EcoFeminism : Messages : 171-200 of 1396

� �� From: magnu96196@...
Subject: US, Russia building bomb 100 times more powerful than hydrogen

Source:
HREF="http://www.southnexus.com/newspopup_news.php?date1=22/02/2001&sequence
=1

3&cnews=">
http://www.southnexus.com/newspopup_news.php?date1=22/02/2001&sequence=13&cn
ew

s=
========================================================
23rd February, 2001

US, Russia building bomb 100 times more powerful than hydrogen

WASHINGTON, Feb 22: The US and Russia are jointly working on building a pure
fusion bomb hundred times more powerful than the hydrogen bombs.

Experiments are being jointly conducted at American Sandia National
Laboratory in New Mexico and Russian Los Alamos National Laboratory, Hisham
Zerriffi, project scientist at Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research and Arjun Makhijani, president of IEER, said.

"Hydrogen bomb is set off by a fission trigger whereas for a pure fusion
bomb, there is no such trigger and no minimum critical mass is needed. Pure
fusion weapons could be made with very low yields and would not produce
fallout, blurring distinction between conventional and nuclear explosives.
Yet lethality of such weapons would still be great," the two scientists
said.

"Though the scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons has yet to be
proven, research on pure fusion explosions sends a dangerous signal about
the
intent of nuclear weapon powers," they said. Referring to India, they said,
"India's refusal to sign CTBT was, in part, a reaction to this type of
research by nuclear weapon states. In turn, its decision to conduct
underground nuclear tests was partly related to its conclusion that CTBT had
changed from a non-discriminatory instrument designed to promote both
non-proliferation and disarmament into a tool for non-proliferation alone.
Furthermore, some fusion research appears to violate CTBT."

#172

From: elevans@...
Date: Sun Mar 11, 2001 3:58 pm
Subject: Green Mayor of Santa Monica makes NY Times - 2 parts

elevans@...

part 1 of 2 parts

MIKE FEINSTEIN:
mike feinstein, the green party's mayor of santa monica, is interviewed
regarding nafta. he is mentioned a little more than 1/2 thru the article.
unfortunately the green party is never mentioned in the article.

if you go to the nytimes webpage, there's even a nice picture of mike in the
middle of a lotta blue-green machinery: the water power plant perhaps.

greenly, roz

===================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/business/11TRIB.html

March 11, 2001

Nafta's Powerful Little Secret

By ANTHONY DePALMA

Their meetings are secret. Their members
are generally unknown. The decisions they reach need not be
fully disclosed. Yet the way a small group of international
tribunals handles disputes between investors and
foreign governments has led to national laws being revoked,
justice systems questioned and environmental regulations
challenged. And it is all in the name of protecting the rights
of foreign investors under the North American Free
Trade Agreement.

The corporations — American, Canadian and Mexican
alike — that directly invest in neighboring countries are
thrilled that Nafta provides some protection. But foes of the
trade pact say some of their worst fears about
anonymous government have become reality. And as Western
economies move toward more free trade and globalization,
environmentalists, consumer groups and anti-trade organizations
are increasingly worried about how the tribunals
influence the enforcement of laws. The groups are gearing up
for a fight at the Summit of the Americas next month in Quebec,
where President Bush will be pushing a vast new Free
Trade Area of the Americas, which would provide for similar
tribunals.

Protesters will attack the sweeping powers and
broad impact of the tribunals, along with their very nature —
ad hoc panels drawn from lists of academics and international
lawyers almost unknown outside their highly specialized fields.

"What we're talking about here is secret
government," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen,
a consumer watchdog group in Washington that has been critical
of Nafta and other trade agreements. Ms. Claybrook said the
16 Nafta cases that have been filed so far in the
United States, Canada and Mexico showed how corporations were
using Nafta not to defend trade but to challenge the
functioning of government. "This is not the way to do the
public's business," she said.

The tribunals have been used in Nafta disputes for only a few
years, but the complaints they have handled have already had many
repercussions, including these:

• The Canadian government lifted restrictions on manufacturing
an ethanol-based gasoline additive that it considered hazardous after an
American manufacturer said that the ban hurt its business.

• A tribunal ordered Mexico to pay an American company $16.7
million after finding that local environmental laws prohibiting a
toxic-waste-processing plant that the company was building were tantamount to
expropriation.

• A Canadian-based funeral company is asking the United States
government for $725 million in compensation after a Mississippi jury found
the company guilty in 1995 of trying to put a local funeral home out of
business, and levied $500 million in damages. The company contends that the
jury sought to punish it because it is foreign. If the tribunal awards
compensation, critics say, all jury awards involving foreign investors may be
challenged.

• United Parcel Service, the package-delivery company, has
filed a complaint contending that the very existence of the publicly financed
Canadian postal system represents unfair competition that conflicts with
Canada's obligations under Nafta.

Critics worry that if the tribunal upholds the U.P.S. claim,
government participation in any service that competes with the private sector
will be threatened.

It is clear that investors have gained a shield far more
powerful than almost anyone had imagined when Nafta was written in the early
1990's. "There is no doubt that these measures represent an expansion of the
rights of private enterprises vis- à-vis government," said Prof. Andreas F.
Lowenfeld, an international trade expert at the New York University School of
Law. "The question is: Is that a good thing?"

The international tribunals are authorized under a Nafta clause
called Chapter 11, dealing with investments. Investors who believe they have
suffered a loss because of a breach in Nafta rules can bring a claim against
the government of the country where they made their investment. They can have
the complaint heard under one of two existing sets of rules — one from the
United Nations, the other from an independent office of the World Bank.

These off-the-shelf mechanisms adopted by Nafta have commonly
been used to resolve private disputes between corporations, and are thus
intended to provide a great degree of confidentiality. Both critics and
proponents agree that the provisions run headlong into demands for openness
and accountability when public issues are involved.

"The fact that the drafters of Nafta chose this secretive
process to resolve these disputes is further evidence that they weren't
foreseeing matters of broad social concern coming before these panels," said
Martin Wagner, director of international programs for the Earthjustice Legal
Defense Fund, an environmental group in San Francisco.

Critics say the corporate victories have spawned even bolder
and broader challenges, each one further undermining public policy. In a
recent case that critics consider one of the most worrisome, the Methanex
Corporation of Vancouver, British Columbia, is challenging California's
decision to phase out the use of a gasoline additive containing methanol,
which Methanex makes. The state considers the additive, MTBE, which was
originally intended to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions, to
be a health hazard when it enters the water supply. Santa Monica, Calif.,
with 93,000 residents, had to shut down most of its municipal wells when
gasoline containing MTBE leached into the drinking water a few years ago.

Methanex contends that MTBE poses absolutely no health hazard
and that the state's action would effectively destroy its market. "The work
that was done to make the decision to move forward with the ban wasn't
extensive enough to draw the conclusion that MTBE is hazardous," said Bradley
W. Boyd, director of investor relations at Methanex.

The company recently amended the claim to include accusations
that a decision by Gov. Gray Davis of California to ban the additive might
have been politically motivated and linked to more than $200,000 in campaign
contributions by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, which makes a competing
product. A spokesman for the governor, Gabriel Sanchez, called the
accusations "ludicrous."

Mr. Boyd said Methanex was not asking for the ban to be lifted,
but rather for Methanex to be compensated if it was prevented from doing
business in California because of the ban. The company wants $970 million in
compensation, which rankles many Californians.

"It's the height of corporate moxie," said Michael Feinstein,
an environmental activist who is the mayor of Santa Monica. He said he was
worried that a precedent would be set if the MTBE phase-out was undermined.
Even if the tribunals have no power to overturn laws, he said, a decision in
Methanex's favor "would have a devastatingly chilling effect on all such
future laws and standards because of the belief that they would not stand up
to challenge."

The United States government, named as a defendant in the
Methanex complaint, is also concerned that the case stretches Nafta beyond
recognition. In a statement to the tribunal, the government contends that
"Methanex's claim does not remotely resemble the type of grievance for which
the states parties to the Nafta created the investor-state dispute mechanism."

Mr. Wagner has asked the tribunal to consider breaking with
tradition and accepting written statements from third-party groups like the
Bluewater Network, a citizens' environmental organization. The three- person
tribunal hearing the complaint is unusual in that its members include former
Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The tribunal determined in January
that it had the right to accept written arguments, and said it would decide
later whether to do so in this case.

#173

From: elevans@...
Date: Sun Mar 11, 2001 4:01 pm
Subject: Green Mayor of Santa Monica makes NY Times

elevans@...

part 2 of 2 parts

Mr. Wagner said he was able to keep abreast of the proceedings by filing
periodic Freedom of Information requests that force the United States
government, when named as a defendant, to release the documents. Other
advocates who obtain the filings this way post some on a Web site —
www.naftaclaims.com. Canada also has a public access information law, but
Mexico does not.

Officials who oversee the tribunals say that they understand
concerns about the less-than-public aspects of the panels' work but that
anything that opens the proceedings would undermine the promise of
confidentiality that corporate investors consider essential. That, they say,
would undermine the primary purpose of the arbitration mechanisms — to help
foster commercial development.

"The whole thing here was to have a mechanism to give a base
level of comfort to foreign investors," said Ko-Yung Tung, vice president and
general consul of the World Bank and secretary general of its International
Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which handles Nafta claims. He
said that forcing more disclosure could drive corporations away from the
established dispute-resolution process.

"If increased foreign investment is the prime goal in this,
then making public these proceedings may be less important" than protecting
investors, Mr. Tung said.

The center occupies a small suite of offices inside the World
Bank's modern headquarters in Washington. With seven lawyers and four members
of its support staff, it now oversees eight Nafta cases. There are also 29
other disputes on the center's docket that arise from some of the more than
1,400 bilateral treaties involving more than 130 nations that have signed an
international convention to abide by the World Bank's investment rules.

