Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution

Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-10-29

Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 4:06 AM
To: X
Subject: Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution


As the hour struck Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 06:27:38PM -0500, X
raved:

> > I've been thinking that a compromise on THAT might be to specifically
condemn
> > the use of cluster bombs (on which score we can cite really
unimpeachable
> > sources like the ICRC and Princess Diana's Anti-Mine Fund ;) ) and
generally
> > voices skepticism about the effect of bombing on the humanitarian
situation.
>
> ... only if we can get Elton John to introduce the resolution...
>

You're asking for a "Candle in the Wind" reference, aren't you!  I won't
oblige. :)


> >>>
> >>> WHEREAS,     food aid shipments have been disrupted due to security
concerns
> >>> around U.S. military actions in Afghanistan; and
> >
> > This would be an opportunity to mention bombing obliquely, if we so
chose.
> >
>
> Isn't it already?  We could replace "military actions" with "bombing
> campaign", but I don't see too much difference between the two.

I guess the difference to me is that "security concerns around U.S. military
actions"
is too passive.  Yet coming out and saying that the bombing is making
humanitarian
aid impossible goes too far.  So I'm suggesting something like "disrupted as
a
[direct?] result[consequence?] of the U.S air campaign".

>
> > If we really wanted to give this resolution some sting (particularly
assuming
> > that it might in fact get a bit of national press) we could finish this
off
> > this a declaration like:
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the people of Madison, in solidarity with
the
> > international community and in their capacity as citizens of the United
> > States,
> > will hold the Government of the United States responsible for both the
> > direct consequences of its military policy in Afghanistan and the
results of
> > indifference to the priority of our humanitarian concerns.
> >
>
> I support adding another clause along these lines (although I'd vote for
> "considering" the government responsible instead of "holding" them
> responsible - holding them responsible infers we'd DO something, which we
> really can't, unless we can get the city to secede, which would be SO
> great... I'd also suggest "military policy" be changed to "military
actions"
> and the last bit to "results of U.S. government indifference to the
priority
> of humanitarian concerns in Afghanistan and the surrounding region.").

Another friend (X) I flew this amendment past said similar things,
so
I must be a little bit off base.  I agree that "considering" is a better
phrasing--
it's closer to what I intended, which was a reference to the mechanism of
elections.
And you're other adjustments seem on target as well.

> Realistically, for the resolution to pass the Council, we'll have to
either
> water this clause down or take it out.  But I don't think there's anything
> wrong with starting with something a bit more challenging and then
adapting
> it to the political reality.  And people in MAPC will love this clause.
In
> all fairness, when we present the resolution to MAPC, we should let them
> know that it's likely to be revised after we get input from Council
members,
> and get a sense of what sort of revisions they'd support.

Yeah, I agree totally it's a long shot.  But I think it should be pushed a
bit. The
fine line we walk with this is between irrelevance and untoward fury.  The
opportunity
that I intended this clause to exploit is to draw out the rabid jingoists
while putting
them at a decided rhetorical disadvantage, appealling to the middle-roaders
who might
actually pause at the formula of a zero-sum game between vengeance and
innocent humans'
suffering.

That would be *effective*.  To the extent that my phrasings or choice of
topics doesn't
further this aim, I disavow them.

We could get a mild little statement passed that wouldn't ruffle any
feathers.  Or we could
"condemn the bombing" and be dismissed in the same breath as "They banned
the pledge".  I'm
hoping for another possiblity.

> PS- I haven't raved in at least 5 years.

What's wrong with you? :)


X

Monday, October 29, 2001 4:06 AM

Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution