Date   
Petition to push back against changes in fuel economy standards #actions

Jane Christensen
 

Consumer’s Union asks support to push back against changes in fuel economy standards from a consumer’s point of view as well as for the environment — you can sign their email petition here.

https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3184

Re: First Amendment subgroup meeting #events

Sara Upton
 

Heard Senator Markey last night @ Sweeney/Sage hall/Smith. The event was quite impressive and full of good energy. Responsible questions, many  good answers, and promises to be vigilant. Sen. Markey encouraged continued activism and participation and emphasized physical turn-outs as very effective. Said this would be a four year and 45 week task for us all but also indicated a hope that Mr. Trump's time in office might be shortened??


On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, Diane <dbrenner@...> wrote:
The First Amendment subgroup will next meet at the Worthington Library on Thursday March 2 at 7 pm. All are welcome.




Support the Muslim community-West Springfield #actions #events

Jane Christensen
 

I just took action -- join me

Elizabeth
 

Jeff Sessions' close personal ties to the President and his key role in the Trump campaign undermine his ability and credibility in any investigation.

I've told Sessions to recuse himself from any investigation into Trump's ties with Russia and Russia's attempts to influence the presidential election. Please join me!

https://secure2.convio.net/comcau/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1986&sp_ref=275834377.214.178836.e.568199.3&s_subsrc=taf_email


Sent from my iPad

NYTimes.com: The Death of Compassion #discussion

Stephen T. Smith
 

From The New York Times:

The Death of Compassion

The Trump phenomenon is devoid of compassion, and we must be closed to compromise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/opinion/the-death-of-compassion.html?mwrsm=Email

Re: An interesting counter-argument to our discussion about reaching out. Also, I suspect that nether party has honestly, forthrightly addressed the reforms needed if we are to address the human impacts of structural and moral change in the operation of our economy. #tactics #discussion

Beth Eisenberg <jubilada@...>
 

Ellison has gained ground again, Vati, or at least that's what I read yesterday.

Sent from my iPad

Re: First Amendment subgroup meeting #events

Nancy Brenner
 

Diane, I have a conflict that day and will be out of town first Thursday of April.  nancy

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Diane <dbrenner@...> wrote:
The First Amendment subgroup will next meet at the Worthington Library on Thursday March 2 at 7 pm. All are welcome.





Ask Sessions to recuse from investigation of Russian election influence #actions

Jane Christensen
 

This email petition is from Common Cause:

Join me in taking action 

 Jeff Sessions' close personal ties to the President and his key role in the Trump campaign undermine his ability and credibility in any investigation. I've told Sessions to recuse himself from any investigation into Trump's ties with Russia and Russia's attempts to influence the presidential election. Please join me!


Jane 

Re: An interesting counter-argument to our discussion about reaching out. Also, I suspect that nether party has honestly, forthrightly addressed the reforms needed if we are to address the human impacts of structural and moral change in the operation of our economy. #tactics #discussion

Vati Sreiberg
 

I feel very much the same as the writer of the article and Beth and also support Ellison. I was actually quite disappointed when Obama put Perez forward to run for the position. Up until then, Ellison was the clear favorite. Not any more.

Vati

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Beth Eisenberg <jubilada@...> wrote:
This reflects my thinking on this matter, and that's why I support Keith Ellison for DNC chair

Sent from my iPhone



First Amendment subgroup meeting #events

Diane
 

The First Amendment subgroup will next meet at the Worthington Library on Thursday March 2 at 7 pm. All are welcome.

Re: Communications across party lines #tactics #discussion

Joel Upton
 

Thanks Eliza. I do think “Defend the American Republic” will have to hold on to both threads. The overarching reality of threats  the Republic itself surely transcends individual parties, issues, etc.

Best,

Joel

 

From: main@DefendTheAmericanRepublic.groups.io [mailto:main@DefendTheAmericanRepublic.groups.io] On Behalf Of Eliza Lake
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 8:38 PM
To: main@DefendTheAmericanRepublic.groups.io
Subject: Re: [DefendTheAmericanRepublic] Communications across party lines

 

I thought that this piece, which I just saw this morning but many of you may have already seen, speaks to the conversation that is currently occurring, where we negotiate the fine line between alienating others and remaining true to ourselves, as well as the real importance of doing so.

 

Thank you for your ideas and passion!

Eliza

Re: Appeal to Republicans to Remove Trump via a Constitutional Amendment #tactics

Marcia Coling
 

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Beth Eisenberg
<jubilada@...> wrote:
There has been comment by politicians and constitutional scholars that pushi g for impeachment at this stage is too early because there is as of yet no concrete proof of impeachable offenses. As much as I'd like to see this happen, I worry about pushing this now.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Robert Bagg <rbagg@...> wrote:

Re: Appeal to Republicans to Remove Trump via a Constitutional Amendment #tactics

Gloria Conwell
 

On the other hand, we hear and see mounting indications of unsound judgment (contradictory statements, tweets, self-agrandisement) and willful lack of transparency (especially with regard to financial matters) each and every day. Might it not be best to strike early, before he becomes entrenched and has his legal ducks (booby ducks, right?) lined up.. By waiting, we do give him more rope with which to hang himself (as it were), and he does seem (to me, at least) to be imploding all by himself, but I would hate to see him consolidate his position to the point where impeachment would become more difficult. Of course, I am not an expert on the constitution, but, merely as an average citizen, I can't for the life of me see why proceedings haven't already started! Gloria

Sent from my iPad

Re: Appeal to Republicans to Remove Trump via a Constitutional Amendment #tactics

Beth Eisenberg <jubilada@...>
 

There has been comment by politicians and constitutional scholars that pushi g for impeachment at this stage is too early because there is as of yet no concrete proof of impeachable offenses. As much as I'd like to see this happen, I worry about pushing this now.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Robert Bagg <rbagg@...> wrote:

Defend The American Republic

Worthington, Massachusetts

Addressed to Republicans Only

Dear Senator/Congessman

As Republicans, all of you can look back from our current crisis to eras, and Presidents of your party, about which profiles in courage could be written. Your are the dexendents of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower,  Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, as well as those Republican senators, representatives and jurists who drove Richard Nixon from office, and in much of the 20th Century cooperated with their fellow Democrats to pass beneficial budgets and legislation.

It was not until the election of Barack Obama that Republicans began to relentlessly opposed a President’s agenda. Their Senate leader,  Mitch McConnell, immediately stated even before Obama’s swearing in, that he and his party would oppose virtually ever piece of legislation the President offered.

As we write, it is perfectly clear that President Donald Trump is demeaning the office of the Presidency, both via his demeanor and by the executive actions and legislative proposals he currently pursues. Several of these actions are being challanged, with initial success, in both Congress and the Courts. His current proposed appointments to the Supreme Court and his Cabinet include many who either lack even minimal qualifications for the post, or have expressed opposition to legislation and settled law whose repeal would damage the lives of millions of Americans. President Trump has declared his intention to sign the repeal of the Affordable Health Act, which currently contributes to the health costs of at least twenty million Americans, and to replace it with block grants to the states, a system that will not guarantee adequate reimbursement to our fellow citizens for their medical costs.  

We urge you, as representatives of the American people, not solely of your political party, to consider impeaching and removing him from power. If President Trump is allowed to continue in office the damage to our nation will be horrendous, and perhaps irreversable. We believe that the Republican Party must join with the Democrats to remove him from offive via one of two actions: 1) to vote and pass articles of impeachment; 2) The alternative is Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which deals with the contingency of a disabled president. Section 4 of the amendment, which was ratified in 1967, has never been applied, but it was considered toward the end of the Reagan administration, when Ronald Reagan had the early signs of Alzheimer’s.

President Trump’s conduct demands his remval by his own Republucan Party, joined by the Democrats.

