Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Madison Area Peace Coalition E-mails Description An account of the resource The Madison Area Peace Coalition (MAPC) formed fourteen days after the September 11 attacks to oppose (among other goals) the use of U.S. military, economic, or political force – whether direct or proxy, overt or covert -- "that violates the sovereignty or human rights of any nation or people." The Archive has assembled here e-mails exchanges from MAPC dating from the group's founding until late November 2001. September 11 Email September 11 Email: Body The basic content, as unstructured text; sometimes containing a signature block at the end. 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 September 11 Email: Date The local time and date when the message was written. Monday, October 29, 2001 4:06 AM September 11 Email: To The email addresses, and optionally names of the message's recipients X September 11 Email: From The email address, and optionally the name of the author. X September 11 Email: CC The email addresses of those who received the message addressed primarily to another. NULL September 11 Email: Subject A brief summary of the topic of the message. Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution 911DA Item Elements describing a September 11 Digital Archive item. Status The process status of this item. approved Consent Whether September 11 Digital Archive has permission to possess this item. unknown Posting Whether the contributor gave permission to post this item. yes Copyright Whether the contributor holds copyright to this item. yes Source The source of this item. born-digital Media Type The media type of this item. email Created by Author Whether the author created this item. yes Described by Author Whether the description of this item was submitted by the author. no Date Entered The date this item was entered into the archive. 2001-10-29