Explanation - Meeting Cancellation - May 12th

.
The meeting is cancelled as of 9 May 2010. Please click here for particulars.
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Explanation - Meeting Cancellation - May 12th

Post by johnkarls »

.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Reading Liberally
To: ReadingLiberallyEmailList@johnkarls.com
Bcc: Our E-Mail List of Approximately 150 Addressees
Subject: Meeting Cancellation - This Wednesday May 12th
Date: May 9, 2010
Time: 2:31 pm MDT > 3:39 pm MDT
Attachments:
--------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends:

Thank you all for considering the attached request regarding the meeting which had been scheduled for this Wednesday, May 12th.

As explained in the attached request, we have had a long-standing policy which had never before been implemented that we will postpone to the next month's regular date any meeting which does not have at least 6 prospective attendees, and that we only had 5 prospective attendees for May 12th.

The only response to the attached request came from Bill Lee who e-mailed - "I'll see if I can't come. Only a maybe."

The question might be raised whether we should have proceeded since we came so close. However, lowering standards would inevitably lead to more lowerings which, of course, means no standards at all. We should be able to assure anyone who attends that there will be a sufficient number of participants to have a good discussion. And anyone receiving one of our six-degrees-of-separation e-mail campaigns should have assurance that there were a sufficient number of people who considered the issue and concurred in the policy being recommended to the President and/or other decision makers. (For example, our last six-degrees-of-separation e-mail campaign entitled "Our Legally-Sound Practical Legislative Response" (to the recent Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the McCain-Feingold restrictions on corporate campaign contributions) resulted from our March 10th meeting which was attended by 13 participants including 5 attorneys and received unanimous support - we sometimes proceed with a campaign when there is a single dissent, in which case we say that we reached a consensus rather than unanimity).

Although many of us may have had unavoidable conflicts, I am guessing that many us were reluctant to face this month's issue.

After all, it is not pleasant to contemplate the prospect of 8 Arab countries immediately going nuclear (as they have indicated they will) as soon as Iran acquires the atomic bomb (thought to be only a year away) and the NY Times article points out how inadequate and ineffectual would be the response proposed in the cover article of the current issue of Foreign Affairs (which, despite its inadequacies and ineffectualness, would be the best we would be able to do).

And it is not pleasant to contemplate the death of approximately half of the world's human population in short order following a nuclear exchange between the 8 Arab countries and Iran if Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei turns out to be like Fidel Castro - a person who offered to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in October 1962 to sacrifice himself and his people for a Grand Idea (destroying the United States) by firing all of the Soviet nuclear missiles that our spy satellites had just discovered in Cuba, before Nikita Khrushchev in a panic ordered the withdrawal of the missiles from the jurisdiction of the "mad man" (Khrushchev's term).

It is humbling to realize that this is only one of many life-and-death issues facing President Obama.

My own view is that we should not offer our nuclear umbrella to the 8 Arab countries unless it is requested because our record is so abysmal = Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO and developed French nuclear weapons because he did not trust our nuclear umbrella and Israel would have become 37 years ago the answer to a trivia question (what WAS Israel) if they had placed any faith in it.

The tough question is how to react to a possible "heads up" from the 8 Arab countries that they intend to launch 500 simultaneous commando raids against Iran's nuclear facilities and hold them for a sufficient number of minutes to permit the commando teams to descend the elevators, ventilation shafts, etc., to blow up the facilities. My own view is that this is a life-and-death issue for the 8 Arab nations to decide for themselves - that we shouldn't take any action to enable such an attack but we shouldn't prevent it either - even though we and 50% of the rest of the world's population have a "vital" interest in surviving a nuclear holocaust that might occur in the future if the 8 Arab nations fail to act now and that might render radioactive 47.9% of the world’s oil supplies (the 27.7% that is produced in the Middle East and the 20.2% that is down wind from the Middle East in, for example, the “stans” and Indonesia).

My guess is that we would never have reached a consensus on this topic and should confine ourselves to supporting President Obama and his team with our prayers and/or best wishes.

The topic for June 9th???

I am guessing that this month's topic was the reason why we were not able to achieve our quorum. Accordingly, I am making an executive decision that we will move on to a new topic.

Ordinarily the topic is selected by the participants of the previous meeting which, in this case, is being cancelled.

Accordingly, I am making an executive decision that we will focus next month on the proposed topic posted on our bulletin board that received the greatest number of views = Arizona's new immigration law.

I hope to see all of you on June 9th!!!

Your friend,

John K.

PS – Thank you to the other 4 members who had previously indicated they would participate in this month’s meeting. We will have to re-double our efforts to invite prospective new members to join us.



--------------------Original Message--------------------
From: Reading Liberally
To: ReadingLiberallyEmailList@johnkarls.com
Bcc: Our E-Mail List of Approximately 150 Addressees
Subject: Attendance Confirmation Request for This Wednesday - May 12th
Date: May 8, 2010
Time: 6:17 am MDT > 7:22 am MDT
Attachments:
--------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

Although our next meeting is scheduled for this Wednesday, May 12th at the Salt Lake Public Library (210 East 400 South) with socializing from 6:15 > 7:00 pm and a formal discussion from 7:00 pm > 8:45 pm, we have had a long-standing policy which has never before been implemented that we will postpone to the next month's regular date any meeting which does not have at least 6 prospective attendees.

Many of you on this e-mail list of approximately 150 may not have been aware of this policy, since we always have only asked recent attendees to confirm a week in advance whether they will attend and there have always been at least 6 from this group. Indeed, attendance has been averaging 10-11 for the last year or so (and probably earlier without checking older records).

However, we only have 5 prospective attendees for next Wednesday. Since some of you who have not attended recently might have been planning to come, it would not be fair to postpone the meeting if any of you were planning to attend and we would have had our minimum of 6.

Accordingly, if you are planning to come, please press "return" and type "I am planning to attend" before noon on Sunday. I will send out another mass e-mail at that time to indicate whether the meeting will take place as scheduled.

*****
WEDNESDAY'S TOPIC AND OTHER DETAILS FOR THE SCHEDULED MEETING

It is scheduled for this Wednesday, May 12th, in Conference Room C, accessible by the SPECIAL elevator just inside the EAST entrance.

Our usual social period is from 6:15 pm > 7:00 pm or, if you prefer, come from 7:00 pm > 8:45 pm for our formal discussion. We provide coffee/decaf + chocolate chunk cookies -- or bring a sandwich/quiche/dessert from the Library Branch of the Salt Lake Roasting Company just inside the EAST entrance -- or bring your own snack/beverage.

Our focus will be the lead article for the current issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine = "After Iran Gets the Bomb: How Washington Can Limit the Damage From Iran's Nuclear Defiance." It is posted on our bulletin board = http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org along with a NY Times article and an essay providing context for the Foreign Affairs article - totaling only 16.5 pages of standard-format Microsoft Word using 12-point Times-New-Roman.

*****
We hope to see all of you on Wednesday.

Your friend,

John K.

Post Reply

Return to “Meeting Cancellation - After Iran Gets The Bomb (Foreign Affairs Magazine Lead Article) - May 12th”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest