[Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule

[Danielle Schumacher]

Thanks to Randall for all the time he put into defending Forgiveness
Weekend.  As Randall said, the organizers of the event are overwhelmed
for several reasons.  We have been putting as much information out
about the CONFERENCE as possible, and while we know it does not
contain as much information as we would like it to, we are doing what
we can and we know that the event itself will contain most of the
information you are looking for.  We are actually overwhelmed wth
support.  For instance, I had to spend several days trying to arrange
accomodations for people coming from out of town because there is a
high school state wrestling championship that is taking all the hotel
rooms.  We weren't expecting so many people from out of town for the
events, so we didn't have rooms reserved far enough ahead of time :)
!!!  The other thing that is overwhelming me personally is resistance
and ATTACK from Carl.  I hope this is not your intention, Carl, but
you are keeping me up at night because I am incredibly upset that the
group I thought I was a part of is now allowing you to work so
actively against everything I am trying to do.  And you don't even 
understand what I am trying to do!  I supposed I could have tried to
clear some of your questions up sooner, but does anyone in AWARE blaim
me for not being able to face you at the meeting yesterday?  And does
anyone hold it against me that I feel it is a waste of time?  Should I
put time into trying to change your mind or should I be putting time
into making the CONFERENCE better?  I didn't answer all these emails
last night, because I honestly couldn't believe they were happening,
and now I am taking time from my new, wonderful job to answer this
because I think it has gone way too far.  And all through email!  Why
not on the phone?  The Forgiveness Weekend press release has my phone
number.  Call and ask the questions, and I will answer if I can and
talk to you when I have time.  I chose to use email in this case so
that everyone could see my response, since you chose to attack us in a
public venue.  And is Aaron even on the discuss list?  Why would you
attack him in a venue in which he cannot even defend himself?  Please
think about the situation you have put me in.  If I choose to not
spend this time to answer your questions, you will continue to assume
things.  If I choose to answer them, I am hoping I can calm your fears
and I am taking time out of my work day, at which I get paid hourly
and need every dollar because I am taking days off later in the week
because Cliff Thornton will be my guest in town.  Honestly, I feel
tempted to ask you to pay me for time lost at work and sleep lost,
etc.

Now, rather than go through each email and respond to each concern, I
have read through them as quickly as I could since I will tell my
supervisor at the Y to not pay me for the hour this entire process
will take me.  I will respond with overall comments instead of
nitpicky details.  Thanks again to Randall for answering your
questions, since that is what he did!  Aaron's commentary should have
answered what other forms of disenfranchisement we are referring to:
the Higher Education Act Drug Provision denies financial aid to anyone
with a drug conviction of any kind.
public housing, government jobs, and other forms of public assistance
are denied to felons.

We are not just talking about Illinois.  We are talking about all
felons in the U.S.  And we are mostly talking about felons whose only
crime was drug POSSESSION and other NON-VIOLENT crimes.  Carl, you
keep referring to violent criminals.  That is a different story, yet
they are dealt with through the same criminal justice system so we
must talk about them, too.  They too need forgiveness.

I am tempted to just tell you to give it a rest and just come to the
events and ask your questions there.  If you are not willing to do
this sort of thing in public, only through email, then please refrain
from doing it.  I don't feel right about it, doing it through email. 
I would much prefer to work through all these issues in a public,
personal way.

As for the distinction between "rally" and "conference"- I seem to
remember you volunteering at an AWARE table at the Amnesty conference
I held on campus last year.  Carol and Aaron obviously didn't have
anything to do with the planning of that, but I think you will see the
similarities between the two events.  No one had anything bad to say
about that event, so why is this one (which I feel is going to be 100
times better) being attacked by so many people on so many levels?  No
one dug up dirt on the speakers at that conference before approving
the AWARE money that supported it.

As for the worth of Forgiveness Weekend...
Carl, what are YOU doing to make the problem better?  Since you have
such a perfect understanding of the problem, why are we (Forgiveness
Weekend organizers) the only ones trying to do anything about it?  I'm
sorry you feel that we are not doing enough, but at least we are
trying to do something.  And we don't even have any money to do it
with!!  I am confident that everything that is happening this Weekend
is worth your time and at the very least will not be hurting society. 
Everything we all learn this weekend, all the discussions we will
have, all the action we will take can only help.

