From MamarinMaine@aol.com Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:51:44 EDT Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:51:44 EDT From: MamarinMaine@aol.com MamarinMaine@aol.com Subject: [Meimc-publication] political ads? please reply I still say print what a given advertiser wants and if we don't like it oppose it in the editorial columns and the feature stories we accept and/or ask for, and get opposing views commenting, if needed by calling others for interviews and reactions. That stimulates the debate and the consciousness raising. I ran a radio program and I did that and kept widening the spectrum of opinion as much as I could. In those days I had only liberals and radicals and could not find conservatives or libertarians! It was on WAMU in DC in the civil rights era). I would like to see some debate in Commons between the view of the Maine Chamber research dept for example and any of "us"..They are in the game of pimping us (us as our labor force) for any conglomerate that will move here in their race to the bottom.. Nautica moved to Southern VA to get lower wages than even Maine! ( and a geographical location for shipping better than Maine, supposedly), and I assume the Chamber would take in and subsidize any corporation that would pay even the minimum, so they would not ever experience labor shortage and higher pay possibilities. They certaily talk that way. But they don't get challenged where their views are printed such as in the newly founded Midcoast Review (Rockland)allegedly, for entrepreneurs and artists, as small businesspeople. Would our IWW guys tear up the Chamber's research Director's arguments?(or his throat?). Or vice versa, in print, of course? Are there any"Maine Business for Social Responsibility" people that should be heard in the Commons? I have not found any joining my Challenge Corporate Power Group here in Rockland but I'd like one. Borealis Breads says social responsiility built his business, and now he is going into processing organic grains. Do we have a SLOW FOOD movement under our noses? Can its anti globalism be strengthened? I am most comfortable with those who agree with me but the persons I should be reaching are those who are still enthral to freemarketese and corporate-colonization of their minds. Yet when spoken to calmly, about corporate power, they soon begin to agree about its dominance and outrages, and then they ask but what can be done locally, and they are amazed to find that some people are thinking and acting locally from the bottom up, to reach and affect all that we were not supposed to be able to do anythng about. (there's a going local group inRockland). That's the process communication (MEDIA)is supposed to be enhancing, not navel investigations to see how pure we can become, we happy few.--Matt Clarke Rockland From phuckauthority@maineindymedia.org Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:18:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:18:01 -0500 From: Paul Madore phuckauthority@maineindymedia.org Subject: [Meimc-publication] political ads? please reply Yeah..WHAT HE SAID!! > I still say print what a given advertiser wants and if we don't like it > oppose it in the editorial columns and the feature stories we accept and/or > ask for, and get opposing views commenting, if needed by calling others for > interviews and reactions. > > That stimulates the debate and the consciousness raising. I ran a radio > program and I did that and kept widening the spectrum of opinion as much as I > could. In those days I had only liberals and radicals and could not find > conservatives or libertarians! It was on WAMU in DC in the civil rights era). > > I would like to see some debate in Commons between the view of the Maine > Chamber research dept for example and any of "us"..They are in the game of > pimping us (us as our labor force) for any conglomerate that will move here > in their race to the bottom.. Nautica moved to Southern VA to get lower > wages than even Maine! ( and a geographical location for shipping better than > Maine, supposedly), and I assume the Chamber would take in and subsidize any > corporation that would pay even the minimum, so they would not ever > experience labor shortage and higher pay possibilities. They certaily talk > that way. But they don't get challenged where their views are printed such > as in the newly founded Midcoast Review (Rockland)allegedly, for > entrepreneurs and artists, as small businesspeople. > > Would our IWW guys tear up the Chamber's research Director's arguments?(or > his throat?). Or vice versa, in print, of course? > Are there any"Maine Business for Social Responsibility" people that should be > heard in the Commons? I have not found any joining my Challenge Corporate > Power Group here in Rockland but I'd like one. Borealis Breads says social > responsiility built his business, and now he is going into processing organic > grains. Do we have a SLOW FOOD movement under our noses? Can its anti > globalism be strengthened? > > I am most comfortable with those who agree with me but the persons I should > be reaching are those who are still enthral to freemarketese and > corporate-colonization of their minds. Yet when spoken to calmly, about > corporate power, they soon begin to agree about its dominance and outrages, > and then they ask but what can be done locally, and they are amazed to find > that some people are thinking and acting locally from the bottom up, to > reach and affect all that we were not supposed to be able to do anythng > about. (there's a going local group inRockland). > > That's the process communication (MEDIA)is supposed to be enhancing, not > navel investigations to see how pure we can become, we happy few.