Overviewing issues besides Carter Re: [statecom-discuss] Carter at Brandeis.

[Ron Francis]

On emotional distress and racism:
   
  If people get emotionally distressed in discussing a fight against racism then that is just simply too bad on two levels.  First, mature adults should be able to discuss issues without getting emotionally distressed.  Second, if taking an anti-racist position bothers people then they will have to get over it through therapy I guess. In the great fights against racism that have occured in this country, plenty of folks got emotionally distressed.  Sorry, that 's the way it goes in fighting racism - I've been doing it for quite some time.
   
  On parallels with south Africa.
   
  well Jimmy Carter sees it and he is not exactly a social justice worker.  If people don't see the parallels then we need to educate them.   In addition however, I reject the basic premise that we should only work on issues for which their is a large popular support for.  We are not populists,.. we are social justice workers with Ten Key Values.  
   
  We should stand for Gay rights even though dozens of states are passing anti gay marriage ballot questions... don't we all agree ?  You can't always wait for popular support.  Sometimes you have to help the people along by educating and propelling them to act as we did in Somerville.  45 % is a significant showing for a fundamental issue like right of return:  This proves that support is not as marginal as you think.  and support is growing after Carter.
   
  ON use of word zionism:
   
  When I use the word in non-social justice circles I always define it.  On the GRP list this shouldn't be necessary but I will define it for you here:  Zionism is a belief in a Jewish privilege State that has special rights for Jews at the expense of other ethnic and religious groups.  It is synonymous with belief in aparthied Israel.  I can't believe that anyone reading this list does not know that.
   
  On David and Grace:
   
  Both people took actions which were not appropriate.   I will send the picture of Grace but it doesn't look doctored to me but who knows.   
   
  Before that however, I asked a rhetorical question that has not been answered.   Does anyone think it would have been appropriate for a GRP leader to stand in front of a sign that said "stand with South Africa" or "stand with people gainst gay marriage".  
   
  Let's first get an understaniding that this is an irresponsible action.  I don't think anyone disagrees with that.  After that we can address whether or not Grace was set-up or not.   
   
  I only raise the issue of standing in front of the sign to point out that public GRP people sometimes misrepresent.  It happens.  It's also not the end of the world.
   
  Here is the picture:
   
  http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/009178.shtml
   
  It certainly lookslike Grace is speaking rather comfortably in front of it.  She has written in her last email on this list though that it was NOT her intention.  So good for Grace and let's move on.  Lesson would be to watch out for what you stand in front of as a Green Rainbow.  And it is not the same as standing next to Deval "Bomb Lebanon" Patrick or other mainstream party zionists.
   
  I'm not particularly interested in comparing whose action was worse but I do note that Grace was seen much more as a representative of the GRP than David at the time.   With power comes more responsibility.   If you are going to run as a GRP candidate at a high level, then you get held to a high standard.  Grace did a great job at representing our party overall as far as I can see based on a lot of positive feedback, but that does not excuse standing in front of and speaking in front of an openly racist sign.
   
  As I said before I forgive both of them and am ready to move on:  there is nothing to do about either event - both events are gone and will have little or no effect on the future. 
   
  ron
  

Adam Sacks <adam_artist at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Dear Ron -

First of all, I take exception to the position you assume as aribiter of misconceptions.

To your points:

A. I think that you are conflating time and energy. In my involvement with the GRP since 2001, the issue of Palestine has periodically exacted considerable energy and frustration - not necessarily because of time involved nor because of energy put into organizing, but because of the emotional intensity of the discussion and the insistence of its advocates and in particular the demonizing of dissent. All of which are certainly far from negligible.

B. I agree that parts of Palestine organizing may be local. If we can mobilize a constituency on that basis à la South Africa, fine. But minority oppression notwithstanding, Palestine is not South Africa, whose problems were in part race-based (I say "in part race-based" because I think it's fundamentally about colonialism and class). The South Africa campaigns provided a much needed redress of injustice which strongly resonated with the Civil Rights movement in this country. Maybe it's my ignorance, but I simply don't see any parallel movement to elicit widespread public outrage with respect to IP. My concern, as I've stated before, is that we take a position as a party that distracts our voters from the local issues that have a visible and persisent daily impact on them - issues where we are the only political party that can offer reasonable solutions.

C. I am starting to find the rhetoric about zionism pretty irksome, just as I find all kinds of stereotyping irksome. Most people are are in some way manipulated by the oligarchy to fight their wars for it, economic and military, or we are caught in the dragnet of mob foreign policy. If you want to address those issues, stop using a confusing and complex word such as "zionism" as a pejorative (I would venture to say that there are many definitions of what "zionism" means, and far more undefined impressions) - which can at least appear to be anti-Semitic. And that is a very divisive appearance, since many people in this state who are with us on numerous other issues are Jewish and may not understand what you (as a party official) mean when you use the word.

As for David, whether or not he was officially representing the party because he wasn't a co-chair is a very fine point most assuredly lost on virtually all the people looking at his picture with Hezbollah sign. I am unwilling to concede that this was a "minor" mistake. To me it is a fundamental question of judgment, and the concern with an issue, no matter how valid, blinding him to the interests of the party and our far broader goals. If David would at least acknowledge this I would feel a lot more comfortable about him taking on any role of responsibility within the party.

At one point during the campaign I accompanied Grace to a Sunday morning breakfast event at a synagogue in Lexington. The rabbi introduced her by saying (I'm paraphrasing here) that he regretted that she even set foot in his hallowed temple because she was an anti-Semite in a despicable anti-Semitic party - but IRS non-profit regulations required inviting all candidates. I was sitting at a table with some of the members of the congregation who started whispering to each other that they had to get rid of that rabbi, and apologized to me. Toward the end a couple of pro-Israel-government types started yelling at Grace (and me) - one thrust that picture of David at me, accused me of being anti-Semitic (when I told him I was Jewish he glared at me and said I looked like a WASP). Others present were quite embarrassed and again apologized to us. 

All this to say: Who are the zionists here? Whom do we want to reach? What helps and what gets in the way?

Finally, you're comparing David's holding his own sign on his chest with Grace standing in front of a sign that isn't hers. If she did it intentionally that's one thing, but how can we say that amidst the throes of a campaign event, with anybody and everybody snapping away? Did she even know she was standing in front of it? Was it even there? (I'm pretty good at Photoshop, and I can put anybody in front of any sign I care to.) She was also standing next to Kerry Healey during the debates - does that indicate support of Ms. Two-Bit Twit? Sorry, I know you're trying to give David the benefit of some ill-defined doubt here, but to equate the two incidents is, to me, a stretch beyond reason.

Cheers,

Adam

Ron Francis wrote: Three misconceptions and one comment about David Rolde.

First the three misconceptions:

A) The GRP spends significant energy on palestine.

The amount of time that the party has spent discussing Palestine probably is less than 2 % of total party energy. We are confusing the contentiousness involved in dezionizing people with the effort that is required. Writing a flaming email about Palestine takes about 2 minutes of time. Reading one takes about 1 minute of time.

The reality is that the GRP has spent little time or effort on Palestine and done almost zero in terms of working on the issue compared to say a March to Abolish Poverty.

Whether or not we should spend more time on it is a separate issue that I am not going to address here partly because I have no position on this question, as of now, although I am thinking about it...., but the fact is we have spent a negligible amount of time on Palestine. Lot's on contentiousness, lilttle of actual work on the issue.

B) Palestine is an internatinal issue.

Parts of Palestine is international and parts are very local. Divestment, boycotts and economic sanctions against aparthied Isreal are as local as the issues of apartheid that many of us worked on in the 80's. The issue is about the social responsibility of local people on how local money is invested whether it is Somerrville or Massachusetts tax money. Divestment is a local issue. Changing US foreign policy is the international issue. Much of the human rights movement is focusing on boycotts and divestment however and these are local issues.

Also the federal money wasted in propping up zionism, and the zionist supported Iraq war, help reduce any chance of meaningful domestic change. From that point of view the $4 billion in annual aid to Israel, and lord knows how much in the Iraq war.... is the paramount domestic issue ! (The military spending in the US connects to domestic issues in a very direct way).

C) Palestine is divisive in a bad way....

Palestine separates out those who support racism (zionism) and those who do not. There are few people in the middle. The issue unites people who favor human rights. Gay Marriage divides people too, but I don't hear anyone asking for us to stop putting energy into that issue.

ON David Rolde:
One Comment about David Rolde - a person who was an excellent secretary for the GRP in many different ways

David Rolde made a minor mistake by mis-representing the party as Secretary with a sign supporting Hezbollah since the party did not have that position,...but we are all human and make mistakes. (And I don't believe David was openly representing the party, since he is only representing in the sense that he was the elected Secretary and not the co-chair who actually does represent the party officially).

Grace went to an event, at least co-sponsored by zionists, during her campaign and then went further by standing in front of a large sign that said "we stand with Israel" in giving a speech. This also misrepresented the party's position in a way that was damaging (which zionists seized on, of course, and published the picture in the widely read Jewish Advocate to make it seem as if the GRP "stood with Israel" which we clearly do not). 

How would people feel if one of our public party people stood in front of a large sign that said "we stand against gay marriage" and gave a speech, even if criticizing the anti-gay marriage position ?

The sign is also problematic, by the way, because saying "we stand with Israel" is an anti-intellectual position. (do we stand with Bolivia ? or with Ghana ?). 

Yet I don't hear people complaining about Grace being insensitive to the party's clear positions on Palestine at the state and local level ? Why not ? I think it is because we are so inculcated with zionism in the US, that we think it is as normal to stand in front of a "we stand with Israel" sign as it is to stand in front of a sign that says "we stand for justice". In the same way that we are often insensitive to class priviledge in our Party until Lisa points it out.

If this were the eighties and a publicly Green or Rainbow person had stood in front of a large sign that says "we stand with South Africa" it would have been scandalous and the person would have been forced to step down.

So while David misrepresented the party, so did Grace. But I forgive them both and don't harp on it becuase despite each person's mis-step the party's position on the issue is what really counts and it is clear, despite the usually blusterful zionist harranguing. (I also note that Grace, like David, did not officially represent the party)

We have, each of us who are in leadership with the Party, probably misrepresented the party's position at one time or the other,... but we have to simply note the error, asks for more responsible behavior, and move on with life.

Where mistakes have been made they are easily corrected by referring the media to our fairly clear position statements on Palestine or poverty or gay marriage or whatever. These statements are clearly indicated on our website. 

Wish I could be at statecom but it is not physically possible.... i hope someone can bring each of my three proposals (at least the ones that have a co-sponsor !)

ron.

Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
Betty - I agree. I honor everyone's passionate issues. 

Let me offer everyone some other info. AND we need help and huge 
opportunities exist for the GRP to play leadership roles. Beyond endorsing and 
supporting these efforts, these are very broad coalitions many of which include GRP 
members not presently active in the party and many GRP leaning folks who might 
join us - please email me and let me know if anyone wants to help!

Out of our campaign-

We helped reverse Romney's year end cuts.

we galvinized the single payer folks and now have the seed planted for not 
just the long term bill htey have diligently filed, but a strategy for getting 
from here to there legislatively (we need to continue to work together on the 
public education and ground strategy) with bills that address continuity of 
care, uniform billing, bulk purchasing, streamlining of existing systems, 
affordablity, etc.

We got the homeless/affordable housing groups working on an overall plan to 
address affordability long term across the state - how well this goes will 
probably depend on our participation but wholistic plan and our activism on the 
legislative pieces of that and good work on public education on it could be 
huge.

I am leading up an effort on a systemic response to global warming which if 
we can get funding is going to work with broad groups across the spectrum and 
across the state - to really tackle global Warming in a way we hope will model 
for the entire country - We are working on reframing what gets in the way of 
change on this issue and Colby with help put together a gorgeous and powerful 
holiday add on this issue - we need hlep to build on!

By the way, I have RGGI questions too - do you want to join me when I meet 
with an economist to try to untangle the actual longer term impact of these 
schemes?

We have the potential to weave together a worker's agenda and actually reach 
broader segments of the union movement because it is so divided these days and 
the GRP could play a huge and key role here if people want to step up.

We have worked extensively with the criminal justice groups to file several 
key strategic pieces of legislation and I have been able to play a facilitative 
role that is getting everyone excited and could prove a critical vehicle in 
broad-reaching reform in that area.

Working with women energized by the kind of women's leadership I was able to 
model in the campaign, we have hopes and plans to re-energize a women's 
movement. A conference is hopefully in the works hopin to bring together women's 
leadership across the state. and some discussions are starting on great 
legislation which is still unfortunately spotty.

Our campaign hosted a few meetings so far on a state-level peace agenda with 
activists from over a dozen large and small peace groups across the state. 
We have filed a couple of pieces of legislation and have a few non-legislative 
ideas and some more legislative pieces to work on.

We have a short shared agenda on voting issues that long time allies of ours 
have put together with input from GRP folks which is potentially very exciting 
and we can use as part of our own voter registration efforts, etc.

There are a couple of really important local control issues we could really 
play a part in - one dealing with the powers of the BRA in boston, home rule 
petition on expiring use housing and the municipal utilities bill to name a 
couple I know of.

There is good corporate tax stuff already being filed and there is a piece we 
made happen on income and property taxes which is critical and was only 
thanks to us.

Areas where good legislation is already being filed include some immigration 
pieces, lots of environmental stuff we may want to be in dialogue about 
improving, and education.

And I may have forgotten some things - But the possibilities of significant 
movement if we get inovlved and play a strategic and facilitative role are HUGE 
- Love, grace
In a message dated 1/20/07 8:15:26 AM, zisk at bu.edu writes:


> I have not spoken out very often of late but I feel stongly about one of
> Grace's main pts. WHY are we wasting all of our energy on debating something
> like Carter's position or his right to appear at Brandeis? Why are we
> arguing about platform issues ad nauseum (like our position on Israel and
> our pro Palestinian stance) when we should be setting out policy positions
> of our own, espec on domestic issues where we might have a chance to
> influence people? It is wonderful to be so righteous. It isnt going to make
> one bit of difference. I remain a loyal GRP member but not for long if this
> keeps up. I agree with Grace that we need to honor party position. But I ask
> us to move on beyond that. For example, what is our position on Deval's
> signing on to the New Eng pact on energy policy? I like it for its bold
> rejection of Romney hesitation but I have reservations about energy trading
> of pts. But I wld like a discussion here and sane advice. I dont see much
> coming from GRP of late and that really saddens me. I fell in love with
> Greens in 1986; I am increasingly sad at all the posturing. But still have
> faith I guess. Betts Zisk
> 

_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss

_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss

_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss