HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0449.051 2000-2002 Subject: Re: LFAS Resolution
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 12:30:50 -0000
From: "Director, The Public Cause Network" Director(a;ThePublicCause.Net to: <jacobs@hgea.org>
Re: LFAS Resolution
Dear Councilperson Jacobs:
I've just learned about the resolution opposing LFAS that you have introduced in the Hawaii County Council
and wish to thank you for doing so.
The Public Cause Network has a comprehensive Internet resource on the subject at
http://www.thepubliccause.net/LoudSONARs.html.
It shows that LFAS (and other loud SONARS, such as 'the Boom Box') are
harmful (in the 'Enviro Uproar' section) and that LFAS is ineffective as a submarine
defense system ('SONAR Obstacles' and 'Submarine Defenses' sections). The
offending devices themselves are given in the 'Loud SONARS' section. I suggest ~~t:~'rm~,
traat you invite your fellow Council Members to visit this resource. (My credentials ~~S
as the author are given in the section 'About the Author'.) ~~b_~. ~~~Y._
Respectfully
, ~ -=G
William Wilgus
The Public Cause Network
Silver Springs FL USA
(352) 625-9646
Director@ThePublicCause.Net
http : //ww w. thepubliccause. net/
From: Judy Dalton <dalton@aloha.net>
To: jacobs@hgea.org
Aloha Julie,
As a member of the Executive Committee for the Kaua' i Group of the Sierra Club, I send our encouragement to
continue with your compassionate efforts toward this important objective of marine mammal protection.
Judy
Subject: NAVY SONAR
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:06:19 -0700
From: "Barbara Warman" <bwarman@cintek.com>
To: <jacobs@hgea.org>
Thank you for introducing your resolution - I wish you success. I know the animal kingdom will be grateful,
and humans would be as well, if the majority had any idea what was happening in our environment.
Sincerely,
Barb Warman EMAIL: bwarman@cintek.com /
Too
Ptil~ ~F®,
_
file:///Untitled
Ivlike wrote:
Andy,
It's a good idea but it breaks the first rule of politics, don't restate accusations
against yourself, most people have not heard them. Instead right it as a positive
"what we have to offer piece" using some of the suggestions I made in an email a
bit ago, that uses- the Adler case of an example of how our system is working to
protect the integrity of the party and help the voters.
1l~Iike
Andy wrote:
I've taken the liberty of drafting an op-ed piece regarding our coming
"decision". It's designed to be released after our rejection of JA to put
the proper spin on it and not allow the crap that happened with Wheat
to happen again.
It is in third person but can be put in second (we, rather than they) or
first (I, not we or they) depending on who wants to "own it"- Id like to
see the whole CC sign it by name to take pressure off Ira here to
answer all questions all the time.
Does anyone want to put their name to this? The S-B is almost
required to print this as a commentary- but at least as a letter to the
editor.
It would be hard forme to sign it in second person (which is why I
wrote it in third) since I don't really have a title with the party although I
was appointed as a media co-chair for the state party at the
convention (as opposed to local party's media people) but can't
remember who else was appointed (I knew I should have written it
down). I've been doing this kind of stuff for a year nationally and would
be glad to coordinate our PR efforts here with the CC.
I could send it as a private citizen, a party member or a party official-
up to all of you, as is any rewording and editing.
Better still, all (or one) of you can sign it.
Here it is- it's short but to the point
-------------------------------------A
The case of Jonathan Adler's attempt to run for Governor of Hawai' i
as a Green Party of Hawai' i (GPHI) candidate brings up questions that
have lingered since a judge ruled that the GPHI was justified in not
allowing Darryl "Buck" Wheat a spot on their ticket in the mayoral race
on the Big Island in 1998.
"How come the Green Party of Hawaii rejects candidates? How can
they do that? I thought this was a democracy where anyone has the
right to run for any office. Isn't this just more of the same stuff the
Democrats and Republicans do? I thought the Greens said they were
I of 4 1/4/02 6:50 PM
file:///Untitled
different..."
The fact is that political parties have an established legal "right" to
decide who represents them. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that
right last year. It's called the right of Free Association.
The difference is that Greens think they have an absolute obligation to
decide who their candidates will be.
When you see a Republican or Democratic candidate, what do you
get? Do they believe in anything specific by virtue of being a party
member? Are- they representing the platform of the party?....
We all know the answer to that. They represent themselves and believe
whatever they say individually. If there is a party platform- national,
state or local- it's just for show and they are under no obligation to
follow it.
On the other hand, Greens must always be Green. And what you see is
what you get- a progressive candidate that runs an issue based
campaign.
GPHI candidates' stances on the issues are grounded in the Four
International Green Party Pillars- those of Ecological Wisdom, Social
Justice, Nonviolence and Grassroots Democracy- and the 10 Key
Values, which additionally include: respect for diversity, feminism,
community based economics, decentralization, personal and global
responsibility and future focus.
Green candidates here also adhere to the local and statewide planks
that the grassroots members of the Hawai' i party have determined are
grounded in those principles.
The GPHI has a platform that has been brought forward by the
grassroots members of the party. The planks of the platforms have
been studied, researched, discussed, debated and approved by
everyone involved, usually by consensus.
And the GPHI requires it's candidates- and members- to agree with
that platform, in principle. Otherwise, you are not representing your
local, state or national Green Party.
It's simple, yet elegant.
What this protocol does is to tell people that when you vote for a
Green Party candidate you don't have to guess at what the candidate
will do if elected. You can be assured that if you agree with the
platform, the Green candidate will act in a manner consistent with what
you believe.
2 of 4 1 /4/02 6:50 PM