--Matt > Clarke Rockland > > _______________________________________________ > Meimc-publication mailing list > Meimc-publication@lists.maineindymedia.org > http://lists.maineindymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/meimc-publication Thanks, ~Comrade-In-Arms, Paul Madore http://www.screwthenorm.maineindymedia.org http://www.maineindymedia.org - Be The Media! "The foundation of change isn't within the election, the foundation of change isn't within the Mayors office, the foundation of change isn't within the City Hall. The Foundation of change is within revolution, and the foundation of revolution is within the community."--RaiseTheFist.com From jimells@midmaine.com Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:22:09 EDT Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:22:09 EDT From: jimells@midmaine.com jimells@midmaine.com Subject: [Meimc-publication] political ads? please reply > I still say print what a given advertiser wants and if we don't like it > oppose it in the editorial columns and the feature stories we accept The primary purpose of advertising is to generate sales. By allowing any advertiser to push any product or service, we are indirectly supporting and encouraging the sales of products and services that the majority of IMCer's may oppose. Your statement suggests that if a company wanted to advertise cigarettes using an ad aimed at kids, that would be OK as long as someone submits an article that outlines the dangers of cigarette smoking. I don't know for sure how other folks would react, but if the hypothetical cigarette ad appeared, I'd quit distributing the paper. It's *our* paper; it's our responsibility and duty to decide the policies that govern what appears in the paper. Saying the paper is "for everybody" is a "cop-out" >I would like to see some debate in Commons between the view of the Maine > Chamber research dept for example and any of "us" This is a separate issue from paid advertising. I can imagine that if you interviewed someone from the Chamber of Commerce and used that as a basis for an article, it would get printed. > Would our IWW guys tear up the Chamber's research Director's > arguments?(or his throat?). Or vice versa, in print, of course? The IWW does not endorse violence. Please don't suggest otherwise, even in jest. Ashcroft's eyes and ears are everywhere. It's easy to debate the apologists for Capitalism. The facts speak for themselves: it's impossible even for them to deny the endless cycles of recession/depression and widespread poverty throughout the world. Whenever I ask one of them to tell me what's democratic about Capitalism (as in the phrase, "Democratic Capitalism") they refuse to answer the question. I keep hoping they will, so I can understand what the phrase means. > Are there any"Maine Business for Social Responsibility" people that > should be heard in the Commons? I have not found any joining my > Challenge Corporate Power Group here in Rockland but I'd like > one. Borealis Breads says social > responsiility built his business, and now he is going into > processing organic grains. I find it hard to get excited about "Maine Business for Social Responsibility". I know nothing about Borealis Breads, but just because they use organically raised grain doesn't mean their workers aren't exploited. By definition, wage workers don't control the means of production, they don't own the product of their labor, they don't decide what's to be produced, and they have little or no control over the workplace. > That's the process communication (MEDIA)is supposed to be enhancing, not > navel investigations to see how pure we can become, we happy few.-- what's "navel investigations"? Jim Ellsworth From jon@concept-link.com Thu, 5 Sep 2002 06:17:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 06:17:52 -0400 From: jonathan cook jon@concept-link.com Subject: [Meimc-publication] political ads? please reply You wrote: "I find it hard to get excited about "Maine Business for Social Responsibility". I know nothing about Borealis Breads, but just because they use organically raised grain doesn't mean their workers aren't exploited. By definition, wage workers don't control the means of production, they don't own the product of their labor, they don't decide what's to be produced, and they have little or no control over the workplace. " My input: Still, simply the use of organic products is better than not using them. If you're going to buy bread anyway, doesn't buying organic cause the next company to come along to be even more conscientious? NOt a big big step, maybe, but a step in the right direction. ON another note, I agree, let's not endorse violence even in jest. ON a third note: Jim, your responses here are insightful. I wonder if I can indulge your opinion of Shays's rebellion of 1786 with these questions in mind: Were small farmers systematically removed from their land for the dual purpose of expanding the frontier and supplying labor for the blossoming industrial sector? Hasn't something similar happened everywhere to kick people off their small farms and force them into the city on the pretense