Ron,
I got the impression from your original message that you weren't merely referring to "people" being upset when the Board of Supervisors focuses on national or international issues instead of addressing problems in SF, but that this was your own view. Such a view would seem to be based on the assumption that if the Board of Supervisors had more time to spend on local problems in SF, it would help solve those problems rather than making them worse. Why would you assume such a thing?
I understand the appeal of an ordinance telling Nancy Pelosi how to vote in the House of Representatives, but that would clearly be unconstitutional. Banning nuclear weapons in all countries sounds great, but that couldn't even be effected at the national level let alone the local level, so such a measure in SF could only be expressed as a "toothless resolution" (not that this necessarily makes it a bad idea in my view, but some members of our group have spoken against such resolutions).
However an anti-"PATRIOT" Act ordinance forbidding any SFPD cooperation with investigations conducted under that act by federal agencies would in my opinion be an excellent measure for us to pursue, and I enthusiastically endorse your suggestion.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
When I refer to people being upset with the actions the Board of Supervisors does it is based on them wasting time on resolutions or ordinances which do nothing to address the problems facing San Francisco: Homelessness - Housing - Jobs - Poverty -Unemployment - Medical Care - Traffic - The Muni - High City Taxes - an out of control City budget - Rising Payroll and City employee retirement. Real problems.
To wit: Fiona Ma wants to introduce legislation to ban smoking at bus stops. DOH!
Or the recent supervisor battles about letting people cut trees on their own property without City approval and placed on the June ballot.DOH!
If you want to green the City a positive ordinance would make more sense like:
The Supervisors could have passed a motion to encourage tree planting which does not require a bureaucratic process. The motion would simply state:
We encourage all citizens and visitors to pay to plant a tree to "Green" the City of San Franxcisco.
When you buy a home, if you can, plant a tree on the property you just bought\. If you can’t plant a tree on the property, have a tree planted on the block or in a treeless section of the City\. When you get married have a tree planted in your name\. When you have a child have a tree planted in their name\. When a relative or friend dies plant a memorial tree in their name\. When you graduate from Middle and High School and local colleges buy a graduation grove of trees Class of \*\*\*\*\. When you visit San Francisco and you enjoyed your visit plant a tree\.This is a positive initiative or ordinance and what we should consider as a basis for a positive civil liberties or civil rights issue. There's enou gh negativity as it is go around.
If you want to go global I would love to see a ban and disarmamment on all nuclear weapons inh all countries.Or better yet all nations dis-banding their armies.
Or if needed an ordinance mandating Nancy Pelosi introduce legislation to cut off all funding for Bush and the military for Iraq.
Or going beyond the Patriot Act an ordinance forbidding the SFPD to offer or comply with any request for any assistance to the FBI - DEA - CIA - AFT in any investigation under the Patriot Act. I say any investigation since the Patriot Act has been used to stop food stamp rings - porn rings - prostitution rings. All activites I'm certain are really high on the list of terrorists to raise funds.
