Re: let's build a unified movement, not fight each other

[Larime Wilson <larime@bloomington.in.us>]

  Great idea!  A little coordinated effort like this could have a lot more
  clout than working alone or in our local groups!  
  
  Regulators and politicians listen when there is a public clamor.  With all
  the money industry pours into marginalizing us, it's not surprising how
  much of the public is still in the dark.  (Not to mention control of
  national television by industry.)
  
  
  On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Protect All Children's Environment wrote:
  
  > Hummel et al,
  >                     What so many of us seem to know by heart, I find the
  > average citizen hasn't a clue about.  That being that poison pushers can
  > operate completely within the law and pump out copious amounts of deadly
  > poisons.  The average American thinks if a company is in compliance with
  > state and federal environmental laws...they are not polluting...there are
  > no stack emissions, no toxics down the creek, no pollution period.  They
  > are without exception shocked to hear our government issues permits to
  > pollute.  I think if we could expose this  one fallacy to the public we
  > would have a renewed environmental movement in spades.  Could we perhaps
  > agree to this premise?  And if we could agree to this...could we cooperate
  > in writing letters to the editor from all across the country on say the
  > weekend of Aug. 16th, 1997?  We could entitle this the "What the People
  > Don't Know Could Kill the Children" letter to the editor campaign.  Public
  > education is always a major ingredient to changing things in America.  The
  > people need to know of this great disparity between appearances and reality
  > in regulating pollution.  We should perhaps try to include the best
  > information on "legal" pollution in our counties/area.  Perhaps we must
  > address this issue once a month in our local papers.  We could pool the
  > letters so that the best ones could be used in other areas on different
  > months.  
  >      Any thoughts on this proposal?
  >