PRESTON TO TWIN WITH NABLUS

Creative Solutions -- Peaceful Conflict Resolution

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE

RESPECT April 5


Respect councillor 'ecstatic' at Labour conversion

Preston's Respect councillor Michael Lavalette claimed he was 'ecstatic' at the news that Labour councillors in the town were discussing a motion to twin Preston with Nablus.

Cllr Lavalette led the twining proposal in October 2003 and at the time 13 Labour group members voted for the proposal. But now the Labour group will discuss a very similar proposal at their group meeting this Tuesday (6 April). If the group agrees they will present the proposal to council on 29 April.

Cllr Lavalette said: "This is great news. We are very pleased that the Labour group are debating whether to take a twinning motion to council. The motion is very similar to the one we debated before -- but with Labour group support it should go through. It will be a great victory for the twinning campaign if that happens.

I'm a bit disappointed that the Labour group have not talked to anyone in the twinning campaign -- and that they did not come to our cultural evening and educational display that was held in Noor Hall last Wednesday. But all converts to the Palestinian cause are welcome.

I'm sure some will say that Labour are worried about the local elections and their failure to fully support twinning before. But I think its great that they are coming on-board our campaign."

Mukhtar Master from Preston Stop the War and a leading campaigner for twinning said:

"We understand that John Collins, Labour group leader will propose the motion. At the end of last year he said this was mere 'gesture politics' but we are glad we have convinced him otherwise."


*******************************************************************

For newsdesk:

1. the origin twinning motion
2. The Labour group proposal
3. contact details


1. The original twinning proposal:

"We call on the council to undertake immediate steps to twin Preston with the city of Nablus on the Palestinian west bank"

2. The proposed motion from Labour:

' This council recognises the plight of the Palestinian people after over 35
years of illegal occupation by Israeli forces despite UN resolution and
international law. This council pledges itself:

1) To twin with Nablus without recourse to funding from Preston City Council
Tax payers.

2) To seek to use its powers to work with people of all faiths and to set up a
charity that will fund twinning with Nablus and provide humanitarian relief for
people of all faiths in Nablus, whether Christian, Muslem or Jew.

3) To look at how Preston City Council can use facilities that educate
Prestonians about the plight of people in the Occupied territories.

3. Contact details:

Cllr Michael Lavalette 07739729214

Sufia Makkan (Twinning campaign press officer) 07967094191

Mukhtar Master (Chair Preston Stop the War) 07956100786


--
i'n'i - Investigating the 'new' imperialism +44(0)7732-836-093
http://www.williambowles.info
"Always appear what you are" - Mary Wollstonecraft
  ¶ 4/05/2004 02:05:00 PM

  *Ø* Blogmanac April 1, 2004 | George W Bush's change of heart: plans Peace 'Imaginatorium'

A Blogmanac exclusive: full text of speech that rocked the world

US President stuns world: "We must find alternatives to war"

2004 The plenary session of the Fiji Summit was attended by 4,700 delegates who enjoyed the brilliant fireworks display put on for the occasion by the people of Jordan. After a moving rendition of Peace on Earth by several hundred international stars from the music world, to which the thousands of delegates sang along, President Bush's inspired television address to the world [excerpts below] was watched by the delegates and an estimated world audience of four billion people.

At the invitation of US President George W Bush, representatives of 190 countries had met in the South Pacific nation of Fiji for the inaugurall Global Peace Imagination Summit. All the nations present pledged just 10 per cent of their defence budgets to fund Bush's new brainchild, the Global Peace Imaginatorium. Although the pledges are a mere fraction of national war chests, the resulting peace foundation is already bigger than any one institutional, business or national entity in the world. Pundits said that its very size will help protect it from pressures from the enormous world armaments industry.

Washington sources say that the purpose of the multi-trillion dollar institute will be to solicit from citizens of the world ideas for alternatives to war in cases in which conflicts arise. Suggestions, whether from professional conflict resolution practitioners, diplomats, academics, or ordinary citizens, are to be rewarded with cash disbursements. Every suggestion will be rewarded, and is then eligible for entry to higher levels of reward according to the judgement of panels of democratically elected representatives from all nations.

President Bush stunned the world with his televised address to the world, for which his government had set aside 25 billion dollars of armaments purchase money to promote, so scarcely a man, woman or child in the world did not know about the Summit nor Mr Bush's speech. His opening remarks brought gales of laughter from the floor of the Summit. "I know a lot of people in the media think I'm nuts. Maybe you think I'm nuts," he said with a grin.

"Some members of my White House inner circle think I'm a bit nuts, too. Especially now.

"But ladies and gentleman, I don't think I've ever been so sane in my life! [Applause] The human race has chosen war as a means of settling disputes for thousands of years, and it's time is over. It not only hasn't solved anything, but its consequences have gotten far worse. It's over. Finis. Kaput!

"A hundred years ago," he told the now silent crowd, "when armies collided in battle, about 10 per cent of the casualties were civilian and 90 per cent were combatants. Today, it's the other way round. The whole nature of warfare has changed, and no longer can we believe that the people who die or get burned and maimed in battle might in some way have to accept responsibility for their own actions. Today, the innocent are the main victims. Not only that, but our generals now sit in comfortable air-conditioned offices, nowhere near the field of battle, and make decisions on the deployment of weapons whose unspeakably tragic consequences they will never see, and that our grandparents could never have conceived of – weapons that can level vast areas of civilisation in one moment. We know in our hearts the difference between right and wrong, and this is wrong gentlmen, this is wrong.

"My friends," President Bush continued, "for a long time I myself mistakenly believed that war is all right. That it's OK. That it's 'patriotic'. I suppose it is because I had never been in one, who knows. Maybe it was just the culture I was brought up in, the movies and TV shows I watched and the books I read as a kid. Whatever the reason, like so many people, I had never really thought 'outside the square'. I saw some nation do something I didn't like, and I automatically thought of war as a solution.

"Then something big happened, ladies and gentlemen, and even now it makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. One night about ten days ago, I woke up at about 3 o'clock in the morning in a cold sweat, with some realizations running through my head – and I don't even quite know how to explain it, but somehow I knew that if we just tried to do things differently, we would actually do it. Suddenly I trusted people again. I trusted that people could solve the problems of people – and do it fast. All that what was needed was the will, a bit of money, and the encouragement of leaders. I thought, how can I even call myself a leader if I do not lead people into something new and better?

"I said to the First Lady, 'You know, I've been wrong. Almost all of us have been wrong. For thousands of years, we've all beeen wrong. And as President of the USA, I'm gonna come right out and say I was wrong. That we all have to do things differently, totally differently, from now on. No one else has as much of a chance to turn things around as me today, and I'm not going to squander this chance.' Laura looked at me a bit funny [audience laughs] but I think she knew deep down that something profound had happened to my thinking, and maybe I was right. Maybe together, human beings could do it.

"Men and women of the world, I'm here tonight to tell you I was wrong: War is not the solution!"

"Men and women of the world, I'm here tonight to tell you I was wrong: War is not the solution!" President Bush paused at this point for 90 seconds of thunderous clapping. Following several minutes more of his speech, his concluding remark, met again with sustained applause that ended in a standing ovation, were these words, heard by two-thirds of the world's population:

"Men and women of Planet Earth: We can do this. We can put people on the moon, we can build the Internet, we can spend trillions and trillions of dollars on frivolous and evil things. Many nations represented tonight in this auditorium, including my own, can build – have built – weapons of mass destruction that can destroy the world many times over. Yet millions of people are starving and have no access to clean water. We have to stop this now; we can't say 'it's how things should be because they always were'. Enough is enough! We have the technology to do almost anything we can imagine.

"From this night onwards, we also have the technology of this wonderful Global Peace Imaginatorium to begin to help us clear the fog from our minds. Because, ladies and gentlemen, it is only our lack of imagination, and the fog in our minds, that has kept humankind in this tragic cycle of suffering since time began. Now we will make it an honor for a human being to come up with solutions, just as we will make it a disgrace to use the old methods and to be stuck in old thinking, like I was.

"The Imaginatorium will not stop war and create a new world, but it will foment ideas on how to do this – ideas that have been lacking. Ideas that no leader has ever before thought of asking you to think up. (I don't take the credit for this. Laura says it was the pizza I ate before going to bed.) [Laughter]

"My friends of all nations, all creeds and all races: now, having realized my own past errors of thought, I ask you to join with me to eradicate what is obsolete from our minds. Because it all comes from our minds. I know that now. As John Lennon and Yoko Ono put it so well way back when, "War is over. If you want it."

[Standing ovation]
  ¶ 4/01/2004 04:12:00 AM

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Eric A. Smith
Hot Damn! Design
81-03-3959-5371
snowdog@juno.ocn.ne.jp

(Please distribute widely.)



An Emergency Call-to-Arms:
A Five-Step Battle Plan for YOUR Future


This is a call to arms to you -- as an American and a custodian of your nation's future. Please act as if your life depends on it -- it well might.

We have been led down a dark, perilous road.

The journey has touched us all, from mothers and fathers burying children in a war over nonexistent WMD, to firefighters and policemen promised vital funds only to be cheated and asked to work for free. Millions of Americans have been cut loose as corporations exploit foreign workers on the cheap and CEOs gorge themselves on riches unprecedented in history. While Americans take second and even third jobs just feed their families, the Bush Administration has poured America's wealth into the greedy hands of defense contractors and tax-dodging megacorporations, notorious companies like (#1 Bush donator Kenneth Lay's) Enron or Cheney's wartime ripoff-artists at Halliburton.

Our environment, safety, economy, national security, labor protection and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights have all been gutted and left to die in a worker-hostile economy.

NOW WE FIGHT BACK.

Here's what we're facing:

This November, the Bush election machine has more than three times the spending power of its opponents(1)

And they are fighting dirty, just as they did in 2000, when they purged Florida voter rolls(2), rioted to stop recounts(3), barred citizens from voting (ibid) and even threatened the Vice President and his family on their front lawn (4).

This year, through gerrymandering, data theft from Congressional computers, impeachments and recess judicial appointments, they are trying to consolidate their unprecedented power. And they have a special election-season surprise in store for us as well -- as the AFL-CIO argued before the Supreme Court last December(5), the Bushites have MADE IT A CRIME FOR THIRD PARTIES TO CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT OR SAY THINGS TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION during the election's most critical phase:

"This blackout will become national in scope on July 31, 30 days before the August 30-September 2 Republican National Convention . . . and it will then continue without interruption throughout the remaining 60 days until the November 2 election. Thus, from July 31, 2004 until the election, it will be a crime for a union, corporation, or incorporated non-profit organization to pay to broadcast any 'reference' to the President by 'name,' 'photograph,' 'drawing' or other 'unambiguous' means anywhere in the United States." (6) [Emphasis added. -v]

They are ruthless, and will not concede victory without a vicious fight. Expect the outlawing of gay marriage to "divide and conquer", marginalize opponents and consolidate support from the religious right, a base estimated to be 30 million strong (7). Expect Ralph Nader to syphon off votes yet again. Expect the Supreme Court to halt recounts again. Expect a "surprise" discovery of WMD even after Blix, David Kay and Iraq's scientists saying they were all destroyed. (8) Expect the "suprise" capture or "destruction" of Bin Laden conveniently close to the election (9). Expect lots of scary terrorism warnings and perhaps even an attack. (10) General Tommy Franks has even suggested a second 9-11-scale attack will lead to martial law in America (11). [Emphasis added. -v]

None of this should deter you; remember it was the same group (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Baker, Bush Sr., Perle, etc.) that armed and funded Hussein and Bin Laden in the first place. The blood of our dead is therefore on their hands. [Emphasis added. -v]

We must not underestimate the ruthlessness of those willing to start an international war based on known and transparent lies -- virtually against the will of the entire planet. Make no mistake; they are willing to throw away American lives in their quest for global dominion. And if you rise up and oppose them, you may be bullied, harassed and threatened, perhaps even by the FBI.(12) YOU MUST NOT LET THIS DETER YOU. WE MUST NOT BE BULLIED INTO LETTING THEM SEIZE POWER AGAIN! [Emphasis added. -v]

For example, from the NY Times: "When a Times editorial writer dropped in on one Palm Beach precinct where there were reports of malfunctioning machines, county officials called the police to remove him."(ibid)

And here we come to the deep, dark heart of the matter: [Emphasis added. -v]

This year 28% of the vote (and counting) will be tallied on electronic voting machines or scanners, which have been repeatedly hacked and can be used to fix an election -- all without a trace. Below you'll find a link to the diagrammed, step-by-step report of how e-vote activist Bev Harris hacked one(13). If you think this is exaggeration, please follow the links listed below, where everything has been well-documented and by the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS, the BBC, etc. (14)

Once paperless, effortlessly hackable (10) voting machines have been installed, the situation will be PERMANENT -- we will never know or be able to prove if an election has been stolen. And if it HAS -- those who have stolen it CAN NEVER BE VOTED OUT. And without the fear of voter reprisal, whoever takes advantage of such a situation could do literally anything they wanted and NEVER LOSE POWER. It will mean the end of Democracy. And if you work for an activist group, it will certainly mean the end of your organization.

We have less than six months to prepare to fight the biggest power grab in human history.

Do your part.

Help save America.

There will not be a second chance.


A 5-STEP BATTLE PLAN:

I. LOBBYING (20 minutes approximately)
Tell your representatives to support Bills H.R. 2239 and ESPECIALLY 1980 (14)

Online e-petitions:
http://www.mediafordemocracy.us/campaign/evote
http://www.truemajority.org/actionregister/
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2821
http://www.verifiedvoting.org
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/petition.cfm?itemid=14993
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/348035553?ts=1079111375&sign[partner_userID]=304336170&sign[memberID]=304336170&sign[partnerID]=1
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cleanvote.html

Congress http://www.senate.gov/
Toll free: 1-800-839-5276
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/State elections boards
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID29/47.html

State Attorneys General
http://www.naag.org/ag/full_ag_table.php

State Election Officials
http://www.nased.org/ Members, Natl. Assoc. of County Recorders, Election

Officials and Clerks
http://www.nacrc.org/leadership/st_coord.htm

Penelope Bonsall, national director of the Office of Election Administration
Office of Election Administration
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
vss@fec.gov
(202) 694-1095 (phone)
(202) 219-8500 (fax)


II. MEDIA BLITZ (one to three hours approximately)
Write a letter and email or fax it to Radio and TV stations, newspapers and magazines in your area:
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/News/
http://newslink.org
http://www.cantufind.com/american_newspapers.htm
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Talk_Radio/Networks/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Talk_Radio/Stations/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Networks/Cable/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Networks/
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Broadcasting/Information/

National Media Contacts:
CBS Evening News
212-975-3691
evening@cbsnews.com
NBC Nightly News
212-664-4971
nightly@nbc.com
Peter Jennings : ABC World News Tonight
Tel : (212) 456-4025, Fax : (212) 456-2381
PeterJennings@abcnews.com
Washington Post :
abramowitz@washpost.com, colemanm@washpost.com,
letters@washpost.com, hadarm@washpost.com,
kingc@washpost.com, milbankd@washpost.com,

