Sunday, June 06, 2004
No Confidence Movement Gets Local Coverage
I'm writing this from San Francisco, CA where yesterday I handed out at least 500 leaflets for the No Confidence movement. Note that the leaflets are downloadable, four to a page. The leaflets do not mention a location so no matter where you are in the US, you can print these and use them to start working on the campaign in your town. Also, the leaflets are in Word (.doc) format which makes them customizable.
Back home, the Eureka Times-Standard has published both my editorial (today) and Meghan Vogel's news article (yesterday). The editorial was left intact, with the exception of removing capitalization from phrases like "Consent of the Governed" and "just Powers" which were submitted by me as shown in the Declaration of Independence. This is trivial and does not alter the meaning of the piece. In Vogel's news article, however, it appears she is implying that I am calling for the abolishment of the government. She notes that this is not an original idea but rather one that comes directly from the Declaration of Independence. On the latter she is correct. On the former she is close, but not quite accurate. From my own words in the editorial:
And from the resolution itself:
The point is that as a national No Confidence consensus emerges, communities all over the country will have to work together to determine the answer to the GuvWurld mantra: "what would be better?" Yes, the scope of the needed changes is massive. And if the consensus is that the government should be abolished and completely replaced, our resolution allows us to contribute to such a discussion. But I am NOT directly calling for abolition of the government.
Aside from this, I am grateful that I live in a place where the local media will still allow me to put these ideas into the public domain for discussion. What would be better is living in a country where we can all take this for granted.
0 comments
Back home, the Eureka Times-Standard has published both my editorial (today) and Meghan Vogel's news article (yesterday). The editorial was left intact, with the exception of removing capitalization from phrases like "Consent of the Governed" and "just Powers" which were submitted by me as shown in the Declaration of Independence. This is trivial and does not alter the meaning of the piece. In Vogel's news article, however, it appears she is implying that I am calling for the abolishment of the government. She notes that this is not an original idea but rather one that comes directly from the Declaration of Independence. On the latter she is correct. On the former she is close, but not quite accurate. From my own words in the editorial:
"No one person, nor even one community, could bear the burden of remaking American democracy."
And from the resolution itself:
"Be it ultimately resolved that when a sufficient number of No Confidence resolutions have passed, and the domino effect hereby triggered has reached its tipping point, the Right of the People to abolish its Government shall be accepted as decreed by our nation’s Founding Fathers."
The point is that as a national No Confidence consensus emerges, communities all over the country will have to work together to determine the answer to the GuvWurld mantra: "what would be better?" Yes, the scope of the needed changes is massive. And if the consensus is that the government should be abolished and completely replaced, our resolution allows us to contribute to such a discussion. But I am NOT directly calling for abolition of the government.
Aside from this, I am grateful that I live in a place where the local media will still allow me to put these ideas into the public domain for discussion. What would be better is living in a country where we can all take this for granted.
0 comments
0 Comments:
