[CRNMC] Letters to the editor

[john anderson]

Here's what I see as the danger in the proposed LTE aspect of the
campaign." It could look like a series of form letters that fail to address
the specific arguments presented against the ordinance.



This approach may not take into account that there are some intelligent and
organized people that support fracking and are currently developing
arguments based on a list of fears about this ordinance. If a letter to the
editor does not *specifically address* those fears, it will may appear
emotional and uninformed. The fears could be that this will cost the county
some frightening sum, that the ordinance will have a chilling effect on
jobs and new businesses and the economy in general, and that it violates
the sacred individual rights of the property owner to make much-needed
money from this wonderful new technology. Can anyone else imagine other
arguments against the ordinance? The implication of all of these fears is
that the ordinance is simply the result of worry-warts, technophobes, and
tree huggers. In my opinion, it would be a mistake to underestimate the
power of fear as a motivation for voting in a non-presidential year.



So how do we find out what the opposition is most likely to claim? What is
the possibility of creating interaction with any people that are likely to
oppose the ordinance? This would give us information about how their
arguments are likely to run. That would provide us with the context for
building arguments that specifically counter those against the
ordinance. Perhaps signature gatherers remember what  people that did not
want to sign the petition provided as their reasons.

A Bit of a Challenge to Strengthen Our Force,

john


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Shannon Biggs <shannon at globalexchange.org>
wrote:

>  I am happy to work with folks on their LTEs.  I have cc’d Prajna, as
> they developed a schedule of topics week to week so that there were many
> angles, and each letter was asked to write to that week’s topic.  Could be
> from a farmer’s perpective, someone with a well they are worried about,
> something from the paper the week before, etc. Just a thought.
>
> Best, Shannon
>
> On 7/15/14 2:44 PM, "karinajoy" <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The only thing that is important to me to stress is that this ordinance is
> ONE subject - *protecting our water by banning fracking*. We are basing
> our right to ban fracking on our inalienable right to protect ourselves,
> our communities, our water. Our rights are not a separate issue, but what
> we are basing our ordinance upon.
>
> This is a crucial point, as if it is deemed to contain multiple subjects,
> it could be thrown off the ballot. We should all come on board with this,
> even tho you may think the real main issue is "community rights." The one
> subject is "protecting our water by banning fracking." Can we all agree to
> this?
>
> We are all adults and all have a right to write letters to the editor. But
> if you want your letter to be edited or vetted, pass it around a bit to get
> feedback. Maybe some people can get together to make a list of possible
> thoughts/ideas/issues to include in a letter, from which you can choose
> what to focus on. Simple is good, too.
>
> We are all needed for this phase.
> Karina
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 2:27 PM, bodhirobin at pacific.net wrote:
>
> Phase 4 requires many letters to the editor.  Ideally, one of us should
> write on every week until November.  I don't think we need to vet each LTE;
> I think each person writing should say it in their own words even if their
> view is not precisely right.
>
> Or else we can compose a template to be modified by each writer.  What do
> you think?
>
> In Peace, Robin_______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140716/77001d47/attachment.html