New York Times:
nytnews@nytimes.com, oped@nytimes.com,
president@nytimes.com, publisher@nytimes.com,
society@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com,
web-editor@nytimes.com, letters@nytimes.com

USA Today: editor@usatoday.com
Houston Chronicle: viewpoints@chron.com
San Francisco Chronicle: letters@sfchronicle.com
Los Angeles Times: letters@latimes.com
Chicago Tribune: ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com
Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
Newsday: letters@newsday.com
New York Daily News: voicers@edit.nydailynews.com

CNN HeadLine News executives :
cameron.baird@turner.com, dave.willis@turner.com,
bill.schneider@turner.com ,
james.broyles@turner.com, jason.evans@turner.com,
lou.dobbs@turner.com, moneyline@cnnfn.com,
kathy.slobogin@turner.com, paul.varian@turner.com,
judy.fortin@turner.com, bill.galvin@turner.com,
susan.jalali@turner.com, kurt.kasting@turner.com,
tim.mallon@turner.com, wade.mckinney@turner.com,
jerry.mihoch@turner.com, stephanie.minter@turner.com,
dennis.newman@turner.com, alan.schrack@turner.com,
rolando.santos@turner.com, steve.shusman@turner.com,
jennifer.c.thomas@turner.com

USA Today :
editor@usatoday.com, fanklam@usatoday.com,
jbacon@usatoday.com lbranson@usatoday.com,
dcolton@usatoday.com

Los Angeles Times :
dean.baquet@latimes.com, op-ed@latimes.com,
john.carroll@latimes.com, janet.clayton@latimes.com,
letters@latimes.com, latmag@latimes.com,
marjorie.miller@latimes.com, john.puerner@latimes.com,
james.rainey@latimes.com, bill.stall@latimes.com

REUTERS :
michel.gelbart@reuters.com, eddie.evans@reuters.com,
editor.reuters@reuters.com, daniel.grebler@reuters.com,
stephen.jukes@reuters.com, reshma.kapadia@reuters.com,
andrew.mitchell@reuters.com, dick.satran@reuters.com,
david.schlesinger@reuters.com, eddie.evans@reuters.com,
washington.daybook.newsroom@reuters.com,
miami.newsroom@reuters.com, michel.gelbart@reuters.com,
boston.newsroom@reuters.com, toronto.newsroom@reuters.com,
mexicocity.newsroom@reuters.com

Associated Press:
info@ap.org, msilverman@ap.org,
gjohnson@ap.org, hjung@ap.org,
tkorte@ap.org, sthomsen@ap.org,
etompson@ap.org, ntrott@ap.org,
rtanner@ap.org, mtighe@ap.org,
kathleen.carroll@ap.org, dcrary@ap.org,
adinnocenzio@ap.org, jaffleck@ap.org,
mfeldman@ap.org, paula.froke@ap.org,
tfuentez@ap.org, kgazlay@ap.org,
chanley@ap.org, bharpaz@ap.org,
lheinzerling@ap.org, rherschaft@ap.org,
hitalie@ap.org, sjacobsen@ap.org,
ajesdanun@ap.org, tkent@ap.org


III. WITNESS E-VOTE EVALUATIONS (one afternoon)
Ask your elections board (about any e-voting purchase evaluations meetings to be held in your district. As a member of the voting public, it is your legal right to attend as a witness, although, out of convenience, they may try to avoid giving you the information. Insist on your rights.

If you do attend as a witness, you may well be a victim of intimidation tactics. Insist on voter-verified paper ballots. Bev Harris has written comprehensive answers to arguments you will hear. DO NOT BACK DOWN OR BE INTIMIDATED BY CIVIL SERVANTS -- they are your EMPLOYEES, paid by YOUR TAXES:

From Bev Harris, http://www.BlackBoxVoting.Org

Assertion: "Upgrading the printer already in the (Diebold) machine costs money"
Fact: Diebold has stated in writing that their pre-installed internal printers are sufficient to generate a voter-verified paper trail.

Assertion: "The paper is very expensive"
Fact: Thermal paper is the cheapest made, and with an estimated maximmum of 300 people voting at each touch screen a LARGE precinct may have seven touch screens, but many have just two or three, it might cost $15 per precinct to print those ballots.

Assertion: "The paper won't last"
Fact: If the report to be provided by the machine will last the required amount of time, the ballots will too, if printed on the same paper. The printer is there to report totals at the polling place.

Assertion: "The machines will jam"
Fact: The printer is similar to models used in supermarkets and WalMart. Remember: the total number of transactions will be about 300. Do supermarket and WalMart printers jam every 15 sales? No. They process thousands of printouts without jamming.

Assertion: "The ink will run out"
Fact: There is no ink in a thermal printer

Question: "If a paper ballot record doesn't match a machine record, which is the legal vote?"
Fact: The voter-verified paper must trump the machine unless a mechanical defect or fraud is shown, because it is a physical record seen and verified by thousands of individual voters, whereas the machine is bits and bytes that can be changed by a single technician!

Assertion: "Paper ballot systems have been tampered with"
Fact: Yes, and machines have been frequently wrong as well. Do not allow sidetracking of the discussion or assertions that you are "against electronic voting" -- no, we want them to put paper in a printer and use it for auditing.

Assertion: "Officials won't know what to do with paper ballots and new laws must be written."
Fact: Laws and procedures set up for optical scans are applicable.

Assertion: "A paper trail will only lead to demands for more complicated and stringent auditing"
Fact: Yes, it will. We're asking for that anyway, with optical scanning. It is still cheap and efficient compared to many of the changes currently being implemented to accommodate the sales of more touchscreen machines.

Question: "Why use machines at all if you're demanding paper ballots?"
Fact: Voting machines are helpful for the visually impaired

Assertion: "Paper ballots prevent the visually impaired from voting"
Facts: Wheelchair-assisted voters can use a touch screen with the same efficiency whether or not there is a paper printout, and the visually-impaired can be provided with headphones for these machines. Nor does a paper printout hinder their ability to vote.

Alternatives DO exist to those Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S machines which are operated by heavily partisan CEOs and are designed to operate WITHOUT a paper trail. Those Diebold types' code and components are not allowed to be examined.

Avante Systems has a machine that shows a printout through a glass screen. After the voter confirms it is correct, the paper ballot is dropped into a storage box so it can be checked against the machine totals and the AccuPoll system has a scanner that can pass over the printed ballot to verify votes.

Sequioa machines can be attached to normal printers. If your group has some at its disposal, by all means, bring them.

Alternative, secure e-voting machines you can suggest to your elections officials:
http://www.accupoll.com/
http://www.aitechnology.com/avantetech/home.html


IV. VOLUNTEER ELECTIONS MONITORING (three days approximately, including preliminary training)
Vootewatch is organizing election monitor volunteers here:
http://www.votewatch.us/forum/register.php?

Bev Harris has outlined a point-by-point strategy on specifically what to look for when monitoring electronic voting machines. It is also recommended that you either download her free e-book "Black Box Voting", or better yet, purchase it here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org


CITIZEN WATCHDOGS:

What to look for and report -- Let's get good at this before November!

Optical-scan systems and absentee ballots:

We have information that all systems recognize carbon-containing marks (soft lead pencil). Some DO NOT recognize all inks. You may want to bring a soft lead pencil to the polling place with you to mark your optical-scan ballots.

