but whether those jobs exist in a reasonably sustainable and supportive socioeconomic context. If they don't, then the statistics give a false picture of the situation. The plant moves on, the jobs disappear, people left behind are worse off than before. The jobs may reappear elsewhere. More plants get built in the lowest wage areas and the employment figures keep looking positive. But human development and the development of human communities in healthy ecosystems is not at the heart of the process. Economists will say that's not what business is for." But, as Friends, perhaps we have a duty to help change the way business is done so that it not only includes the concepts of human betterment and ecological integrity, but makes them a priority. To explore these issues further, Quaker Eco-Witness will devote the next issue of "Quaker Eco-Bulletin" to international trade agreements. Friends can subscribe electronically to QEB by sending a message to QEW at FCUN.org. QEB is also distributed as an insert to "BeFriending Creation," FCUN's bi-monthly newsletter. Subscribe by sending a message to FCUN at FCUN.org. Also if you would like to be included in the distribution of SAYMA's Ecological Concerns Network newsletter (the source of this exchange), "ECN Connections," please let me know. Thanks again, Janet (and SAYMA Friends). EarthPeace, Kim Carlyle SAYMA representative to FCUN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet Minshall" Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: [saymaListserv] Re: Monthly ECN Connections > ...There are two quotes which very much need correction: > "...wealth increases for the already wealthy while conditions of life steadily > worsen for many impoverished people worldwide." > > "Although the agreements are promoted in terms of creating jobs > and reducing poverty,there are now more unemployed and impoverished people." > >Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:45:22 -0400 >To: "Susan Carlyle" >From: Janet Minshall >Subject: Re: Monthly ECN Connections >Cc: sayma at kitenet.net >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Dear Susan Carlyle, I really appreciate the work you and Kim do on >behalf of the environment both in SAYMA and in FCUN. I agree with >much of what is written by/for FCUN. In response to the epistle >submitted by Kim I too am concerned that the media do not provide >full and accurate information. I am more concerned, however, that >Friends are picking up inaccurate information from other sources and >passing it on as established fact. > >There are two quotes which very much need correction: >"...wealth increases for the already wealthy while conditions of life steadily >worsen for many impoverished people worldwide." > >"Although the agreements are promoted in terms of creating jobs >and reducing poverty,there are now more unemployed and impoverished people." > > >The two statements quoted above from the June ECN Connections in the >epistle from FCUN are not factual. Yes, "wealth increases for the >already wealthy", but "conditions of life do not steadily worsen for >many impoverished people." In fact, according to United Nations >data, conditions of life and average incomes have steadily risen all >over the world for many, many years. > >Actually, the only places in the world where poverty is still >increasing are in remote areas of China and India. These are areas >where one aspect of globalization,moving jobs away from affluent >workers in the US to impoverished workers in the rest of the world, >has not yet reached. Everywhere that globalization has reached both >employment and incomes have increased, sometimes dramatically, for >the poor. > >I know this is contrary to the information you have been given, but >it is true. Those who oppose globalization and the actions of >multinational corporations most aggressively are the US labor unions >which do not want US jobs and union dues, on which they depend >financially, to fall. Powerful labor unions, unfortunately, are the >source of much of the misinformation repeated as fact among Friends. >Similarly, some NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) which serve >the poor realize that their mandate is fast disappearing as the poor >they serve are brought out of poverty. > >Please have someone in FCUN do the research from unbiased sources >such as the relevant committees of the United Nations and write >about it for Friends. It will show that what I am saying here is >true. Sincerely, Janet Minshall > > > >>from ECN Connections- June 2003 >> >> >> >>An Epistle from Friends Committee on Unity with Nature on the FTAA >>To Friends Everywhere: >> >>Those of us who are U.S. citizens have witnessed with horror and shame as >>our government has undermined international treaties and institutions, used >>an endless "War on Terror" as a pretext for permanently enlarging its >>powers, embraced a doctrine of preemptive war, and invaded Iraq. We are now >>faced with the prospect of another U.S. initiative, the proposed Free Trade >>Area of the Americas (FTAA), that we believe will intensify social injustice >>and institutional and ecological violence, and lead to more physical >>violence. >>Human activities damaging to the earth's ecosystems continue to expand, and >>wealth increases for the already wealthy while conditions of life steadily >>worsen for many impoverished people worldwide. U.S. government policies and >>the international trade agreements they have promoted, instead of remedying >>these inequities, seem to be intensifying them. >>In truth, these agreements have primarily promoted the productivity and >>profitability of large corporations by reducing legal constraints on their >>activities. Although the agreements are promoted in terms of creating jobs >>and reducing poverty, there are now more unemployed and impoverished people. >>In addition, more land and resources have been diverted to the corporate >>industrial process, wealth and power are more concentrated, the biosphere is >>more polluted, and the ability of governments to promote general welfare has >>progressively weakened. >>Expanding international trade already taxes the environment by increasing >>the use of fossil fuels and the rate at which fragile ecosystems are >>exploited. Treaties like the earlier NAFTA and the proposed FTAA exacerbate >>this stress by granting "rights" to