 

Appeal to Republicans to Remove Trump via a Constitutional Amendment #tactics

Robert Bagg <rbagg@...>
 

Defend The American Republic

Worthington, Massachusetts

Addressed to Republicans Only

Dear Senator/Congessman

As Republicans, all of you can look back from our current crisis to eras, and Presidents of your party, about which profiles in courage could be written. Your are the dexendents of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower,  Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, as well as those Republican senators, representatives and jurists who drove Richard Nixon from office, and in much of the 20th Century cooperated with their fellow Democrats to pass beneficial budgets and legislation.

It was not until the election of Barack Obama that Republicans began to relentlessly opposed a President’s agenda. Their Senate leader,  Mitch McConnell, immediately stated even before Obama’s swearing in, that he and his party would oppose virtually ever piece of legislation the President offered.

As we write, it is perfectly clear that President Donald Trump is demeaning the office of the Presidency, both via his demeanor and by the executive actions and legislative proposals he currently pursues. Several of these actions are being challanged, with initial success, in both Congress and the Courts. His current proposed appointments to the Supreme Court and his Cabinet include many who either lack even minimal qualifications for the post, or have expressed opposition to legislation and settled law whose repeal would damage the lives of millions of Americans. President Trump has declared his intention to sign the repeal of the Affordable Health Act, which currently contributes to the health costs of at least twenty million Americans, and to replace it with block grants to the states, a system that will not guarantee adequate reimbursement to our fellow citizens for their medical costs.  

We urge you, as representatives of the American people, not solely of your political party, to consider impeaching and removing him from power. If President Trump is allowed to continue in office the damage to our nation will be horrendous, and perhaps irreversable. We believe that the Republican Party must join with the Democrats to remove him from offive via one of two actions: 1) to vote and pass articles of impeachment; 2) The alternative is Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which deals with the contingency of a disabled president. Section 4 of the amendment, which was ratified in 1967, has never been applied, but it was considered toward the end of the Reagan administration, when Ronald Reagan had the early signs of Alzheimer’s.

President Trump’s conduct demands his remval by his own Republucan Party, joined by the Democrats.

 

Re: An interesting counter-argument to our discussion about reaching out. Also, I suspect that nether party has honestly, forthrightly addressed the reforms needed if we are to address the human impacts of structural and moral change in the operation of our economy. #tactics #discussion

Beth Eisenberg <jubilada@...>
 

This reflects my thinking on this matter, and that's why I support Keith Ellison for DNC chair

Sent from my iPhone

An interesting counter-argument to our discussion about reaching out. Also, I suspect that nether party has honestly, forthrightly addressed the reforms needed if we are to address the human impacts of structural and moral change in the operation of our economy. #tactics #discussion

Stephen T. Smith
 

From The New York Times:

Move Left, Democrats

Focus on progressive Obama coalition defectors, not on conservative white working-class voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/move-left-democrats.html?mwrsm=Email

Re: Communications across party lines #tactics #discussion

Eliza Lake
 

I thought that this piece, which I just saw this morning but many of you may have already seen, speaks to the conversation that is currently occurring, where we negotiate the fine line between alienating others and remaining true to ourselves, as well as the real importance of doing so.

Thank you for your ideas and passion!
Eliza

Re: Money in Politics subgroup? and two resources #followthemoney #resources

Gloria Conwell
 

Thank you, Vati!!!!  I have much to learn about this...  Perhaps it is a good thing that we are all so shaken by recent events that new lines of communication and information are opening up for those of us who want to learn from them.  I so appreciate the response to my email that Rodofo wrote.  Beth has very strong points.   And (back to financial issues) I find it sooooo hard to believe (or understand, let alone accept) anyone's desire to return to the 60's and 60's, no matter what stories of corruption in the past we might uncover (I suspect that there are plenty of them, but what we need and have to deal with is the here and now!).
        Please keep the comments and suggestions coming.  This afternoon I have been thinking of perhaps structuring a discussion with The Other Side from a strategic point of view:  opening gambits, ways to extend a conversation, and exit strategies.  Exit strategies might sound negative, but, at some point, it may become obvious that the person you are talking with has absolutely no interest in our point(s) of view, and it would be helpful to have a handy way to exit the conversation without causing ill will.  In addition, if you feel that the person or group you are trying to sway is leaning towards what you are saying, it might give you the extra confidence to push your point if you know you have a way out of it -- if your pushing point bombs (as it were).  Been there, done that (not very well!  Suggestions welcome!!!).
        Thinking ahead, do any of you think that it might be a good idea to put all of our experiences and ideas into an article that might actually get published?  I personally am reluctant to disclose personal stuff to the world at large, but now I am hearing so much from other people that I truly think should be shared.  Our personal histories are powerful!!  Just a thought.
        Looking forward, Gloria