All Diebold counties (AccuVote and AccuTouch are Diebold brands) -- Demand that the poll workers print a report and post a copy at the polling place at the end of the day, whether they are required to or not. All Diebold machines, both touch-screen and optical-scan, contain internal printers and have the ability to print a polling place results report. This takes 60 seconds and costs nothing, and is an important check and balance to compare with the county results from the GEMS system, which we believe to contain security flaws. Votes should not change from the polling place to the county.

Report any instance of mismatched polling place/county tabulations here. Do NOT accept the excuse that they won't match because early votes, absentee, provisional, or challenge votes were added into the polling place totals. That is called "co-mingling" the data and is not an acceptable record-keeping practice. Additional categories of votes must be accounted for as separate line items.

Sequoia touch-screens do not have an internal printer. A printer can easily be hooked up with a serial port. If you see printers, demand a polling place report.

Watch for any "wandering vote tallies" on election night, especially if any votes go DOWN. (Yes, this has been known to happen).

Late poll openings: Report these immediately and we'll try to get cameras there. This is a form of vote suppression, often occurring in minority areas.

Late vote results: Report late incoming tallies. These can be indicative of the county trying to resolve voting machine anomalies before filing reports.

Observe how many cords come in and out of the voting machines. Report any evidence of networking the machines together. Report any time you see more than a simple power cord plugged in while the election is in progress.

Wardrive election sites. See if you can pick up wireless signals either during or after the election. Wireless communication is not permitted. Also, report any use of cell phones for vote transfers, which is also not permitted.

Election workers: Report the procedures used for training if they seem insecure. For example, we have already had reports that in Georgia, some poll workers were told to take voting machines home after training; Georgia flag artwork was uploaded right before the election; and other unwise and insecure procedures were followed.

Go visit the polling place at the end of the day and see how secure it is. We had reports recently of machines left in the polling place unattended.

Felony watch: In some states, IT IS A FELONY for technicians who are not sworn elections officials to touch the vote database in any way, shape or form after votes have been cast. In fact, if you look at Chapter 13 of Black Box Voting, the San Luis Obispo incident was probably illegal (Diebold tech Sophia Lee was tied to a live vote database that appeared on the Internet five hours before the polls closed).

Watch for statistical anomalies. Look at everything. Time is of the essence, as these analyses take some time and there are only a few days before the election is certified.


V. LEGAL CHALLENGES (indeterminate)

Author Lynn Landes has questioned the constitutionality of voting machines.
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachinesUnconstitutional.htm

If your organization has the wherewithal to raise a legal challenge on these (or other grounds) here are some resources below:

Election campaign and civil rights lawyers listed for every city:
http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/practice/Election%20Campaign%20&%20Political%20Law
http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/practice/Civil%20Rights

Institute for Justice:
http://www.ij.org/index.shtml

Center for Indiviual Rights:
http://www.cir-usa.org/intake.html

Class actions:
http://www.bigclassaction.com/civil_rights.html

Southeastern Legal Foundation:
http://southeasternlegal.org/

Electronic Frontier Foundation attorneys:
gwen@eff.org
jason@eff.org
owlswan@eff.org
wendy@eff.org
tien@eff.org
fred@eff.org

Other challenges:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/local_news_04d49255058760a400d8.html
http://www.electionguardians.org/actions.htm
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/dieboldlawsuit.pdf

Pax Christi is also organizing an international group of elections monitors. More information here:
http://www.paxchristiusa.org/news_events_more.asp?id=887


REFERENCES

1 (GOP:$115,667,827 ; Dems:$44,175,502).
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp

2. Greg Palast, Harper's Magazine "The Great Florida Ex-Con Game"
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2

3 a."Unprecedented" -- internet preview of the film
http://www.unprecedented.org/UnprecedentedPreview.htm

3 b. Lynn Landes: "Mission Impossible -- Federal Observers & Voting Machines"
http://www.ecotalk.org/FederalObservers.htm

4. Barabara Walters interview "The Note":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/791744/posts

5.McConnell vs the Federal Election Commission
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1637/

6. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/hentoff.php

7. "Bush Assures Evangelicals of Commitment to Marriage Amendment"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/politics/12EVAN.html?pagewanted=print&position

8a. Online Journal: "Wag the Osama"
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/031004Burns/031004burns.html

8b.NewsNet5: "Ridge Sidesteps Question On Bin Laden's Capture"
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2917298/detail.html

9. U.S. Unloading WMD in Iraq
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=3/13/2004&Cat=4&Num=011

10. Aljazeera.net: "Purported Al Qaida Statement"
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CDD53D6-7AF7-40C7-AF88-32A16072F81B.htm

11. NewsMax: "Tommy Franks: 'Martial Law Will Replace Constitution After Next Terror Attack'"
http://infowars.com/print/ps/franks_martial.htm

12. The New McCarthyism, the Progressive:
http://www.progressive.org/0901/roth0102.html

NY Times: "Florida as the next Florida"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/opinion/14SUN1.html

13. Scoop: "Inside a US Election Vote Counting Program"
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

14a. NY Times: "Hack the Vote"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120303A.shtml

b. CBS: "Electronic Voting Causing Concern"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/03/eveningnews/main591185.shtml

c. UK Independent: "All the President's Votes?"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm

d. Salon: "Will the Election be Hacked?"
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/02/09/voting_machines/index_np.html

e. BBC: "Concerns over US Computer Voting"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3489877.stm

f. ABC News: "Avoiding Another Florida Fiasco"
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/SciTech/Voting_machines_040305-1.html

g. "Comparison of Senate Bills 1980, 1986, and 2045"
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/senate_bill_comparison.asp


You are encouraged to distribute this document freely and widely.



Contact: Eric A. Smith, Hot Damn! Design, Tokyo, Japan ?? 81-03-3959-5371

_______________________________________________
TrueVoteList mailing list
TrueVoteList@mail.truevotemd.org
https://lists.truevotemd.org/mailman/listinfo/truevotelist
  ¶ 3/27/2004 06:46:00 AM

  INTRODUCTION TO "CULTIVATING A CONSCIOUSNESS OF PEACE"


Peaceful Conflict Resolution

I'm in the United States so I have to start here. We're in a mess. We're cultivating a consciousness of war. In every way imaginable, people are encouraged to compete, to make enemies, to do battle, to declare "war" on everything that bothers them. Tiny children, just learning to talk, know how to stake their claims and fight for their rights.

Oh, sure, folks give lip service to The Prince of Peace on Sunday mornings, then high-tail it to the stadium or the big-screen TV so they can declare war on the enemy sports team. God forbid they should encounter someone wearing "the enemy's" colors! Death to the infidel!

This is the attitude, nurtured for decades, that has resulted in half the population applauding the disgusting behavior of its president in international affairs. Peace has become the option of last resort. Where were the peace talks with Iraq prior to the attack and occupation a year ago? Diplomacy wasn't even considered.

As far as our government goes, I'm very much interested in lobbying for Dennis Kucinich's Department of Peace Bill. What follows is an introduction to what I hope will be adopted should we succeed in booting Bush. [Scroll below intended text if you prefer not to read it. -v]

As we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, it is time to free ourselves, to jettison our illusions and fears and transform age-old challenges with new thinking. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. Can we move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all war?

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make non-violence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values.

Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'. Thus it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.

The Department of Peace will also address human development and the unique concerns of women and children. It will envision and seek to implement plans for peace education, not simply as a course of study, but as a template for all pursuits of knowledge within formal educational settings.

Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children from fear, from harm, from destruction.

Congressman Kucinich is the 2003 recipient of the International Gandhi Peace Prize. Former recipients include Eleanor Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, A.J. Muste, Dr. Linus Pauling, Dorothy Day, Sen. Wayne Morse and Marian Wright Edelman. See website.

"Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me."

Where do we start in overcoming ages-old habits of lashing out with violence or hateful language when anger rages? Haw do we overcome the fear of which anger is merely a manifestation? I believe that there are only two emotions: LOVE and FEAR. Whatever doesn't come from love comes from fear. That means that anger and jealousy are manifestations of fear. There's fear of loss, fear of humiliation, fear of failure, fear of success, and all the various ways all of these may manifest. Parents who are fearful pass their fear along to their children. Children who carry constant fear within them often act out with violent action or hate-filled language. It may take only one outburst to label a child as a troublemaker and, being treated as one, he'll continue to act out as one. The pattern will escalate.

I remember a time in the seventies when classes in peaceful conflict resolution were recommended for all grade levels (in certain school districts) and I thought a great day had come, indeed. That all faded away and seems now as if it never happened! Instituting a government cabinet-level department might help get some interest back on the agenda, but what else, in the meantime, can WE do, to increase interest?

There's a lot of interest now in the financial losses caused by disease caused by cigarette smoking and obesity. What about quantifying time lost from work or school due to injury caused by fighting or shooting or stabbing? Faced with a dollar amount in cost, school systems and employers might consider training programs in martial arts or meditation to help eliminate stress.


  ¶ 3/11/2004 04:01:00 PM

  I CANNOT TELL A LIE . . .

. . . as far as solutions to problems go, I'm having difficulty concentrating on anything other than the U. S. presidential election in November and U. S. foreign and domestic policies. Considering that solutions to any problems we might come up with will necessarily take at least a year to work into a "marketable" (read: shareable) form, I must concentrate on booting Bush! This in itself will solve so many problems for the world that I feel divided energy at this time would be wasted!

That being said, while I'll try not to make it too much of a habit (as difficult as that will be) I share here in its entirety Stephen Dinan's latest idea as "another way of looking at" the campaign as it is today.


CPR for the Democratic Party
by Stephen Dinan
stephen@radicalspirit.org

Howard Dean, it is said, put the spine back in the Democratic Party. The question is whether that is the only body part that ails it. A year ago, the Democratic Party was like a zombie, staggering along, mostly obedient to Bush's demands for war, curtailing of civil rights, military buildup, and the siphoning of resources towards the elite. Activists and progressives watched in disgust, believing that the two-party system was further collapsing into a one-party system.

The loss of the 2000 election to Bush was blamed on many things. Ralph Nader and his supporters provided a convenient scapegoat. Election deceptions in Florida provided another. However, both of these were symptoms of a deeper issue: the Democratic Party was starting to feel hollow to many people. It was lacking passion -- the red-blooded vigor of activists and the boldness to lead into the future. It had started to cozy up with the corporate and power elite, leading its moral compass to spin without a clear direction. It had gone soft.

This year's Democratic primary season has begun a resurrection of the Democratic Party. The first stage involved finding again the backbone to stand up to injustice, corruption, and deception. Howard Dean's campaign surged precisely because it put some activist attitude and plain-speaking vigor back in the party, especially around the Iraq war. Demoralized party members began to believe again in their power to triumph against the Bush administration. The Democratic Party stood up straight again rather than slouching. Howard Dean deserves kudos for this.

For a full resurrection of the party, though, more than a spine is needed. Another key ailing body part is the heart.

The heart of the Democratic Party has been on life support for some time. When I say heart, I mean authentic compassion, courage, and a deep sense of our connection as human beings. All of these have been waning. There has been a sense among working class folk that the Democratic Party has cared less about their issues or concerns, except when it came time to getting their vote. There hasn't been the same level of heartfelt compassion for those who are oppressed, discriminated against, or marginalized. Compassion for those in other countries has been similarly weakened. Finally, the deep sense of caring for the earth and all its species has diminished, leading to more tepid stands on the environment. There have been beacons of hope, such as the late Senator Paul Wellstone, but the sense of heartfelt care has palpably diminished in the party.

Another quality of the heart is courage. The word "courage" actually derives from the French and Latin words for heart. The strength of our heart is intimately linked to our ability to be bold or daring, to go against conventional opinion, to stand up for what is right, even at personal cost. The Democratic Party's behavior has been more strategic or calculating than courageous in recent years. Rarely does one say, "WOW! That politician is courageous!"

A third quality is our sense of interconnection as human beings. For most, this comes as an appreciation for the spiritual dimension of life. For others, this is the more secular vision of being linked as one planetary family. Either way, the heart touches something more profound than policies, personalities, and petty feuds. There is a sense that we are all in this together and that we have a shared purpose and destiny. For those in the United States, this also manifests in a deeper kind of patriotism, in which we are each helping our country blaze as a brighter light unto the world.

All of these qualities of the heart have been diminished in recent years in the Democratic Party. There are signs, though, that this may be changing.

One example is Mayor Gavin Newsom in San Francisco taking a stand for gay marriage in the last few weeks, opening the door to a flood of marriages and publicity. Newsom has put his reputation on the line with a bold stand against discrimination. It emerges from authentic compassion (for gays who have been discriminated against), it takes courage (to face the firestorm), and it honors human interconnection. Publicly recognizing a committed love beyond two individuals is the essence of marriage. In this way, Newsom's decision blesses the heart connection between people who have never been publicly honored for that.

This is quite beautiful and a hopeful sign that the Democratic Party might again be opening to lead forward with courage.

At the national presidential level, the heart is an especially potent ingredient in the Dennis Kucinich campaign. In Dennis, we find someone who declares himself a peace candidate and advocates for the creation of a cabinet-level department of peace. We find someone who champions the poor because he empathizes with their plight from his own upbringing. We find someone who goes beyond reform of health care to universal health care so that no one who is ill goes untreated. We find someone who champions sustainability and compassion to the degree that he is a vegan, eating no animal products. And we find someone who wears his spiritual understandings on his sleeve, unusual for the Democratic Party, which tends to keep matters of the soul separate from political discourse.

On a personal level, Dennis is a compassionate and generous man, clear that his role is to serve. In the campaign, the single most common denominator among supporters is the report that they fell in love with Dennis after hearing him speak. He speaks straight from his heart into the hearts of those listening. In particularly powerful speeches, there is a palpable sense of hearts opening in the room: tears on people's cheeks, a happy glow in their faces.

As a political leader who is running a campaign fueled by love, Dennis can bring an extraordinary gift to the party. Each presidential candidate, in a way, has brought a gift to reassemble the pieces of a more integrated, healthy, and whole Democratic Party. Dean brought spine. Dennis can bring heart.

Whether he is the nominee or not, this can be his gift to the party and to the American people. If we marginalize or dismiss his voice, the vast grass roots of people that love Dennis will feel again that their heart is not welcome in the party. We will move backwards towards the era of fragmentation, perhaps with more people splitting off again into a pending Nader candidacy. The Democratic Party needs to welcome Dennis with open arms and even celebrate his presence as a sign to his supporters that it is willing to undergo CPR and open to the virtues and qualities of the heart again. It should also look at meaningful ways that his platform can be advanced by the party.

To win the votes of the American people in the fall will take heart as well as spine. By supporting Dennis over the next four months with your votes, donations, and volunteerism, you can help to further resuscitate the party and make it an expression of love for yourself, your community, your country, and your world.

More information on the campaign.

