Dear Derek;
This is a copy of a blog published in the NY Times today. It is by
Riverbend an Iraqi women. She has a totally different take on the
vote and Bush and Democracy and the Occupation Army.
To read more of what she has to say go to her blog for all she has
written for over the last couple of years from just before the
invasion. It will give you some insight as to what the invasion and
occupation means in everyday Iraq.
[http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/](http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/)
If the US is not an imperialitis nation why are there 150 US
military bases around the world occupied by some 300,000 US military
personnel?
The Cold War is over NATO is a hoax the Red Army will not be pouring
through the Fulda Gap with the Warsaw Pact armies why the US in
Europe? The people of North Korea are literally starved almost to
death why the occupation troops in S. Korea? the Japanes Army gave
up the fight on Okinawa 65 years ago why the heavy presence of
troops on Okinawa?
Why the Occuping Armies around the world if it is not Imperialism?
This url is for a list of the US armed militray interventions around
the world and there is not a single one of them which should have
happened. Each of them represents an act of imperialism.
[http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html](http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html)
As a Libertarian I signed the non-intervention statement upon
joining the Libertarian Party - how about you?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarina
Elections, Yes; Democracy, No
Blog name: Baghdad Burning
Blogger: Riverbend
Occupation: Former computer programmer
Location: Baghdad
Web address: riverbendblog.blogspot.com
ELECTION DAY was calm and relatively peaceful; except for people
walking to polling stations and the occasional Iraqi police patrol,
the streets were almost empty.
There was a rather large polling center set up in our area, which
made the neighbors slightly nervous, as no one was sure what to
expect, but with the exception of a few minor explosions, our part
of Baghdad was quiet. The mood at the polling center was calm and
slightly disorganized all at once.
Many Iraqis went to vote because the current situation is
intolerable. It's not so much with high hopes for drastic change
that people went to the polls as it is in the national aspiration of
putting an end to the occupation, and to the tyranny of the last
year in particular.
Candidates on the political lists have been making endless promises
in the hopes of attracting supporters, and the metaphorical carrot
many political parties have been dangling in front of potential
supporters is the promise of an end to the American-led occupation.
Will the new government be stronger or more reliable than the
several interim governments we've had? Not likely. A government
won't be respected unless it is perceived as sovereign by the
people, and occupation in itself goes against every suggestion of
sovereignty and democracy. How does one put faith in a government
that needs the use of foreign armies to keep it in power?
--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:
>
> The 30,000 killed were killed because the Bush adminstration
invaded
> Iraq under grossly false circumstances.
>
> -->DJ: I can agree to disagree about whether invading Iraq was a
good idea
> or a bad idea. I for one happen to think it was a fabulous idea,
and hope
> that the attack on Iraq was just a down payment for the purchase
of freedom
> for many millions in that entire region, including Syria, Iran,
and others.
> I understand you don't feel the same way and have similarly strong
feelings.
>
> Whether or not those
> unfortunate Iraqis were killed by American soldiers or terrorists
or
> insurgents or freedom fighters or religious wackos is immaterial.
>
> -->DJ: Many innocent colonists were killed during British
atrocities in the
> Revolutionary War, especially in the southern colonies. Should we
not have
> rebelled against the crown? Not doing so could have saved lives.
>
> I sadly have to ask you in comparison how many Iraqis were killed
> under Saddams regime by Iraqi or Arab terrorists? How about zero?
>
> -->DJ: The same number as were living in freedom - zero. Is
living in
> chains worth it? As I mentioned before, we can have peace with the
> Islamofascists right now. It only requires our surrender.
>
>
> How many children were killed under this and the previous
administrations?
> Try 500,000. Or as a US Secretary of State Madeline Albright said
in a
> recorded interview after being asked about those
> childrens deaths, "It was worth it". She actually said, "IT WAS
WORTH IT!!!
>
> -->DJ: I'm not going to defend any of Madeline Albright's
statements. I
> don't know about the number of these children's deaths. The
Baathists in
> charge sure looked well-fed and nourished to me.
>
> This is a blood thirsty warmongering GOVERNMENT in all its STATE
STATISM
> GLORY and no one among the neocon imperialistic empire building
warmongers
> gives a damn!
>
> -->DJ: bloood thirsty? imperialistic? How many countries has our
> "imperialist" government annexed in the last 100 years? None.
>
> I say Impeach Bush!
>
> -->DJ: What high crimes or misdemeanors has Bush committed? I'm
no fan of
> Bush's spendthrift and morally self-righteous ways, but I am very
thankful
> to fate that we have someone like Bush as commander in chief with
the will
> to spread freedom.
>
> How about you - do you care at all?
>
> -->DJ: Very much so. Some things are worth dying for. Freedom is
one of
> them. If I was living under one of those despots and couldn't get
out or
> effect change myself, I would be hoping for US action. Despots
are not free
> men. We should treat them as outside the law.
>
> -->DJ: I will close with these words from Iraqi citizen Betty
Diwisha:
> "Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done, and
President Bush,
> let them go to hell!" *[http://tinyurl.com/ckjgq*](http://tinyurl.com/ckjgq*)
>
>
> On 12/18/05, tradergroupe <tradergroupe@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Derek;
> >
> > The 30,000 killed were killed because the Bush adminstration
invaded
> > Iraq under grossly false circumstances. Whether or not those
> > unfortunate Iraqis were killed by American soldiers or
terrorists or
> > insurgents or freedom fighters or religious wackos is immaterial.
> >
> > I sadly have to ask you in comparison how many Iraqis were killed
> > under Saddams regime by Iraqi or Arab terrorists? How about zero?
> >
> > How many children were killed under this and the previous
> > administrations? Try 500,000. Or as a US Secretary of State
Madeline
> > Albright said in a recorded interview after being asked about
those
> > childrens deaths, "It was worth it".
> >
> > She actually said, "IT WAS WORTH IT!!!
> >
> > This is a blood thirsty warmongering GOVERNMENT in all its STATE
> > STATISM GLORY and no one among the neocon imperialistic empire
> > building warmongers gives a damn!
> >
> > I say Impeach Bush!
> >
> > How about you - do you care at all?
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen
<derekj72@g...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > How many of the 30,000 were killed by Iraqis or Arab
terrorists?
> > >
> > > On 12/18/05, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Starchild;
> > > >
> > > > A *binding* ordinance delivered to Pelosi wouldn't be a bad
> > idea - nothing
> > > > wrong with *tying her up in knots or* *roping her in* -
> > figuratively
> > > > speaking - metamorphically speaking or even otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > Does anybody know if Pelosi is into S & M? ( heh heh heh).
> > > >
> > > > Yes a very strongly worded no ifs ands or buts RESOLUTION
would
> > be nice -
> > > > it would force Pelosi to defend her total lack of
leadership -
> > much as
> > > > Commissar Clinton's I am a presidential candidate - must do
the
> > math first
> > > > - total lack of leadership on getting the USA out of Iraq and
> > stopping the
> > > > slaughter.
> > > >
> > > > Even King George II has NOW publicly acknowledged the 30,000
> > Iraqi
> > > > civilians killed.
> > > >
> > > > Just consider those dead Iraqis had brothers and sisters and
> > mothers and
> > > > fathers and grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins and
> > nieces and
> > > > nephews and friends and neighbors to begin to glimpse the
horror
> > visited on
> > > > Iraq by that Moron Bush and all the future terrorists and
> > insurgents and
> > > > freedom fighters engendered through his Neocon Imperialistic
> > American
> > > > Empire. For Empires see what happened to The Roman Empire.
> > > >
> > > > Impeach Bush!!!!! Impeach Darth Cheney!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Ron Getty
> > > > SF Libertarian
> > > >
> > > > *Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>* wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ron,
> > > >
> > > > The confusion here appears to be with the terms. When you
said
> > > > "ordinance," I assumed you meant a measure that would be
binding
> > on
> > > > Pelosi. What you're talking about now sounds like a
resolution.
> > Sure,
> > > > voters could pass a resolution telling her to introduce an
anti-
> > Iraq
> > > > funding bill with no constitutional problems. What I meant
was
> > that
> > > > they couldn't legally *require* her to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the message is already out there that Libertarians
> > tend to
> > > > be against the "war on terrorism." Of course the Bush
supporters
> > might
> > > > try to portray us as "soft on terrorism," but I think the
local
> > > > electorate realizes that you can oppose terrorism without
being
> > in
> > > > favor of a "war" against it.