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2017, at 3:23 PM, Vati Sreiberg <hilltownacu@...> wrote:

For those interested in the money aspect of what's going on and haven't seen this article, it's one of the money pathways being used by this Republican Congress and administration... and the destruction it will bring upon us.

thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd#.jb4zli66v

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Beth Eisenberg <jubilada@...> wrote:
I am interested in money in politics and have been in touch with the local( Florence) chapter of represent US, which is called represent Western Mass.
I asked about whether there was a possibility for a hilltowns chapter and the suggestion was that since there have been inquiries that the w mass group is considering having a monthly meeting at the Burgy Grange.
I think that this group has had impressive non partisan support across the country
And has gotten some measures past at the local level,so my thought is that working with them makes sense for me. There is someone in Cummington who will bring something to town meeting in June.
Anyway, I plan to go to a meeting in march in greenfield and can report back to the large group or to  a subgroup if one if formed.
Beth

Sent from my iPhone



Re: Communications across party lines #tactics #discussion

Nancy Brenner
 

Thanks for your reply. 

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Rodolfo Valdez <rudy_valdez52@...> wrote:

Oh the good old days, Donna Reed, Father knows best, Leave it to Beaver. Very few people ever lived in those perfect days. Child predators, drugs, alcoholism, child abuse, spouse abuse, all these things existed, people did not talk about it. I grew up in the 50, 60 in Chicago, and lived in two different neighborhoods. My sisters and I ran around outside to play, walked to school. We did not have cable news that had to fill 24 hours with stories of horror and crime. Certain things were not talked about anyway.

My parents both born in the US, and could not buy a house where we wanted to. When my sister tried to rent an apartment, it was not available when she went to see it. But a white friend was able to see it the next day. Realtors would not even show us homes we knew were for sale.

As the only Mexican American in a Ukraine & Hungarian neighborhood I would often get attacked or chased, just because.

I went to a high school that had students whose background included all shades of complexion and at least 50 different ethic backgrounds. Hearing a foreign language was no big deal. Three flats, brick bungalows, apartment buildings. Took the bus and subway all the time starting at about 12 yrs of age. When I started dating, I went out with a Sobolewski, Nowiak, Chen, Garcia, Wilks, and married a Pritchard.

In the late 70,s I got married and purchased a house in a small suburban town. Property was less expensive. I laughed when neighbors talked about the big bad city. They lived less than an hours drive from a great cultural center, but never went to the city. Some big black person or immigrant was going to attack them.

The draft, Korean war, Vietnam war, racism, sex discrimination, redlining, etc.... The 50 , 60, were never like TV comedies for most Americans. When you talk to Americans be open to hearing about a different life then what you experienced growing up. American, small town, big city, suburb. The coasts, north south east west, very different. I could never understand why Robert Young changed jackets when he got home and never removed his tie. Steel mills, box factory, slaughter house, welders, brick layers, construction, restaurant staff, those are the people I knew, no one wore neckties.

Today I sometimes get a contract in a hospital in small town American.  The lack of diversity is not America to me. Trump and his 50's offends me deeply.

Just saying.  

Rodolfo Valdez  



From: main@DefendTheAmericanRepublic.groups.io <main@DefendTheAmericanRepublic.groups.io> on behalf of Gloria Conwell <gloria112@...>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:25 PM
To: main@DefendTheAmericanRepublic.groups.io
Subject: [DefendTheAmericanRepublic] Communications across party lines
 

Communications across party lines....


