Re: letter to the editor--never published

[bill london <bill_london@hotmail.com>]

I spoke with the Palmers (who originally submitted the letter to the 2020 
list).  They have offered their permission for Lujane to publish it in the 
Latah Eagle.
I assume that it will be published there, and that the author will be 
pleased that his ideas were circulated farther.
The larger issue of what can be "used" after it appears on this list is a 
good one.  The contents of 2020 postings are not copyrighted by 2020, and 
are owned by the authors.
However, we have already had several examples of reporters using material 
quoted directly from postings, and do include a warning (with our first 
response to subscribers) that such use by reporters of material posted to 
this list does occur.
There are many other examples of ideas, concerns and suggestions taken from 
2020 postings and used by reporters.  Of course, that is one of the reasons 
we exist--to spread such messages.  The reporters are just helping the cause 
in that case.
In situations like this--a journalist wishing to reprint an entire posted 
2020 message--it would be wise for the journalist to request authorization 
directly from the author.  It seems to me that anyone posting to the 2020 
list with a letter to the editor or  an announcement of any event or similar 
message would be very glad to see it disseminated further.
BL

>From: "LuJane" <lujane@lataheagle.com>
>To: "G M" <herecomestheflood@yahoo.com>, <pooch@moscow.com>
>CC: "Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: letter to the editor--never published
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:46:21 -0700
>
>I printed it out and read it over and would sure like to use it in the
>eagle... do I need permission to use it?
>
>
>********************************************************
>LuJane Nisse, Publisher
>LatahEagle and The Boomerang!
>visit us on the web at
>www.the-boomerang.com
>www.lataheagle.com
>(updated periodically)
>********************************************************
>-----Original Message-----
>From: G M <herecomestheflood@yahoo.com>
>To: pooch@moscow.com <pooch@moscow.com>
>Cc: Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Date: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 12:22 PM
>Subject: Re: letter to the editor--never published
>
>
> >Wow.  Thanks for sharing this Evelyn.
> >
> >And don't many of you agree that this piece does
> >indeed deserve to appear in the Daily News, perhaps as
> >a guest editorial?
> >
> >
> >Greg Meyer
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Neil  Palmer <pooch@moscow.com> wrote:
> >> This was intended to be a letter to the editor of
> >> the Daily News. It
> >> is from a family friend from Toledo, Ohio who
> >> recently visited. Since
> >> it has not appeared in the Daily News in the last
> >> nine days, I thought
> >> I would simply post it for the Vision 2020 list.
> >>
> >> Evelyn Palmer
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> > From: mike ferner <mferner@utoledo.edu>
> >> > To: editor1@moscow.com
> >> > Subject: Moscow visit
> >> > Date: Sunday, June 06, 1999 6:45 PM
> >> >
> >> Roger Kendall, Managing Editor
> >> Moscow Daily News
> >> Moscow, ID
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Kendall,
> >>
> >> A couple of weeks ago, I visited some friends in
> >> your city and had the
> >> opportunity to discuss local political issues.
> >> Reflecting on those
> >> discussions prompted the following op ed piece.  I
> >> am submitting it for
> >> your consideration for an upcoming issue of the
> >> Daily News.
> >>
> >> By way of bio information, I served two terms as an
> >> independent member
> >> of Toledo City Council from 1989-1993, and ran for
> >> mayor as an
> >> independent in 1993.  Currently I work as
> >> Communications Director for
> >> the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, a
> >> union representing
> >> migrant farmworkers in Ohio, Michigan, NC, and
> >> Florida.
> >>
> >> Please let me know if you have any questions or
> >> comments.  Thank you
> >> very much for  your time and consideration.
> >>
> >> Mike Ferner
> >> 419-243-3456 (work)
> >> 729-7273 (home)
> >>
> >>                         ************************
> >>
> >>      On a recent, lovely visit to Moscow, I had the
> >> good fortune to take
> >> in many local sights, and  also talk with residents
> >> about some of the
> >> issues facing Moscow's citizenry.
> >>      One issue that caught my attention was the
> >> question of planning for
> >> the new municipal pool,  and how much corporate
> >> sponsorship to allow.
> >>      If you think that questions about whether to
> >> allow corporate logos
> >> on umbrellas or a water slide are mundane and trite,
> >> I urge you to think
> >> again.  This very question is sweeping the nation's
> >> municipalities and
> >> school districts like a wildfire.  And I believe it
> >> is not an
> >> overstatement to say that the long-term consequences
> >> for our democracy
> >> are every bit as serious.
> >>      For three of the four years I was in local
> >> government in Toledo,
> >> our economy, tied closely to the auto industry,
> >> experienced a serious
> >> recession.  Day after day we agonized over budget
> >> cuts to significant
> >> programs for our citizens.  We scrambled for funds
> >> from any source
> >> imaginable.
> >>      It was during this period that we discovered
> >> what we thought was an
> >> ingenious source of revenue--not huge, but large
> >> enough to save some key
> >> programs from the ax.
> >>      Corporations, like the grocery chain that
> >> controlled most of
> >> Toledo's food stores, banks, and manufacturing
> >> firms, offered to sponsor
> >> a host of programs in city parks that had previously
> >> been strictly
> >> publicly funded.  With only a vague sense of unease,
> >> I agreed with my
> >> colleagues who enthusiastically endorsed this great
> >> new idea.  Corporate
> >> banners began appearing at many city park events.
> >>      About this same time I noticed the school
> >> district embarking on
> >> similar ventures.  At one downtown parade, I saw a
> >> high school band
> >> marching behind a banner proclaiming it was "brought
> >> to you by
> >> Kroger's."  School buildings began sprouting signs
> >> thanking companies
> >> for "adopting us," by providing funding for items
> >> not otherwise possible
> >> with tight school budgets.
> >>
> >>  It was not until after I left office and took time
> >> to seriously reflect
> >> on this new trend that I began to realize that what
> >> I had witnessed and
> >> participated in was much more than "entrepreneurial,
> >> win-win,
> >> public-private-partnerships."  It was much more than
> >> simply a question
> >> of whether corporate signage was in good or bad
> >> taste.  It really did
> >> strike to the heart of our democracy at the most
> >> fundamental
> >> level--local government.  Here's what I mean.
> >>      With just two tax abatement votes, local
> >> government in Toledo
> >> lifted over $100 million in tax liability from
> >> Owens-Corning Corp. and
> >> Daimler-Chrysler Corp., and placed it squarely on
> >> the backs of local
> >> citizens and small businesses.  In addition to the
> >> abatements, local
> >> government gave these companies nearly another $100
> >> million in outright
> >> public "gifts" in the form of infrastructure
> >> improvements and cash
> >> grants.  State and federal treasuries were similarly
> >> raided.  With the
> >> public purse pauperized, the rest becomes
> >> predictable:
> >>
> >>    * School officials help soft drink companies win
> >> brand loyalty and
> >>      future market share among young consumers with
> >> "sole supplier"
> >>      contracts that promise some added revenues for
> >> textbooks.
> >>    * Our public officials told citizens that parks
> >> will get improvements
> >>      only when "private partners" are
> >> secured--partners that will not
> >>      invest in unseen infrastructure, but only in
> >> ball diamonds and
> >>      swimming pools that can be named after them.
> >>    * The same corporations that receive millions in
> >> subsidies make
> >>      tax-deductible contributions to school levy
> >> campaigns, so the
> >>      patriotic suckers still on the tax rolls can
> >> keep public
> >>      institutions afloat.
> >>    * With what remains of our democracy, we elect
> >> our city councils and
> >>      school boards.  But none of us voted for the
> >> corporate officials
> >>      who increasingly have more to say about
> >> allocating resources within
> >>      our public institutions.
> >>
> >>          What do we teach our children and ourselves
> >> by all this?  Be
> >> careful.  Don't rock the boat.  If you're a public
> >> official, be careful
> >> not to ask "anti-business" questions.  Be quiet.
> >> Get in line.
> >> Government incompetent.  Corporations good. Thank
> >> the new monarch for
> >> small favors.
> >>      What a far cry from when populist forces in
> >> every state in the
> >> union kept corporations on a very short leash; when
> >> "we the people"
> >> understood ourselves to be sovereign over all the
> >> institutions we
> >> created--including corporations.  How quickly we
> >> went from this status
> >> to simply being consumers and taxpayers with so
> >> little control over our
> >> lives and our own institutions.
> >>      Surely this change has been presented to us as
> >> "progress," and of
> >> course no one wants to be judged as standing in the
> >> way.  But how do we
> >> measure progress?  How have we strayed so far from
> >> being self-governing
> >> people?
> >>      For all these reasons, I believe that your
> >> debate about corporate
> >> sponsorship of public facilities is more than a
> >> question of good taste
> >> or attractive design.  It is about very fundamental
> >> values to
> >> self-governing people.  Public facilities should be
> >> just
> >>
> >=== message truncated ===
> >
> >_________________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com