For 20 years after the center was created in 1966, it
established panels that heard on average no more than one case a year. Now,
officials said, about one case is filed every month.

HE center's primary responsibility is to appoint the
arbitrators to the panels, choosing from a list of internationally recognized
experts who are paid $1,500 a day for their work. The center is bound by
strict confidentiality rules, and only investors can say whether documents
should be made public.

"It's unfair to call this a closed or secret process," said
Antonio R. Parra, deputy secretary general of the International Center.
"While it's clearly not on all fours with a court proceeding, I don't think
it is something that is shrouded in secrecy."

Under the center's rules, proceedings can be made public if
both the investor and the involved government agree. But the Nafta
proceedings are never opened to the public, nor have third parties until now
been allowed to submit briefs. Corporations want the proceedings to remain
closed.

"The majority of claimants in these cases are not large
multinational corporations but small- to medium-sized companies," said Clyde
C. Pearce, a California lawyer who represented one such company, the
Metalclad Corporation, in a complaint against Mexico over the construction of
a toxic-waste-processing site. Mr. Pearce said the obligation of responding
to briefs submitted by third parties could overwhelm corporate lawyers, who
are already outmatched by the governments they are bringing the claims
against.

"If others want to weigh in on these cases, they have access to
their governments and should use that route to get their views across, not
the tribunals," he said.

The other set of rules governing Nafta tribunals was devised by
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, based in Vienna.
"Arbitration is really private justice," said Jernej Sekolec, its secretary.
Mr. Sekolec says the commission's rules for handling disputes are routinely
written into commercial contracts between investors and, increasingly,
agreements that let private investors bring complaints against a foreign
government.

But he said the commission itself never became involved in a
dispute in any way, not even to select the arbitrators. "Our overall mission
is to streamline and facilitate negotiations and conclusions of contracts,"
he said.

Typically, the parties in a dispute each name one tribunal
member and agree jointly to a third. Each panel is unique, and critics say
this lack of continuity makes it hard to establish clear legal precedent.

That is especially important because a tribunal decision
technically cannot be appealed. It can be submitted to a local court for
review, to ensure that there was no corruption or gross misinterpretation of
the rules. Mexico has recently filed such a review in the case won by
Metalclad. Another appeal was filed recently by the Canadian government in a
case won by S. D. Myers Inc., an Ohio waste-disposal company that said it was
hurt by a Canadian law banning the export of PCB's.

Barry Appleton, a Canadian trade lawyer involved in several
claims before Nafta tribunals, said critics were so driven by their
opposition to globalization that they were overstating the power of the
tribunals, which he contends are nothing more than dispute-resolution panels
with no power to overturn any laws. "What they're doing," he said of the
critics, "is scaremongering."

Mr. Appleton said the arbitration panels were meant to provide
a nonpolitical alternative to resolving disputes in court. But he said
controversy had arisen because the drafters of Nafta appeared to assume that
the investor-protection provisions would be used by Canadian and American
investors to protect their investments in Mexico from outright expropriation.

"The Canadian and American governments thought this was not
going to apply to them," Mr. Appleton said, "and now they're disappointed."

HE lack of a traditional appeal process, transparency and
legally binding precedent, along with the wide scope of what can be
challenged under the free-trade investment rules, have made many people wary
in all three nations, including government officials. Pierre Pettigrew,
Canada's minister of international trade, has written to his counterparts in
the United States and Mexico to begin a process of what he calls "clarifying"
the limits of Nafta's investment protections and perhaps amending the
agreement before negotiations begin in earnest on the Free Trade Area of the
Americas.

Activists planning to go to the Summit of the Americas in
Quebec said they would protest the idea of adopting similar tribunals in a
hemispheric free-trade pact. "This is an example of the excessive powers
enjoyed by corporations under Nafta that should not be expanded," said the
Alliance for Responsible Trade, in a critique of the United States position
on the proposed trade pact.

Critics also object to President Bush's campaign to gain
approval of a so-called "fast-track authority," which expired after Nafta was
passed in 1993. Mr. Bush has said he needs it to present the hemispheric
trade pact to Congress for a vote without possibility of amendment. The
critics contend that the scope of Nafta's investment-protection chapter was
not well understood because the fast-track process denied Congress the chance
to evaluate the agreement thoroughly.

The clash between investor rights and public policy is expected
to grow more intense, even within the agencies entrusted with keeping aspects
of the cases secret.

"The demand for a more transparent process will cause tension
with the more traditional concept of confidentiality — it's inevitable," said
Margrete L. Stevens, senior counsel of the International Center for
Settlement of Investment Disputes. She said she believed that there was room
to adjust, to open the process in keeping with such expectations throughout
the world today — but only, she said, if "the parties have come under
pressure in their own countries to do this."

==== end of no html email ==========

#174

From: elevans@...
Date: Tue Mar 27, 2001 7:08 pm
Subject: Exceptional site -- must see!

elevans@...

http://www.cariboutrek.org/

Why no one should drill for oil in caribou habitat located in  Area 1002 of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Regards,
Ed Evans
  <A HREF="http://www.greeninformation.com/">Green Information  at
http://www.greeninformation.com</A>
It's what we learn after we know it all that really counts.

#175

From: elevans@...
Date: Fri Mar 30, 2001 10:05 am
Subject: Dear People of the State of Nebraska

elevans@...

Dear People of the State of Nebraska,
           I gather that many of you were not so fond of Bill Clinton, but
I want to make you aware of something very important that he did for you
(and Americans in 42 other states).  High level radioactive waste from
nuclear power plants all over our country will soon be traveling through
your state, once President George Bush signs onto what has become known
as the ‘Mobile Chernobyl’ bill (named after the most infamous nuclear
plant accident ever).
            President Clinton vetoed this maximally dangerous bill while
he was in office.  He knew that accidents will occur and people will die
once this bill becomes law.  Inadequately devised and tested casks of
nuclear waste will be rolling toward Yucca Mountain in Nevada by truck
and train.  Nebraska is near to Nevada, and will have to worry about a
fire, a spill, a crash, a derailment that might occur during any of
these shipments.  (See route map.)
            The government admits that there will be a few accidents with
approximately 100,000 shipments being required over the next 30 years.
And that was before President Bush and his nuclear crazy administration
tried to propose building new ‘pebblebed’ nuclear reactors all over this
land of ours, in his 2001 ‘National Energy Security Act’– unnumbered as
yet for Congressional use– critique available in ‘Nuclear Revival’ issue
of NIRS* – see: nirs.org on internet.
            Studies have shown that if someone, for example, your child is
exposed to unshielded/spilled high level radioactive waste for ten
seconds from three feet away, they will die from a lethal dose of
radiation within two weeks.
            President Clinton knew that the technology is not there yet.
Besides the fact that we still have not devised a proper way to store
nuclear waste for the thousands of years required to do it safely.  And
Yucca Mountain has 25 fault-lines that most non-corrupted experts agree
make it unfit for nuclear waste disposal, especially in a ground level
parking lot, which the Mobile Chernobyl bill accepts and proposes.  In
addition, the feeding lust of the nuclear utilities to accomplish their
wildest dreams during the Bush administration may lead to another
private storage site being erected in Utah.  Both Yucca Mountain and the
site in Utah would be on Native American land, and, yes, shipments to
either/both will go through your state of Nebraska.
            We are in store for many terrible environmental threats to be
imposed upon us by what is now a George Bush Washington.  Nebraska will
be in the middle of the firing line for the nuclear worst of it, and it
will happen before you might be aware it is happening.  Contact your
Congresspeople via 202-224-3121 to tell them to protect you from this
national disgrace; write letters to your newspapers, Pres. Bush; discuss
it with your friends and foes so this does not happen.  It can be
stopped, as what citizens really want it?  Check the nirs.org internet
site to better inform yourselves and those you love on the reality of
this.  [* -- NIRS stands for ‘Nuclear Information Resource Service’]
                                                    Conrad Miller M.D.
                                       Founder, Physicians For Life,
631-283-8786.
                                       P.O. Box 180, Watermill, New York,11976

#176

From: elevans@...
Date: Sun Apr 8, 2001 12:37 pm
Subject: The Kyoto treaty is dead

elevans@...

Here we go again!  It is truly another crushing blow to the worlds attempt
at recognizing the hazards involved with greenhouse gasses.   As most of
you in here probably know, Bush has declaired the Kyoto Treaty a dead
issue with his administration.  Once again Bush has put big business and
the economy ahead of the future of our planet.  The arrogance is appaling
as he turns his back on our allies, claiming it should involve all
industrious countries, including thirld world developing countries.

  When you consider that we produce roughly 25 percent of the worlds
greenhouse emissions and only account for 4 percent of the worlds
population we should be leading the way in addressing this issue.  But the
fat cats are in office and god forbid we do any harm to our weakening FAKE
economy.  These are dark times my friends. Dark times indeed!

#177

From: elevans@...
Date: Thu Apr 12, 2001 8:57 pm
Subject: Ecology Caucus tells Party, "Get back to Ecology"

elevans@...

As members of the Ecology Caucus of the Association of State Green Parties
(ASGP) of the US, we believe US Greens have grounds for optimism. Among the
known particulars are:

�   A growing number of established state Green Parties
�   A strong challenge to the Democrat/Republican power structure by Ralph
Nader
�   The steady movement of Democrats to the extreme right
�   New campus Green organizations in formation across the country

These have the potential momentum we need to shed the tag of  "third party"
and encourage many to think of the Greens as the "second party-in-waiting".
Our "outsider status" means we can promote policies without diluting our
message or our principles.

However we see a problem. The perception of many- and that of our caucus- is
that the US Greens lack a central message that, by its vigorous content and
persuasiveness, can help us move from a marginalized also-ran or gadfly to a
major, viable and competitive American political party. Until this message is
expressed clearly we will be showered with the "spoiler" epithet in every
election campaign. We believe that the original meaning of the word Green -
pertaining to Nature, ecology and the environment -needs
to be restored and the identification of our party with these concepts made
unambiguous.  It was for this reason that we formed the Ecology Caucus.

The word Green is perceived worldwide as being synonymous with a commitment
to protect and preserve the natural world, its resources, species, biotic
communities and ecosystems.  Certainly this is true regarding Green parties
in other countries, where Greens are often the lone voice for the environment
heard in foreign parliaments and the media. Since the 1980s in western Europe
and the 1970s in New Zealand Greens assumed the leadership on issues such as
genetic engineering, mad cow disease, nuclear power and climate change as
well as on a wide range of social and economic themes, most of which
actually derive their significance from the diverse ecological crises facing
the planet.

We of the Ecology Caucus recognize that this potent issue of environmental
activism based on ecological principles rings a bell with a majority of
Americans, especially those alienated by the two major parties and
specifically the Democratic Party, which has put a price ceiling on a safe
and healthful environment and which essentially reflects the views of the
Republican party.

Unless and until  the US Green Party endorses Ecology as its central tenet
and philosophy we will remain a small voice in a wilderness of political
strife and a small movement that could well collapse due to stratification
and division. This in no way denies that other issues- those of economic and
social justice,  the communities and movements of color, union workers, gays
and lesbians, the traditional liberals, the Left or peace activists- are
important and indeed these lay the groundwork for a livable world . They form
the social components of that broad ecological paradigm we call "Green".

Social and economic justice are necessary but alone stand as insufficient for
attaining an ecological society. It is the responsibility of Greens to show
how social and ecological concerns both have at their core the same vision: a
world in ecological balance, one in which we can all safely live within the
constraints of nature.

We will never see support from the average voters- most of whom, all polls
indicate, recognize the protection of our environment as the pervading issue
of our times- until we make this our central tenet, overriding philosophy and
core value.

Only through ecological analysis can we give meaning, context and purpose to
all struggles for social and economic justice. These all share common roots.
Without this context the human struggle is merely one of self-interest, one
in which the rest of nature is ignored. Ecological justice when properly
defined embraces all other issues. Environmentalism, ultimately, IS a social
justice movement.

While the ASGP has spent considerable time and effort developing a draft
party platform, the platform lacks a strong and unequivocal central theme. We
believe that theme must be the overriding ecological crises facing the
planet, especially genetic engineering, loss of biodiversity and climate
change. The latter two in particular make the health and survival of the
human species itself extremely tenuous. The vast majority of credible
scientists call the biodiversity crisis "The Sixth Extinction" while
asserting that unless global fossil fuel consumption is reduced by 50% to 70%
in the next decade the Earth will face unprecedented environmental, economic
and social catastrophe by the year 2100.

Unless our message and platform are commensurate with these imminent threats,
we are merely, as the old parable tell us,  plucking bodies out of the river
instead of going upstream to find the root cause of the problem. This is
obvious to most Greens but crucially is also recognized by the vast majority
of Americans who will have good reason to rally to our cause and party  if we
assert this philosophy as our core value.

The Eco-Caucus finds many of the responses of the ASGP and the Green movement
  inadequate given the urgency and scope of the problems. While we recognize
that Ralph Nader conducted a brilliant campaign, confounding the media with
his knowledge and intellectual acuity, we noted only passing reference to
genetic engineering and energy policy and, to our knowledge, no references to
the biodiversity crisis at all. His anti-corporate, anti-WTO message was
impeccable and welcome. It was one of the first examples of unreserved public
criticism of American corporate control and crime to creep onto the airwaves.
But at least one critic, a British journalist for a London daily, was
astounded to hear Nader speak in Washington DC and never mention global
warming at all.

We believe that the present ASGP and the state Green Parties need to confront
and respond to the severity of the environmental crisis. There is as yet no
central committee to speak out to the public on a regular basis in response
to the misinformation and propaganda of the corporate-controlled mass media
on behalf of the environment. Greens and Green Parties have no presence in
the halls of congress nor have we made ourselves THE public voice for the
environment- the voice needed as a counterweight to disastrous government
policies, corporations and others who despoil the earth.

While we recognize that the state-based structure of the ASGP presently makes
a centralized presence difficult, we believe that extra effort should be
devoted to establishing this presence  speedily. This would bestow a public
identity on the burgeoning Green Party as well as bring credibility on
environmental issues while demonstrating the existence of a decentralized
collection of parties struggling to make themselves heard.

We ask- not rhetorically as it may seem: Do Greens really understand the
urgency of the ecological crisis? Are we as powerless as we think?  Are we so
"decentralist" that we will not take any concerted measures at the national
level to address ecological issues on a regular basis? Why aren't we US
Greens even "acting  nationally", much less "globally"? And finally, is there
fear of being judged "tree huggers" who "care more about the
environment than people"?

What will Greens do to build our party?  Who is our natural constituency? To
whom should we do outreach ? What will give our party the identity and
consistent vision it needs to become a mature and professional player in the
electoral field? What can we do so that our message and candidates will be
taken as seriously as those who belabor the budget deficit or the so-called
loss of  "family  values"? How can we get the terms "spoiler" and "left wing
radicals" banished from public dialogue once and for all?

Moreover, many of the advocates of the issues we have referred to above as
the social components of that broad ecological paradigm we call "Green" are
and will remain enrolled Democrats or even Socialists for the foreseeable
future, and with good reason: they have yet to see what the Green party
offers them, philosophically or pragmatically. And while some of these
advocates berate Greens for supposedly ignoring their concerns few of these
show serious concern for environmental issues in turn.

But there is only one party dedicated to the survival of the Earth: the Green
Party. We stand virtually alone, a sobering thought.

Bringing in new progressive supporters will take time but this doesn't mean
Greens must redirect our efforts or dilute our principles with the vague hope
of attracting progressives to enroll as Greens. While Greens are committed to
social justice issues, their articulation and implementation  have been,
whether rightly or wrongly, relegated to marginal and often unruly politics.
We Greens cannot afford to be further marginalized and these groups must
recognize that, just as we see their efforts as conducive to laying the
groundwork for ecologically-based policies, in the final analysis the
survival of the planet is the fundamental precondition for ANY society.

When social justice activists truly understand the political implications of
ecology, they will join us.

Our perception is that, whether through negligence or intentional disregard
Greens are preaching to the converted. And this sermon - directed to
perceived allies rather than to new constituencies that may not be
"politically correct" - has effectively put ecology and environment into a
back corner.

Greens make a serious misjudgment if they underestimate how much
environmental issues mean to most Americans. Polls show that the American
public consistently supports strong environmental policies, laws and
enforcement. Environmental concerns and commitment cut across all classes,
income levels, professions and even political ideologies. Notwithstanding the
propaganda disseminated by corporate interests via the willing mass media nor
the repeated attempts to discredit environmental activists and organizations,
the American public at large has never wavered in its pro-environment stance.

When Americans are asked to list the leading environmental organizations in
this country groups like the Sierra Club and  League of Conservation Voters
are more likely to be named than the Green Party. We must remedy this by
assuming our proper role as the public voice for the environment and, equally
importantly, as advocates for ecological principles, especially because the
established environmental groups show repeated willingness to support
establishment views and candidates. We can no longer soft-pedal such
principles or reduce them to individual environmental battles. We must place
the ecological crisis at the philosophical and political center of our
platform and message . The Green Party cannot and will not survive unless we
assume this leadership.

While we Greens have a heavy responsibility to speak truth in our platform
about the global ecological crisis, it is incumbent on us to offer positive,
practical alternatives that are ecologically sound, sustainable and socially
just and which preserve the civil liberties we prize in a democracy.
Accordingly, we urge the ASGP to:

�   Adopt ecology as its central principle in its platform and public
statements;
�   Adopt in principle the attached Greenprint as a working document and
recommend its adoption by all state Green parties and candidates;
�   Establish an ASGP committee specifically authorized to convene strategy
sessions, form a working group and  establish a "think tank" to elucidate the
truth  about the major ecological crises of the planet- primarily climate
change and biodiversity- on a regular basis.

Unless and until we Greens adopt these principles as the centerpiece of our
electoral and organizing campaigns we undermine the whole purpose of our
existence while ignoring the most effective tools available for attracting
new constituencies. Pragmatism and idealism can go hand in hand for the
benefit of the Green Party.

Signed,

#178

From: madeline_age101@...
Date: Thu Apr 26, 2001 5:45 pm
Subject: Hello all!

madeline_age101@...

I am a founder of the new micronation of Amazonia, I want to recreate
this wonderful female centered nation of classical times.
If you wish to discuss anything about classical times, Amazons and
matriarchies please visit my forum of Nova Amazonia at:

novaamazonia-subscribe@...

Founder

#179

From: elevans@...
Date: Fri Apr 27, 2001 7:45 pm
Subject: YELLOWSTONE BISON HAZED WHILE BIRTHING

elevans@...

YELLOWSTONE BISON HAZED WHILE BIRTHING

WEST YELLOWSTONE, Montana, April 27, 2001 (ENS) - Montana Department of
Livestock personnel are hazing the last wild bison herd left in the United
States while the animals are actually giving birth, say conservationists
who witnessed events this week.

For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2001/2001L-04-27-02.html

#180

From: elevans@...
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2001 9:57 pm
Subject: An Open Letter to the U.S. Green Community

elevans@...

For general distribution (Ed Evans, GreenInformation.com)

<<In a message dated 4/30/2001 5:02:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
WSheasby@... writes:

April 30, 2001

An Open Letter to the U.S. Green Community:

Seven months ago, we made an historic step in the growth of the Green
Party in the United States. �These past seven months have been
troubling, as the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) has been taken
over and the decision on the Boston Proposal delayed. �We are writing
to you to outline the steps that have been taken this far, and how we will
work towards a new Green Party of the United States this summer.

October 1-2, 2000: �Negotiations in Boston resulted in "The Joint
Proposal of the Negotiating Committees for the Association of State
Green Parties and the Greens/Green Party USA," commonly known
as the "Boston Proposal."

October 2-9, 2000: �Several G/GPUSA members tried to bring about a
G/GPUSA mail referendum to amend the plans of the Boston Proposal
into the G/GPUSA Bylaws. �Under Section IV of the G/GPUSA Bylaws,
our affiliates would have 60 days to vote on such a referendum. �So in
order to have a decision by the Association of State Green Parties'
(ASGP) extra Coordinating Committee meeting on December 8-10, 2000,
the ballots would need to be mailed by October 9.

Calling the referendum required the approval of at least six
G/GPUSA-affiliated states or 12 G/GPUSA-affiliated Green locals. �
It was soon discovered that very few affiliates met during that particular
week, and it was simply not possible to call the referendum in time.

October 9 - December 1, 2000: �During this period, the same group
of G/GPUSA members continued to pursue the calling of a mail
referendum before the next meeting of the ASGP. �Two G/GPUSA
state affiliates -- the Michigan Green Party and the Minnesota
Green Party -- joined the call during this period. �But other states
either (1) did not meet between the time we contacted them and
December 1; or (2) preferred that the vote on the Boston Proposal
be held at an in-person G/GPUSA Congress, instead of by mail
referendum. �Although the G/GPUSA Bylaws allow amendment
by mail referendum, such a mail referendum has never been done,
that I know of, in the history of G/GPUSA, and it was met with
resistance by many members. �Many G/GPUSA members
expressed support of the Boston Proposal but simply desired the
discussion and vote to be held at an in-person meeting.

Also during this period, the Massachusetts Green Party, an
affiliate of both G/GPUSA and ASGP, passed a proposal to
call on the ASGP to not file

a request for advisory opinion with the Federal Election Commission
(FEC) until at least April 30, 2001. �(Such a request could lead to the
the ASGP alone receiving the authority to designate future Green
presidential matching funds recipients, an event that could make
G/GPUSA members less likely to approve the Boston Proposal.) �
The G/GPUSA Congress has met every summer for many years. �
Yet members of the Massachusetts Green Party anticipated that
at the regular winter meeting of the G/GPUSA National Committee,
a special Congress could be scheduled for before April 30, so a
more prompt decision could be made on the Boston Proposal.

December 5, 2000: �The G/GPUSA National Committee (GNC) has
met three times per year for many years. �In 2000, it met in March
and in May. Many G/GPUSA members anticipated a third GNC
meeting in late 2000. �Yet due to endless scheduling conflicts, and
perhaps a desire to delay the meeting by some GNC members, the
G/GPUSA Coordinating Committee announced on December 5,
2000, that the next GNC meeting would not occur

February 16-18, 2001.

December 6, 2000: �With no mail referendum yet called, the G/GPUSA
Negotiating Committee sent a letter to Greg Gerritt, to be shared with
the ASGP Coordinating Committee, explaining why the decision would
probably wait for a meeting of the G/GPUSA Congress.

December 8-9, 2000: �The Association of State Green Parties
Coordinating Commitee held an extra meeting (in addition to their
usual annual meetings) in Hiawassee, Georgia. �At this meeting, the
Massachusetts Green Party (which is affiliated with both G/GPUSA
and ASGP) made its proposal that the ASGP not file with the FEC
until at least April 30, 2001. �At the time, the delegates of the
Massachusetts Green Party likely still believed that the February �
2001 GNC meeting would schedule an April 2001 G/GPUSA Congress. ��
The Massachusetts proposal passed.February 16-18, 2001: �The
G/GPUSA National Committee met in St. Louis, Missouri. �I agreed
with most other GNC delegates that the GNC had no authority to
pass the Boston Proposal. �Under the G/GPUSA Bylaws, such a
change clearly required the decision of the G/GPUSA Congress,
which is the ultimate decision-making body of G/GPUSA. �This is
why the Boston Proposal itself was never proposed for a vote at the
St. Louis GNC meeting.

What was on the agenda was whether to schedule a G/GPUSA
Congress in April 2001. �The opponents of the Boston Proposal were
very successful at getting their delegates to the St. Louis meeting,
whereas pro-Boston-Proposal GNC delegates from several states
failed to attend. Many delegates who had previously advocated for
voting on the Boston Proposal in person, rather than by mail,
nevertheless voted against the proposal to hold an April Congress. �
The proposal failed by an 18-19 vote, with four abstentions. �(The
proposal required 2/3 to pass.)

However, a compromise proposal was passed, by consensus, to
empower a Gathering Committee to choose within three weeks a
date and place for the 2001 G/GPUSA Congress, with the
instructions to set the Gathering as close to Memorial Day
Weekend as possible given our preference of locations: �#1
preference Carbondale, Illinois; #2 Chicago, #3 Lawrence,
Massachusetts; #4 Maine; and #5 D.C. �Many G/GPUSA
members hoped that Memorial Day Weekend would be soon
enough to fulfill the idea of a spring 2001 decision created by
the Massachusetts proposal in Hiawassee.

March 10, 2001: �Three weeks passed, yet the Gathering Committee
announced no decision. �Rumors began circulating, though, that the
Gathering Committee would ignore the instructions of the GNC and
schedule the 2001 Gathering for July 21-22. �At this point, several
G/GPUSA members decided to go back to organizing a mail
referendum call.

March 10 - April 5, 2001: �The support for a mail referendum grew
considerably from the first attempt in late 2000. �By April 5, nine
G/GPUSA-affiliated state parties had joined the call - -three more
than necessary. �On April 5, Marc Reichardt of the Michigan Green
Party e-mailed the formal call for mail referendum, signed by the
nine state-party contacts and including the written draft bylaws
amendment text, to the G/GPUSA Clearinghouse. �The G/GPUSA
Bylaws instruct the G/GPUSA Clearinghouse to mail out ballots
when a mail referendum is called. �It was expected that these ballots
would be mailed promptly.

April 11, 2001: �The G/GPUSA Coordinating Committee (CC) voted to
violate the Bylaws of G/GPUSA and deny the call for mail referendum by
the nine state affiliates. �This "auto-coup" -- when the executive
branch disbands the legislative branch -- was supported by two CC
members, Nancy Oden of Maine and Marc Loveless of Illinois, and
opposed by the third CC member, Howie Hawkins of New York. �With
the CC's traditional power to direct our staff, the Clearinghouse was
effectively prevented from mailing the referendum ballots.

With this decision and several others by the CC in April 2001, G/GPUSA
has changed from a grassroots organization governed by a set of bylaws
to an organization governed by the whim of two Coordinating Committee
members. �We have changed from a democracy to a dictatorship. �The
Coordinating Committee has also blocked a duly-called GNC mail vote
to recall the Coordinating Committee, has authorized an illegal mailing
sent to the G/GPUSA membership, and has initially approved the
diversion of G/GPUSA Congress registration fees to a separate
organization, even though G/GPUSA has signed a contract with the
conference center. �The mailing used a G/GPUSA newsletter name,
"Green Tidings," and printed unfair charges against our Secretary that
under the G/GPUSA Bylaws are to remain confidential. �Unfortunately,
when the membership of G/GPUSA receives such horrifying mail,
they are unlikely to renew their memberships in the organization.

April 26, 2001: �Almost ten weeks after the St. Louis meeting, the
Gathering Committee finally announced that the 2001 Congress
would be held July 20-23, 2001, in Carbondale, Illinois.

Such is the sorry state of the Greens/Green Party USA -- an
organization stolen from its members because of the actions of
corrupt leaders. �We and many members of G/GPUSA will be working
very hard to regain grassroots, democratic control of our organization
at the July 20-23 Congress, as well as to pass the Boston Proposal
there. �We apologize for creating the impression -- both in Boston and
in Hiawassee -- that G/GPUSA could decide on the Boston Proposal
before our next regularly scheduled Congress in the summer of 2001. �
We thank you for your patience with us and we seek the establishment
of a Green Party of the United States in which all Greens can participate.

Sincerely,

Tennis Lilly, Lawrence, Massachusetts
John Stith, Pine Grove Mills, Pennsylvania
Steve Welzer, Trenton, New Jersey
Julia Willebrand, New York, New York
members of the Greens/Green Party USA >>

Regards,
Ed Evans
Green Information �at �http://www.GreenInformation.Com
"If I seem to take part in politics, it is only because politics
encircles us today like the coil of a snake from which one cannot get
out, no matter how much one tries. I wish therefore to wrestle with
the snake." - Mahatma Gandhi

#181

From: elevans@...
Date: Sun May 6, 2001 8:51 am
Subject: listserve organizing committee against IMF/World Bank

elevans@...

DestroyIMF-subscribe@...

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank will be holding their
Joint Annual General Meetings in Washington, DC from September 28 to October
4, 2001. An organizing listserve for the coordination and networking among
activists for the counter actions has been established.
To subscribe, send a blank message to�following address:
http://lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?curmbox=F000000001&
a=baa6945dca8c40898497ce38e36e7f78&mailto=1&
to=DestroyIMF%2dsubscribe%40topica%2ecom&msg=MSG989125128.21&start=7474403&
len=2322&src=&type=x�

DestroyIMF-subscribe@...

please forward widely

#182

From: elevans@...
Date: Sun May 6, 2001 9:32 am
Subject: Green Party Ecology Caucus list

elevans@...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenpartyecologycaucus

A Green Party Ecology Caucus list is now open at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenpartyecologycaucus
Regards,
Ed Evans
Green Information �at �http://www.GreenInformation.Com
". . . . after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that
money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy

#183

From: "Paul" <webmaster@...>
Date: Mon May 7, 2001 1:50 am
Subject: GlobalCircle Net News 06 May 2001

webmaster@...

