October 30, 2000

Subject: Miscellaneous Subjects #34: Peaceguy speaks from the heart against voting for Nader + Wade Frazier sets the record straight about Gore + Comment on the idealization of Nader + Doom and Gloom Forecasts: Anti-Environmental Distractions + Slaughter of 17 000 dolphins ready to begin in Japan + Despite global protest, Japan hunts dolphins + Secret meeting in Washington DC to allow the Mexican tuna fishing industry to illegally use the "dolphin safe" tuna label + Vision for Dolphins/Whales

Hello everyone

Here is one more info-loaded and, hopefully, action-stirring compilation for your attention.

And there is lot more to come before the end of this week...

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

NOTE FROM JEAN: Don Morris, also know as "Peaceguy", is one of the original co-founders of this Earth Rainbow Network whom I met at our founding meeting in California in December 97. When I first read his letter, I fully agreed with what he wrote below and wanted to recommend you pass this on to all your list of contacts - if you are a U.S. citizen and if you are connerned like him that the election of George W Bush as President would be a *very* baaaad thing for the US and for the entire world. But then I received a differing view from Wade Frazier (see below) that really made me pause... *You* decide...

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
From: Peaceguy <peaceguy@peaceday.org>
Subject: Peaceguy speaks from the heart

Dear Friends and Family,

Please excuse this email. This election is so important for so many reasons. And Ralph Nader says he doesn't care if Bush gets elected. But I do care and I care enough to send this out to all my friends figuring some of you are voting for Mr Nader. If you are voting for Bush, let me just say that here in Miami, a Republican leaning city, the Republican leaning "Miami Herald" has endorsed Al Gore. Why? Because it is that important that George Bush doesn't get elected. They believe, as I do, that there will be oil rigs in the Everglades and off of our coast if Bush gets into office with a Republican controlled Senate and House. The Everglades is our drinking water. The oceans and beaches bring our economy and to jeopardize them just isn't worth it. But this isn't a message to the Bush voters as much as the Nader voters. I realise that this is political and I apologise if you get this and have nothing to do with our elections here in the states. And to the people who will vote in this election, please forgive my intrusion to state my beliefs. But it is that important to me.

While I believe that the Green party has a future in American politics, I may even re-register one day as a Green. But America is not ready to vote for a person like Ralph Nader. And Americans are not ready to support the Green platform. I have been a Democrat for almost all of my voting life. The Democratic party (and all political parties for that matter Greens included) is not perfect. If the Greens were perfect they wouldn't need 5% of the vote to get $$$$$. They would be collecting dollars just like the other candidates from the rank and file of their members. Most people consider the Green platform as radical and way too liberal. I would never say that you are wasting your vote if you vote the Green ticket, but I will say that if George Bush wins we all will lose. In America campaigns are run in the media. A small slip up can cost a candidate an election. Appearance can sway voters as well.

I prefer to look at a candidate's record. That is why I am voting for Gore for President. I believe Ralph Nader is too one sided to make a good President. A President is the chief administrator for ALL the people in the USA. That means you have to compromise and balance things. Ralph Nader is always on the attack. If he were elected President the country just plain wouldn't run. Congress and the House would simply refuse to do what he wanted and without any Green party members in Congress and the House he would have zero support. He would never get support from the Republicans and he has riled the Dems so much he wouldn't possibly get support from them, although some of his ideas mirror Gore's so much you wonder where he got them. For some reason Nader supporters seem to think Ralph is the only candidate with "good ideas". Gore has been an environmentalist since he was a young Congressman. He spent 8 years in the house and 8 years in the Senate fighting polluting corporations. He wrote one of the finest books about the environment a legislator has ever written. He was voted the "Greenest" Legislator back in the early 90's by the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society. He decided not to run for President in 1992 because he didn't think he would be able to win against a Daddy Bush who was coasting right after the Gulf War but if he had run I would have voted for him then. When he was young and married Tipper they were just as dissallusioned as we all were. He would be winning with a much larger margin right now if it weren't for President Clinton's tarnishment of the office he holds. Don't get me wrong, I think Clinton is the greatest President since I have been alive. To be able to run the country as well as he has done with all those Republicans slinging mud and wasting all those tax dollars investigating him, it's a wonder that he has survived. But that one indiscretion while in office weighed heavily on the American public's mind. Day after day they heard about campaign finance dirt and even though none of those charges ever amounted to more than just mud slinging, when combined with the fact that he bent the truth about Monica Lewinsky allowed the Republicans this edge they are using now against Gore.

It is unfair to tarnish someone for something they didn't do, but, George Bush has collected over 200 million dollars for his campaign while Gore has collected a little over 60 million. Gore's soft money comes from unions and lawyers and working people and teachers. Yes some of it comes from a few Corporations but if you look at his soft money ads, they are from Planned Parenthood, Teachers Unions, gays and lesbians, pro choice groups, Environmental Groups and Labor Unions. I wouldn't call that bad money I would call that money from the working people and groups trying to make a better world. But with Nader taking the vote from the far left it has taken a vote away that the Democrats usually can count on. Just as Jessie Jackson did to the Dems in 1980, and Ross Perot did to the Republicans in 1992. Nader has criticized Gore for backing down from his previously strong environmental stances, but you have to remember he was just the Vice President. The decisions fell to Clinton. I do know that he negotiated some pretty bad stuff out of our Everglades restoration that was put in by big sugar companies so he did fight for things. In his campaign he has stressed that he is his own man and he has come back to strong environmental stances. Research money to find ways to end our dependancy on oil, refusing to allow drilling not only in the Alaskan wildlife preserve but also in the Everglades and off both the the coasts. He has vowed that the first bill he will send to congress is campaign finance reform. Actually when you look at his issues a lot of them look pretty darn good compared to the Green party.

I have never jumped over to Ralph Nader's ship, because he never made Bush's record an issue, he only attacked Gore. He doesn't care what happens to the country if Bush is elected, and he has stated that. Well I do care, and I will tell you right now that Ralph Nader is doing more harm to the Green party by his behavior than helping it. Do you realise that Ralph Nader isn't a member of the Greens? Why not? Because he is a Democrat folks. If that doesn't say something to you I don't know what does. He doesn't even have faith in the Greens himself. The Greens wanted a name to draw votes so they would get $$$$$$ just like everyone else, so instead of going to their own party (wasn't anyone good enough?) they called on Democrat sellout Ralph Nader. If Ralph really wanted to be a candidate he should have run in the Democratic primary like everyone else in his party. But you know why he didn't? Because he wouldn't have won. His ideas are too radical for the mainstream American voter. But with the Greens you have a party that is still trying to find their identity here, sheesh they ran Jello Biafra as their candidate before Ralph became a traitor. And he went for the fringe voters in the Democratic party exclusivly because they are the only ones who would vote for him. That is why you never heard him talk about Bush. Very few Republicans would ever consider voting for a radical like Nader. And Bush loves Nader so much he is even using Ralph in his campaign ads. So yes a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. And if George Bush wins by 2%, with a Republican Congress and Senate, you will have just thrown away the Alaskan Wilderness, the Everglades, the oceans, affirmative action, A women's right to choose, The 5.6 million acres that Clinton just signed to add to our National Parks, the protection of all the roadless areas of our national parks from logging that Gore is pushing for, the endangered species act, the balance given back to unions and working people, NATO, peace keeping missions with American forces involved, and much more than you could ever imagine (you think George would give a hoot over the spotted owl? How about what choice he would make for the Navy's low frequency sonar).

Does that sound too bad to happen? Well think again because the Republicans have already chosen most of those things to go and have said so.Go ahead and vote for Ralph, but don't whine if all that happens and more. Gore was Green before the Greens were here, he'll make a good President because he has made the right choices all his career and he would make the right choices as President. The Greens will have to field a full slate of candidates before they will ever reach power in this country, until then, even if they win they will find a long and hard road to get any of their platform listened to. That is just politics.

May Peace Prevail On Earth,

Don Morris or "Peaceguy" as some of you know him.

From: "Wade Frazier" <wfrazier@halcyon.com>
Subject: RE: Elections in the U.S. and Canada
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000

Dear Jean and Friends:

I read all those "don't vote for Nader" emails in your post, and was a
little disappointed. The difference between the Democratic and Republican
parties has been slowly disappearing for many years. In many ways, there is
little discernable difference between Bush and Gore. People from the true
Left were surprised when Clinton was actually to the right of Bush on
foreign policy. The continuing genocidal sanctions on Iraq, which have
killed well over one million people so far, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the
military aid to Colombia, the support of Suharto's Indonesia and how
Clinton's administration kept supporting what they were doing to East Timor,
etc., make Clinton the world's leading active war criminal. There is no
indication that Gore would be any different, or Bush the son.