> > > >
> > > > Good point about needing to wait until the dust settles in
> > Congress
> > > > over revising or extending the "PATRIOT" Act or (hopefully)
just
> > > > letting it die, before drafting any ordinance on the topic.
> > > >
> > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > <<< Starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, December 18, 2005, at 09:13 AM, Ron Getty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Starchild;
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would an ordinance from the people of San Francisco
> > telling Nancy
> > > > > Pelosi to introuduce legislation to cut off funding from
Iraq
> > be
> > > > > unconstitutional?
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember the phrase " We the people in order to ....."
> > > > >
> > > > > If "We the people" tell her to introduce such legislation
and
> > she
> > > > > doesn't then "we the people" have the right to introduce an
> > ordinance
> > > > > in that we have no confidence in her capabilities and she
> > should
> > > > > resign - post haste.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only problem with an anti-PAtriot Act ordinance of that
> > nature is
> > > > > MONEY. The SFPD like all other politically wired
communities
> > gets
> > > > > Federal Funds to fight terrorism. These funds would be cut
> > off - which
> > > > > is not a bad thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the uproar about Libertarains being against fighting
the
> > war on
> > > > > terrorism would not be a good thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > An anti-patriotic ordinance has good and bad points. Until
the
> > Senate
> > > > > comes out with whatever it will with the modified ordinance
> > which is
> > > > > currently stalled in the Senate no ordinance can be written
> > addressing
> > > > > the faults in the Patriot Act.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > SF Libertarian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Starchild wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, December 12, 2005, at 09:30 AM, Ron Getty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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 Libertarian
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Starchild wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 article
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0,1848,63702,00.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
> > > > > > article
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which 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 >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sunday, December 11, 2005, at 08:44 PM, Ron Getty
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sunday, December 11, 2005, at 08:55 AM, Ron Getty
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 >>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, December 11, 2005, at 01:04 AM, Amarcy D.
> > Berry wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > === message truncated ===
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > U s government grant<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
> >
t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=
> >
Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=
> > 114&.sig=46y6ULHvC1K7UWYyT6_nJA>
> > > > California<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
> >
t=ms&k=California&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w
> >
4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=t
> > 0WI39Ad6uCvaGD2aU9b4Q>
> > > > Activist<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
> >
t=ms&k=Activist&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=
> >
U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=4By
> > CWi03twUc71POcy8zfQ> U
> > > > s government student loan<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
> >
t=ms&k=U+s+government+student+loan&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=Califor
> >
nia&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics
> > &c=5&s=114&.sig=lunB1IXkW25giNNSjXwduA> California
> > > > politics<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
> >
t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=A
> >
ctivist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=1
> > 14&.sig=ehCbO4a23lr_0u_Q0TOlFQ>
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Visit your group "lpsf-
> > activists<[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists)>"
> > > > on the web.
> > > >
> > > > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-
activists-
> > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe<[http://unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com/?](http://unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com/?)
subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > > > Service <[http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/)>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View my blog at [http://derekj72.blogspot.com](http://derekj72.blogspot.com)
> > >
> > > Illegitimis non carborundum
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > U s government grant<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=
Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=
114&.sig=46y6ULHvC1K7UWYyT6_nJA>
> > California<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
t=ms&k=California&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w
4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=t
0WI39Ad6uCvaGD2aU9b4Q>
> > Activist<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
t=ms&k=Activist&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=
U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=4By
CWi03twUc71POcy8zfQ> U
> > s government student loan<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
t=ms&k=U+s+government+student+loan&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=Califor
nia&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics
&c=5&s=114&.sig=lunB1IXkW25giNNSjXwduA> California
> > politics<[http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?)
t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=A
ctivist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=1
14&.sig=ehCbO4a23lr_0u_Q0TOlFQ>
> > ------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > - Visit your group "lpsf-
activists<[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists)>"
> > on the web.
> >
> > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-activists-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <[http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/)>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
> --
> View my blog at [http://derekj72.blogspot.com](http://derekj72.blogspot.com)
>
> Illegitimis non carborundum
>