[CRNMC] Letters to the editor

[Shannon Biggs]

I think what our job is now especially is to take the offensive and not
defensive position. Why this ordinance is important from a variety of
angles. We can address concerns but from a place of our power, rather than
defending ourselves.

Best, Shannon 


On 7/16/14 3:24 PM, "john anderson" <infoprog1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 cc¹d 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 week¹s topic.  Could be from a
>> farmer¹s 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
>> <http://karinacotler@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
>>> <http://bodhirobin@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://crn@lists.mcn.org>
>>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> crn mailing list
>>> crn at lists.mcn.org <http://crn@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/20140716/8e98275f/attachment.html