In the emails, I see the concern that women will lose the right to abortion
if Bush gets in. That is extremely unlikely. The Republican Party knows
that if it had a hand in that, it would pretty much be the end of the Party.
They are not pandering to the religious right like Reagan did, and they got
burned enough by Reagan's failed promises to them that they tried organizing
to take over the Party. People like Pat Robertson are fading from the
political scene, thankfully. Have we all forgotten the Tipper Gore campaign
to "label" (effectively censor) rock lyrics?

During the second debate (where Nader was forcibly removed from the
premises, showing how much "democracy" is left in our system), Bush and Gore
fielded the question of American foreign policy, they laid out their
mentality clearly, and I never heard a word of dissent in the media toward
their stance. Both made it clear that in American foreign policy, the most
important question is always, "What is in the best interests of America?"
That is always the salient question. The interests of those who America
"intervenes with" or bombs are not in the equation; the clearly stated
attitude is "What's in it for us?" It is the epitome of the self-serving
mentality, and America apparently agrees with them, as I did not hear a word
of dissent. What they did not say is that "America" really means their
constituency, and it is not the American people, but those they are beholden
to, like all those corporations that bankrolled their campaigns. What a
breath of fresh air it would have been for one of them to say, "Justice for
us and those we deal with is my goal."

Bush and Gore both support our barbaric death penalty. There is a whole
litany of issues (as Nader points out clearly) where there is no substantial
difference between Gore and Bush. Both are beholden to the same set of
corporations, who bankrolled both campaigns (over 100 corporations
contributed to both campaigns). It has been both amusing and sad to see
people clamoring to show the great differences between Bush and Gore. It
generally centers on the environment. Yes, there is a difference, but what
the "don't vote Nader" crowd seems to fail to recognize is that the greatest
environmental damage that is happening today is not happening in the U.S.,
but beyond our borders. The clear-cutting of the rainforests, the
environmental devastation in places like Nigeria and elsewhere for oil
production, the soil degradation by peasants who try farming the
mountainsides, as the fertile land is owned by large plantation owners who
grow crops for export to the United States, and so on. Oregon sawmills are
today processing trees that were chopped down in Chile and New Zealand. All
I hear about is how much worse Bush is than Gore on local environmental
issues, but in the big, global environmental issues, there is not a lick of
difference between them, because the corporate order is responsible for most
of that, and on that score there is little difference between them. Both
Gore and Bush get big oil money. Nader does not. The true environmental
issues, the ones that may spell the doom of the human race, exist beyond our
borders, and on that score there is little difference between Bush and Gore.

What Nader is trying to do is form an alternative to corporate business as
usual. For me, voting for Gore would be a form of realpolitik that really
is not too realistic. How can we build a true democratic system when we are
encouraged to vote between two political prostitutes? At this time, the
American political process has been hijacked by the rich (even more so than
in the past), and a vote for Nader represents the first thing truly worth
voting for that I have seen in my lifetime. How sad to see supposed
leftists go all out to try denying him votes, because there is barely a
shadow of difference between Bush and Gore. With the kind of mentality I am
seeing, encouraging people to stay in a two party system, there will be no
significant change in our political system. What happens if these efforts
succeed and there is no significant Green showing? In 2004 the same
arguments will be trotted out again, to deny a meaningful third party
candidacy. That argument can be dredged up ad infinitum, so the "choice"
continues to be one where we hold our noses while voting for the lesser of
two evils. I am tired of voting for evil.

Any true environmentalist knows that the Sierra Club has been significantly
coopted by the system. I would not take their political vote
recommendations too seriously. Will Bush be worse than Gore, in domestic
environmental issues? Obviously. The course that humanity is charting
today, with the U.S. the imperial master of the world, is far more important
than the Bush/Gore "choice."

