[statecom-discuss] Fwd: No Fees on Offenders

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Bill - its great to hear your voice!

a couple of things inserted below - just a couple of key points since so much 
of it wants more talk!   Love, Grace
In a message dated 2/2/07 9:35:06 PM, etwee at earthlink.net writes:


> Hi email fans,
> 
> The Bridge tries to cover most of the issues Betty mentions. Those and other 
> issues live simultaneously in four or five dimensions, from neighborhood to 
> international. So articles focusing on Palestine, for example, will generally 
> have a more than superficial "local news angle."
> 
> Our Mystic local has developed informal relations with SHaRC and Jericho 
> Boston, local prisoners rights groups. (Check out  www.Bridgenews.org  keywords 
> prisons and police.) Grace's campaign also developed such relations.
> 
> BTW, Governor Patrick has said TWO things about prisoners. (1) He wants to 
> charge inmates a fee to pay for more cops. (2) He intends to cross-reference 
> databases so that as inmates become eligible for release, they will be 
> promptly deported to their countries of origin whenever possible.
> 
Thanks for pointing out the deportation thing in case some folks don't know - 
it is part of why I am so disgusted.
> 
> Sadly, state and local issues can be just as contentious as international. 
> For example, GRP has a distinctive housing position—for rent control. I didn't 
> notice we raised that in the election.
> 
Again, just folks did not follow the campaign much - I did talk about rent 
control - there is more support on the ground I think than we realize - it is 
just not very mobilized.
> 
> The bipartisan "War on Drugs" has been the key to quadrupling the prison 
> population. A state or a national issue? Let GRP start a campaign to legalize 
> drugs, and watch the crap fly both amongst and against the Party.
> 
We actually have a position on this.   And I talked about legalization during 
the campaign as possibly the only solution to several problems
> 
> Not all issues are "issues." Not to put too fine a point on it, we couldn't 
> sharply criticize candidate Patrick because he was an African American 
> so-called liberal. Our friends would be appalled! First Israel—or Gore—and now 
> Deval!
> 
I criticized Patrick a number of times and called him out in the debates - 
many of those who wre watching knew it - and felt I took the moral hgigh ground 
and stayed there because of the manner in which I criticized.   It was by far 
the most excruciating fine line and I certainly could have used more help - I 
hope more party leaders will help in that kind of strategic struggle in the 
future...
> 
> Ole Uncle Slammer snows the rubes just one more time, with the latest 
> "Working Class Hero" who's "learned how to smile as he kills."  Fun to hum along 
> with John Lennon, but to fill in the names locally, here and now? Not fun.
> 
> Palestine and The War—a local issue: every village and neighborhood pays in 
> blood and treasure. Anti-Arab racism—a local issue; the bipartisan "War on 
> Terror," the long night of human rights and freedom—local right down to the 
> unanimous resolutions of the oh-so-progressive Cambridge City Council,—local 
> right down to the widow going mad in her lonely room; and our SACRED DUTY is to 
> confront it squarely and figure out how to bring it down.
> 
> The ecological crisis—utterly local and utterly global. All things are 
> connected. That is our message.
> 
> The "Ashley Case" raises questions that we must be willing to confront, if 
> GRP is to develop a political strategy worthy of the name. The rights of the 
> voiceless, the right and duties of the family, the role of media in defining 
> issues, the worship of technology and its priesthood, the technicized 
> professions.
> 
> Frankly, I am pleased with this discussion, although it has been a little 
> narow. At least it's really about people and politics for a change, and not 
> just about process. Oh sure, it's aggravating too, it goes on and on. Sometimes 
> I just want to chuck it with all the emails.... But at least we're not in 
> Fallujah.
> 
> I agree that the most important issues for us are the most local ones, but 
> ONLY because we can organize most effectively at the local level. 
> 
> So far we organize almost entirely in the electoral arena. They don't call 
> it an arena for nothing. We can win some games in that arena, but to change 
> the world, we have to go out where the real world is. The question of local 
> versus international is much less important to me than the kind of organizing we 
> have to do. The primary "issue" is not issues; it is organization.
> 
> harrumphh....
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: "Betty H. Zisk" <zisk at bu.edu>
> >Sent: Feb 2, 2007 3:10 PM
> >To: Discussion List for StateCom members <
