An Activist’s Life, by Thomas Leavitt

Pointer to NYT article: … last month, Gustavo Archilla, 88, and Elmer Lokkins, 84, crossed the
Canadian border near Niagara Falls and were married.

SANTA CRUZ, CA - Talk Radio Networks, Inc. has filed a request to have the lawsuit it filed against the founders of SavageStupidity.com, Thomas and Gunilla Leavitt, voluntarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. “They never had a case, and they knew it,” said Thomas. “This filing is an acknowledgement of that fact. This was never anything but an attempt to intimidate us into silence by hanging a $1,000,000 plus price on our heads. Thankfully, Paul Levy and Public Citizen was there to defend us, as they’ve been time and time again when free speech on the ‘net has been threatened. We also wish to thank David Layden and David Bradford of Jenner & Block for acting as our Chicago area counsel.” The filing also included a request todismiss the cases against the two other sites named in the lawsuit, michaelsavagesucks.com, and TakeBackTheMedia.com.

Letter re: AFA marriage poll being flooded by queer voters.

Pointer to crazed fundamentalist Christian anti-Rave site: “RAVE parties are an occult spiritual movement.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Talk Radio Network today dropped a suit aimed at shutting down Web sites that urge people to boycott companies that advertise on a nationally syndicated right-wing radio show. The suit was filed against four people who operate three Web sites critical of right-wing radio host Michael Savage. Public Citizen, which has a history of defending speech on the Internet, is representing two of those Web site operators, Thomas and Gunilla Leavitt of Santa Cruz, Calif., who created www.savagestupidity.com.

We, the undersigned, urge Ralph Nader to announce his intention to seek the Green Party’s nomination for President.

This concerns me, because I’ve made public statements based on the
information provided by Robert Norse and Becky Johnson, and I feel my
personal credibility is at stake in this matter (as is that of others).

While I’d be the last one to claim any status as a spokesperson for the “anti-globalization” movement, I feel compelled to respond to Alan Greenspan’s attempt to frame the debate as being between advocates for authoritarian statism and “free markets” under a liberal democracy. While I’d be the first to admit that many folks organizing on issues of globalization might fall into the first category, a lot of us (as George Monbiot discusses in a recent article published in the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1087488,00.html) acknowledge the problematic nature of defining this movement as “anti-capitalist”, when all evidence to date indicates that “market economics” is much like “democracy” - the worst of all possible systems (except all the others).

Pointer to NYT article on the changing nature of the debate over e-voting systems: “… a growing number of election officials and politicians seem to be
agreeing with the skeptics.”

Pointer to AlterNet article on the Matt Gonzalez vs. Gavin Newsom race: “How many times must the public send the message before the
Democratic Party decides to stop shooting the messenger?”

Pointer to SF Chron editorial: “… our new governor wants to create waiting lists for services for babies born with spina bifida and other severe disabilities. In some of these cases, waiting equals death. “

… just like Nathaniel’s death was ruled a homicide, because he clearly would not have died if he had been left unconfronted by Cincinatti police, Jimmy’s death should be considered homicide by neglect - because he wouldn’t have died if he wasn’t outside in 32 degree weather, covered by nothing but a blanket (which it remains illegal to cover up with between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. within Santa Cruz city limits).

This is what information I have on the GPUS Coordinating Committee proposal, on which voting is set to begin tomorrow. The language of the proposal would apparently permit the proposed Presidential Campaign Support Committee to dictate campaign strategy to the party nominee. This is something that neither “Safe States” supporters nor supporters of an “all out” campaign should want, as such dictation could well hamstring a candidate who campaigned on having an “all out” strategy or force a candidate who campaigned on “Safe States” to be forced into having that “all out” strategy that his supporters presumably rejected in supporting him. I see this as very dangerous language that could well result in a violation of the party’s Grassroots Democracy Key Value by committees that are not very representative of Green Party members nationwide. That should frighten us.

I am including the text of the PCSC proposal, as it stands currently
before the CC. Let me assure you that it is anything but part of a plan to
implement a so-called safe states strategy as the official party strategy
for the presidential run in 2004. The PCSC will be composed of working
groups, one of which will be charged with facilitating the decision-making
on a strategy. Maybe you have this proposal mixed with another that is
coming to the floor, a proposal that sets forth a process for deciding on a
strategy as a party (which has absolutely nothing to do with the PCSC
proposal, I can say as one of the drafters).