I have personal experience with Gore's "environmental" concerns. I was part
of probably the biggest single effort to bring alternative energy to the
American marketplace, and my partner was thrown into prison for his trouble,
and we barely prevented him from being imprisoned for the rest of his life.
A few years ago our organization actually met with Gore in the White House
about investigating a process that apparently can neutralize nuclear waste,
rendering it harmless. I spoke at Department of Energy hearings about just
that solution, and Gore played the typical politician, backing off from even
looking into it any further. That is the kind of "environmentalist" that
Gore is, in my experience. Those experiences are documented on my web site,
which is still in progress, at


Having Bush in the White House is scary, yes. So is having Gore in the
White House. The current structure of the American political system ensures
that only those beholden to the big money can get into office. The
Nader-led movement is the first alternative to that that I have seen in my
lifetime. It might be the last, unless people begin voting their
consciences, and look beyond the incredibly narrow paradigm that they have
been indoctrinated into.


Wade Frazier

From: "Simon D. Jester" <simondjester@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Will Gore Throw the Election to Bush?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000

Hi Jean,

Vadim Nemirovsky's idealization of Nader, although understandable, is still
just a wish-fulfillment transfer fantasy that is best dealt with personally
and not politically. As well meaning as Nader is, if he was ever to come to
power and attempted to do the things he wants to do without eliminating the
Money System first, the negative repercussions would be catastrophic to all
Americans -- and Nader shows no signs of addressing the Money System ala the
Heart Party: http://www.heartparty.org! We should all be thankful that we have
do-nothings like Gore and Bush, who know better than to go off half-cocked
(well to some degree they know better anyway) and not make any significant
changes in attempt to improve living conditions, attempts which would only
backfire and really make things much worse -- we just can't solve problems
superficially that originate in the foundation of our very system -- the
Money System -- until the Money System is replaced with a heart-centered
healthy system. I know what most people won't face -- that you can't solve
problems that are systemic in origin unless you first transcend that
dominant paradigmic system. But blindly and foolishly, traditional liberal
idealists look at the end result and try to go there directly, ignoring the
reality of the necessary steps to get there. So instead of moving to the
immediate healthy center of the political spectrum, transcending the
political spectrum and seeing the entire true picture of what needs to be
done first -- replacing the Money System --, they narcissistically fiddle
around worshipping leaders cast in their own image, while another suburb of
"Rome" goes up in flames. And the real sad part is, for the moment we have
the Money System right where we want it to replace it: stable in mid-breath!
I'm glad we have do-nothings in Washington D.C., ignorantly biding time,
waiting for the rest of us citizens to come out of our hypnotic, Money
System-induced trance and "get it" about the Money System and start the real
grass-roots sensible movement to design a completely new system to replace
the Money System. We have to stop looking to leaders for answers -- they're
patiently waiting to hear the truth from the rest of US!

Simon D. Jester.

MY COMMENT WAS: Thanks for sharing your eloquent counterpoint to Vadim Nemirovsky's post and for pointing out one of the main stumbling blocks on the road to a sustainable, heart-centered future.

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000
From: "Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D." <jackie@deepteaching.com>
Subject: Doom and Gloom Forecasts: Anti-Environmental Distractions

Hello all,

Many conservative government officials, industry leaders and citizens
believe that any sacrifice is warranted to protect short term profit. To
these people, preserving ecosystems, species and human health does not
make good business sense.

However, all their dire predictions of the collapse of the economy,
widespread unemployment, and unprecedented corporate losses due to
environmental preservation activities have never materialized.

In this week's Healing Our World commentary, I present evidence that
environmental healing can be accomplished without the dire economic
consequences that have been predicted. You can check out the article,
entitled "Doom and Gloom Forecasts: Anti-Environmental Distractions," on
the Environment News Service at

The doom and gloom fears of environmental protection promoted by
conservative forces are advanced to protect and increase their personal
wealth and greed. There is plenty of money in the world to correct the
poor choices that have been made - just not enough wisdom to use it

I wish you peach and success as you work to increase your connection to
the natural world.

Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.

Visit Jackie's website on teaching, activism and an archive of over 130
of his articles at http://www.deepteaching.com

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2000
From: Timothy King <Gabbitas1@aol.com>
Subject: Dolphin slaughter in Japan

Slaughter of 17 000 dolphins ready to begin

Fishermen in central Japan are set to begin hunting dolphins, an annual
event which comes around every autumn. This year, however, the activity
might trigger controversy after the recent international outcry over Japan's
whaling programme.

