Defeat the Multilateral Agreement on Invesment

Proposed global trade treaty would threaten workers,
the enviorement and democracy

The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is a bill of internationally enforceable rights and freedoms for corporations against most types of government regulation. Although hardly anyone knows what the MAI says and what it would do, if passed, it has the potential to be the strongest weapon yet for huge multi- national corporations against the world’s workers, democracy and the environment. Because there are no internationally enforceable treaties to protect human, labor or environmental rights, MAI very literally gives corporations more legal rights than people or governments.

In April, international trade representatives at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris announced that they were shelving for six months negotiations on the MAI. This gives opponents of MAI a short period in which to rally to defeat the treaty. Because the MAI is so dangerous, it is essential that people quickly learn what the MAI is and build a global movement to smash it.

Although the agreement is hundreds of pages long and complex, the core of the treaty makes the right to invest and move money a legally enforceable private property right. MAI would for the first time in history give transnational corporations standing equal to governments to sue other national, state or local governments in either local or international courts. Suits could be brought seeking hundreds of millions of dollars of damages if any national, state or local government made any rule which restricted corporate actions in a way considered to be tantamount to expropriation. This definition would not require that a government actually take property from a corporation. Regulations, including those preventing an investment which was merely planned, would be enough.

For example, under rules similar to the MAI contained in NAFTA, Ethyl Corp., a US transnational, has sued Canada for $250 million in damages because Canada banned MMT, a fuel additive and dangerous neurotoxin. Although the Canadian ban was based on environmental grounds, Ethyl has argued that the ban constitutes an illegal expropriation of its assets, since it would have made money on MMT had it not been banned.

The expropriation rules could prevent governments from saving forests, limiting mining, or slowing urban sprawl. Under MAI, governments around the world could be prevented from passing any environmental regulations to avoid being sued.

MAI also sets international standards for environmental and labor regulations and prevents governments from passing any law which would help workers or the environment more than permitted under these standards. These rules are called standstill. The MAI also contains rollback rules which would require governments to gradually get rid of rules that provide more protection than the international standards.

The MAI would be binding on state and local governments and laws (in addition to national governments and laws), although only the Federal governments would agree to MAI. Therefore, cities like Berkeley and San Francisco would be prohibited from passing laws providing stricter labor and environmental protections than international standards. In addition, any local government trade sanctions, like bans against buying South African or Burmese goods, would be banned. Under MAI, San Francisco’s domestic partners law and Berkeley’s gasoline boycotts would be prohibited.

The MAI is designed to quicken the pace of economic globalization. MAI will make it easier for multinational corporations to ship investment capital and jobs anywhere in the world. This allows transnationals to shop for the country with the lowest wages, worst working conditions, and most lax environmental standards, while simultaneously punishing any government or people who try to protect living standards and the environment. The final result is to centralize ever more wealth and power in unaccountable corporations while people lose the ability to pass laws to protect themselves from the corporations.

Because MAI threatens the lives and health of the majority of the worlds peoples, the transnational corporations that back MAI and their government lackeys tried to keep MAI a secret for as long as possible. Its text was secret until a draft was leaked and put on the internet in January 1997. The MAI has gotten little media coverage and the Clinton Administration has kept its participation quiet.

World leaders choose to negotiate MAI through the OECD as part of a clever attempt to exclude most of the world’s governments from the process. The OECD is made up of the 29 richest industrialized nations. Once MAI is approved by the OECD countries, the OECD plans to present MAI to the rest of the world’s nations for approval with no changes permitted. Any country wanting access to the world’s capital markets will have no choice but to sign on. Resist the MAI

People around the world have begun to rise up against the process of economic globalization which, like colonialism before it, concentrates the world’s wealth in a few western hands. From India to Mexico to Indonesia to Brazil, millions in non-OECD countries now oppose the World Trade Organization and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and are ready to fight MAI.

And in many OECD countries opposition is gathering. Since the United States is one of the main countries pushing passage of the MAI, activists in the US have a pivotal role to play in defeating MAI.

The Clinton Administration, in an attempt to avoid organized opposition to MAI, is trying to pass fast track trade legislation that will strip Congress of the ability to amend MAI, forcing it to either approve or reject MAI if Clinton treats MAI as an agreement rather than a treaty. Fast track will also allow approval by a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds majority required under the Constitution for a treaty.

Aside from opposing and defeating fast track authority, the most important way to oppose MAI is to make sure everyone in the US knows what it would mean for their lives. The mainstream press, controlled by global corporations set to reap billions if MAI is finished, have kept news about MAI out of the news. Activists need to break the silence.

To get involved in the struggle against MAI, contact the International Forum on Globalization, 1555 Pacific Ave, San Francisco, CA 94109, 415-771-3394, www.igc.apc.org/ifg.

Slingshot Box

Slingshot is a quarterly, independent, radical newspaper published in the East Bay since 1988.

Last month we held a Graphics Extravaganza and, through a strange combination of party and assembly line, managed to organize a mountain of our graphics into a tidy filing system. We had categories which ranged from Police, Riots and Violence to Animal Liberation, Environment, and as the night progressed, Religion.

We’ve been talking about it for years, but we finally found ourselves a local union shop printer! We didn’t think one existed, but found Alternative Web Printing right in Oakland.

In other news, we’re hoping to release the 1999 Slingshot Organizer by mid-September. Don’t miss it! Your purchases keep Slingshot going, and keep you well informed and, hopefully, on-time to your appointments.

We actually managed to cut enough articles to get down to 16 pages this issue. We’ve got a mix of local and global issues covered which we hope will inspire all you readers to write us substantive letters so we can keep up the debate.

We’re always looking for writers, artists, photographers, editors, distributors and foundries to make the paper even better. Slingshot accepts unsolicited articles. Please send a disk if you can. We also accept letters, art and photographs. We do not print poetry.

As always, your generous donations are needed to keep us going. About $20 per person is great.

Editorial decisions about Slingshot are made by the Slingshot collective. Articles do not necessarily represent the opinions of everyone involved with Slingshot. We welcome debate, discussion and criticism.

Slingshot New Volunteer Meeting

New volunteers interested in getting involved in Slingshot can meet with us on September 20th at 5 p.m. at the Long Haul. Address is printed below.

Article Deadline & Next Issue date

The projected deadline for Issue #63 is November 3rd.. Issue #63 is expected to be out on November 19th.

Printed August 5, 1998
Volume 1, Number 62 ¥ Circulation: 8,000

Slingshot Newspaper

3124 Shattuck Ave. ¥ Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone: (510) 540-0751
Email: slingshot@tao.ca
WWW: http://slingshot.tao.ca
Sponsored by Long Haul

Circulation Information

Slingshot is free in the Bay Area and is available at Long Haul and Bound Together Books (SF), plus lots of other places.

Subscriptions to Slingshot are $1 per issue (bulk mail prepaid) or $2 for First Class Mail after the issue comes out. International is $2.50 per issue. Back issues are also available.

Bulk copies are available for 50 cents per issue for 6 or more copies.

Donate to Slingshot

If you like Slingshot, send us your Money! Help us pay the $1,300 we spent on this issue! We also need letters, articles, art and photographs. Send them. to: 3124 Shattuck Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705.

Letters to Slingshot

Dear Slingshot,

Wow! Someone must really like me, since mail call produced your “fine” newspaper.

I’m a P.O.W./victim of the “War On Drugs.” Another statistic whose crime was “furnishing” the “killer weed,” marijuana to sick and terminally ill patients who belonged to my cannabis co-op.

I was charged with four (4) counts of sales, but was convicted of two (2) counts. A total of 3/4 of an ounce to a 73 year old terminally ill cancer patient who has since passed away.

I noted in P.B. Floyd’s article “Marijuana Updates” (summer ’98 Slingshot) that the son of Tony Blair’s home secretary was busted for sales, but released with a warning. Gee! What do they know in Europe that we don’t know here? One thing is for certain however, and that is I will join a half a million of my brothers and sisters that are arrested annually for marijuana offenses alone.

As a member of this movement from it’s conception, (compassionate use) I have made it my goal to keep updated on “marijuana facts and figures.” Some that you and your readers may or may not be aware of are: There has been a 700% increase in drug related arrests since 1980. That 70% of all state prisoners are in for non-violent offenses, (majority drug possession), that over 100,000 people die per year from overdosing on legal prescription medicine, and one million are hospitalized annually. “No one” has ever overdosed on marijuana, no one, nada, nein, nyet. Marijuana is safer than aspirin. The fastest growing business in California is corrections. (1. Chicago Tribune, 2. Calif. Dept. of corrections 1997 annual report, 3. same as number 2, 4. U.S. news and world report March ’98, 5. New England journal of medicine editorial Jan. 1997, 6. same as 2 and 3) and by the year 2003 there will be a 73% increase in the states prison population from 183,000 to 234,000 plus. (Calif. Dept. of corrections.)

On November 5, 1996, 56% of the registered voters in California who bothered to vote passed Prop. 215, the compassionate use act, now HS11362.5.

As of this date, no state governmental agency has implemented any way of distributing safe, mold and pesticide “free” cannabis to those who have doctor’s recommendations to use it. The Federal government, along with state Attorney General Dan Lungren, have succeeded in prosecuting and closing down the San Francisco Buyer’s Club, San Jose, San Diego, Marin, Hayward, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Oakland, and Flower Therapy. Peter Baer, Scott Imler, Dennis Peron, Marvin Chaver, Jeff and Scott (San Diego), Todd McCormick, and Lynette Shaw are all awaiting trial for furnishing, sales, distribution, etc. This is not what the voters intended and it is not what we were about. Having to “buy” our supply, we asked for a donation of $20 per quarter (7 grams) limit of one ounce per week. If you could not afford to donate it was given to you for free!! No questions asked. Simple as that. We only wanted to cover cost! Now I face six years in prison for “sales” of 3/4 of an ounce or 21 grams.

Not pounds, not kilos, but grams, and less than 28.5 on top of it. Oh well!! Not as bad as some of my fellow P.O.W.’s but still a little stiff.

I was denied Prop. 215 as a defense as well as “medical necessity,” so I have no effective defense. My public defender is appealing, but it will take at least two years to get into the appellate. All of our volunteers are die-hard activists, and we knew what was involved when we got in to this. Still, I feel my time is nothing compared to “Move” and Geronimo Pratt, and Aim, and some of the others, but we are still not free! Even after it was voted in to law. So our fight and struggle goes on too!

Thank you for putting me on your mailing list, and one day I will gladly repay you through a donation. Till then, yours in the cause!! David Herrick

P.S. I’d love to get letters:
David Herrick #1750882
550 N. Flower St. J-4-4
Santa Ana, CA 92703

P.S.S. I have a written recommendation to use cannabis from a bonafide Calif. Physician, but that was not the issue. Caregiving and sales was!!

Bike Messengers Show Signs of Life

>In the past year and a half, San Francisco bicycle messengers have taken significant steps toward organizing for collective action against their bosses — the courier company owners — and by extension, corporate downtown. This is a struggle that should be of interest to all pro-labor people, and, specifically, those who see the radical possibilities latent in a transient, counter-cultural workforce centered in the heart of San Francisco’s financial district.

The San Francisco Bicycle Messenger Association (SFBMA) was established in 1990 as an in-yer-face assertion that since the courier company bosses have a club (AMCS — translation unknown), so should their slaves. The reality, however, was that the SFBMA existed for years as little more than a mythic formation emblazoned on visors and t-shirts.

This began to change in the beginning of 1997 after a wild-cat strike nearly broke out in response to yet another indignity at the hands of Doc Holbrook, notorious owner of Ultra Ex, one of the largest courier firms in the city. Only a week or so before Christmas of 1996, Ultra Ex called an early morning, mandatory meeting to announce that riders would receive an across-the-board commission decrease as that year’s Christmas bonus. A petition threatening a walk-out was quickly circulated and signed by virtually every messenger as well as some of the office staff. Management’s response — a combination of minor concessions and threats to farm the work out to other courier firms, thus diluting the effect of an isolated job action — was successful in deterring a strike. However, it galvanized interest in, and underlined the need for, collective, industry-wide organization.

In fits and starts since that time, the SFBMA has developed into an organization that meets regularly, has clear demands, puts out a newsletter, and is in the process of formulating tactics and strategies. In the past several months, messengers at three different courier companies — Advanced, DMS and Professional — have banded together and made modest demands which their employers have ceded. A small fissure in the edifice of cynicism so prevalent amongst wage-salves can be seen. In other words, it’s a dynamic, open situation.

Late last March, the SFBMA voted to accept an offer by the ILWU (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) to affiliate. A "working agreement" was signed in which the SFBMA retains its organizational autonomy and is afforded office space and use of the Union Hall at 255 9th Street, tactical support, and full legal defense. In exchange, the SFBMA pays the ILWU $137.50 a month (equivalent to 25 members paying $5.50) and is expected to fulfill an agreement to work to organize the entire courier industry.

Unions, Radicals and Where to Go From Here

What excites me about the prospect of messengers organizing is the power that messengers could wield if they were to constitute themselves as a collective force. San Francisco’s retail-financial-corporate center, a base to many of the world’s biggest and most powerful businesses, could not function without hundreds and hundreds of messengers (not only on bikes: also by foot, moped, motorcycle and auto) servicing its same-day-delivery needs. This leverage is the basis for real social power that is far more inspiring, in my view, than simply securing a contract with our employers.

This raises many questions about the role of unions in the radical project which many leftists and progressives seem unwilling to entertain. In their chief role as labor merchandisers, unions seek to create a closed labor market within which they can sell their "wares". Is this radical? Is it inspiring? Why does it seem to fail so often even on its own limited terms? My guess is that the answer to the third question, at least in part, is because the answer to the first two is a resounding NO.

From the standpoint of traditional unionism, the transience which characterizes the courier industry is a major impediment to organizing because it doesn’t accommodate the designedly slow pace of the official recognition process. Isn’t this a reason to look beyond the legal, state-sanctioned mechanisms? After all, doesn’t worker fluidity and instability pervade the American economy in 1998? In fact, it seems itinerant/temp/transient workers, often the most oppressed, are apt to be mighty disloyal, and thus, potentially the most insurgent. If so, acting quickly seems in order!

Stay tuned.

Those interested in donating to the SFBMA strike fund and/or receiving the SFBMA newsletter, Cognition, should contact: SFBMA, PO Box 640251, San Francisco, CA 94164-0251. Ronnie R. has been a SF bike messenger for the better part of the past 4 years.

Proposed boxes he wants printed with the article:

Wanted: Insolent Radicals!

Get a job as a messenger and help the class war this Fall. Advanced, Ultra Ex, Professional, Aero and many others will be hiring like mad come September, just in time for the SFBMA’s intensified organizing campaign!

SFBMA Demands

1. Commissioned messengers should receive no less than $3 for a regular downtown delivery, regardless of what the client is charged.

2. Commissioned messengers should receive no less than 55% of the actual price to the client.

3. Commissioned messengers should make $80 minimum daily.

4. All messengers should receive: Paid sick days, vacation days and lunch.

5. Full health coverage or equivalent amount in cash monthly.

6. Direct comp for bike provision and maintenance.

7. Rainy day bonus.

8. Hourly messengers – whether on foot, bike, motorcycle or car: Minimum $11/hour with regulated work loads.

ick days, vacation days and lunch.

5. Full health coverage or equivalent amount in cash monthly.

6. Direct comp for bike provision and maintenance.

7. Rainy day bonus.

8. Hourly messengers – whether on foot, bike, motorcycle or car: Minimum $11/hour with regulated work loads.

Defending United Nations Plaza

When the fences went up around the grassy area at United Nations Plaza in San Francisco last November, Food Not Bombs (FNB) volunteers had apretty good idea of what they were for. When a volunteer from Food Not Bombs called the Department of Public Works (DPW), those suspicions were confirmed. The fences, he was told, were put up to keep homeless people off of the grass.   FNB confronts these attacks on public access to public space with direct-action – by serving free vegetarian food and distributing literature in and around these spaces, and by speaking out and holding demonstrations. This is just what they did on July 14th when a demonstration took the fences down.

The fences were barricades of the type used by the police for crowd control, held together with plastic handcuffs and hose clamps. ” What we really need from the community,” said Ronnie Eagles, from the Coalition On Homelessness, “… is some solutions. Solutions, not more fucking persecution ! “At the end of the day, some thirty folks had been arrested and charged with refusing to leave the scene of a riot and resisting arrest.

The post script to this event is that one week later, on July 22nd, the fences around the grassy areas at UN Plaza were taken down. “The green areas are for the people to look at, not necessarily to lay on,” said Jorge Alfaro of the DPW. “But we’re going to see how people use the space.

” When asked if there was any connections between the FNB demonstration and the fences coming down, Alfaro repsonded, “Of course there was a connection. The demonstrators brought it to everyone’s attention.” Remember … direct-action gets the goods!