of needing money to pay land taxes? Have people ever really embraced industiralization anywhere, or has the economic policy made by the factory owners always forced people into it? This is where I find myself in a long-time debate with my brother about "underpaid labor." Thanks for the continued sagacity, Jon Cook ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: jimells@midmaine.com Reply-To: meimc-publication@lists.maineindymedia.org Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:22:09 EDT >> I still say print what a given advertiser wants and if we don't like it >> oppose it in the editorial columns and the feature stories we accept > >The primary purpose of advertising is to generate sales. By allowing any >advertiser to push any product or service, we are indirectly supporting >and encouraging the sales of products and services that the majority of >IMCer's may oppose. > >Your statement suggests that if a company wanted to advertise cigarettes >using an ad aimed at kids, that would be OK as long as someone submits an >article that outlines the dangers of cigarette smoking. > >I don't know for sure how other folks would react, but if the >hypothetical cigarette ad appeared, I'd quit distributing the paper. > >It's *our* paper; it's our responsibility and duty to decide the policies >that govern what appears in the paper. Saying the paper is "for >everybody" is a "cop-out" > >>I would like to see some debate in Commons between the view of the Maine >> Chamber research dept for example and any of "us" > >This is a separate issue from paid advertising. I can imagine that if you >interviewed someone from the Chamber of Commerce and used that as a basis >for an article, it would get printed. > >> Would our IWW guys tear up the Chamber's research Director's >> arguments?(or his throat?). Or vice versa, in print, of course? > >The IWW does not endorse violence. Please don't suggest otherwise, even >in jest. Ashcroft's eyes and ears are everywhere. > >It's easy to debate the apologists for Capitalism. The facts speak for >themselves: it's impossible even for them to deny the endless cycles of >recession/depression and widespread poverty throughout the world. >Whenever I ask one of them to tell me what's democratic about Capitalism >(as in the phrase, "Democratic Capitalism") they refuse to answer the >question. I keep hoping they will, so I can understand what the phrase means. > > >> Are there any"Maine Business for Social Responsibility" people that >> should be heard in the Commons? I have not found any joining my >> Challenge Corporate Power Group here in Rockland but I'd like >> one. Borealis Breads says social >> responsiility built his business, and now he is going into >> processing organic grains. > >I find it hard to get excited about "Maine Business for Social >Responsibility". I know nothing about Borealis Breads, but just because >they use organically raised grain doesn't mean their workers aren't >exploited. By definition, wage workers don't control the means of >production, they don't own the product of their labor, they don't decide >what's to be produced, and they have little or no control over the workplace. > >> That's the process communication (MEDIA)is supposed to be enhancing, not >> navel investigations to see how pure we can become, we happy few.-- > >what's "navel investigations"? > >Jim Ellsworth > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Meimc-publication mailing list >Meimc-publication@lists.maineindymedia.org >http://lists.maineindymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/meimc-publication > From sterren@brandeis.edu Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:32:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:32:30 -0700 From: sterren sterren@brandeis.edu Subject: [Meimc-publication] ads and political ads WAIT!!! I thought we already agreed on a general ad policy 6 months or so ago. It basically said (I'm paraphrasing - I can dig up the exact wording when i get home from work): We accept ads from non-profit organizations, individuals,and locally-owned commercial businesses (no franchises.) We reserve the right to decisde, as a group (it would be the publication team i guess?) not run ads and reimburse the cost of the ad if the business is involved with something we outright oppose (like strike breaking, digging up a wetland, firing on basis of sexual orientation, etc, for example.) We don't try and define "green" or "socially responsible" businesses. To do that would take all our time and exclude most all businesses. (As many have pointed out, one can well argue that ANY for-profit business is socially irresponsible in and of itself.) But if we are not to take that broad a view (as a paper), there are still a whole slew of issues. For example: The independent movie theater where I work treats its workers (seeing as all the paid people at the theater are workers) fairly and equally. It is locally owned, and supports other local businesses, local and independent artists, it recycles, etc etc. But it has a drink contract with Pepsi. And it has the trash hauled by Waste Management Corp. And it doesn't pay living wage ($11ish - to ANY of the paid staff.) So do we allow it an ad or not? And I'm sure this list of specifically what defines "green" and "socially responsible" would exist for most any local commercial (and non-profit) business in Maine. As a result of that, through meetings and discussion