corporations which supercede and can >>even nullify national and local laws intended to protect people and the >>environment. The proposed FTAA would impose in this hemisphere additional >>"rights" for global corporate and financial interests that the community of >>nations has previously refused to grant through the World Trade >>Organization(WTO). >>Friends Committee on Unity with Nature is concerned that the U.S. media do >>not provide full and accurate information about the effects of current trade >>and investment policies on working people, on the impoverished, and on local >>ecosystems in other nations and in our own. We are further concerned that >>the secrecy of the FTAA negotiations has severely limited public knowledge >>of and consultation on its process. >>On a finite planet, policies that give priority to assuring high returns on >>the speculative financial investments of the already wealthy cannot lead to >>either conservation or right sharing of the Earth's resources. Right >>sharing, conservation, and restoring the Earth's ecological integrity must >>become the priorities of public policy. >>We believe this issue is as urgent as the new doctrine of preemptive war, >>and one that Friends cannot in good conscience ignore. We are grateful for >>the leadership of the American Friends Service Committee in the Interfaith >>Working Group on International Trade and Investment and support the >>principles advanced in the statement, "An Interfaith Statement on >>International Trade and Investment." >>(see) >>We ask monthly meetings and individual Friends to inform themselves as fully >>as possible about the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, and to seek >>Divine Guidance in considering how to fulfill our obligations, as citizens >>of the United States and the world, to promote peace, justice, and the >>restoration of the earth's ecological integrity. >>--submitted by Kim Carlyle From listener at bellsouth.net Mon Jun 30 21:54:00 2003 From: listener at bellsouth.net (Kit Potter) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:54:00 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] FW: Kucinich deadline-June 30-please read Message-ID: <002401c33f73$a408b990$6601a8c0@heyoka> Dear Friends, To all of you who care about issues, but haven't been reading about the primaries yet, please have a thought to help this campaign. Really read his commitment to values here! The support of MoveOn could be amazing in the difference it makes. There is hope, if we all work together! This platform deserves to be heard with a very loud voice from the people! Support Kucinich today! Kit Potter (FYI: Priscilla was an attender at Nashville Friends Meeting for a while.) Dear Friends, Here I am again, with a last minute message out to ask you to look at Dennis Kucinich, and in case you are interested in supporting him, knowing that if you contribute to his campaign today, by the end of this quarter (June 30), the media will report on it, and numbers talk, and thus will help the cause, and all the money will be matched. So $50 = a $100 contribution. You can donate online at kucinich.us, or call with your visa to the Ohio headquarters at 866-413-3664, or mail a check and date it June 30 to: 11808 Larain Ave, Cleveland, OH 44111. Any amount will help and be used wisely to support a vision and support a movement for progressive change. I attended 2 campaign meetings this weekend that were extremely inspiring and exciting. Lots of people are coming to work on this campaign that have never ever been involved in politics. That's because this goes beyond politics, I feel. Kucinich is a potential leader for transforming our nation to become benevolent, peaceful, strong and admired. Again, think American Ghandi. Following are some articles to show how he is different from Dean, and the other democrats. I urge you to read up. Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it. Peace, Priscilla The following is from Danny Sheehan, former legal counselor for Iran/Contra, Wounded Knee, Karen Silkwood, the Pentagon Papers, and has spent 30 years dedicated to uncovering government covert operations. He was also director of the Christic Institute. And he received a PhD from Harvard Divinity. Brilliant man. WHO IS DENNIS KUCINICH? Currently a 57 year old Congressman from Ohio's 10th district, Dennis Kucinich was elected Mayor of Cleveland in 1977 at the age of 31, making him the youngest person ever to lead a major American city. As Co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, the largest Caucus in Congress, he has been the outspoken leader of opposition to the war in Iraq and was largely responsible for organizing the 126 Democratic Representatives who voted against the Iraqi War Resolution. He is a deeply spiritual man whose integrity is widely recognized in Congress by Democrats and Republicans alike. HOW DOES KUCINICH DIFFER FROM THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES? He is known for his integrity and skill as a legislator. He does not say one thing to one person and another to someone else. He is honest and supports real solutions to tough problems. Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate who offers a platform of principles, policies, and programs that will create FUNDAMENTAL change in America. As President he has promised to work to: ** REDUCE THE MILITARY BUDGET AND DEBT ** ESTABLISH A CABINET LEVEL DEPARTMENT OF PEACE TO ENHANCE NATIONAL SECURITY ON ALL LEVELS - AT HOME AND ABROAD ** USE THE PEACE DIVIDEND TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS ** PROVIDE FREE EDUCATION THROUGH COLLEGE ** PROTECT WORKERS BY CANCELING NAFTA AND WITHDRAWING FROM W.T.O. AS PART OF A PROGRAM THAT WILL HELP THE GLOBAL ECONOMY ** REPEAL THE PATRIOT ACT AND PROTECT OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES ** REPLACE PETROLEUM AS THE BASIC FORM OF ENERGY BY 2012 WITHOUT MOVING TO NUCLEAR **JOIN THE REST OF THE WORLD AND SIGN THE KYOTO ACCORDS AND THE LAW OF THE SEAS While Dean supports the country's third most polluting nuclear power plant (in Vermont), has pledged to sustain the current military budget, and tells conservatives that he is not a peace candidate, -- and Kerry not only actively supported the Invasion of Iraq, but advocates the use of nuclear power and coal to reach an only 20% reduction of petroleum by the year 2020, Dennis Kucinich has won the goodwill of labor unions, environmentalists, peace activists, and other progressive constituencies across the board. The major challenge of his candidacy is that THE ESTABLISHMENT KEEPS SAYING THAT HE CAN'T WIN. HOW WILL KUCINICH WIN? 102 million eligible voters in the United States did not turn out to vote on election day in 2000. According to polls more than half of these Americans are liberal to progressive. Kucinich's grassroots campaign is building strong support by registering and motivating these millions of otherwise uninspired voters! These people will not register and vote unless they are inspired by a new vision of America's future. This support base will contribute to winning Dennis Kucinich the Democratic Presidential Nomination in the Primaries and, when combined with the main body of Democratic voters in November 2004, will ensure victory over George Bush. ****************** NOTE FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS J. KUCINICH Dear Friends, I know you can spell my name -- "www.kucinich.us" -- because our presidential campaign has been surging in the last two weeks with people flocking to our website. Today we shook the political world with our showing in the MoveOn Primary -- 2nd place, 24 percent and 76,000 votes! Tens of thousands of these voters are new recruits to our campaign. I want to thank all of our volunteers, online and off. You've proven the media pundits wrong. They had hoped we would disappear. But, along with our big vote in MoveOn, our campaign has raised more than $1 million this quarter (and federal matching funds will double that). Almost all has come in small donations through the Internet. And there are still days left before the June 30 filing deadline. So don't stop now. Donate at https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php Why are all these good things happening? Because people are learning that I can win. That I have a history of defeating well-funded Republican incumbents by running Wellstone-like grassroots campaigns. And because I offer a fundamentally different vision for the Democratic Party and the nation -- a populist vision that can galvanize heartland voters, inspire new voters and bring back 3rd-party and independent voters into a winning coalition for next November. Other Democrats promise guns and butter. They say we can't cut a Pentagon budget that rivals the military spending of all other Countries combined. I offer common-sense cuts in a bloated military to pay for enhanced domestic programs of environmental cleanup, sustainable jobs programs, fortified Social Security -- at no added expense to middle class taxpayers. Others propose slow, incremental changes to our bureaucratic, corporate-controlled healthcare system; I offer streamlined national health insurance for all. Others defend a globalization regime that has driven down labor and environmental standards worldwide. I will replace NAFTA and the WTO with bilateral, fair trade pacts that lift up standards, and protect the planet. I was there in Seattle, marching alongside environmental and union activists. I led opposition in the House to the illegal, fraudulent Iraq war, and I am still demanding answers every day on Capitol Hill. I'm the only candidate who voted against the so-called "Patriot Act." Our campaign is trying something totally new. We're running a movement campaign -- guided by movements for peace, economic justice, the environment, labor, women's rights, civil liberties, civil rights for all. And fueled by the Internet. Just like the February 15 anti-war protests that shook the planet...and just like the Seattle movement. In recent days, we've picked up the endorsements of many progressive leaders, including environmentalist Randy Hayes, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, and ice cream entrepreneurs and activists Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. More endorsements will come next week. We began in February. No campaign has grown so much in only four months. The media pundits who once called us "fringe" and "marginal" are now clearly perplexed. Our showing in the MoveOn Primary is a wakeup call to those who tried to write us off. The one thing we need more of is funding. Our campaign doesn't get the support of the moneyed interests who offer bundled donations and pay for high-priced tables for 10. And, frankly, we don't want their support. We do have the power of the grassroots and the small donor and the Internet. So make a donation (by June 30 if possible) https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php. And join our grassroots campaign for an America of peace and justice. Sincerely, Dennis Kucinich ************************** This is a great comparison of Dean & Kucinich from the Bob Harris website. He's an "investigative humorist": www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html The table he presents wouldn't cut and paste right on this email, so please go to the above link. Here are the notes by the author of the table to intice you: Kucinich v. Dean Where broad agreement exists, I've omitted the issue to save space. I've also omitted issues where one candidate has no stated position I could find, even though this is a measure of a candidate's relative concern for and familiarity with issues. The main sources are the candidates' own websites, plus a whole lot of searching via Google. I can't promise every detail is correct; this is one guy's best effort. Full disclosure: I have several friends on the Kucinich campaign, and I supported him when this started. A few months ago, I was even going to join up, but since I'm in the media, decided it was better to be independent. I was also very interested in Dean for a while, around February and March, until I decided to support Kucinich. Make of that whatever you will. Finally, Dean is basically a good guy, and if he's nominated I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. It's just that it's simply not accurate to refer to him as a progressive candidate. As he told Salon: "I don't mind being characterized as 'liberal' -- I just don't happen to think it's true." I'm also not saying that Kucinich's positions are the "right" ones on every issue; I just personally agree with him on most of them, and I think other progressives will, too. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com