[Platform] the sunset proposal

Sun Jan 20 23:01:26 EST 2008

I agree, Bill, with your concern that the re-write could take another whole 
round of time that might be spent on other things.

a couple of things - all proposals are posted on the website before a 
statecom meeting - go to the statecom section, the 2006-2008 session, look for the 
date of the upcoming meeting and then click on the proposals - anyone (including 
the public) can read it there.

Also, all these positions should be vetted through the platform committee and 
those interested in our party positions should plug in there.   Recently a 
strong single payer and an anti=corporate influence global warming/peek oil 
proposals were posted to the website - neither are coming out of other parties.

Third, (not to you, Bill), can we get away from impugning people's motives?   

ask hard questions, everyone in elected leadership of any kind should get 
asked why and how as often as anyone wants to know.   And insist on an answer if 
you don't feel you are getting one but questioning motives does not move us 
closer to transparency or healthy collaborations -

Love, Grace
In a message dated 1/20/08 9:49:40 PM, etwee at earthlink.net writes:

> Of course I am as concerned as yall with the substance of the positions 
> being sunsetted.
> 
> I emphatically agree that far too little effort goes into state and local 
> programs. It's hard to find GRP press statements on state issues that could not 
> have been made by liberal democrat legislators. 
> 
> When sharp differences do emerge on state level policy, it's Darfur deja vu. 
> Remember fusion voting? the 2006 version Dog Protection Act?
> 
> Yet we aspire to run candidates for public office at all levels, who would 
> have to make national and international policy statements. It is now proposed 
> to drop all our current positions on such questions. It is promised that we 
> will revisit those issues and positions. How much energy will we devote to 
> that process?
> 
> Everyone knows that the main objective of the sunset proposal is to get rid 
> of certain policy statements without a policy discussion—in short, 
> bureaucratically. That fully explains the timing and wording of the proposal.
> 
> In the spirit of the consensus process however, it's not appropriate to 
> raise a substantive issue in response to a procedral proposal. 
> 
> I asked only for clarification — what the proposal actually says and how it 
> bears on GRP structure and process in general. This is not a trivial quesion.
> 
> I hope that someone will respond soon so that the proposal may be clearly 
> put at StateCom next weekend. Unfortunately, participation in the proposals 
> process has gone flat. Perhaps people are too busy working in their communities 
> and organizing their locals, gettin ready for the clampdown... 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu>
> >Sent: Jan 20, 2008 1:32 PM
> >To: Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net>
> >Cc: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>, platform at green-rainbow.org, 
> statecom at green-rainbow.org
> >Subject: Re: [Platform] the sunset proposal
> >
> >Unfortunately we live in the heart of an empire - with all the 
> >special obligations that entails.  I have found it quite remarkable 
> >that a concern for innocent loss of foreign life on the skirts of the 
> >empire is often a stronger concern for "selfish" Libertarians than 
> >for "idealistic" lefties.  Man does not live by bread alone.
> >That is often not understood by advocates of local organizing and 
> >local improvements over all else.
> >Fortunately the American people do understand that, and so even 
> >though only a small number of our population are affected directly by 
> >having to do battle, a grave concern remains the war(s).  And the 
> >pols and media and all the Bush propaganda cannot talk people out of 
> >that.
> >
> >BUT that is not the point of the discussion.  Simply put, do we want 
> >to be in a party where a minority sitting in an administrative body 
> >can overrule the democratically passed policies.
> >jw
> >
> >On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Yarden wrote:
> >
> >> John,
> >> I am not sure that framing the concern with policy statements as 
> >> one of democratic means vs. anti-democratic means is all that 
> >> useful, or even descriptive of the situation.
> >>
> >> A careful and accurate general description of how decisions are 
> >> made in legislative bodies with many instances of their actual 
> >> substance, and outcome, would quickly cure the illusions about 
> >> legislative decision-making held by the ideologues of parliamentary 
> >> democracy.  The utter cynicism of "Democracy is the worst form of 
> >> government, except all the others that have been tried" exhibits 
> >> the underlying "engineering of consent," common to all government 
> >> whether it has two branches, three or one.
> >>
> >> It is not likely that any group of people making policy 
> >> irresponsibly are going to come up with anything that will be 
> >> subjected to the necessary scrutiny.  This makes it a favorite 
> >> activity of neo-liberal and left discussion and protest groups.  
> >> But let us for one moment assume that I am sitting in Nepal, or 
> >> Iran, and reading the latest policy statements from the Green-
> >> Rainbow Party in Massachusetts concerning the rights of indigenous 
> >> peoples, I might well wonder about the how it is that the 
> >> ideological main stream of U. S. politics, the 'New American 
> >> Century' idea, is  so pervasive that even the American Greens are 
> >> more ready to decide what is or should be over here, than they are 
> >> ready to do something about Massachusetts.
> >>
> >> As long as we are ready to do battle with our local enemies over U. 
> >> S. policy in Iraq, Sudan, Palestine, we provide a safety net for 
> >> liberals who read the daily press, and little more.  The statements 
> >> on foreign affairs were probably outdated by the time they were 
> >> written because of the energies that were diverted from building 
> >> our awareness of the atrocities under our noses, to insuring that 
