Archive for April, 2011

[FunCom] IMPORTANT: Please comment: State Sharing Issues

April 29, 2011

That is something I can really, fully, support.

Which i have begun to do with the letter below.

Monte Letourneau
WIGP Rec. Sec., 

GPUS NC Alternate,

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: monte letourneau <>
Date: Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:08 AM
Subject: Fwd: [FunCom] IMPORTANT: Please comment: State Sharing Issues
To: WIGP Coordinating Council <>, WI Greens <>,, 4lakesgreens <>

I vote yes, on both the proposed Shared Campaigns policy below,
and support giving our full cooperation and support to joining a state sharing campaign.

I had not realized how favourable to the states this program had beome.

We would have to provide most of the effort, but there have been quite a few of these now,
and they have helped revitalize the participating states.

I have withheld my formal full support of this concept to date,
upon reading this discussion of the policy I find that to be a mistake.

For our meeting on Sat.,:

I would like to propose we discuss this possibility to bring cohesion and expertise
into our efforts to be in contact with our membership.

I also would like to propose that we discuss having district lists for each of the CC District reps.

Please peruse the material below and let us know what you think,
either here or at the meeting.

Monte Letourneau
WIGP Rec. Sec., 

GPUS NC Alternate,

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Karen Young <>
Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:37 PM
Subject: [FunCom] IMPORTANT: Please comment: State Sharing Issues
To: GP -GPUS Fund <>

On our last call, we decided our top priority was to develop a new policy around state sharing that we think makes the most sense from a fundraising perspective.

We decided we would discuss online and then come to a proposal to be voted on.

since this discussion has not really gotten started, I suggest we try to get a proposal together, not for our next meeting this coming Monday, but for the following one, May 16th.

Here are some issues that Jeff has brought up. Please set aside some time to think carefully about this, and share your thoughts and experience on these topics.   Please add any other topics you find relevant, but if you do, please define them clearly so that others will be able to comment on them as well.

– sharing ratio (s)

– states that don't have FEC accounts  (I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS MEANS)
-states that don't even have an organization at all
-state driven sharing   vs   national driven sharing
-concept of direct pass through of state's share to the state without GPUS even taking possession of the funds (and therefore not having to account for it at all)
– cost of handling funds for states
– same fundraising services for lower levels of organization than states (counties, locals, ?)


Section 7-4 Revenue Sharing

7-4.1 National-driven contributions are those that are received through efforts of the GPUS, its staff, contractors and NC. Such contributions shall be considered 'internal funds' rather than 'conduit funds' as defined by the FEC, unless or until they are released to the state party,caucus, or network. For national-driven programs, 70% of the donation will be allocated to the GPUS and 30% to the state party, caucus, or network.

7-4.2 State, caucus, network, and committee-driven contributions are those that are received through efforts of the state party, caucus, network or committee. For these programs, state parties and committees will be allocated 70% of the contribution, and caucuses and networks will be all allocated 90% of the contribution. The GPUS will be allocated the remaining share.

7-4.3 If according to FEC regulations, a state party cannot accept its full share of the money for its own use, the Treasurer and the Fundraising Committee shall consult with the state party treasurer to establish the alternative disposition of the contribution for the state's benefit.

7-4.4 Contributions to special projects are contributions made according to 9-4.3. For these contributions, GPUS will be allocated 5% of the contribution or $500, whichever is less, plus credit card fees incurred.

7-4.5 In reporting revenues due to a restricted fund of a state, caucus, network, or committee, the report shall include the name, address, phone and email of each donor, the date, amount, and method of payment for each donation, and any notes a donor may have sent to the state, caucus, network, or committee. Caucuses, networks, and committees requesting disbursement of funds shall file their requests according to 8-1.6.


Section 12-1 Coordination of Donor Lists With State Parties

12-1.1 Once per calendar year, member state parties are expected to make available to the GPUS their donor lists for the purpose of fundraising and outreach. Other arrangements may be substituted in coordination with the Fundraising Committee. GPUS shall use these lists only for fundraising and outreach. GPUS shall not share or sell these lists with anyone.

12-1.2 Once per calendar year, GPUS is expected to make available to member state parties their donor lists for the member state for the purpose of fundraising and outreach. State parties shall use these lists only for fundraising and outreach. State parties shall not share or sell these lists with anyone.

12-1.3 The Fundraising Committee, as well as other committees, networks, and caucuses, shall coordinate the timing of any solicitation so as to avoid conflict between state, caucus, network, and GPUS fundraising efforts.


Karen Young
Check out my blog for good news every day:


[lcafs] Re: Venn diagram

April 29, 2011

"I would say almost all of the ones that do not believe in global warming are right wing conservatives.  I do not understand what politics has to do with this at all.  It must have something to do with control and economics."

Pride, and it's attendant, greed; belief, not politics.

Ironic isn't it? the seven deadly sins are destroying the integrity of this rare jewel planet,
and making human life itself face an ever less tenable existence here;
quite frequently in the name of one of greatest teachers of humility and compassion.

Why do USians vote for the winner instead of the candidate they agree with?
Why does empire over-reach as soon as it arises?
Why is human induced global warming only in question in the "most powerful" nation?

It goes before the fall, and is indistinguishable from greed,
because it is to wear blinders to put pride or profit first.

Politics has nothing to do with always being right,
thus forgetting the most important wisdom ("wise man knows nothing" Lao Tzu),
that is just prideful self aggrandizing "belief".

Literalistic reliance on external "proofs", such as the bible and the pope,
is, at core, simply the need to be prideful and important oneself,
and to just feel secure in always being right,
due to which we farm out our experience and thoughts of the world,
to experts and lords, who think they may tell us what to believe.

If we let them believe they can, then who is to blame?
if our experts do not respect us enough to be straight with us?

If God tells us to commit infanticide and genocide, then that is, by it's nature, good?
(William Lane Craig justifies the biblical account of genocide in Canaan here).

Never mind that all social mammals have necessarily strong instincts
against wanton destruction, other forms of wasted effort, and other such unfairness.

Good is, by it's nature, the opposite of stupid and/or unfit,
which for humans includes the foundation of survival scale importance of massive mutual aid.

The accumulated knowledge and social compacts,
that all wealth is built upon, is our shared heritage of culture,
the only thing that we have actually added much to among all earthlings' abilities.

Using our ability to accumulate culture over generations,
primarily to concern oneself with an abstract body of evil,
can only obscure what is obvious to every other sensible being.

Not politics, but belief, although all beliefs have political ramifications.

Indeed, most beliefs that persist are "designed",
through means very similar to biologic genetic evolution,
to support the strongest possible social hierarchy, the one able to militarily defeat all comers.

Why else have we signed our future over to the mechanics of social organization?
Why give the helm of law to virtual machines that are nothing but legal fictions,
of imaginary persons, designed solely to avoid any individual investor's responsibility
for results of their own pursuit of profit uber alles?

Why are the biggest costs always public? while the control of capital and profits are private?

Why do corps(es) write our laws?
We are too prideful and greedy to admit to ourselves that no actual human is in charge!

Social mammals have very good reasons for a strong instinct to avoid extremities of unfairness,
only the teachings of religion can make massacres and mass extinctions all right.

For a social mammal, fitness is comprised mostly of cooperation and the detection of deceit.
So, why do so many humans have busted bulls#!t detectors?

The mystery of the vegetarian elephant's huge brain is solved,
only when one realises the evolutionary importance of detecting deceit,
in such an interdependent community,
which requires over 2 years to produce a competent infant.

Through extensive indoctrination and habit dependence
one may erase even the crap detector of the most intelligent and social of mammals,
for deception is fundamentally easier than it's detection.

The potential value of deceit is based on the degree of value of cooperation,
the detection of deceit is a more complex and nuanced task than is deception,
and the brain's evolution is driven primarily by the value of this bull detection.

If we reduce the value of deceit, hate, and aggression, to our social actions,
we also reduce the confusion that makes deceit so easy in a complex human society.

Human nature is first to be altruist, only then follows deception.
Conflict is the very last resort for the actual nature of humans.

Even in war, deception, and it's detection, reign supreme.

Millennia of hierarchies at war, under the weight of
many hundreds of millions of years seeking better cooperation with our own kind,
fails to really modify our instinctive sense of fairness,
which recent experimentation shows we share with most mammals.

All we have to do is recognize each other as the sibling we actually are,
and the instinct for war becomes an instinct for peace.

Entire villages of San people will migrate to a neighbouring village just to
settle a dispute between two individuals,
they will take as long as it takes to reach a consensus minus one,
but only when it is clear full consensus indeed cannot be reached.

The more human scaled a society, the more egalitarian,
less deceptive, and less belligerent, it is.

I'm probably the only anarch, and Green Party activist, in the group
(very anti-ism and anti-ist,
i believe ideology and expert-ism [not necessarily expertise]
are a huge waste of time under current conditions,
when most of us agree on all the most important things, but can't seem to get any of it done),
and I'll bet politics divides us less then we think.

The real divide is between our entire political culture, and reality.
When people learn what is really going on they pretty much all respond the same,
with very little real difference between the false opposition of left and right poles.

I believe our politics should consist solely of what we each want to do,
and what we each will compromise on doing, directly and right now.

Why is not an issue, everyone wants to survive, and most know we can only do it together.
Only together can we even be made aware of the very ramifications of our own actions,
without deceit and other forms of hegemony, there are no actual political issues.
Most USians are inclined to leave each other their freedoms,
and to take political responsibilities seriously.

I strongly believe we each should have a religion of our own devising, or none at all,
faiths and beliefs should not form the basis of political discourse,
which needs be based in systematic thought and demonstrable probabilities.

My own religion is based in contemplation of:
cosmology, physics, anthro, bio, tao, chi, (all schools of effective systematic thought really),
my own experience (psychedelia and probability gaming not being the least of factors),
and common themes of historical spiritual theory, practice, and teachings.

Eventually it helped me stop being the atheist
who tore up the Methodist priest in my second Sunday school
[they had to bring him in early, the nuns(?) couldn't answer my questions,
couldn't actually hear them i suspect – "so… where did God come from then?"],
when i was 3 (i think i was kinda kicked out, it never became an issue,
my parents stopped attending after that)}.

As a young atheist, I found only one hero, or role model, who had seemed
to attempt the impact i sought, Jesus, who must be based in some historical situation,
which i have as yet failed fully to imagine the reality of.

Not only did this incline me to notice our inner voice of godhood,
and incline me to forgo martyrdom, or anything else that helps your enemies write your history,
but it also made it very clear that many "real" Christians look at even trying to be Christ-like
as being very inhuman, unnatural, and extremely prideful.
"Lord" only knows what such people actually think humility and compassion are.

My religion can be somewhat summed up in the words of Lao Tzu,
the practices of WI's tribal natives (and other aboriginal tribal cultures) and Zen,
and an unfounded leap of faith in reiterative big bangs.

My logo is "Allness Is Being".

I'm a gnostic agnostic atheist (i have had direct contact with the goodhood,
and that has taught me directly that I'm not sure we're alone in this galaxy,
so i continue to function largely as a bewondered atheist,
without feeling confident i do, or do not, know anything at all, or Allness).

The LeTourneau motto is "god alone is my master"
(seul un dieu est mon maître).
My own part in Allness's becoming, is my god.
Thus, i am my only master,
and the only expert at being me.

Kill your inner hierarch to ignore all masters.
Forget authority, question reality.

Choose to be blind,
or remember to feel.

Monte Letourneau
WIGP Rec. Sec., 

GPUS NC Alternate,

I am probably the conservative in this group.  I also believe that global warming is a fact.  I do not understand why the deniers all seem to tie their beliefs to politics.   I would say almost all of the ones that do not believe in global warming are right wing conservatives.  I do not understand what politics has to do with this at all.  It must have something to do with control and economics.  Can anyone enlighten me on this?  Regards, Dave Y

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Mark Kartman <> wrote:


As a career Biology teacher deeply into Darwin, I have always been surprised at the resistance to teaching evolution as well as learning about it.  It seems many bio teachers would rather skip the chapters on evolution rather than rock their students' boats.  I'm currently wondering if the birthers, global warming deniers, people who believe the earth/universe is < 10,000 years old, perhaps the tea party people would have any of these beliefs in common.  Hence the reference to venn diagram.  I have not seen nor searched for any data, I'm tossing out the thought for any comments.  I have never heard nor personally witnessed any resistance to plate techtonics "theory" or atomic "theory" other than tinkering with incidentals. 
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [lcafs] Introduction


We are looking forward to meeting you! Mary and Don

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:59 PM, wicawi70 <> wrote:


I'm Joel.

Or WiCaWi (Wisconsin-California-Wisconsin)

I grew up in LaCrosse, attended Blessed Sacrament and Aquinas (class of 88).  Started questioning the faith while at Aquinas.

Attended UW-Madison.  Discovered existential philosophy.

Dropped out of college, moved with future wife to San Francisco.
Had the most amazing experiences there.  Learned a lot about myself.  Moved from "doubting" to agnostic to atheist.
Lived for 10 years in SF, then moved to Marin County to start a family.

Shortly after we were married, my wife rediscovered her faith.
Some discomfort occurred as we balanced our two disparate worldviews, but we eventually settled.

Gave birth to two beautiful children, a girl, Madeline, and a boy, Maxwell.

Two years ago, we moved back to La Crosse to raise our children in the environment (and surrounded by family) that we both grew up in.

Five months after arriving, my wife announced she was divorcing me and provided "religious differences" as one of the reasons.

I didn't join this group as a divorce support group.  I've been through all that.  I've joined this group because since my return I've felt that I've moved "underground".  In San Francisco and Marin, religious belief was casual and personal (I.E. kept to yourself).
Coming back to an active, open religious community has been a bit of a culture shock.

I've greatly enjoyed the columns in the paper from this group, and I've found surprising support to these views from unsuspected places.

I'm looking forward to conversing, contributing and hopefully meeting with some or all of you.



Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Recent Activity:




Thanks for Your Poll Participation

April 28, 2011

75 people have now voted on whether Walker will get his way,
thanks to all of you who have already voted!

37% "no" is leading, to 24% "yes", and 21% "somewhat";
9% picked "who knows", 7% "unlikely", 1% "what?".
(this poll is open – and is not scientific; for entertaining thought only)

Ongoing Results:

To Vote:

Don't forget our Spring General Membership Great Council this Sat. in Milw.:

Monte Letourneau
WIGP Rec. Sec., 

GPUS NC Alternate,

Alternatives to free-market capitalism (Ron Forthofer, Daily Camera Guest Column)

April 12, 2011

An actually free market is one of many alternatives that are much better than this economy.

An economy free of conglomerate derived anticompetitive controls would be responding 
better to the greener parts of social, scientific, and technological, change; which are generally
trending towards smallness, horizontal structures, sustainability, and localized production.

A corporate economy can only be democratic if every worker and consumer has a corporation
(and a think tank, and a lobby, and a "press"),
which also kind of turns the entire original purpose of corporations on it's head.

What we need is to free ourselves from the dominance of immortal fictional persons,
in our legal, political, economic, and social lives, by any means necessary,
so we can have an intelligent discourse on our options.

I think Japan's current dire straits show the need to bring into question
the entire concept of any limited liability at all.

In an ever more rapidly shrinking, dangerous, and "human" controlled, world, 
the only means that can justify actions that are prone to disastrous liabilities,
is a directly democratic one including all the stakeholders on Earth.

"economic growth and the maximization of profit" under our current regime does not create wealth,
it creates concentration of economic and political power.

No one is truly wealthy in a world owned by fictional people.

Monte Letourneau
WIGP Rec. Sec., GPUS NC Alternate,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Scott McLarty <> wrote:

(to listserv)
Guest column: Alternatives to free-market capitalism

By Ron Forthofer [2002 Green Party candidate for Governor of Colorado, 2000 candidate for Congress]Daily Camera (Boulder, Colorado), April 7, 2011

 Americans have been exposed to so much propaganda about free-market capitalism that few ever think there is any other way of running an economy. However, if they were to examine this system, they would see that its focus is on economic growth and the maximization of profit. In theory, this system would create enough wealth so that everyone would benefit. However, during the last 30 years or so, we have seen changes in the rules that guarantee most of the increases in wealth go to those at the top. During this time, there has been little-to-no concern about the resulting harmful effects of this system on society.

Free-market devotees often quote Adam Smith on the seemingly all-knowing 'invisible hand` as justification for their free-market theology. Somehow these advocates ignore Smith`s warning about the invisible hand. For example, in an 1993 article Noam Chomsky wrote: "The invisible hand, he [Smith] wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally — and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces." Unfortunately, as the 2008 crisis and the recent attacks on collective bargaining have confirmed, Smith`s concern was well placed.

The economy has yet to recover from the 2008 disaster although Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks are continuing to make out like bandits (apologies to bandits). As a result of our political/economic system, the U.S. now is faced with:

almost 44 million (one in seven) people living in poverty;

over 25 million (one in six) workers unemployed or underemployed;

almost 51 million (one in six) people without health insurance;

1 percent of people receiving about 21 percent of the total U.S. income in 2008; and

Shouldn`t our economic approach deliver better results in this, the richest country in the world?

Western European nations have different economic approaches than the U.S. although Britain began the process of moving towards the U.S. model in 1980 under Margaret Thatcher. Western European nations differ slightly in their specific economic approaches, but they have a common theme of creating a humane economy that meets the needs of the people. Western European nations pursue the goal of providing socioeconomic security for their populations while, simultaneously, making economic progress.

Specifically, Western European nations have tighter regulations on corporations. In addition to having strong regulations, many of these nations use a mixture of socialism and capitalism. These nations also have strong labor unions. The combination of these factors has enabled the provision of social benefits to the public, although these benefits are under attack by free marketers today.

According to the International Alliance of Cooperatives, a co-op is an autonomous, voluntary association meeting common economic, social and cultural needs through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. Many people may be familiar with local ventures such as housing co-ops, credit unions, or co-op groceries, but there are much larger co-ops including Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, REI outdoor stores and Land O`Lakes dairy products. There are over 30,000 co-ops operating in over 73,000 locations in this country and many, many more operating around the world.

The wonderful 1973 book, "Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered" by E.F. Schumacher, provides other ideas about alternatives to the free-market approach. If we believe that people matter, we will open our mind to other approaches. Otherwise we will continue the race to the bottom.

 Ron Forthofer lives in Longmont.