  ¶ 2/21/2004 06:00:00 PM

  Addendum to Bush, Kerry, or World 5.0?
by Stephen Dinan
stephen@radicalspirit.org


After further reflections on my article of yesterday, I want to provide an addendum, which I would be grateful to you to circulate wherever the article is circulating (or attach this if you are sending the article). Internet forwarding can be a blessing for outreach but a problem when people think I'm a neo-fascist or, on the flip side, that I speak for the campaign or for Dennis Kucinich. Neither are true. Kucinich has stated unequivocally that he would support whatever nominee is chosen. I spoke only for myself and I now realize that I was doing some manipulating in the article that wasn't about truth but instead about my own fear. For that I apologize.

The thing which made some folks angry about my article was my suggestion that we might be better off in the longest-term view with four more years of Bush than of Kerry. They read that as me championing Bush and telling people to vote for him. I slipped over a certain line here and I see now how I was being provocative rather than just truthful. I stated the case more strongly knowing that it would provoke people, not because I thought it definitively true but because I wanted to detach people from the fixation on Kerry. In my mind, I am more worried about Kerry getting the nomination than a Bush victory because I think Bush is going to lose to whomever runs. It would be a very sad day for me to watch Kerry be sworn in instead of Kucinich, who I think can lead us to another level as a country. It would feel like a lost opportunity and I would take little pleasure in it. It would feel like a small hop rather than a leap

To be clear, I would vote for Kerry against Bush if it came to that (which I hope it won't). And it is true that I wouldn't be as impassioned about it for many of the reasons I outlined.

But here's where I got manipulative in that article. I was trying to tip the momentum towards Kucinich by undermining Kerry and playing the division card that has so wracked the Democratic party and resulted in Nader being the scapegoat for so much anger. In doing so, I was manipulating the state of heightened fear about the possibility of Bush's second term and the disasters it could bring to undermine the establishment candidate. The underpinning logic was, "Oh yeah, if you want to trot out a the same old kind of establishment candidate, then maybe I'll quit playing for the team." Which is manipulative, no matter how much other stuff I pad around it.

In reality, I'm personally not worried about Bush having a second term because I don't think it's going to happen and, if it did, I think the World 5.0 forces will be much more active, engaged, and exposing of the lies and corruption and thus catalyze a pop the next time around, just as I wrote. Whether true or not, that is my reality; I am more worried at the moment about a Kerry nomination than a Bush victory.

What I should have done in the article is be more direct and transparent about my actual goal, which was to dissolve the ABB fear-fixation. I think ABB is putting in danger the possibility of the Democratic party doing anything bold or interesting this year, when we've got an enormous opportunity.

The psychology of ABB is a form of personal disempowerment because it orients our power around the other, in this case Bush. There is no positive declaration of what we want in the world, no advocacy for what we see as true, right, and beautiful. We become so wrapped up in the oppositional stance, driven by fear, that we lose our sense of who we really are and what we believe in.

I think the ABB psychology reinforces a sense of weakness in the Democratic party rather than strengthening it. Swing voters and those who are typically unengaged are turned off by the ABB stance because it seems so negative (and it is). If anything undermines a victory this year, it will be the ABB stance, which also tends to make people more risk-averse, retreating to the center, hovering over polls, and generally being reactive, even attacking others in the party who voice alternative opinions because those are signs of division. In this way, I believe that the ABB psychology leads us to be more out of alignment with our democratic principles. I thus think it needs to be challenged in order for people to open to their deeper truth.

Nonetheless, I do have compassion for the ABB stance. For most, it comes out of personal suffering or an acute attunement to the suffering of others. And I know that there are a lot of very real people in very real pain. However, I think that when we set our compass by ABB, which is mostly what seems to be happening around John Kerry right now and the whole electability question, we undermine our very foundation and the positive, creative potential we have in us. And we could well elect someone who offers very little in the way of fundamental change.

So my article was meant to challenge the ABB worldview but I did cross over the line from speaking my truth into provocation. I have been afraid that we aren't going to make that deeper shift this time, even though we have a legitimate shot at creating World 5.0 leadership in America this year, which is what I personally really want. There is still an opportunity to make that happen but the horizons are short.

I apologize if my article tweaked you rather than provoked a better understanding, especially the parts where I went from truth into provocation.

All I really ask is for you find the truth in your heart and set your compass from there, working for the world you want to create. If Kerry is your man and gets the nomination and you feel passionate about him, then support him with everything you've got!

The thing I want us to remember, though, is that we do not yet have a Democratic nominee. We have a front-runner and 75% of America has yet to tally their vote. Before this month, people assumed it was all over and Dean was the nominee but campaigns can change quickly. We can still nominate Dennis Kucinich, not just for our country but for the new operating system for the world.


  ¶ 2/20/2004 11:27:00 PM

  Bush, Kerry, or World 5.0?
by Stephen Dinan
stephen@radicalspirit.org


As the mainstream media and voting public increasingly focus on Kerry as the man to beat Bush, I want to ask a provocative question, one whose answer is typically assumed rather than addressed.

Would a Kerry administration for the next four years ACTUALLY be better for the long-term health of our world than a Bush administration?


Many Democrats, blinded by disgust for Bush and his henchmen, proudly wear the badge of ABB -- Anyone But Bush. Their assumption is that Bush is the absolute worst president we can have and we need to rally behind whomever seems likely to defeat him.

The Bush administration has done a lot of disturbing things, from getting us involved in an expensive, deceptive, and largely unjustified war, to rolling back privacy and civil rights, to creating a secretive, corporate-ruled, debt-ridden culture in Washington, to accelerating the decline of our planetary ecosystems. America has begun seeming like an arrogant empire to many countries in the world.

All of which seems very bad. Unless it turns out not to be. The reason I say this is that the most fundamental need we have as a planet is to move our structures of power and governance to a new level, rather like installing a new operating system in a computer. We need to become world-centric rather than nation-centric. We need to build the structures of international peace, cooperation, and justice. We need to address our massive global ecological crises. I am convinced that we need an evolutionary step up rather than slight modifications. Instead of going from the World 4.0 operating system to World 4.1, we need to do a full upgrade to World 5.0. Since America dominates the planet, our government and leadership are major determinants of how quickly that shift happens.

As dangerous as the Bush administration appears, it has also been acting to galvanize and mobilize the forces that actually CAN lead us to World 5.0. The problems of the current operating system are becoming much more obvious and much more painful. This pain and frustration can drive us to create another level of planetary health for the long term. The Bush administration arrived with a World 4.0 platform and has been heading steadily downwards toward World 3.0 in such a way that the forces of World 5.0 have gotten much more active, focused, and engaged.

This can result in a slingshot effect, allowing a powerful launch in the opposite direction, all the way up to World 5.0. To use another metaphor, an addict typically needs to bottom out before getting into treatment and getting clean. Bush is helping us to bottom out as a country with the current operating system.

This brings us back to the question of whether a Bush or a Kerry administration for four years would be better for the long-term health of the planet. For me, this boils down to how quickly and effectively either administration would catalyze the emergence of World 5.0, which is the only system that can address the issues we currently face. Is it better to have four more years of World 4.0 with regressive elements of 3.0? Or do we want 4.1, with a few minor improvements to the basic operating system?

My answer, which will likely infuriate many ABB Democrats, is that we are probably better served in the long term by four more years of Bush than Kerry because I think that would build the passionate, revolutionary fire necessary to make the great leap.

The reason is this: Kerry speaks the language of change but he doesn't have the track record of a change agent. He's only passed seven bills in his time in the Senate, if one Internet source can be trusted, and four of those were largely symbolic. He has voted for key parts of the Bush program -- the Iraq war and Patriot Act for example -- and is committed to continuing the war and even increasing the size of our army. He has taken more special interest money in the last fifteen years than any other Senator. He is one of the wealthiest members of Congress via marriage. A man who can pay cash for a $750K speedboat is going to be a bit out of touch with the needs of the working class. If we dig deeper, it turns out he's even a member of the same secret society as Bush, the Skull and Bones society of Yale. Finally, he's getting heavy financial backing from the executive levels of various media conglomerates.