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> >Subject: RE: [statecom-discuss] Fwd: No Fees on Offenders
> >
> >Here is finally a position with which I can agree wnoleheartedly. Perhaps
> >because I know the inmates' dependence on outside support and the poor
> >families trying to support them against all odds. I speak from two yr's
> >experience having ccordinated the Alternatives to Violence program in
> >Norfolk, before Weld shut it down; and alas a four year relationship
> >following that, with a man serving a life sentence at Norfolk (okay you
> >didnt know this about me). I essentially supported him to the tune of more
> >than $100 a month during those yrs because his family couldnt. (Yes I still
> >care--but relationship ended when the threat of strip searches for me 
> became
> >all pervasive.)  This fee is an outrage because it is levied on those
> >families who are quite poor to begin with.
> >
> >I realize that prisoners rights arent a sexy or urgent topic right now.
> >After all, they are behind bars for a reason, etc etc. A few organizations
> >like the Legal Services group and the AFSC are behind this cause (on very
> >minimal basis because of budget constraints.)I support those efforts from a
> >budget stretched thin on so many efforts.
> >
> >I wld like to suggest, in the mildest possible way, that we try very hard 
> to
> >stick to local or regional issues when we take a stand. I would like to
> >suggest as well that when our national GPUS has taken a stand on foreign
> >policy we support them rather than taking our own stand--unless for urgent
> >reasons we disagree with them.Maybe Elie and Jamie could print a summary of
> >GPUS stands to help us along.
> >
> >I find plenty to criticize in Mass politics (and I am sure Grace can add
> >chapter and verse.) I could name about five issues that I think deserve a
> >lot of our attention: the lousy health care program that Romney proposed is
> >one; prisoners rights (and the terrible conditions at MCI Walpole in max
> >security) is another. Lack of affordable housing statewide is a third. And 
> I
> >guess my fourth and fifth would have to do with ecology--for example
> >overfishing and the resultant deaths (two boats lost lately) because of the
> >pressure to get it fast, regardless of safety. And (#5) the continuing
> >pollution of our outmoded plants. I realize all of these are tame issues in
> >comparison with stopping the war or issues about Palestine. But please note
> >that they are all local. We seem to have forgotten that.
> >
> >Please I dont want to demean anyone working on other issues. But I urgently
> >suggest that we start with local issues. And I urge the AdCom to take a
> >stand on prisoners rights just for starters.
> >
> >I am slowly getting back into shape. I will be glad to help wth drafting a
> >few statements if that will help--I just cant attend mtgs right now. With
> >respect--for all that Statecomm has done, and all of the mediating efforts
> >that people like Grace and Jill have tried. I love the GRP and I dont want
> >to leave it. I hope and pray that we can keep on track. And this isnt meant
> >to stifle opinions. I was a proudcarryng member of ACLU long before Mike
> >Dukakis was hesitant about admitting his membership. Poor Mike. I am glad I
> >never ran for office) Betts Zisk (the longest statement you will ever hear
> >from me).
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> >[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
> >Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
> >Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:10 PM
> >To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >Subject: [statecom-discuss] Fwd: No Fees on Offenders
> >
> >
> >Wow, the things that happen that ouodn't hear about because you go away!
> >See below and then google "Patrick safety fees" if you want to read the
> >press
> >coverage at the time...
> >
> >I don't know how much people are following developments with the new
> >adminstration but Patrick has pretty consistently proposed regressive
> >taxes - this is
> >certainly yet another one.
> >
> >And what is the appeal of another fee on those who get convicted?
> >Overwhelming low-income folks, overwhelmingly people of color?   Given that
> >white
> >collar crime is rarely prosecuted, this just continues the criminal justice
> >system's bias.
> >
> >but what I really find staggering is that the only appeal I see here is the
> >right wing tough-on-crime = people of color as criminals subtext.   didn't
> >we
> >just hear all this outrage when Healey used that angle to try to win an
> >election?   But it's okay as the basis of tax/fee policy?
> >
> >Love, grace
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >statecom-discuss mailing list
> >statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
> 
> Bill Cunningham
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>