The dolphin hunting season officially got under way on Sunday in the small
port town of Taiji - the traditional home of Japanese whaling - some 450km
southwest of Tokyo. Poor weather has prevented fishermen from going out to
sea so far, but they plan to catch a total of nearly 2 400 dolphins and
smaller species of whales during the season, which runs until the end of
April, a local official said.

Both whaling and dolphin hunting are traditions that date back hundreds of
years in Japanese society. But unlike Japan's whaling programme, which Tokyo
says is for scientific research purposes, dolphins are hunted purely to
provide meat for consumption, a Fisheries Agency official said.

The hunt was being carried out in accordance with International Whaling
commission (IWC) rules, according to the Fisheries Agency official, adding
that strict quotas were set each year. In addition to Taiji, dolphin hunting
is allowed at several other ports and a total of nearly 17 000 dolphins are
caught every season.


If you feel strongly enough about this, please copy this entire mail, paste
it into a new mail (to keep the formatting neat), add your name, city,
country and email address and send it to anyone that you think will feel the
same. If you find that your name is at number 100, please forward the entire
petition to the following address:


Every time I receive 100 names I will forward them to various organisations
such as Green Peace in order to help them in their fight against this sort
of atrocity.

Thanks for your concern!
Timothy King


1) Timothy King - Cape Town - South Africa - stoptheslaughter@hotmail.com

CLIP (Long list of names taken out for the sake a brievity) Please DELETE this line when resending

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000
From: Cacilda Casartelli <ccasarte@fmrp.usp.br>


(See at the top of "Miscellaneous Subjects #33: All Marine Life in Jeopardy" at
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/MiscelSubjects33.htm to read my correspondence with Cacilda about dolphins if you missed it).

Despite global protest, Japan hunts dolphins

By Doug Struck
The Washington Post
Saturday, October 21, 2000

FUTO, Japan -- The men in this small seaside town are waiting, alert for the call from fishing boats that dolphins have been found. When it comes, they will race to their boats, encircle the herd and drive the animals toward shore. If it is a good year, the water in Futo Bay will turn red with the blood of the slaughtered dolphins. Japan's government has approved the killing of 22,000 dolphins and porpoises for the annual hunt starting this fall in about 10 fishing ports. Like the Japanese whaling that has prompted a global outcry, this hunt is being carried out in defiance of international protests. As with whales, Japan insists that the animals are abundant and rejects as racism the pressure to end what it calls a long tradition of eating them. "We're not going to stop just because you don't like what we eat," said Joji Morishita of the Japan Fisheries Agency. "If you say don't eat these mammals, we say don't eat cattle, pigs or sheep." Unlike with whales, there is no accepted international ban on the hunting of dolphins and porpoises, which, like whales, are marine mammals called cetaceans. The animals are protected species in U.S. territorial waters, and the International Whaling Commission routinely denounces the Japanese kill, but Tokyo points out that its hunt is legal. Opponents here and abroad argue that the government's surveys of dolphin and porpoise populations are old and unreliable and that some species may be threatened by the hunt. "We don't know how the dolphin populations have been affected. It's like we're cruising on autopilot," said Toshio Kasuya, a biologist at Mie University in Japan who was dropped from the Japanese delegation to the International Whaling Commission in 1993 for his criticisms of dolphin fishing.

In Futo, a town of 3,600 people that clings to the edge of mountain and sea 60 miles southwest of Tokyo, the criticism seems distant to its way of life. "This is no different than tuna fishing," said fisherman Naohito Hiyoshi, 43. Futo has long depended on the sea. Its residents pluck lobsters from traps and hook squid by spotlight at night. Its fishermen net mackerel and yellowtail. Dolphin has long been part of the take; its strong, fishy taste is a delicacy in seaside communities. "Dolphin is a great cold weather food," said Norimasa Suzuki of the Futo Fishermen's Union.

Presented by The Austin American-Statesman and Austin360.com


Subject: FW: EI: Secret Dolphin Meetings

Oct. 17, 2000

Contacts:Earth Island Institute

David Phillips (415) 788-3666
Mark J. Palmer (415) 788-3666

Clinton/Gore State Department Undermines Mexican President-elect
Vicente Fox by Meeting with Lame-duck PRI Government Officials!