In short, he is a World 4.1 politician -- an establishment insider who is positioning himself as enough of a populist and "winner" to get the nomination. And it appears to be working.

My honest read is that if we elect Kerry as our president, he will do a mediocre job and more or less perpetuate the status quo. Given party power dynamics, though, he would still be running in 2008 as the incumbent. The Democratic party machine would not seriously entertain another contender. And then we would have two options: four more years of World 4.1 or a swing back to World 4.0 with a new Republican challenger. It would be 2012 and possibly 2016 at the earliest before we would have another chance for a president of the United States who is leading us to World 5.0.

I don't know about you, but that seems like a long time to wait if you are committed to creating World 5.0 and aware of the pain and suffering caused by the current operating system.

One alternative, then, is four more years of Bush. If we can get past our visceral reactions to the man and examine this through the lens of shifting to World 5.0, Bush is actually a great catalyst -- the last hurrah of a declining paradigm, the ultimate foe for the forces of 5.0 to triumph over. He's almost a caricature of the last worldview. There's every reason to bet that if he's in office for another four years, we'll have a great revolutionary leap to authentic World 5.0 leadership for America rather than a compromise formation of World 4.1. Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.

I probably won't be able to bring myself to vote for Bush this fall, if for no other reason than I would feel guilty admitting it. But in a funny way I'd be cheering for him if Kerry ends up with the nomination. I want to live in the World 5.0 system as soon as possible and I think Kerry would actually decelerate that process rather than help it. I feel similarly about Dean and Edwards: both talk the talk of change but neither is really dedicated to the fundamental shifts necessary to launch World 5.0. Dean and Edwards are World 4.1 or 4.2, although both have worked rhetorical magic with their followers to give the impression that they are true agents of change.

There is, of course, one other option, which is what I've been putting all my energy into for the last six months: nominate Dennis Kucinich. I believe he's the leader we need for the new operating system. On all fronts, he is a champion for World 5.0 and he's got the specific platforms, experience, intelligence, and heart to pull it off.

The main problem has been a psychological one. Democrats have been so entranced by the ABB rhetoric and so afraid of Bush's war chest that even the most progressive factions have been stuck thinking we can't have 5.0 this round. We need to settle for someone who can beat Bush, they say, which means sticking as close to 4.0 as possible with a few phrases about change thrown in to appease the progressive wing of the party.

The problem with this logic is that anyone who is authentically, legitimately, and actively working for the emergence of 5.0 is going to run out of steam working for a candidate that is 4.1 or 4.2. They will get bored and lose interest. The youth won't get animated. The non-voting populace will grumble and return to non-participation. And the election will come down to a fight over the voting citizens who want something between 4.0 and 4.1. Those who are champions of the new operating system will be bored by the election and many will believe their time is better spent on local projects and initiatives.

I have been a passionate champion and campaigner for Dennis Kucinich and I continue to believe that we do have a window of opportunity to elect him as our president. However, that window will close in the next three weeks unless the trance is broken and the forces for World 5.0 rally fast around Dennis. I've been making peace in the last two days with the idea that if we don't have what it takes this time, we'll have a better shot at World 5.0 with four more years of Bush than with four years of World 4.1. It's grim but I think it's true.

There could, however, still be a major breakthrough of momentum. It's got to come from the youth. The gray haired change agents of the sixties aren't going to produce the breakthrough by themselves although we should honor them for continuing to carry the torch. It's people in their twenties and thirties who will have to add their rocket fuel. I also believe this burst of momentum can only effectively happen in California before the March 2nd election and that it would have to lead to a win. A second-place finish will not cut it. America only takes winners seriously and California is really the last hope for an actual win before it is too late. Without a win, Kucinich cannot build enough momentum to take the nomination from Kerry. With a win in CA, things could turn around quickly. So, we find ourselves with 18 days and long-shot hopes. But we can turn it around if the full vigor, passion, and power of the next generation of torchbearers blazes forth.

I have honestly done everything I know how to make the leap possible. It's now up to a lot of other people getting sparked and lighting wildfires everywhere they can in service to the transition to 5.0.

Otherwise, I'm going to plan for four more years of Bush and lay the groundwork for the connections, momentum, and energy to make the leap that we really need to happen in four more years. But I would accept that conclusion only with a heavy heart. We've got one last hurrah, torchbearers. Are you willing to go for it?


Information about the Kucinich campaign

  ¶ 2/20/2004 11:22:00 PM

  Almost a month to the day since I posted here! Shame on me! But that just goes to show that the political situation in the U.S. has been the biggest problem plaguing me and there's really only one solution to it -- boot Bush! Stephen Dinan has been brilliant lately by opening our minds and reminding us that there ARE different ways of looking at things! Yes, we all know that, but it's easy to forget when panic sets in -- even slight anxiety. So, relax, read on, and remember that everything happens for a reason.


EDITOR'S NOTE: I know I've promised to shorten blog entries; however, this article is so important at this moment, I couldn't justify cutting any of it, even to ask you to click on a link. This is the "must-read" of the month, for sure, and possibly of our lives. Read it a couple of times. Think about it, share it with everyone you know and read it again tomorrow. We've really got some serious thinking to do and some serious work ahead of us. -- Veralynne


Sending a Message to the Democratic Convention

By Stephen Dinan
stephen@radicalspirit.org
http://www.radicalspirit.org


For months, I have been sending out articles addressing the psychology of the Democratic campaign, attempting to shift the beliefs that people have around the electability of Dennis Kucinich. Some of these were provocative. Others were intended to inspire. But all were grounded in a fundamental challenge to the notion that Kucinich was not electable.

Today, I will write from the opposite premise, assuming that most people are right for a moment: Kucinich is not electable this year, even if we love him and what he stands for. Where do we go from there?

Let's assume that you are one of the many people who is nervous about the prospect of a second Bush term. You are now faced with a situation in which the race has narrowed to two candidates who are deemed electable: John Kerry or John Edwards. The first question you need to ask yourself is this: is there a fundamental difference in terms of electability between these two candidates?

Edwards is charming, eloquent, and smart. He's got very upbeat messaging. He has lived on both sides of the tracks and can operate smoothly in both worlds. He is effective at connecting emotionally with voters. Less experience inside the Beltway can be an asset for him as a voice for change.

Kerry has the war hero past and much of the powerful machinery from inside the beltway behind him. He's got some statesman-like gravitas and foreign policy experience, as well as a fairly presidential look. He is wealthy but also seems to connect with the concerns of the working class. He can go toe-to-toe with Bush on military matters and he seems tough in general.

A lot can shift between now and November, so I maintain that there is virtually no way to guess who would be more electable versus George W. Bush right now. Opinion polls shift quickly. Youthful charm versus seasoned experience? North versus South? Rags-to-riches success story or war heroism? It's impossible to tell. The majority of Democrats would vote for either.

Thus, if your main focus is beating Bush, voting for Edwards or Kerry in your primary isn't going to matter much. They both qualify as Anybody But Bush and both represent solidly middle-of-the-road Democratic positions.

However, there is another factor that you need to consider in this race and that is: to what extent is the Democratic party able to keep the progressive wing actively engaged? The real election-killer will be if the progressive wing loses interests, stops rallying, or starts to splinter off with a Nader candidacy. The hints of this are already rumbling around the internet, with talk of Republicrats, media conspiracies, and a single system of power in Washington that we need to fight.

In other words, if your main focus is beating Bush, the game has now shifted. Either of the two leading candidates are fine. The MAIN danger now is if the progressive wing decides that the two-party system is actually a rigged, one-party system and that the game is stacked against candidates who advocate for peace, sustainability, justice and against the Iraq war, NAFTA and corporate domination of politics. If cynicism builds, feeding on the disillusionment of Dean backers, it could cost Democrats the election. [Emphasis added. -v]

So your challenge in voting strategically now is NOT to decide between Kerry and Edwards. The challenge in voting strategically is to keep the progressive wing of the party fully engaged. This is true even if you belong to the Lieberman camp: without the more radical wing of the party, you lose the election.

The real issue now is what is the BEST strategy to keep the progressive camp actively involved in a real and meaningful way for as long as possible in this race. Kerry and Edwards, by virtue of their platforms alone, are not going to do it. Both voted to support the war, for example, which is a deal-killer for those who see the Iraq war as the main evil right now.

I maintain that the only viable strategy to keep the progressive wing of the Democratic party actively excited about this election now is to make sure that the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich becomes a much more powerful force in shaping the remainder of the race. The more powerful his candidacy by the time of the convention, the more progressives will feel they have an authentic, shaping influence on the party platform and an active role in the race. If not, they will splinter away.

Virtually all Greens and progressive Democrats love Dennis' platform but have simply been afraid to rally behind him because of the climate around electability. They have felt a split between their head and their heart. Their heart loves him, their head says, "unelectable" and therefore "dangerous." Heads have largely triumphed in this matter. However, I have good news to all the closet Kucinich-lovers: it's now safe! It's safe to vote your heart, safe to vote your conscience, safe to express your authentic views! The results have been coming in from across the country and we're approaching the point at which it is impossible for Dennis to win the nomination.

You can relax now and rally behind what you really believe in, without running the risk of jeopardizing the race. You can have fun again! In fact, if you don't do this now, you may be contributing to the loss of the progressive wing of the party and, possibly, the loss of the election.

There are some that think a vote for Dean's suspended campaign will still make a difference in terms of keeping the progressive movement engaged. I believe this is faulty logic for a number of reasons.

1.) Dean was never that progressive, especially when you look at his track record. It was precisely the combination of his perceived electability AND his anti-war stance and progressive rhetoric that got people excited. Now that he has been removed from contention, the only question is how effectively can he carry the torch of the progressive movement? The answer is "not very." I do honor him for bringing the war front-and-center and for activating the movement. But now that the movement is giving up on having an actual presidential candidate to represent it, it needs to turn to a candidate who best expresses its values and views. Instead of a president, we are now looking for a torchbearer. Dean was compelling as a potential president but much less interesting just as a torchbearer.

2.) Dean has already had his time in the spotlight. He has triggered important and substantial changes when seen as a legitimate, powerful contender. He will continue to have influence. However, in order for the progressive movement to find a more amplified voice in this election, we need a new and stronger progressive voice on the stage. Dean is no longer newsworthy. It is time to shift to the next wave of change, farther from the mainstream. That means Kucinich.

3.) The media interpretation will be that any votes for Dean are the votes of those who are simply attached to him. The votes won't be perceived as a positive statement but a negative one: folks who refuse to move on. Thus, a vote for Dean would lack any sort of a media punch.

4.) The media loves drama and positive surges. Edwards will be riding a crest of momentum and attention now because of his Wisconsin finish. If we can create that same surge of momentum around Kucinich, the media will be very excited since it will keep people much more engaged in the race (and buying more newspapers and watching more TV). Once Kucinich is in the spotlight, that means that his policies and platform will get that much more attention and thus be that much more influential in shaping the Democratic platform.

A quick note about Sharpton. I really like Sharpton: he's insightful, brave, honest, and very funny. He helps keep the voice of the non-white-male majority on the stage. However, I don't think he's the right person to rally behind as a torchbearer for a number of reasons. First, he doesn't have any actual influence in legislative processes, whereas Kucinich is co-chair of the progressive caucus in the House. Second, he doesn't have as much experience as a politician so his stances are not as well-articulated and grounded in practical politics. Third, Kucinich tends to see our potential future better, leading us towards such things as a Department of Peace, universal health care, and 20% sustainable energy by 2010.

Sharpton's campaign can also keep running by virtue of media coverage alone, even if he doesn't have the influence on the ground. Sharpton doesn't need a ground campaign. He just needs a pulpit to speak the truths he is there to speak. Kucinich, by contrast, actually has a strong grassroots support base. Until January 1st, for example, he had more people donate to his campaign, most in small amounts, than anyone but Dean. In terms of mobilizing the progressive base at a grassroots level, Kucinich's infrastructure is more valuable.


Now that Kucinich's chance of an actual nomination have shrunk to 200 to 1, according to one London betting house, Americans can look at him through the lens of being a torchbearer -- a powerful messenger to the established order. And there is no better torchbearer than Kucinich. He:

1. Led anti-war efforts in the House and has a strong motto of "U.N. in and U.S. out"

2. Challenged the Weapons of Mass Destruction evidence from the beginning

3. Advocates for Universal Health Care

4. Has a 98% voting record for unions

5. Is opposed to NAFTA and WTO and even marched in Seattle

6. Supports gay marriage fully

7. Advocates for 20% renewable energy by 2010

8. Has "no strings attached" by virtue of taking no special interest money

9. Has a proven ability to challenge corporate corruption (and even pay the price for that)

10. Is willing to call Bush a liar and expose contradictions and deceptions, much more so than any candidate besides Sharpton

11. Has a deep appreciation of the spiritual dimension of life, which brings in people who have been alienated from progressive politics.

12. Knows what it is like to grow up in poverty.

13. Is an exceptionally talented speaker who has the capacity to really "wow" people with his insights.

14. Has an uncanny ability to speak to conservatives and win them over to the Democratic party and progressive views.
In his home district, for example, which started quite Republican, he has swung momentum strongly to the Democratic party. In this way, he's a very good bridge to Reagan Democrats.

15. Has Nader's respect. Nader has said he would not run if Kucinich were to get the nomination. So long as Kucinich has a strong voice in the process, that may keep Nader out.


In short, Kucinich is the perfect torchbearer for the progressive message to be carried all the way into the convention and to keep it blazing all the way into the election. The more delegates we get him, the more influence he will have in the process. And if we can win California and perhaps a few other states, which I believe is quite possible if the Dean and Kucinich camps join forces, then we will have a significant voting block at the convention to influence the platform.

Finally, even if you are committed heart and soul to Kerry or Edwards, it is to your advantage to bolster the race of Kucinich. Why? He is willing to take on risky subject matter that might provide fodder for Rove to attack with his $200 million war chest. In other words, you can leave some of the risk and heavy lifting to Kucinich when it comes to challenging Bush on his lies. The party as a whole benefits by having this stance publicly witnessed but not necessarily seen as attached to the nominee. In fact, the more a Kerry nomination looks inevitable, the more beneficial a strong Kucinich-led movement will be to the campaign to remove Bush.

So breathe a sigh of relief! No more split loyalties. You can bring your heart and head back together and get passionate for Kucinich, knowing that this can only strengthen the effort to remove Bush from power.


Do me a favor: If you resonate with this article and decide to support the Kucinich campaign financially as a result (which is the only way we're going to win more delegates and have more influence), log your donation through my network fundraising site. This will help me be able to activate a very cool roadshow for the movement as the primaries progress (as well as maybe win me an autographed guitar. ;-))


More information on the campaign
  ¶ 2/19/2004 07:11:00 PM