GlobalCircle Net News 06 May 2001 is now online at
http://globalcircle.net/1gnn0506ek.htm .  Each item has clickable links for
full articles and more from the original source on the Internet.  I believe
I've included a wider sample of issues and concerns to many groups in this
issue.
	 Please click on those that interest you in the web page at
http://globalcircle.net/1gnn0506ek.htm . Comments, ideas to
webmaster@... .

--paul, webmaster http://globalcircle.net
networking for ecology, justice, and all our relations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A sample of news and views on 6 May issue, and much more:
-- Climate Change: Europe at the Crossroads
-- "The global democratization movement wants majority globalization -- one
based on human rights, open process and saving the environment."
-- Globalization:  Quebec Summit Hides an Iron Fist Behind a Word
-- Anti-globalization - a Spreading Phenomenon - From August 22, 2000 -
These guys think they have it all figured out. To some extent, they have.
See how they "think". Canadian Security Intelligence Service publication
-- Zapatistas Reject Bill, from La Jornada in translation
-- Cincinatti, Police Shoot Mourners with Beanbags After Slain Man's
Funeral
-- Healing Our World: Weekly Comment By Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D. --
Marketing Environmental Destruction and Disease
-- No Dues, No Cooperation, No Representation The U.S. got its comeuppance
in Geneva when it failed to win adequate support to retain its spot on the
UN Human Rights Commission, from Foreign Policy in Focus
-- Chernobyl Archive
-- World Oil Tanker Safety Deal Struck
-- State sanctioned surveillance program will identify behavioral "red
flags" in children, treat them with psychotropic drugs
-- Comprehensive new pesticide database
-- Collateral Damage-  At military bases around the world, the United
States refuses to clean up its mess.   Story at Americas.org
-- Border War- As the U.S. military melds with civilian police agencies,
the first casualties are immigrants. Story at Americas.org
-- War and Accountability - Kerry and his role in Vietnam, from The Nation
-- President Bush launched a two-week campaign yesterday to prepare the
country for the recommendations of the secretive
White House energy task force
-- Herbicide Resistant Weeds Spring Up in Bioengineered Soy Fields -
excellent .pdf files from biotechinfo.net
-- If you ran a third world country and your military needed help, who
would you call? Private armies for killing.
-- AntiRacismNet ALERT
-- Romania Calls for Urgent Danube Measures
-- United American Indians of New England -- not your typical Thanksgiving
Day pablum
-- Turkish Terror Attack Against Hunger Striking Political Prisoners
-- Lynchings of Roma People in East Europe
-- Weekly digest at Americas.org - Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Brazil,
Ecuador, Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Colombia, Dominican Republic
-- Drug War Madness in Peru - When the Peruvian air force shot down a
civilian Cessna, killing missionary Veronica Bowers and infant daughter
Charity, it was the CIA-contracted crew of a U.S. surveillance plane who
had tagged the tiny craft as a suspected drug
carrier.
-- Resource Wars: An Interview with Michael Klare
-- Oil Rigged - There�s something slippery about the U.S. drug war in
Colombia at Americas.org

---------------------------
      "We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government, nor are we
for this party nor against the other� but we are for justice and mercy
and truth and peace and true freedom, that these may be exalted in our
nation, and that goodness, righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and
unity with God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
        -- Edward Burroughs, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice'
---------------------------

	 GlobalCircle Net News is a noncommercial, nonpartisan, independent
collection of news and views from the global Internet and a wide range of
sources, and readers should make their own judgments about the sources and
usefulness of any information. Please feel free to pass this on only if it
is complete with headers and this statement. Anyone may subscribe by
sending a blank email to globalcirclenetnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com .
This is the same newsletter received by those subscribed to
greennewsnetwork@yahoogroups.com .
	 Commercials in this post are inserted by Yahoo and not by GlobalCircle.
	 This is only a very small sample of current news and issues of concern,
but puts you in touch with the Internet resources for ongoing information.
Your Net News from the global Internet - environment - human rights -
indigenous   peoples - militarism - GMOs - globalization -  sustainability
- refugees -   prisons - women - workers - respect for the Earth and All
Our Relations - noncommercial - independent - nonpartisan - connecting the
dots for the big picture. See the connections.

--paul, webmaster http://globalcircle.net
networking for ecology, justice, and all our relations

#184

From: elevans@...
Date: Sat May 19, 2001 1:44 pm
Subject: What's really going on with oil?

elevans@...

This is a long, worthwhile article worth reading and studying. It's found in
its in complete form at
http://www.greeninformation.com/ARTICLEREALLYG0INGON.htm
Sorry for the duplicate posts -- it's a time issue. Do read and pass this
around.

<<[Once again, here is what is REALLY going on, by Colin Campbell at:

http://energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html

Boycotting the oil companies may feel good but will never bring cheaper
gas.�
its part of the human nature of addiction to be in denial and blame
others,
who may be guilty, but the real problem lies deeper. It takes a LOT of
mean class struggle politics to resolve unresolvable problems, and the
Dems smell blood.

But what happens when every oil exec has been lynched and oil prices
still rise? Why can't we blame the packaged lifestyle promoted by corporate
expansionism or the oil companies for lying to us about reserves and
promoting our addiction? Who says humans are rational?]>>
Regards,
Ed Evans
Green Information �at �http://www.GreenInformation.Com
". . . . after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that
money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy

#185

From: "Paul" <webmaster@...>
Date: Sat May 19, 2001 6:03 pm
Subject: Re: What's really going on with oil?

webmaster@...

We can easily specify what it takes to get beyond boycotts and putting out
little fires. It takes across the board severing of the ties between
government and commercial interests. People would be surprised to learn
just how much unsustainable machinery of our society has come from that
unholy collusion through history.

--paul, webmaster http://globalcircle.net
networking for ecology, justice, and all our relations

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 5/19/01 at 1:44 PM elevans@... wrote:

>This is a long, worthwhile article worth reading and studying.  It's
>found in
>its in complete form at
>http://www.greeninformation.com/ARTICLEREALLYG0INGON.htm
>Sorry for the duplicate posts -- it's a time issue.  Do read and pass this

>around.
>
><<[Once again, here is what is REALLY going on, by Colin Campbell at:
>
>http://energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html
>
>Boycotting the oil companies may feel good but will never bring cheaper
>gas.�
>its part of the human nature of addiction to be in denial and blame
>others,
>who may be guilty, but the real problem lies deeper. It takes a LOT of
>mean class struggle politics to resolve unresolvable problems, and the
>Dems smell blood.
>
>But what happens when every oil exec has been lynched and oil prices
>still rise? Why can't we blame the packaged lifestyle promoted by
corporate
>expansionism or the oil companies for lying to us about reserves and
>promoting our addiction? Who says humans are rational?]>>
>Regards,
>Ed Evans
><A HREF="http://www.greeninformation.com/index.htm">Green Information
�at
>�http://www.GreenInformation.Com</A>
>". . . . after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that

>money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy

#186

From: elevans@...
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2001 7:16 pm
Subject: INVASION!

elevans@...

http://esa.sdsc.edu/invas3.htm

INVASION!

No, it's not Hollywood's latest thriller, but a real threat to our
environment and economy. Increasing human population and per capita
consumption, leading to expansion of global trade, and increases in human
mobility have resulted in unprecedented invasion by nonnative species. These
biological invasions produce severe, often irreversible impacts on
agriculture, recreation, and our natural resources. Invasive species threaten
biodiversity, habitat quality, and ecosystem function. They are the
second-most important threat to native species, behind habitat destruction,
having contributed to the decline of 42% of U.S. endangered and threatened
species. Introduced species also present an ever-increasing threat to food
and fiber production. In the United States, the economic costs of nonnative
species invasions reach billions of dollars each year.
Regards,
Ed Evans
Green Information �at �http://www.GreenInformation.Com
". . . . after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that
money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#187

From: RadicalEarthMom@...
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2001 11:28 pm
Subject: Re: INVASION!

RadicalEarthMom@...

Ed, One only has to live in the South to be very aware of this fact.
Kudzu which was indtroduced as a means of erosion control is threatening
to choke out native species all over the South.

The standing "joke" around here is that if you leave your bedroom window
open at night, that kudzu will creep in and strangle you in your sleep.
It's not QUITE that bad, but almost.

The Zebra Mussel also is wreaking havoc in the Great Lakes and has
already started causing problems down as far as Arkansas.  Further,
jellyfish which have been introduced into the Gulf of Mexico where they
have no natural predators are destroying the eco-system there as well.

These are just a few of the examples that I am aware of.

In Solidarity,

Ardee-ann

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Please check out this new list, for those who believe that we CAN change
the world, one person at a time, starting with ourselves.

Resistance is fertile!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radical-Pagan-Vegan-Green-Activists

To stay abreast of the issues of genetic engineering and its effect on
our food supply and the ecosystem, check out the following list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-Say-NO-to-GMOs

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#188

From: elevans@...
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2001 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: INVASION!

elevans@...

Further, jellyfish which have been introduced into the Gulf of Mexico where
they
have no natural predators are destroying the eco-system there as well.>>

This is new to me and very sad, very sad.
Thanks for bringing me up to date.
Ed

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#189

From: elevans@...
Date: Sun Jun 10, 2001 7:06 pm
Subject: Ecology and Genetics -- an essay

elevans@...

Ecology and Genetics
http://www.ieer.org/pubs/index.html

An Essay on the Nature of Life and the Problem of Genetic Engineering Apex
Press, 2001 -- 60 pages, paperback
by Arjun Makhijani
The central thesis of this book is that the genetic structures of living
beings are internal biological expressions of the ecosystems they need to
survive. That is why living beings contribute to the reproduction of
ecosystems by their everyday acts of living, in a global-scale symbiosis.
Inter-species genetic engineering creates new types of living beings, which
could not arise naturally and which are being introduced without a sound
understanding of their ecological impacts. The potential for nasty ecological
surprises, possibly greater than anything seen with chemicals, is outlined in
this monograph, which is based on fundamental theoretical arguments,
illustrated with many examples.

Arjun Makhijani presents a deeper and scarier analysis of the threat which
genetically engineered food poses to life on earth than criticisms of
genetically engineered food to date. His work will open a new and more
profound debate that calls into question the very nature of the
agricultural biotech experiment now underway. Friends of the Earth urges
everyone to read this pioneering book.

-- Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the EarthPRICE: $7.00 including
postage and handling.
Ordering Information � �

#190

From: elevans@...
Date: Sun Jun 10, 2001 8:54 pm
Subject: EXXONMOBIL A MAJOR FUNDER OF "GREENHOUSE SKEPTICS"

elevans@...

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3645&
method=full
ExxonMobil: The Skeptics' New Patron

EXXONMOBIL EMERGES AS MAJOR FUNDER OF "GREENHOUSE SKEPTICS"
ExxonMobil has become a major funder of the most visible "greenhouse
skeptics", most of whom who have traditionally been funded by the coal
industry -- including S. Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and
Sherwood Idso.
ExxonMobil is the world's third largest corporation with annual profits of
about $17 billion. The company is using some of those profits to confuse the
public discussion of global climate change. ExxonMobil is sabotaging the work
of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries by funding the most visible
"greenhouse skeptics" -- one of whom, S. Fred Singer, publicly denied
receiving oil industry money as recently as February, 2001.
According to 1998, ExxonMobil documents, the company directly funds:
S. Fred Singer's institute, The Science and Environmental Policy Project as
well as another foundation that promotes Singer's activities; and,
Craig Idso, Keith E. Idso and Sherwood Idso's institute: The Center for the
Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
ExxonMobil grants have indirectly funded Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling.
In its own documents, ExxonMobil is quite clear about why it funds the tiny
handful of dissenting "greenhouse skeptics": "ExxonMobil provides support to
selected organizations that assess public policy alternatives on issues with
direct bearing on the company's business operations and interests."
S. Fred Singer:
On Feb 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he
denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had
consulted for the oil industry.
According to ExxonMobil documents, the company gave a 1998 grant of $10,000
to Singer's institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
It gave another $65,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Fairfax,
Virginia which promotes Singer's work.
In its web page, "Atlas invites other institutes to take advantage of the
opportunities provided by the proximity of SEPP. The organization's founding
president, Dr. S. Fred Singer, is a well-known physical scientist who has
been an active contributor in the battle against the 'politicization' of
science. Singer, along with a handful of other prominent scientists, have
dared to challenge claims of environmental apocalypse from global
warming…Fortunately for those who believe that public policy should be based
on sound science, Dr. Singer offers a wealth of information, credibility, and
encouragement."
In his letter to The Washington Post, Singer wrote: "My connection to oil
during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the
Wesson money derives from salad oil."
In 1998, ExxonMobil gave $135,000 to the Hoover Institution -- the same year
Singer published an article in the institution's publication, The Hoover
Digest.
Singer's falsehood about industry funding in The Washington Post is the
latest in a series of fabrications and untruths.
In 1997, Singer told the press that former IPCC Chairman Dr. Bert Bolin has
changed his mind about climate change. According to Singer, Bolin had
dismissed the connection between atmospheric warming and extreme weather
events – and was distressed that the Clinton Administration was taking
measures to reduce emissions.
Bolin subsequently denied making the statements. Bolin said it was
"scientifically accurate" to note that extreme weather effects "are
consistent with the predicted effects of climate change.
Referring to Singer's attribution of bogus statements to Bolin, the Swedish
physicist dismissed them as "inaccurate and misleading."
Singer followed that misrepresentation with an attack on the integrity of the
entire IPCC process in an interview last January in The New American, the
magazine of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society.
While Singer loudly touts himself as an accomplished scientist, he has been
unable to publish his work in any peer- reviewed scientific journal for at
least 15 years, except for one technical comment.
Patrick Michaels:
ExxonMobil also funds The Cato Institute's Environment and Natural Resources
program. In 1998, ExxonMobil gave a grant of $15,000 to the Institute's
program. Patrick Michaels is a Senior Fellow in that Cato Program.
Michaels has been one of the most visible of the "greenhouse skeptics." In a
critique of Michaels' work, printed in an appendix to The Heat Is On, Dr. Tom
M. L. Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research wrote:
"Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of
misrepresentation and misinterpretation…Many of the supposedly factual
statements made by Michaels are either inaccurate or are seriously
misleading." Wigley concluded that no only would Michaels' work not pass the
scientific peer-review process, it is so deeply flawed it would not even be
accepted for such review.
Michaels has received hundreds of thousands in industry funding from the
German Coal Mining Association, the Western Fuels Association and Cyprus
Minerals, a leading funder of the virulently anti-environmental "Wise Use
Movement" of the early 1990s.
His newsletter, "World Climate Report" , was funded by The Western Fuels
Association and sent free of charge to every member of the Society of
Environmental Journalists.
Michaels is on the board of the Greening Earth Society, a creation of The
Western Fuels Association Dr. Robert Balling:
Exxon Mobil also funds The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy,
which published "The Heated Debate," a 1992 book by Dr. Robert Balling,
another prominent "greenhouse skeptic."
In a review of Balling's book, Dr. Michael MacCracken, director, U.S. Office
of Global Change Research Programs, wrote: "Balling's book is frustrating.
Despite its title, the book is clearly not a documentary of the debate that
is taking place…Balling sets up a ‘straw man' catastrophist vision in which
it is rather easy to punch holes. It would have been much more of a challenge
had he taken on the authoritative report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change."
Balling, based at Arizona State University, has received more than $300,000
in funding from the Western Fuels Association, the British Coal Corporation,
Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. His research was funded in part by the Kuwait
Institute for Scientific Research.
Balling is on the board of the Greening Earth Society, a creation of the
Western Fuels Association.
Craig Idso, Keith E. Idso, Sherwood Idso
ExxonMobil funds the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, Tempe, Arizona.
This center, which has been closely affiliated with Western Fuels Association
, has Craig Idso as president, Keith E. Idso as vice president and Sherwood
Idso as its scientific advisor.
Sherwood Idso created a $250,000 video for Western Fuels in 1991 titled "The
Greening of Planet Earth" which touts the virtues of global warming. The
highly misleading video – which claims that global warming is good for
humanity was paid for by the coal industry and was the subject of
Congressional Hearings in the early 1990s.
Keith E. Idso has published the results of the center's work, among other
places, in the John Birch Society magazine, "The New American."
While The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide has tried to distance itself
from the coal industry and Western Fuels Association, a look at the Western
Fuels website indicates otherwise. Documentation for ExxonMobil's funding of
the "greenhouse skeptics" can be found on the ExxonMobil website.
For more information about ExxonMobil and global warming, visit the site of
Campaign ExxonMobil.
Regards,
Ed Evans
Green Information at http://www.GreenInformation.Com
". . . . after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that
money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy

#191

From: RadicalEarthMom@...
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 3:22 am
Subject: EXXONMOBIL A MAJOR FUNDER OF "GREENHOUSE SKEPTICS"

RadicalEarthMom@...

From another list:


http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3645&
method=full

ExxonMobil: The Skeptics' New Patron
EXXONMOBIL EMERGES AS MAJOR FUNDER OF "GREENHOUSE SKEPTICS"

ExxonMobil has become a major funder of the most visible "greenhouse
skeptics", most of whom who have traditionally been funded by the coal
industry -- including S. Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling
and
Sherwood Idso.

ExxonMobil is the world's third largest corporation with annual profits
of
about $17 billion. The company is using some of those profits to confuse
the
public discussion of global climate change. ExxonMobil is sabotaging the
work
of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries by funding the most
visible
"greenhouse skeptics" -- one of whom, S. Fred Singer, publicly denied
receiving oil industry money as recently as February, 2001.

According to 1998, ExxonMobil documents, the company directly funds:
S. Fred Singer's institute, The Science and Environmental Policy Project
as
well as another foundation that promotes Singer's activities; and,
Craig Idso, Keith E. Idso and Sherwood Idso's institute: The Center for
the
Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

ExxonMobil grants have indirectly funded Patrick Michaels and Robert
Balling.
In its own documents, ExxonMobil is quite clear about why it funds the
tiny
handful of dissenting "greenhouse skeptics": "ExxonMobil provides
support to selected organizations that assess public policy alternatives
on issues with
direct bearing on the company's business operations and interests."
S. Fred Singer:

On Feb 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which
he
denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he
had
consulted for the oil industry.

According to ExxonMobil documents, the company gave a 1998 grant of
$10,000
to Singer's institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project
(SEPP).
It gave another $65,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation,
Fairfax,
Virginia which promotes Singer's work.
In its web page, "Atlas invites other institutes to take advantage of
the
opportunities provided by the proximity of SEPP. The organization's
founding
president, Dr. S. Fred Singer, is a well-known physical scientist who
has
been an active contributor in the battle against the 'politicization' of
science. Singer, along with a handful of other prominent scientists,
have
dared to challenge claims of environmental apocalypse from global
warming…Fortunately for those who believe that public policy
should be based
on sound science, Dr. Singer offers a wealth of information,
credibility, and
encouragement."

In his letter to The Washington Post, Singer wrote: "My connection to
oil
during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution;
the
Wesson money derives from salad oil."

In 1998, ExxonMobil gave $135,000 to the Hoover Institution -- the same
year
Singer published an article in the institution's publication, The Hoover
Digest.

Singer's falsehood about industry funding in The Washington Post is the
latest in a series of fabrications and untruths.

In 1997, Singer told the press that former IPCC Chairman Dr. Bert Bolin
has
changed his mind about climate change. According to Singer, Bolin had
dismissed the connection between atmospheric warming and extreme weather
events  and was distressed that the Clinton Administration was taking
measures to reduce emissions.

Bolin subsequently denied making the statements. Bolin said it was
"scientifically accurate" to note that extreme weather effects "are
consistent with the predicted effects of climate change.

Referring to Singer's attribution of bogus statements to Bolin, the
Swedish
physicist dismissed them as "inaccurate and misleading."

Singer followed that misrepresentation with an attack on the integrity
of the
entire IPCC process in an interview last January in The New American,
the
magazine of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society.

While Singer loudly touts himself as an accomplished scientist, he has
been
unable to publish his work in any peer- reviewed scientific journal for
at
least 15 years, except for one technical comment.

Patrick Michaels:

ExxonMobil also funds The Cato Institute's Environment and Natural
Resources program. In 1998, ExxonMobil gave a grant of $15,000 to the
Institute's
program. Patrick Michaels is a Senior Fellow in that Cato Program.

Michaels has been one of the most visible of the "greenhouse skeptics."
In a
critique of Michaels' work, printed in an appendix to The Heat Is On,
Dr. Tom
M. L. Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research wrote:

"Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog
of
misrepresentation and misinterpretation…Many of the supposedly
factual
statements made by Michaels are either inaccurate or are seriously
misleading." Wigley concluded that no only would Michaels' work not pass
the
scientific peer-review process, it is so deeply flawed it would not even
be
accepted for such review.

Michaels has received hundreds of thousands in industry funding from the
German Coal Mining Association, the Western Fuels Association and Cyprus
Minerals, a leading funder of the virulently anti-environmental "Wise
Use
Movement" of the early 1990s.

His newsletter, "World Climate Report" , was funded by The Western Fuels
Association and sent free of charge to every member of the Society of
Environmental Journalists.

Michaels is on the board of the Greening Earth Society, a creation of
The
Western Fuels Association Dr. Robert Balling:

Exxon Mobil also funds The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy,
which published "The Heated Debate," a 1992 book by Dr. Robert Balling,
another prominent "greenhouse skeptic."

In a review of Balling's book, Dr. Michael MacCracken, director, U.S.
Office
of Global Change Research Programs, wrote: "Balling's book is
frustrating.

Despite its title, the book is clearly not a documentary of the debate
that
is taking place…Balling sets up a ‘straw man'
catastrophist vision in which it is rather easy to punch holes. It would
have been much more of a challenge had he taken on the authoritative
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Balling, based at Arizona State University, has received more than
$300,000
in funding from the Western Fuels Association, the British Coal
Corporation,
Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. His research was funded in part by the Kuwait
Institute for Scientific Research.
Balling is on the board of the Greening Earth Society, a creation of the
Western Fuels Association.

Craig Idso, Keith E. Idso, Sherwood Idso
ExxonMobil funds the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, Tempe, Arizona.

This center, which has been closely affiliated with Western Fuels
Association
, has Craig Idso as president, Keith E. Idso as vice president and
Sherwood
Idso as its scientific advisor.

Sherwood Idso created a $250,000 video for Western Fuels in 1991 titled
"The
Greening of Planet Earth" which touts the virtues of global warming. The
highly misleading video �" which claims that global warming is good
for
humanity was paid for by the coal industry and was the subject of
Congressional Hearings in the early 1990s.

Keith E. Idso has published the results of the center's work, among
other
places, in the John Birch Society magazine, "The New American."
While The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide has tried to distance
itself
from the coal industry and Western Fuels Association, a look at the
Western
Fuels website indicates otherwise. Documentation for ExxonMobil's
funding of the "greenhouse skeptics" can be found on the ExxonMobil
website.

For more information about ExxonMobil and global warming, visit the site
of
Campaign ExxonMobil.

Regards,

Ed Evans

Green Information �at

�http://www.GreenInformation.Com

". . . . after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find
that
money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy

#192

From: RadicalEarthMom@...
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 3:24 am
Subject: Re: EXXONMOBIL A MAJOR FUNDER OF "GREENHOUSE SKEPTICS"

RadicalEarthMom@...

Ed, this information was not really surprising but it WAS irritating.
Big Business seems to own the government and to have us all held
hostage.

Resistance is fertile,

Ardee-ann

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Please check out this new list, for those who believe that we CAN change
the world, one person at a time, starting with ourselves.

Resistance is fertile!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radical-Pagan-Vegan-Green-Activists

To stay abreast of the issues of genetic engineering and its effect on
our food supply and the ecosystem, check out the following list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-Say-NO-to-GMOs

#193

From: RadicalEarthMom@...
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 3:43 am
Subject: Re: EXXONMOBIL A MAJOR FUNDER OF "GREENHOUSE SKEPTICS"

RadicalEarthMom@...

Dear List Members,

I tried to forward this to another list and managed to send it back to
this list.  My brain cells are clogged up.  I apologize for being a
nitwit!!!

Ardee-ann the feeble minded

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Please check out this new list, for those who believe that we CAN change
the world, one person at a time, starting with ourselves.

Resistance is fertile!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radical-Pagan-Vegan-Green-Activists

To stay abreast of the issues of genetic engineering and its effect on
our food supply and the ecosystem, check out the following list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-Say-NO-to-GMOs

#194

From: Pythia <pythia8@...>
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 5:11 am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 111

pythia8@...

Awesome web site.
Green Information is a great site.

Pythia

EcoFeminism@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> There are 3 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. INVASION!
>            From: elevans@...
>       2. Re: INVASION!
>            From: RadicalEarthMom@...
>       3. Re: INVASION!
>            From: elevans@...
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:16:13 EDT
>    From: elevans@...
> Subject: INVASION!
>
> http://esa.sdsc.edu/invas3.htm
>
> INVASION!
> No, it's not Hollywood's latest thriller, but a real threat to our
> environment and economy. Increasing human population and per capita
> consumption, leading to expansion of global trade, and increases in human
> mobility have resulted in unprecedented invasion by nonnative species. These
> biological invasions produce severe, often irreversible impacts on
> agriculture, recreation, and our natural resources. Invasive species threaten
> biodiversity, habitat quality, and ecosystem function. They are the
> second-most important threat to native species, behind habitat destruction,
> having contributed to the decline of 42% of U.S. endangered and threatened
> species. Introduced species also present an ever-increasing threat to food
> and fiber production. In the United States, the economic costs of nonnative
> species invasions reach billions of dollars each year.
>  Regards,
> Ed Evans
> <A HREF="http://www.greeninformation.com/index.htm">Green Information �at
�http://www.GreenInformation.Com</A>
> ". . . . after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that
> money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
>    Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:28:23 -0500 (CDT)
>    From: RadicalEarthMom@...
> Subject: Re: INVASION!
>
> Ed, One only has to live in the South to be very aware of this fact.
> Kudzu which was indtroduced as a means of erosion control is threatening
> to choke out native species all over the South.
>
> The standing "joke" around here is that if you leave your bedroom window
> open at night, that kudzu will creep in and strangle you in your sleep.
> It's not QUITE that bad, but almost.
>
> The Zebra Mussel also is wreaking havoc in the Great Lakes and has
> already started causing problems down as far as Arkansas.  Further,
> jellyfish which have been introduced into the Gulf of Mexico where they
> have no natural predators are destroying the eco-system there as well.
>
> These are just a few of the examples that I am aware of.
>
> In Solidarity,
>
> Ardee-ann
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Please check out this new list, for those who believe that we CAN change
> the world, one person at a time, starting with ourselves.
>
> Resistance is fertile!
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radical-Pagan-Vegan-Green-Activists
>
> To stay abreast of the issues of genetic engineering and its effect on
> our food supply and the ecosystem, check out the following list:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-Say-NO-to-GMOs
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
>    Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:46:57 EDT
>    From: elevans@...
> Subject: Re: INVASION!
>
> Further, jellyfish which have been introduced into the Gulf of Mexico where
> they
> have no natural predators are destroying the eco-system there as well.>>
>
> This is new to me and very sad, very sad.
> Thanks for bringing me up to date.
> Ed
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#195

From: edlevans@...
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: EXXONMOBIL A MAJOR FUNDER OF "GREENHOUSE SKEPTICS"

edlevans@...

I tried to forward this to another list >>

I hope others forward it too.
Thanks.

#196

From: elevans@...
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 6:23 pm
Subject: Cell Phone Ecology benefit raising for Green causes

elevans@...

I've just placed an advertisement at Green Information: Want to order a cell
phone and have the profits from the sale go to the American
Association of Green Parties? Write to Cell Phone Ecology and ensure that
your purchase goes to help the national Green politics.

The idea is to use free enterprise for Green ends; however, I don't know if
doing it through Green Information will be legal. Any ideas?

If this happens, be sure to buy your cell phones through this process and
advise others to do the same. I will deduct 10 percent to cover income tax
and other expenses until the real costs of this benefit raising process are
known.
Regards,
Ed Evans
Green Information �at �http://www.GreenInformation.Com
". . . . after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that
money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy

#197

From: elevans@...
Date: Mon Jun 25, 2001 9:38 pm
Subject: Germany to quit nukes

elevans@...

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS BERLIN (AP) -- Eager to prove that abandoning nuclear
power won't force Germany to fall back on dirtier energy sources, a senior
official on Thursday renewed government backing for offshore wind farms to
fill the gap.

Rainer Baake, the deputy environment minister, conceded that environmental
concerns and questions of shipping safety still have to be addressed before
the first such installation is built, probably in 2004.

"We're treading new ground here,'' Baake told a conference on the technology
in Berlin.

Environment Minister Juergen Trittin said last week that up to three-fifths
of today's nuclear power could be replaced by wind energy by 2030. But none
of the offshore plants that would produce that energy have yet been built,
and there also is no agreement on where to build them.

On Monday, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and leading energy companies formally
signed an agreement to shut down Germany's 19 nuclear power plants, making it
the largest industrial nation to willingly forgo the technology.

The pact limits nuclear plants, which provide nearly a third of Germany's
electricity, to an average 32 years of operation. That would likely see the
most modern plants close around 2021.

The opposition Christian Democrats argue that eliminating nuclear energy
would force Germany to use dirtier power sources. That could make it more
difficult to curb emissions as outlined by the landmark 1997 Kyoto agreement
on greenhouse gases.

The Environment Ministry plans to build about 40 wind generators offshore in
a small-scale pilot project before 2004. Sven Teske, a spokesman for the
environmental group Greenpeace, criticized the government for not moving
ahead faster.

Wind power last year accounted for 2 percent of Germany's electricity
production, or 10 billion kilowatt hours. Baake and Trittin want to see that
figure rise to 110 billion kilowatt hours over the next three decades.

#198

From: RadicalEarthMom@...
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2001 4:06 am
Subject: Re: Germany to quit nukes

RadicalEarthMom@...

Wow, it is encouraging to see a country as big as Germany look at
renewable energy as an option.  I would like to see the US return to
dialogue regarding a progressive vs. regressive energy plan.

However, with the grease monkeys in the White House big oil and its
henchmen will continue to dominate what will pass for US energy plans
for at least the next few years.  Aren't we "lucky?"

Thanks for sharing this article.

In Solidarity,

Ardee-ann

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Please check out this new list, for those who believe that we CAN change
the world, one person at a time, starting with ourselves.

Resistance is fertile!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radical-Pagan-Vegan-Green-Activists

To stay abreast of the issues of genetic engineering and its effect on
our food supply and the ecosystem, check out the following list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-Say-NO-to-GMOs

#199

From: elevans@...
Date: Fri Jun 29, 2001 7:34 am
Subject: Green FAQs

elevans@...

I am still writing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the Greens.
Please
feel free to contribute. I have a long way to go with content, editing,
criticism, and formatting. My Ecofeminism comments are pitiful.
Regards,
Ed Evans
"It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war
that
opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the
possibilities of regimenting the public mind," wrote Bernays in his 1928
bombshell, Propaganda. "
Green Information at http://www.GreenInformation.Com

-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Green FAQs
Date: 6/29/2001 4:26:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Greenwebworks
To: gpoc_discuss@yahoogroups.com

I am still writing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the Greens. Please
feel free to contribute. I have a long way to go with content, editing,
criticism, and formatting. I will make mighty use of Distinctions among
Greens, Socialists, and Liberals There are ... a number of general
philosphical differences between the Greens by Michael Christopher,
http://www.greeninformation.com/Distinctions%20among%20Greens,%20Socialists,%2

0and%20Liberals.htm.
Regards,
Ed Evans
"It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that
opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the
possibilities of regimenting the public mind," wrote Bernays in his 1928
bombshell, Propaganda. "
Green Information at http://www.GreenInformation.Com

#200

From: edlevans@...
Date: Sat Jun 30, 2001 2:55 pm
Subject: Did Cradles Always Rock? Or Did Mom Once Not Care?

edlevans@...

June 30, 2001

Did Cradles Always Rock? Or Did Mom Once Not Care?

By EMILY EAKIN

Jan Steen, from This book says medieval mothers did indeed care about their
babies.

hen eight gay couples decided to sue the Canadian government for the right to
marry last year, they recruited a historian of the family to file a brief on
their behalf. The Canadian government did the same. As a result, when Halpern
v. Canada is heard in Ontario Divisional Court this fall, the judges will be
asked to consider conflicting testimony about the nature of marriages and
families in the past.

On one hand, Edward Shorter, a historian at the Faculty of Medicine at the
University of Toronto, writing for the government, argues that bringing up
children has been the motivating force behind Western marriages throughout
history. "Child rearing has always been the central mission of married life,"
Mr. Shorter said in a telephone interview. "The overwhelming majority of
married couples intend to and do have children." Recognizing homosexual
marriages, in which procreation is unlikely, he added, would be a radical
departure from tradition.

On the other hand, Randolph Trumbach, a historian at Baruch College and the
Graduate Center of the City University of New York, writing for the
plaintiffs, argues that marriage and family did not always hinge on producing
babies. Just look at Henry VIII, Charles II and James II, he says, British
kings who at one time or another found themselves married to a woman who was
unable to conceive. Failure to produce an heir carried considerable political
and personal risks. Nevertheless, the monarchs were obliged to stick out
their marriages — or in the case of Henry VIII — find creative ways to
weasel out of them. Infertility alone was not a ground for divorce.

"My brief argues that the family has always been changing," Mr. Trumbach said
in a telephone interview. "But Shorter argues that the one continuous thing
is the producing and caring for of children. In fact, he's just wrong on that
issue."

The competing legal briefs are simply the latest installment of a decades-old
scholarly battle over family life in the distant past, where the historical
record is fragmentary at best. Has the family remained a more or less stable
institution over the centuries or has it undergone drastic changes? Is the
contemporary family, with its stress on emotional and sexual bonds, a recent
invention? Or have love and affection always existed between husbands and
wives and parents and children?

Such questions have been vigorously debated for 40 years, ever since the
French historian Philippe Ariès published his classic book, "Centuries of
Childhood: A Social History of Family Life," in 1960. Noting that medieval
artists depicted children as adults, only smaller, he argued that early
modern parents had little conception of childhood as a distinct phase of
life. It was only with the decline of infant mortality beginning in the 17th
century and a trend toward enrolling children in local schools (as opposed to
sending them away for vocational training), he wrote, that childhood was
discovered and the intimate, loving modern family was born.

His theory was enthusiastically embraced by a generation of historians. In
1975 Mr. Shorter published "The Making of the Modern Family," in which he
made even more extravagant claims about the relative novelty of the
close-knit "Leave It to Beaver" type of family.

For most of history, he insisted, family life for the vast majority was a
grim and loveless affair. Wives were "baby machines," treated "mechanically
and without affection" by their husbands. Romance was rare. Likewise grief at
the death of a spouse. "The emotional distance separating the couple appears
unbridgeable," he wrote, "and if more than a few escaped the iron cells which
their social and sexual roles had cast for them, our sources do not record
it."

As for maternal affection, it simply didn't exist. In Mr. Shorter's
characteristically melodramatic words: "Mothers viewed the development and
happiness of infants younger than 2 with indifference." They had too many
responsibilities to waste time squandering love on an infant that might not
survive.

But by 1800, he contended, all that had changed. A "revolution in sentiment"
swept across Western Europe propelled by the rise of marketplace capitalism,
which stressed the individualism of workers and consumers. The family was
transformed: "Affection and inclination, love and sympathy, came to take the
place of `instrumental' considerations in regulating the dealings of family
members with one another. Spouses and children came to be prized for what
they were, rather than what they represented or could do. That is the essence
of `sentiment.' "

Not only did mothers now love their babies, but the overflowing of maternal
feelings had a positive effect on marriages as well. "The basic tie holding
the couple together in modern times" probably wasn't romantic attraction, Mr.
Shorter speculated, but rather the "sense of household bliss arising from the
mother's concern for her small infants."

In 1977, two years after "The Making of the Modern Family" appeared, Lawrence
Stone, an influential historian at Princeton University, published "The
Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800." He, too, perceived the
emergence of a "new family type" around 1750. "The critical change is that
from distance, deference and patriarchy to what I have chosen to call
affective individualism," he wrote. "I believe this to have been perhaps the
most important change in mentalité to have occurred in the early modern
period, indeed possibly in the last thousand years of Western history."

For years, the sentimentalist view ruled.

Lately, however, it has come under increasing fire. One of the most dogged
critics is Steven Ozment, a historian of the family at Harvard University,
who has made debunking what he calls the "Arièsian myth" his central project
for the last two decades. In that time he has published six books based on
German family archives from the 15th and 16th centuries that seem to
contradict many of the claims of Mr. Ariès's disciples. (One, "The
Bürgermeister's Daughter," about a 16th-century German woman who sued her
father, siblings and city council, is being made into a film.) His new book,
"Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe" (Harvard University Press), is a
hand grenade lobbed into the sentimentalist camp.

With short sections devoted to the six historians he considers the worst
offenders, Mr. Ozment pulls no punches. He accuses the sentimentalists of
exaggerating the negative features of the past to make the present look
better. "It's a self-serving argument," he said in a telephone interview.
"And it sells the past short."

In contrast to the sentimentalists, Mr. Ozment insists that families of the
past were really no different from families today. He scoffs at Mr. Ariès's
notion that medieval parents treated their offspring like little adults. In
fact, he argues, early medieval writings on childhood bear an uncanny
resemblance to the theories of the modern psychologists Jean Piaget and Erik
Erikson. And he cites diaries, letters and autobiographies preserved in
family archives to prove that " `the modern sentimental family' exists as far
back in time and as widely in space as there are proper sources to document
it."

It's an energetic attack, but the sentimentalists aren't ceding any ground.
"You could take his argument and hurl it back into the same place," Mr.
Shorter said. "You could say he has a desire to see the past as golden, to
see people in the past as beneficent and loving as we deem ourselves to be
today. That's simply ahistorical and wrong. There's a massive amount of
evidence that speaks for the sentimental point of view."

So is Mr. Ozment as guilty of idealizing the past as the sentimentalists are
of idealizing the present? It's hard to say. Even Mr. Shorter admits that
given the lack of historical records, "something like this can never be
proved one way or another."

Yet, the latest signs suggest the scholarly balance is tipping against the
sentimentalists. In October, Yale University Press is publishing the first
volume of a major new three-part history of the European family. "The bottom
line of the project is to show that while history has molded the family unit
across the centuries, there are many continuities," said Robert Baldock, the
Yale University Press editor who is handling the books. "The modern family is
not a radically different construct. Despite technological changes, lives in
the past were very similar to our own in terms of emotions, relationships and
ambitions. We may have a broader horizon, but we are not necessarily more
sophisticated or more spiritually developed than people who lived 600 years
ago."