many months ago, we decided we wouldn't try to create a broad outline for "Socially Responsible" businesses, but just accept ads from locally owned businesses, with the right to refuse the ad if there are extenuating circumstances. We now also label all ads as advertisements so people won't confuse them with the content of the paper. What we never decided on was our policy on taking ads from political candidates, political parties, and groups' ads that explicitly endorse particular candidates or parties. That's what the question and debate are originally about. Rethinking our entire ad policy is a completely different matter. If people really want to do that, than please bring it up, but understand that we did decide on an ad policy prior to this political ads discussion. Thanks for all the thoughts :} be well, hillary > > I still say print what a given advertiser wants and if we don't like it > > oppose it in the editorial columns and the feature stories we accept > >The primary purpose of advertising is to generate sales. By allowing any >advertiser to push any product or service, we are indirectly supporting >and encouraging the sales of products and services that the majority of >IMCer's may oppose. > >Your statement suggests that if a company wanted to advertise cigarettes >using an ad aimed at kids, that would be OK as long as someone submits an >article that outlines the dangers of cigarette smoking. > >I don't know for sure how other folks would react, but if the >hypothetical cigarette ad appeared, I'd quit distributing the paper. > >It's *our* paper; it's our responsibility and duty to decide the policies >that govern what appears in the paper. Saying the paper is "for >everybody" is a "cop-out" > > >I would like to see some debate in Commons between the view of the Maine > > Chamber research dept for example and any of "us" > >This is a separate issue from paid advertising. I can imagine that if you >interviewed someone from the Chamber of Commerce and used that as a basis >for an article, it would get printed. > > > Would our IWW guys tear up the Chamber's research Director's > > arguments?(or his throat?). Or vice versa, in print, of course? > >The IWW does not endorse violence. Please don't suggest otherwise, even >in jest. Ashcroft's eyes and ears are everywhere. > >It's easy to debate the apologists for Capitalism. The facts speak for >themselves: it's impossible even for them to deny the endless cycles of >recession/depression and widespread poverty throughout the world. >Whenever I ask one of them to tell me what's democratic about Capitalism >(as in the phrase, "Democratic Capitalism") they refuse to answer the >question. I keep hoping they will, so I can understand what the phrase means. > > > > Are there any"Maine Business for Social Responsibility" people that > > should be heard in the Commons? I have not found any joining my > > Challenge Corporate Power Group here in Rockland but I'd like > > one. Borealis Breads says social > > responsiility built his business, and now he is going into > > processing organic grains. > >I find it hard to get excited about "Maine Business for Social >Responsibility". I know nothing about Borealis Breads, but just because >they use organically raised grain doesn't mean their workers aren't >exploited. By definition, wage workers don't control the means of >production, they don't own the product of their labor, they don't decide >what's to be produced, and they have little or no control over the workplace. > > > That's the process communication (MEDIA)is supposed to be enhancing, not > > navel investigations to see how pure we can become, we happy few.-- > >what's "navel investigations"? > >Jim Ellsworth > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Meimc-publication mailing list >Meimc-publication@lists.maineindymedia.org >http://lists.maineindymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/meimc-publication From MamarinMaine@aol.com Fri, 6 Sep 2002 23:52:21 EDT Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 23:52:21 EDT From: MamarinMaine@aol.com MamarinMaine@aol.com Subject: [Meimc-publication] political ads? please reply This is a reply to Jim Ellsworth's comments on mine. Thanks for the response! I am trying to say that I am seeing a discussion that is too theoretically disposed. It seems to me that the remarks I saw were too concerned wih being so pure that they wil not be able to communicate and convince anybody, meaning the person who is not" thinking" much at all but is accepting generally of what currently accepted "wisdom" tells them, that is, freemarketese brainwashing dominates them. I do not want to be talking about whether or not to accept an ad we won't get asked to print, like cigarettes.My silly joke about tearing throats is a case in point: your response was both paranoid and sanctimonious at the same time, quite a trick. Ashcroft is no Joe Mc Carthy or JEdgar; those days are gone, except for the jerks (college presidents of of Miami DAde and another school perhaps Indiana) who don't understand that they cannot fire profs in their alleged "universities" who might scandalize the public by thinking. Butour response that at Borealis the workers don't own it, is just the usual doctrinaire socialist complaint with nothing positive whch indicates you have read about the means of producion but are too pure in holding that position: "the Borealis guy cannot be doing anything good because he hasn't given his business away or started it as a collective in the first place" What I want to se is new forms of the corportion being put into effect so that Borealis will see that his corporate structure itself must take into account the employees as stakeholders in a formal legal way, as well as the community and the environment, especially if he becomes a publically held company. Or he should become a Unitary Corporation as proposed by Herschel Sternlieb, one that does NOT move away. We should be into corporate redesign and going local with whatever control we have over the economy, thaat is dong thnngs and acting AND at the same time being aware that the big picture requires radical re-structuring, fro what ever direction it can be done. bottom ujp or top downor reforms in the middle. But the capitalis value and power structure has to change, evolve, improve etc or it will go on to self destruction to greater or lesser degrees. At the moment its attempts to live its contradictions are creating oppportunities for "US" as dissenting social activists on a scale as never before that I have seen, inspite of the toxicity and omnipresence of predatory corporate power also being asserted in still more undemocratic ways. This means you are gazing at you own idea as if you were gazing at your navel; navel gazing is too much self preoccupation. I From MamarinMaine@aol.com Fri, 6 Sep 2002 23:55:10 EDT Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 23:55:10 EDT From: MamarinMaine@aol.com MamarinMaine@aol.com Subject: [Meimc-publication] political ads? please reply I have just sent you half a letter by error; I will finish it soon. Let it sit tight until I finish it, please. I was trying to put it offline for awhile!--Matt Clarke in Rockland From MamarinMaine@aol.com Sat, 7 Sep 2002 01:51:31 EDT Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 01:51:31 EDT From: MamarinMaine@aol.com MamarinMaine@aol.com Subject: [Meimc-publication] ads and political ads Continued letter Reply to comments by Jim E by Matt Clarke Rockland. Now as you mention; he topic to get light upon is "economic democracy" or "democratic capitalism". The most enlightening thing I have seen on it recently is The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie H. Kelly of Bizehthics.com. Subtitles: Dethroning the Corporate Arisctocracy and Reclaiming the Free Market. Kelly edited Business Ethics and has been involved in social investing, and has concluded that effort to get businesses to be socially responsible is a failure, when it comes to the dominance of big business. She debunks the current propaganda that stock ownership is widespread and that this constats any meaningful form of democratic capitalism. citing the facts that stock ownership is concentrated in the highest 1% of the population. Her position is that we have established shareholder supremacy on an ethically completely unjustified basis. Her solution is to evolve the current form of corporate structure and governance into an entity that recognizes legally stakeholders on an equal basis with the current shareholder, these "stakeholders" being the employees, the community and the environment. She thus is establishing democracy (and socialism) into the structure of the corporation, and of corporate capitalism. Very radical and conceptually tricky, but that is what she is doing! She recognizes that the corporation externalizing all costs onto the community and internalizing all gains for the benefits of stockholders. And they don't do much, almost except take risks in initial public offerings on occasion, yet they are religiously assigned all the gain. Samples of her work are at www.nancho.net/bigdna/ or at Bizethics.com, along with the reforms in State law of RC Hinkley of Brooklin ME and Sternlieb of Brunswick, designer of the Unitary Corporation that does not move from its community. (These two radical reformer-visionary guys are Mainers!) Such forms, and others, are essential for "going local" & creating self reliant local communities free of corporate dominance. This the hard way (the easy way don't exist) from the bottom or "local up," and then outward, but it constitutes the authentic alternative to earth & humanity-toxic predatory conglomerate globallized corporatism now getting the jitters, " big time," as our Vice President sez, (but does not apply it to that). So it seems to me that there is a sort of opening here for local social action that can get somewhere because the crisis that is upon us is so basic. We need dialogue and action that breaks through to this kind of debate rather than narrowly focussed discussion of how we can get purer and purer in non-cooperating with the viciousness of our Established Disorder. Does this clarify anything? Kelly's Divine Right and Going Local by Shuman could become the books of the first decade of this millennium, comparable to Michael Harrington's book on Poverty that started the War on Poverty in the 1960s. Kelly is already hailed as the Tom Paine for our time! Going Local by Michael Shuman is the book outlining the approach that goes from the bottom up and is being studied by a Rockland group of the same name, just written up in MidCoast Review, here in Rockland. They seek to do something local first, after agreeing that yes corporate rule stinks but what do we do instead? We need self reliant communities ("the waylifeshould be") All we have to do is turn the world