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianRon,
Just because something no longer exists doesn't necessarily make it
"invalid," or a waste of time to honor it. Sometimes it's a small step
toward getting the thing you lost back again -- in your example, that
being a relatively free Vietnam. Most of the time when you see people
complaining about a body like the Board of Supervisors taking an action
related to national or international politics, it's because they
disagree with the action being taken, i.e. it's usually an
opportunistic argument rather than a substantive one.As Bob mentioned in our meeting, cities and towns across the United
States have been passing resolutions against the "Patriot" Act -- more
than 300 according to this Wired Magazine article0,1848,63702,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1> from June 2004, and at least 400
now according to Bob.I strongly suspect that this evidence of strong grassroots opposition
has a lot to do with the reluctance exhibited by GOP Senators meeting
with President Bush to renewing controversial provisions of the act, a
reluctance which led to a frustrated President Bush, according to this
articlewhich has been making the libertarian list rounds, calling the
Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."So local action may not only influence the course of national
legislation, but it may have resulted in the president letting slip an
unguarded remark that will provide libertarians with powerful
ammunition against him. Do you still think it's worthless for a
locality to weigh in on larger issues?You say, "Let's get our junky yard straightened out first bef ore we
start trying to get the neighbors to fix their junky yard." The fact
that you would say this in response to my last message leads me to
conclude that you totally missed my point about parochialism. San
Francisco is not our yard. Your yard is wherever you live, and my yard
is wherever I live (actually I don't have a yard, though I do have a
roof). If your point is to concentrate strictly on what's yours, the
course of action most consistent with that is to take my roommate's
attitude and eschew politics altogether in favor of working on
self-improvement.Personally, I'm very thankful that some people are trying to raise
their heads and see beyond the small local problems that affect them
personally. Without such thinking, there would be no widespread and
coordinated resistance to tyranny, only isolated people reacting to
their immediate situations without the benefit or inspiration of
solidarity in defense of shared ideals to guide them.Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>> Dear Starchild;
>
> I used the flag issue as a simile of non-productive supervisorial
> resolution. The Republic of Vietnam flag is no longer a "valid flag"
> because the Republic of Vietnam is non-existant and the flag of
> Vietnam now formally known as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has as
> the offical flag a red flag with a yellow 5 pointed star centered on
> it.
>
> The Board of Supervisors had no rhyme or reason to pass a resolution
> recognizing the old Republic of Vietnam flag which is why it got
> vetoed by Willie Brown after all the suitable news reports about
> another SF Supervisors foreign policy statement.
>
> Part of the reason for a civil liber ties issue much as the economic
> issues is to attract potential Libertarians to the local party and
> even have them register to vote Libertarian and even go and vote
> Libertarian.
>
> My concerns about broad based state or national or international
> issues is similar to a couple years ago when the LPSF promoted the
> Flight 800 conspiracy. Including a dramatic pictorial recreation of
> the jet in flames on the main web page which stayed there until 9/11.
> The Flight 800 conspiracy had nothing to do with being a Libertarian
> in SF. And I am certain was a turn off to people who may have been
> considering the LPSF.
>
> By local politics I mean an issue which someone can say: I see what
> does it mean to me. When you sell something to someone you must always
> show them what does it mean to me to gain their support or their
> willingness to v ote yes or no as appropriate. A local issue can be
> clearly shown as to what does it mean to me.
>
> A state or federal or international issue is understood by people to
> mean it would be nice but the vote won't get the underlying laws
> changed now or in the near future.
>
> When you have a local issue based on Libertarian philosophy it is
> easier to clearly show what does it mean to me than a broad based
> statewide issue or federal issue of international issue which would
> require changing the laws as now written. Which does not have a ghost
> of a chance of happening while the current or near future crop of
> politicians are in office at the state or federal or international
> levels.
>
> A local issue can be effective immediately and getting the law changed
> to reflect the issue can be done now not at some indeterminate time in
> the future. There can be immediate tangible results.
>
> There are several problems needing fixes in SF. Let's get our junky
> yard straightened out first before we start trying to get the
> neighbors to fix their junky yard.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Starchild wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> On what basis do you feel the Republic of Vietnam flag is "no longer a
> valid flag?" Is the Gadsden ("Don't Tread On Me") flag also no longer a
> valid flag? Obviously the Board did not know what they were doing when
> they voted to honor the yellow flag with red stripes, but I'm glad they
> did it. I only wish they'd had the courage and right principles to
> stand by their action.
>
> It's absolutely not true that we can have no impact on state,
> national, or international issues. What d o you think the old saw that
> "all politics is local" means, anyway? Does it mean that there is
> literally no such thing as national or international politics? Of
> course not! It means that even politics at those levels IS strongly
> influenced by politics at the local level.
>
> Now it may well turn out for other reasons that a strictly local
> measure would be a good choice for an initiative to pursue. But let's
> not make that a basis for selection and ignore the implications of "all
> politics is local," or your other apropos quote, "Politics is grand
> theater." It is indeed, and that's why symbolic measures count!
> Ultimately we are actors on a world stage.