Carl, if you have any respect AT ALL for ANYONE, please stop these
posts immediately.

I look forward to seeing all of you this Weekend!

Danielle

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:21:32 -0600, C. G. Estabrook
<galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I asked, "What, specifically, is the disenfranchisement of felons that
> this conference seeks to end?"
> 
> And you replied, "Carl, you may find an answer to your question in what
> Aaron said in his recent 'Public Square' commentary (included below)..."
> 
> It's hardly a "mischaracterization" to say that you offered the quoted
> commentary as an answer to my question, namely a specification of the
> goals of the conference. You now apparently deny that it is an answer to
> my question, and I remain in the dark.
> 
> Regards, Carl
> 
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Randall Cotton wrote:
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> > To: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
> > Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "danielle schumacher"
> > <danielle at illinoisnorml.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:38 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule
> >
> >
> > : Wait a minute, Randall: it was you who offered the quoted commentary as a
> > : specification of the goals of the "conference," about which I asked.
> >
> > To claim my citation of the Aaron's commentary was meant as a
> > "specification of the goals of the conference", is yet another
> > mischaracterization (you're on a roll, Carl 8-)
> >
> > Let's review. You asked the following question:
> >
> > "Disenfranchisements for released felons include the prohibition of owning a
> > gun. What else?"
> >
> > and I cited Aarons commentary because it itemized several other
> > examples of disenfranchisement. Pretty straightforward.
> >
> > : (I
> > : won't insist on "rally," altho' it's arguable.) And now you say, "Aaron
> > : never mentioned Forgiveness Weekend in this piece" -- so, presumably,
> > : these are *not* the goals of the conference.  What, then, is the
> > : conference for?
> >
> > Again, this claim that Aaron's commentary constitutes the "goals of the
> > conference" is your own invention.
> >
> > : And surely you don't mean that people are not being asked to support
> > : anything.  What I wanted to know was *what* they were being asked to
> > : support.  Apparently the answer is (or maybe isn't) Aaron's commentary...
> >
> > Well, I suppose whether people will be "asked" for "support" or not
> > depends on interpretation. If you take this at face value (and I did),
> > I took "being asked to support" to mean "individually challenged to
> > assist with". And I tend to doubt that's what will happen. A different
> > interpretation (yours, perhaps) might yield "collectively petitioned
> > to agree with". And, indeed, I imagine there will be some of that.
> >
> > : Can you dismiss the reference to the president as "inconsequential"? I
> > : mentioned it merely to show that the information about felons'
> > : disabilities was unreliable on its face. So I remain puzzled by the
> > : question you ask: what restrictions on felons are under attack by CUCFPJ?
> >
> > Well, my point was that if the claim about the President was the only
> > thing that was inaccurate in the itemized list, it would hardly
> > diminish the weight of the overall content.
> >
> > However, on closer examination, I think it's possible that Aaron
> > wasn't referring to the President *of the United States*. There is
> > such as a thing as municipal President of a City council or Village
> > Board of Trustees. Aaron's text reads "municipal elected office such
> > as Mayor or city council member or President." Rereading now, it
> > actually seems more likely to me that he meant a municipal President
> > (which is akin to a Mayor). It's certainly a valid interpretation of
> > the phrase as it stands.
> >
> > : Or (as I asked at the outset of this correspondence), "What, specifically,
> > : is the disenfranchisement of felons that this conference seeks to end?"
> > : I still don't know.
> >
> > Indeed, such a statement of purpose was never revealed. But do
> > conferences require such definitive statements of purpose? Isn't it
> > sufficient for a conference to just exist as a series of scheduled
> > presentations, speeches and discussions loosely organized around a
> > topic? Perhaps that's all we're dealing with here, and that doesn't
> > negate its value.
> >
> > I do agree, though, that there does seem to be a bit of an information
> > vacuum regarding the conference. There's not much detail available and
> > people wish they knew more (and not necessarily because they feel
> > uneasy about the conference as you do 8-).
> >
> > Perhaps Danielle or someone else in CUCFPJ will have time to inform us
> > a little more soon.
> >
> > R
> >
> 
>