upside down, I agree. But what else is our choice? We are the people we have been waiting for. Let's get to it; or as they say nowadays (and let us also appropriate the phrase: ) "let's roll!" Matt Clarke Rockland 594-6453 PS Rockland has the only GOING LOCAL group that I know of, but there are several corporate power discussion groups going, using with WILPF materials ( See wilpf.org, for the syllabus) They are in Rockland the group I am in, in Portland, (a new one, that Dave Kubiak attends), and at Deer Isle and elsewhere near Deer Isle. Rockland is taking up Kelly this Fall, along with current corporate atrocities as they emerge. From j.capen@worldnet.att.net Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:04:25 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:04:25 -0400 From: jennifer capen j.capen@worldnet.att.net Subject: [Meimc-publication] ads and political ads unsubscribe ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:51 AM Subject: Re: [Meimc-publication] ads and political ads > Continued letter Reply to comments by Jim E by Matt Clarke Rockland. > > Now as you mention; he topic to get light upon is "economic democracy" or > "democratic capitalism". > The most enlightening thing I have seen on it recently is The Divine Right of > Capital by Marjorie H. Kelly of Bizehthics.com. Subtitles: Dethroning the > Corporate Arisctocracy and Reclaiming the Free Market. Kelly edited Business > Ethics and has been involved in social investing, and has concluded that > effort to get businesses to be socially responsible is a failure, when it > comes to the dominance of big business. > > She debunks the current propaganda that stock ownership is widespread and > that this constats any meaningful form of democratic capitalism. citing the > facts that stock ownership is concentrated in the highest 1% of the > population. Her position is that we have established shareholder supremacy > on an ethically completely unjustified basis. Her solution is to evolve the > current form of corporate structure and governance into an entity that > recognizes legally stakeholders on an equal basis with the current > shareholder, these "stakeholders" being the employees, the community and the > environment. She thus is establishing democracy (and socialism) into the > structure of the corporation, and of corporate capitalism. Very radical and > conceptually tricky, but that is what she is doing! She recognizes that the > corporation externalizing all costs onto the community and internalizing all > gains for the benefits of stockholders. And they don't do much, almost except > take risks in initial public offerings on occasion, yet they are religiously > assigned all the gain. Samples of her work are at www.nancho.net/bigdna/ or > at Bizethics.com, along with the reforms in State law of RC Hinkley of > Brooklin ME and Sternlieb of Brunswick, designer of the Unitary Corporation > that does not move from its community. (These two radical reformer-visionary > guys are Mainers!) > > Such forms, and others, are essential for "going local" & creating self > reliant local communities free of corporate dominance. This the hard way (the > easy way don't exist) from the bottom or "local up," and then outward, but it > constitutes the authentic alternative to earth & humanity-toxic predatory > conglomerate globallized corporatism now getting the jitters, " big time," > as our Vice President sez, (but does not apply it to that). > > So it seems to me that there is a sort of opening here for local social > action that can get somewhere because the crisis that is upon us is so basic. > We need dialogue and action that breaks through to this kind of debate > rather than narrowly focussed discussion of how we can get purer and purer in > non-cooperating with the viciousness of our Established Disorder. Does this > clarify anything? > > Kelly's Divine Right and Going Local by Shuman could become the books of the > first decade of this millennium, comparable to Michael Harrington's book on > Poverty that started the War on Poverty in the 1960s. Kelly is already > hailed as the Tom Paine for our time! > > Going Local by Michael Shuman is the book outlining the approach that goes > from the bottom up and is being studied by a Rockland group of the same name, > just written up in MidCoast Review, here in Rockland. They seek to do > something local first, after agreeing that yes corporate rule stinks but what > do we do instead? > > We need self reliant communities ("the waylifeshould be") All we have to do > is turn the world upside down, I agree. But what else is our choice? We are > the people we have been waiting for. Let's get to it; or as they say > nowadays (and let us also appropriate the phrase: ) "let's roll!" > > Matt Clarke Rockland 594-6453 > PS Rockland has the only GOING LOCAL group that I know of, but there are > several corporate power discussion groups going, using with WILPF materials > See wilpf.org, for the syllabus) They are in Rockland the group I am in, in > Portland, (a new one, that Dave Kubiak attends), and at Deer Isle and > elsewhere near Deer Isle. Rockland is taking up Kelly this Fall, along with > current corporate atrocities as they emerge. > > > _______________________________________________ > Meimc-publication mailing list > Meimc-publication@lists.maineindymedia.org > http://lists.maineindymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/meimc-publication