>
> When I talk with my roommate about political issues, his attitude is
> that it's not productive to focus on such things. He believes that we
> each need to work on improving ourselves, and that's what really
> matters. Consequently he didn't even bother to vote in the last
> election. You or I might dismiss such sentiments as dangerous and
> regrettable coming from someone whose outlook is generally
> left-libertarian (he once worked for the ACLU), but consider that he is
> merely taking the parochialism you express below one step further, to
> its logical conclusion.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
> > Dear Starchild and Everyone Else;
> >
> > On the civil liberties issues I personally believe it would behoove
> us
> > to have an issue or issues which were local in nature so we could see
> > positive tangible results here locally. We can't save the world -
> > yet!
> >
> > I base this on the old political saw of "all politics is local". AND
> I
> > base this on the Board of Supervisors having a foreign policy agenda
> > and lots of people I know get disgusted with the supervisors issuing
> > foreign policy resolutions instead of tending to their knitting.
> >
> > As an example of this stupidity a little ways back Fiona Ma wanted
> the
> > City to recognize the old flag of the Republic of Vietnam the yellow
> > one with the red stripes. This is no longer a valid flag but the
> > Supervisors said okay and started an international brouhaha. DOH!
> >
> > When we select an issue or issues let's try to keep it local with
> > local impact and local tangible results. Leave the broad sweeping
> > issues of a national or statewide basis alone because we can not
> > change the broad issues until we change the yahoos in Congress and
> > Sacramento.
> >
> > Let's change something we can change here in the City on a civil
> > liberties - civil rights basis. This issue or issues must
> > be Libertarian oriented and be attractive to the group of San
> > Franciscans who go and vote on election day.
> >
> > Also keep in mind this will be the Nov. 2006 ballot which will
> include
> > 5 Supervisors districts up for election and the civil liberties issue
> > or issues could be used as an issue for or against candidates to
> > promote them or embarass them.
> >
> > Bella Abzug once said, "Politics is grand theater".
> >
> > Let's have the LPSF put on a real show!!!
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Starchild wrote:
> >
& gt; > Let's post suggestions to the list. I'd like to see what people come
> > up with, and discuss the ideas as a group. Here are a few possible
> > topics for civil liberties initiatives that I think could appeal to
> > significant portions of the left:
> >
> > -a resolution against the PATRIOT Act
> > -a measure limiting police power or making police more accountable,
> > etc.
> > -a pro-nightlife measure (e.g. make it easier for clubs to stay open
> 24
> > hours)
> > -a resolution against the war on drugs
> > -a pro-immigrant measure (e.g. eliminate enforcement against
> > undocumented persons driving without a license, unlicensed day labor,
> > etc.)
> > -repeal law making it illegal to sleep/live in your vehicle
> > -repeal laws restricting skateboarding, rollerblading
> > -repeal fees for amplified sound permits, other charge s for free
> speech
> > -repeal health codes required for feeding the homeless
> > -a measure allowing bath houses to open again
> > -a measure deprioritizing enforcement of laws against prostitution
> and
> > unlicensed massage
> > -a resolution against the use of torture, and supporting the
> > application of Geneva Convention rights to all prisoners
> > -repeal the law against public nudity
> > -repeal the youth curfew laws
> >
> > As to *why* it would be good to pursue a civil liberties initiative
> > that will appeal to the left, here are a few reasons:
> >
> > -because a majority of San Francisco voters lean to the left; we want
> > to speak their language
> > -because it will help us cultivate a reputation for the LP as being
> > truly independent and a middle voice in a polarized society
> > -because it can h elp keep the Libertarian Party from falling into a
> > vicious cycle of becoming more conservative, like a ship taking on
> > water to starboard, until it sinks
> > -because *most* civil liberties issues would hold more appeal for
> > leftists than for right-wingers; why a bias toward the exceptions?
> > -because issues such as those listed above stand on their libertarian
> > merits as surely as does a payroll tax repeal, so why not?
> > -because some people might be turned on to freedom if we show its
> > connection to things they see as positive social values (e.g.
> > sexuality, nightlife, immigration, helping the homeless, etc.) and
> not
> > just to things they see as negative social values (e.g. money and
> guns)
> > -because we need more artists, fiction writers, musicians,
> performers,
> > energized young idealists, students, women, minorities, an d creative
> > people in the movement, and people in these categories tend to lean
> > more to the left
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> >
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > > I am wondering if you would like suggestions on the proposed civil
> > > liberties initiative from the whole membership. If so, would you
> like
> > > the suggestions to be on the lpsf activists list or made to your
> own
> > > e-mail as Initiative Chair.
> > >
> > > Thanks again for all the work you have done.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Marcy
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Starchild;
> > > >
> > > > What civil liberties issues are you proposing? Secondly, why
> the
> > > stressed emphasis on appealing to the left in such issues? Civil
> > > liberty issues do not of necessity have to of necessity left
> leaning
> > > even in SF.
> > > >
> > > > However, what list of civil liberty issues would you propose to
> > > be considered for discussion?
> > > >
> > > > Would these cover: Human rights? Ethic rights? Ethnic rights?
> > > Moral rights? Sexual rights? Social rights? Religious rights?
> > > >
> > > > What are the issues we as Libertarians in SF could either
> sponsor
> > > or co-sponsor which would highlight Libertarianism in SF and
> > > spotlight the LPSF and attract voters to our LPSF cause and
> > > membership in SF?
> > > >
> > > > Yes I did fully understand the point you were making at the
> > > meeting. However, I and I am certain others would need some input
> > > from yourself where you articulate the civil liberty issues and
> > > provide some elucidation on what you would wish to have us consider
> > > and why those issues.
> > > >
> > > > Then from that list of issues which I am certain after some
> good
> > > sensible discussion we would winnow it down to a couple issues.
> Then
> > > for some final solid discussion and bringing forth at the next LPSF
> > > meeting fo r a vote of endorsement on the motion for the civil
> > > liberties initiative.
> > > >
> > > > I am all ears awaiting your e-mail.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Getty
> > > > SF Libertarian
> > > >
> > > > Starchild wrote:
> > > > Ron,
> > > >
> > > > I personally worked to oppose Proposition H, and am a strong
> > > supporter
> > > > of the right to keep and bear arms, but that's beside the point.
> A
> > > gun
> > > > rights initiative is NOT the kind of measure that will appeal to
> > > most
> > > > people on the left. There are lots of different potential civil
> > > > liberties issues we could take on which wo uld fit the bill, but
> > > this is
> > > > not one of them. I thought you understood the point I was making
> at
> > > the
> > > > meeting today, but now I am not so sure.
> > > >
> > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > <<< Starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Everyone;
> > > > >
> > > > > At this afternoons LPSF meeting it was moved and seconded and
> > > endorsed
> > > > > to consider a three initiative program. 2 economic issues -
> > > > > the payroll tax repeal and the salary cap along with a civil
> > > libreties
> > > > > initiative. Here's one proposed civil liberties initiative.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both the Examiner and the Chronicle this week have had letters
> to
> > > the
> > > > > editor published about the SF hand gun ban and how opposed they
> > > were
> > > > > to this. Other letters have also been published in both
> > > > > newspapers since the handgun ban was passed.
> > > > >
> > > > > While the court challenge is pending we could consider a a
> repeal
> > > of
> > > > > the handgun ban as a civil liberties issue as discussed at this
> > > > > afternoons LPSF meeting.
> > > > >
> > > > > While we ourselves do not have to sponsor we certainly could
> be a
> > > > > strong co-sponsor along with the Pink Pistols and the RKBA or
> > > similar
> &g t; > > > organization.
> > > > >
> > > > > The following is a sample proposed initiative written in the
> > > language
> > > > > so near and dear to everyone whoever placed an initiative on
> the
> > > > > ballot with all the rhetorical hyberbole of the Chris Daly
> > > > > anti-handgun proposition.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > Chairman Tax Initiaitive Committee
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
>
> >
>
> SPONSORED LINKS>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> + To unsu bscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>