[NC-Discuss] Fwd: [usgp-nc] The Compromise which put #339 Before you

[Yarden]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net>
> Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008  8:30:42  PM US/Eastern
> To: "Gary Novosielski" <gary at novosielski.com>
> Cc: GNC <natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org>
> Subject: Re: [usgp-nc] The Compromise which put #339 Before you
>
> Enough,
> I would like to see the following:
> 1.  A careful reworking of the ID #339 to facilitate the work of the 
> Convention.  If their is 'good faith,' (a technical term), a carefully 
> wrought document -- look at standard models -- can help to achieve 
> this.
> 2.  It will help us considerably if this is accompanied by another 
> proposal, currently in committee, on floor rules.  If these cannot be 
> submitted at the same time, the mistrust that prevents that from 
> occurring bodes no good for the convention.
> 3.  The vulgar partisanship -- reminiscent of Duopoly politics -- 
> seems to have made its way to our local state party, the Green-Rainbow 
> Party, with a few people, very few and highly vocal, acting as though 
> our politics is a mimicking of the 'big boys' politics: in this corner 
> the Mckinneyites, in that corner the Naderites, planning how to use 
> rule, 10KV, and moral principles in the fray.  Even the discussion of 
> loyalty oaths as occupying the minds of various people both here and 
> elsewhere in the party reminds me of the our failure to study or 
> understand the premises of ecological politics.
>
> One of which is learning how to avoid quarrels over matter with no 
> substance.  Critical thinking comes into play, and there iis no reason 
> to assume that membership in the right party confers immunity from 
> received ideas and prevailing ideology as expressed in the ongoing 
> arguments and behaviors.
>
> Locally, we are dealing with the problems created by people who wish 
> to use the 10KV as  the "moral equivalent" of peanut rolling.
>
> I am grateful for the attempt on the part of the BRPP to have gotten 
> thus far, and while I do want every safeguard for rational discourse 
> and effective decision-making at the convention, I am also convinced 
> that a more open approach to the possibility of self-destructive 
> behaviors on the part of partisans might provide a better safeguard 
> than security procedures.
> Elie Yarden  (voting Abstain)
> delegate, NCMA GRP
>
> On Sunday, February 10, 2008, at 07:30  PM, Gary Novosielski wrote:
>
>> No. Not nearly good enough.
>>
>> Even "encouraging" an unenforceable loyalty oath is reprehensible.  
>> Maybe
>> even *more* so, because it implies the use of the "if you have 
>> nothing to
>> hide, why would you object?" line on anyone who tries to exercise his 
>> or her
>> right NOT to sign it.  The fact that you *know *it's legally 
>> unenforceable
>> (and for good reason), yet you still "encourage" its use, means you're
>> encouraging people to lie, just to maintain their civil rights.
>>
>> When it comes to loyalty oaths, the burden should be on anyone 
>> favoring
>> their use to show why he or she should not be considered some sort of
>> neo-McCarthyite, poised to purge anyone who doesn't sign, or doesn't 
>> sign
>> fast enough, or doesn't smile sufficiently while signing.   Given the
>> players in this fiasco, that's not going to be an easy thing to show.
>>
>> I don't blame people for being leery.  Their instincts are good ones.
>>
>> =Gary Novosielski; GPNJ delegate
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2008 6:57 PM, Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein at feinstein.org> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *However, it is not legally possible for such an oath to be enforced,
>>> regardless of whether party members like that or not.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the language was written (4-2.7) to *not* require one, but
>>> instead to encourage one.
>>> *
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Natlcomvotes mailing list
>> To send a message to the list, write to:
>> Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org
>> To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to:
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes
>>
>> If your state delegation changes, please see:
>> http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html
>>
>> To report violations of listserv protocol, write to 
>> forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org
>>
>> For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see:
>> http://gp.org/committees/nc/
>>
>