> >> our sympathies for the oppressed were correctly stated.  The 
> >> commonality of the oppression is what needs the recognition, not 
> >> the moral luxury of the guilt of the upper hand.  I see little need 
> >> for yet for discussion of foreign policy by people motivated by a 
> >> desire to assert the superiority of the morals of el Bashir to 
> >> those of the Bushes, or vice versa.  I wonder very much about what 
> >> makes you believe that we will develop the needed capabilities 
> >> without negotiating foreign policy next door.  Let's try ourselves 
> >> on the Mashpee, before we get on to Venezuela, China, or the 
> >> Eastern Sahara.
> >> Elie Yarden
> >> MRGRA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday, January 20, 2008, at 10:15  AM, John Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >>> PLEASE FORWARD.
> >>> I think that Bill raises an extremely important point.
> >>> Clearly one of the things that we wish to change is the domination of
> >>> the executive over the legislative - that is, the domination of non-
> >>> democratic means over democratic means.  Perhaps the greatest problem
> >>> with the Democrat Party is that it is not democratic. Here in MA the
> >>> state convention routinely passes policy statements, for example for
> >>> single-payer, and the leadership and pols simply ignore them.  Or
> >>> shall we say the leaders "sunset" them.
> >>> There can be no justification for the StateCom or Adcom or any other
> >>> con to "sunset" a major policy statement by the State Convention.
> >>> The only proper way is to have a vote at the state convention to get
> >>> rid of a policy statement or to pass an alternative.
> >>> At the last state convention I was impressed by the good sense of a
> >>> large majority of our activist members.  Let us stick with that.
> >>> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I believe that we had a
> >>> rewording of the Sudan policy which met with approval from all
> >>> sides.   I would suggest we return to it.
> >>> jw
> >>> p.s. I believe the underlying question here is whether there can be a
> >>> benevolent empire.  I would say no, because empire is always the
> >>> domination of one people over another.  And if we believe in
> >>> benevolent empire, we had better stop calling ourselves non-
> >>> interventionists.  Empire takes every decent impulse and employs it
> >>> for its own purposes.  Since we fought to make the world safe for
> >>> democracy and before, it was always thus.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 20, 2008, at 9:47 AM, BillCunningham wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear friends in GRP,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to draw your attention to the "Sunset Proposal" which
> >>>> the Cochairs have made to the January 27 StateCom meeting. I have
> >>>> just posted the following response to that proposal.
> >>>>
> >>>> This proposal refers to "party statements of policy." But it does
> >>>> not define that term. The GRP website contains a list of documents,
> >>>> on the main page and the "read more" page. Not every document is
> >>>> titled as "statement." Some documents are titled as "press
> >>>> release," "endorsement," "letter," or "platform."
> >>>>
> >>>> The titles are not systematic but arbitrary. For example, the 2004
> >>>> DNC "statement" is really more of a press release. Any reader can
> >>>> see that it is not current. The Palestine "statement" is a party
> >>>> position because it is current. Any reader can see that it refers
> >>>> to an ongoing situation. (Any reader who has the code to open the
> >>>> document, that is!)
> >>>>
> >>>> A party position is, in effect, an addition to the party platform.
> >>>> The process for adopting a party position is completely different
> >>>> from the process for issuing a press release or endorsement of
> >>>> someone else's position.
> >>>>
> >>>> If StateCom has the power or right to sunset a position adopted by
> >>>> Convention, does it also have the power or right to reinstate or
> >>>> revise such a position? This proposal assumes that StateCom does
> >>>> have that power and right. Is there any precedent or rule to
> >>>> justify this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Does the sunset apply to every policy document on the page or only
> >>>> those with the formal title "statement"?  If it applies to all,
> >>>> that would sink the existing State platform, which is more than
> >>>> three years old. If it applies only to formally titled "documents"
> >>>> then it is as arbitrary as the titles themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>> It appears that there are only five policy documents on the GRP
> >>>> website which are more than three years old. They are the
> >>>> statements on Sudan, Palestine and Iraq (for some reason Iraq isn't
> >>>> actually on the page), the DNC press release "statement" and the
> >>>> party platform.
> >>>>
> >>>> I ask that the sponsors clarify their intent by clarifying the
> >>>> language of their proposal.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bill Cunningham
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Platform mailing list
> >>>> Platform at green-rainbow.org
> >>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> John V. Walsh, MD
> >>> Professor of Physiology
> >>> University of Massachusetts Medical School
> >>> 508-856-3360 (Office)
> >>> 508-868-1653 (Cell)
> >>> john.walsh at umassmed.edu
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Platform mailing list
> >>> Platform at green-rainbow.org
> >>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >John V. Walsh, MD
> >Professor of Physiology
> >University of Massachusetts Medical School
> >508-856-3360 (Office)
> >508-868-1653 (Cell)
> >john.walsh at umassmed.edu
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> Bill Cunningham
> _______________________________________________
> Platform mailing list
> Platform at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
> 
> 

**************
Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.

http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489