SOME FOLKS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO START WORKING ON OPTIONS

At 05:02 PM 2/22/97 -0800, >>EDI wrote:

>Hi >EDI here I have been maintaining for years the folly of fighting the fed. Prop1 and all the rest of our well meaning bros and sis's by advocating resistance to the fed (for whatever reason) and involving the people coming to the gathering in a legal battle, place them in jeopardy on site. It is a moot point the "fed is fu@ked" and I would join them in assuring our right to gather peaceably, but not at the expense of our safety at the gatherings. Let's work on options>.

To an extent I agree that "it is a moot point," and it's refreshing to think that >EDI is ready to "join in assuring our right to gather." But, I fear, there are petty personal undercurrents that have prevented us. "We Are One" people from "working together" in the past. Unless corrected, I reason that these personal wingnut undercurrents will continue to prevent us from working together in the future.

>> [snip] as long as I've been associated with the Rainbow Family >EDI's present rant has been my mantra. Mainly -- because so many (what I lovingly call) bliss-ninnies like to brag that they aren't 'political' -- I've been focusing on the group use regulations, which they don't see as 'political,' because it affects THEM. Unfortunately, I have seen little success in stirring interested parties to action, except for those faithful believers whose confidence in the Constitution and the judicial system has led them to council that 'just ignoring them' is the thing to do about 'the regs.' (For those who might suspect I'm just making this up as I go along -- see also, REALITY CHECK). Regretfully, I've apparently only managed to stir these good faithful believers to the action of consistently accusing me of being everything from a 'legal-type' to a 'politico,' to a CIA plant, to

'the BEAST.'

At the risk of sounding bitter, I must admit that lighting a fire under highly intelligent, misinformed people hasn't been easy for me. >>

Apparently (since I'm associated with "Prop1" and) >EDI has "been maintaining for years the folly of fighting the fed," it seems >EDI may be one of the highly intelligent folks I was referring to. I'm not sure who >EDI is, which isn't so surprising, because all the good folks who have been "been maintaining for years the folly of fighting the fed" have lacked either the courage of their conviction, or the common decency to bring their issues out in the open, preferring instead to dodge the issues in council, and making their "substantial" comments to one another, in private. Thus re-enforcing one another's delusions.

Although I am overjoyed that >EDI is at least considering joining "in assuring our right to gather peaceably," it appears to me that there are still a couple of misperceptions in >EDI's message that I feel are important to address. Since I'm dashing this off so I can get down to the front line, I've only got time to begin addressing one of those issues right now.

>our well meaning bros and sis's by advocating resistance to the fed (for whatever reason) and involving the people coming to the gathering in a legal battle>

Letting the "(for whatever reason)" slide -- >EDI is slightly upside-down on the rest of this stuff too. It is true that I have made numerous comments and suggestions on various legal issues, HOWEVER, mainly what I have been "maintaining for years" is -- even though it may ultimately be unavoidable -- every effort should be made to STAY OUT OF COURT. It's our good old Constitutionalist bros and sis's who, as Carla recently put it, "have absolute faith" that the courts, standing firmly upon the First Amendment, will finally straighten the feds out. Again, as I have also maintained for years, I pray she is correct, but honestly think that, notwithstanding her good faith, she's mistaken.

But let me try to stick to the facts. 1) The feds have successfully taken the People to court in Florida. 2) The feds have successfully taken the People to court in North Carolina, 3) The feds are taking the People to court in Pennsylvania. 4) The feds are presently pushing the People around in Florida. 5) Except for unsuccessfully trying to oppose the feds' case in Florida, "Prop1" didn't get anybody, except himself, "involved" in any "legal battle."

Now, I may be honestly mistaken on some of these points, but I don't think so. If I am mistaken somebody ought to take the time to straighten me out. It might not be as much fun as writing poetry, relating personal dreams, visions, fun times, historical, sociological, religious, metaphysical, or psychedelic theories, but, since we're all in this together, it might be important to the welfare of the Whole.

So, if we're to "work together," I humbly suggest that we study honesty, openness, and mutual respect (in this respect we might practice careful -- as opposed to combative -- listening/reading/reflecting.