I am really sorry I missed that conversation at the end of the meeting!! Yes, I would very much like to join a group discussion about how to communicate our values to a not-so-receptive audience...  I would love to participate in a face-to-face brainstorming session to identify various approaches to opening and maintaining productive conversations based on specific issues we are all concerned about.  Identifying potential trigger words or phrases and exploring possible ways to open and maintain conversations about each of our issues would be very helpful.  I may feel passionately about Climate Change, fraking (sp?) and the future of our planet, but I am no scientist!!  I lack the vocabulary to structure a logical conversation without getting emotional about it.


So here are my immediate thoughts on the subject:


A.  Party lines need to be softened, even perhaps ignored.  All of our issues transcend  the divisiveness we have lived through this past year.  At heart, what matters is our vision for our future, individually, as groups, as a country.  So it seems to me that Step One in opening a dialogue is to leave political rhetoric out completely.  Remember the adage about the three things never to discuss during dinner: religion, politics and money??  I think that applies here as well.  Focus on what we all have in common, the desire to live safely and comfortably, freedom to pursue happiness, as it were.  How we would like to do this differs individually, of course, but the basic principle remains, and can be a good place to initiate a productive conversation.  The trick is to avoid using trigger words like Fascist, racist, Trumpie,etc (even if we are thinking them).


B.  Trump plays on a certain nostalgia for the 50s and early 60s.  We are exceptionally fortunate in the Hilltowns that we can still allow kids to go outside and play alone.  People living in suburban and urban environments have lost this freedom, and those of us who lived through the fifties feel a deep regret that kids are no longer allowed (for very good reason) the time to themselves, to develop their imaginations outside in the environment.  When I lived in Portland OR (a liberal city if there ever was one) I had so many conversations with neighbors and friends about this.  Ditto in Enfield, CT (where most of my neighbors were diehard conservatives).  We might worry about bears, deer ticks and the like, but our lifestyle is not governed by fear of crime and human predators.  Big difference.  In order to bridge the gap, we need to be sensitive to the conditions (fear) so many people live in, and try to understand why they were so adamant about changing the direction the country seems to be going in (more violence, more homeless, more crime etc.).

         B1.  The Future We Used To Look Forward To.  Anyone out there remember watching The Jetsons as kids?!?  The future we have arrived at is not what anyone expected or hoped for.  The world will never be perfect, but surely there are ways to build a future without repeating history and retreating to the "good old days" of Donna Reed and Leave it to Beaver.

         B2.  Those "good old days" included a heck of a lot of paranoia.  Air raid drills, as if ducking under one's desk and covering one's head at school would protect one from a nuclear bomb.  Who could want to go back to that?  (Or racism, sexism, segregation and all the rest, but again, try to avoid the trigger words..). Trump seems to thrive on spreading paranoia, casting himself as the only person who can "save broken America."  A good conversation starter might be to ask if someone thinks America is really broken, and, if so, how?  In what way(s)?  Why?  And what to do about it?!?  


     C.  Recognize our own prejudices, admit them to ourselves and others, and try to tone them down with (or within) conversation.  I personally have zero patience with Fascists, racists, sexists, climate change deniers and the like, because they seem to ignore logic!!!!  But rather than pontificating (and immediately losing control of the conversation), I might just use a personal incident, such as my anger as a teenager in high school being prevented from taking drafting and forced into home economics class because I was a girl (grrrrrr -- I am still mad about this!!).  This might open up a dialogue about similar experiences of discrimination, and voila! a salient point is made without any name-calling.  Keep the conversation to human interests, rather than labels or trigger phrases, and I believe bridges can be built, not with everyone, but perhaps with enough people to make a difference.


     D.  Tact and patience are called for, even in these days where tact and patience seem to be disappearing.  For sure, we no longer live in a world where "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all," (my mother's favorite saying), but there are ways to couch not-so-nice thoughts (or words, or ideas) in phrases less likely to inflame rejection or offend the listener.  I am not saying this is easy (I know it is not;  I have struggled my whole life with tact and patience), but it bears thinking about.  


Just my two cents' worth, Gloria. PS:  did anyone take minutes at the meeting?



Sent from my iPad