Love and Rage Dissolves

Revolutionary Anarchist Newspaper

The Love and Rage newspaper and Revolutionary Anarchist Federation voted to dissolve itself during a brief conference in New York on May 23. The break-up occurred as a result of a philosophical/political split preceded by a two-year-long debate within the organization around a number of issues that proved irreconcilable. Neither side in the split will continue using the Love and Rage name.

One side is forming a new organization calling itself the Fire By Night Organizing Committee and will, at least initially, not be publishing a paper. This faction which springs largely from the New York chapter of Love and Rage wants an organization that is less explicitly anarchist and that will require greater adherence to the organization by its members than was the case with Love and Rage.

The other faction which is more Mid-west based has put out a call to form a new revolutionary anarchist group and will put out a theoretical anarchist journal, but neither of these projects have names yet. This faction wants to do a significant amount of work with Anti-Racist Action.

International Solidarity Conference 1999

We propose that a conference be held in San Francisco, California from June 1st through the 5th 1999. We hope to facilitate discussions regarding the working class and our struggles with capitalism. These are issues that we hope to address at the conference;

  • Stop factionalism within the progression towards a more effective movement of direct democracy.

  • Combat the world bank and its structural adjustments by seeking alternatives and taking action.

  • Illustrate connections between workers, the environment, poverty and other pressing issues which urge resolution because of our need for an involved and compassionate society.

  • Explore alternative forms of organizing and cooperation.

    Registration, input for the agenda and applications to facilitate workshops/ discussion groups are all due to the following address by December 31, 1998. Please contact us at these addresses for further information.

    I99 International Solidarity Conference Committee

    c/o San Francisco IWW
    POB 40485
    S.F. CA 94140 USA
    Email: intl99@iww.org
    Web: http://www.iww.org/~intl99/

  • Lucy Parsons Center: Please help

    The Lucy Parsons Center, Boston’s only collectively-run autonomous infoshop/bookstore was hit with disaster on Saturday, June 13th. An extraordinary amount of rain hit the Boston area over that weekend, and flooded our basement with over a foot of water.

    The center was relocated to this temporary space in Davis Square after having been evicted from our former location in Central Square just over a month ago. With plans to move to a permanent storefront within the next month or so, our morale has been crushed as about 2/3 of our stock was stored in the basement. We have no estimate of the damage done at this point, but we have absolutely no insurance that will cover the loss.

    Already suffering from very low sales and participation due to our low visibility location, our funds have been depleting quickly and we are not sure how we will afford the higher rent of a new location. We are setting forth a plea for any fundraising help that anyone can give us. Never in our 30 year existence have we dealt with such a blow. Please extend your solidarity in helping us to ensure that the Lucy Parsons center continues to exist.

    Lucy Parsons Center
    259A Elm Street
    Somerville, MA 02144

    Work Less, Play More

    Berkeley Initiative would require full pay for 35 hours of work

    An initiative measure on the Berkeley ballot this November, if passed, would require Berkeley employers to reduce the work week to 35 hours, with no reduction in pay, and pay double time for all hours worked over 35 hours.

    Although the 35-for-40  law must be passed on a state or national level in order to be truly effective, and although the measure does not appear to cut the work week for the many salaried workers in Berkeley, folks should pass  35-for-40

    Although government reports show that US unemployment is low right now, the government statistics don t count the long-term unemployed.  And, the US numbers count under-employed and part time workers as employed, distorting the picture.     Decreasing the work week will mean more full time, good jobs at better wages.  A 35 hour week also gives workers more hours to enjoy life or participate in their families.  In a era when almost every parent works, the 35 hour week is  pro-family.

    The Berkeley ballot measure would apply to all Berkeley businesses licensed by the city or having contracts with the city.  In addition to requiring double time for hours worked in excess of 35, the bill would make compulsory hours over 35 illegal.  The proposed law is similar to a bill introduced in Congress in 1980 by Rep. John Conyers of Detroit.  That bill would have created an estimated 7 million extra jobs nationally, but it was never voted on.  Currently, American workers are working a longer work week than workers in almost any other industrial country.  Although the 35-for-40 law would only apply in Berkeley, and it is admittedly difficult to make labor standards advances in one small city in a competitive capitalist context, Berkeley voters need to vote their self- interest and pass 35-for-40. 

    Voting against giving yourself an extra hour everyday shows a lack of self-respect and is, in a word, pathetic.  Passage of such a law in Berkeley would put cutting the work week back on the political map in the US for the first time since the 1930s.    A majority of Berkeley s voters work for someone else, either getting a salary or a wage.  Salaried workers should vote with those who earn wages, as a majority of Californians recently voted on the minimum wage increase ballot measure which recently passed.  Although not everyone earns the minimum wage, and not everyone would benefit from 35-for-40, it advances the interests of everyone who works for an employer.  That the media has already dismissed the measure s likelihood of passing, and that even the progressive politicians in Berkeley have not endorsed 35-for-40, only shows how far American political discussion has been dominated by the boss s interests.    Having a 35 hour week in Berkeley may cause some bosses to move certain jobs to Oakland or elsewhere, which is why the 35-for-40 ballot measure in Berkeley is only a first step.  If it can be passed in Berkeley, the next step is passing a similar law at the state and national level.  Ultimately, getting a fair share requires more than just voting – mass organizing, union drives, and worker solidarity on an international level are required to achieve any adjustment in the distribution of wealth between workers and bosses.  Reducing the work week gives workers more of the wealth they produce, and bosses will never voluntarily accept it.

    The Share the Work Committee, which wrote the ballot measure and collected over 3000 signatures to get it on the ballot, is planning a grassroots campaign to pass 35-for-40.  Volunteers and donations are need.

    Contact the Committee at 841-7460 or write to PO Box 5832, Berkeley, CA 94705.

    Ban All Clearcuts!

    A measure on the November ballot in Oregon gives voters there the opportunity to ban clearcutting, the use of herbicides and other environmentally irresponsible logging practices in Oregon s forests. The Oregon Forest Conservation Initiative (OFCI) would require environmentally sensitive and labor intensive logging methods. This could create more forest related jobs in Oregon logging communities that have lost jobs, even as the pace of deforestation in Oregon has increased.

    After more than 100 years of logging, less than 5 percent of the original old growth forests remain in Oregon. Over-cutting and road-building have caused significant soil erosion and have eliminated wildlife habitat. Repeated clearcutting and poor forestry practices will eventually render Oregon forestland incapable of producing any wood products at all.

    The OFCI, if passed by voters, would provide that clearcutting shall no longer be a lawful forest practice on federal, state and private forestlands in Oregon. Clearcutting is defined as any timber harvest which leaves fewer than 70 well-distributed trees at least 11 inches in diameter per acre. The measure also bans cutting any tree in Oregon that measures more than 30 inches in diameter at breast height, effectively preventing the cutting of the oldest trees. The ballot measure requires that the state Board of Forestry rewrite logging regulations to minimize the use of heavy equipment and roads to prevent soil compaction and erosion and maximize the replanting of a diversity of native tree species. The Board of Forestry would also have to require timber harvesting methods which maintain or maximize areas of large, live trees, standing dead trees, and large, downed logs to provide habitat for species dependent upon such habitat on at least 50 percent of each harvest unit.

    The OFCI also contains a citizen suit enforcement provision that would award attorneys fees to citizens suing to enforce the law. Finally, the law contains provisions aimed at triggering Federal Clean Water laws to restrict logging on Federally owned lands, which cannot be controlled by the Oregon law. The measure is an impressive example of how environmentalists can use the ballot initiative process to put supposedly unrealistic laws to a vote.

    Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics (OLIFE) director Gary Kutcher writes of attempting to get forest protections passed by the Oregon legislature: In the Oregon legislature, we came face to face with the dozens of lobbyists representing the timber industry, chemical companies and other huge corporations. We watched with dismay as legislator after legislator capitulated to the political pressures these lobbyists exerted and we came to the earnest conclusion that if the forests of Oregon are to be given serious protections through tough ecological forestry standards, that it will be the people of Oregon who will accomplish this via a stateside ballot initiative.

    OLIFE collected almost 100,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot. Most were collected by volunteers. Now they hope to get 2,000 Oregon volunteers to leaflet and campaign to pass the initiative. OLIFE expects a vigorous, and well-funded, campaign against the measure by the timber industry and corporate interests.

    To help pass the OFCI, contact OLIFE at 454 Willamette #211, Eugene, OR 97401, 541-683-1494 (Eugene) or 1017 S.W. Morrison #301, Portland, OR 97205, 503-294-0681 (Portland). They are also seeking donations. For a copy of the OFCI and lots of other excellent information about ecological logging methods, purchase the new book Can We Restore Paradise? from OFCI for $5 ($2 each for 5 or more copies). Please include postage $$–they weigh about 6 ounces each.