Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update

Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-07

I remember it well.  The time was Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 10:32:15AM -0600, and
X muttered:

> Ideally, I guess I'd like to see the "stronger" resolution introduced as a
> communication and have the "weaker" one be introduced by one or
(hopefully)
> more progressive alders.  If that's not going to happen - and it sounds
> unlikely from what you've sent - I think we need to pressure the alders
> we've been talking to to introduce the "weaker" one before T'ksgiving.  I
> have to say I'm really disappointed that they're hesitant to do anything
> before T'ksgiving.  After all, the reality we're addressing is an
impending
> massive humanitarian crisis.  Jeeeeeeezus.  THEY need a breather????

What about a face-to-face meeting with some alders?  I really think we could
sway some people by assuaging their fears about our motives and tactics.  I
for one am empathetic with their trepidation, but X is right that there
are other, more pressing considerations.

Barbara, you've been amazingly helpful as a liason--what do you think about
setting up an informal chat with them?  I'll spring for coffee for all at
the
bistro of their choice...

> I don't know anything about resolutions introduced as a communication
w/out
> any alder sponsors, but it seems to me that doing that with our "weaker",
> more likely to pass resolution will flag it as unacceptable to the
council.
> If I were a middle of the road alder and saw that none of the PD alders
had
> signed on, I sure as heck wouldn't vote for it.  (But I think it'd be fine
> to introduce the "stronger" one like that, if we do still decide to
> introduce it.)
>
> So, I guess - with the current info we have - I feel ambivalent about the
> "stronger" resolution.  If it will help the "weaker" one pass to introduce
> it - by communication or by an alder - then I say we go for it.  But the
> people we need to talk to for this analysis are the PD alders who are
> balking at the "weaker" one.

The danger we face with this particular approach (strong first) is that we
seem to be scaring people away right off.  It's almost the right tactic, but
perhaps we're just misplacing our emphasis.

Perhaps we should really be leading with the weaker version, then in debate
pushing for more.  I think we agree on the need to concentrate on getting
the alders to understand the basic urgency of the humanitarian situation.
Once there, we may be able to convince more people that prioritization of
the
humanitarian situation leads one logically to the condemnation of the
current
war.

X

_______________________________________________
policy@madpeace.org
http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-policy

Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:00 PM

Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update