(San Francisco) Clinton/Gore State Department officials recently held two days of secret meetings with Mexican government officials and the Mexican tuna industry in Washington DC, excluding representatives of President-elect Vicente Fox of Mexico, environmental groups, U.S. tuna companies, and members of Congress. The Mexican Embassy claims that the meeting resulted in an agreement for the State Department to improperly make future decisions on awarding the "dolphin safe" tuna label to Mexican fishermen, who chase, harass, injure, and net dolphins, on the basis of politics rather than science.

David Phillips, Director of Earth Island Institute's International Marine Mammal Project, charged: "Once again, the Clinton/Gore Administration is working secretly with Mexican officials to mislead U.S. consumers and harm dolphins with a phony 'dolphin safe' tuna label, all to placate a handful of Mexican tuna millionaires in the dubious name of free trade."

The meetings occurred without public notice on Sept. 28th and 29th at the U.S. State Department, presided over by Undersecretary of State Frank Loy. Requests from the Dolphin Safe/Fair Trade Campaign, a coalition of 85 environmental and animal welfare organizations dedicated to preventing dolphins from dying in tuna nets, to attend as observers were ignored.(Members of the Dolphin Safe/Fair Trade Campaign include Earth Island Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the U.S., American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Friends of the Earth, Animal Welfare Institute, and Ralph Nader's Citizens Trade Campaign.) The Mexican news service Notimex reported that the Mexican delegation included representatives of the Mexican tuna industry, who demanded that U.S. dolphin protection laws be ignored in order to sell their tuna in the U.S. with a phony "dolphin safe" label.

Furthermore, Notimex reported that the Mexican delegation was not coordinating the meeting with staff of President-elect Vicente Fox, who takes office in December.

"This is a major diplomatic blunder for the State Department to be undermining President-elect Fox by working with lame-duck PRI party bureaucrats to set U.S./Mexican policy on tuna into the future,"stated Phillips. "It all comes down to secret trade deals with lame-duck foreign officials and their industry cronies trumping environmental laws and democratic processes. This is State Department trade arrogance, sacrificing dolphins and U.S. environmental laws!"

According to the Mexican embassy, the U.S. State Department agreed that decisions on whether to weaken the standards for the "dolphin safe" tuna label would be made at "higher political" levels in the U.S. government and not through the National Marine Fisheries Service scientists studying the impacts on dolphins. The Mexican government and industry seek weakening of the "dolphin safe" label so that Mexican fishermen can continue to chase and net dolphins in order to catch the tuna which swim beneath. More than 7 million dolphins have been killed by this cruel method of deliberately chasing and netting dolphins.

"The tuna embargo has been lifted against Mexico," explains Phillips, "and Mexico can sell its tuna in the U.S. at this time. They can still use the 'dolphin safe' label, if they meet the same strong standards that the U.S. tuna fleet and other fleets do - no chasing and netting of any dolphins. But that is evidently not good enough."


Earth Island Institute is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to protecting the diversity of life on Earth.The International Marine Mammal Project works to protect whales, dolphins and other marine mammals around the world.

VIDEO AVAILABLE: Broadcast quality video footage by Samuel LaBudde of the devastating effects of tuna nets on dolphins is available by calling Earth Island (415) 788-3666.


Read also from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20001022a2.htm
Antiwhaling lawmakers urge Clinton to oppose Japan's UNSC seat bid

Visit also http://www.ifaw.org for info on the international campaign to stop Japanese whaling now and what you can do about it.


Mark Berman
Assistant Director International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island
300 Broadway
28 San Francisco CA 94133 USA
415-788-3666 X 146
Fax 415-788-7324

From: SandozB@aol.com
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000
Subject: Re: Fw: Dolphin Slaughter

Dear Leigh and Jean,

In reading so many reports on the various ways that humans are currently
assaulting the dolphins and whales, whether as ethnic hunters tracking them
down topside or nations imposing deadly sonar into their ocean home, I found
myself having a vision of all the dolphins and whales jumping and breaching
throughout the world in simultaneous joy.

I saw them jumping over nets meant to capture them, dancing around boats
designed to herd them, and playing so joyfully in all waters in our world
that our media couldn't resist honoring them on their newscasts. This vision
in the minds and hearts of humanity not only inspired more people to kind
action toward the dolphins and whales but attracted greater goodness to their
world and lives, much like the energy of positive intention and prayer
mysteriously attracts healing to us.

I would like to share this vision with others and invite them to join in it
whenever they think of our cetacean friends, as I believe this image will
help to draw the protection to them we desire and to empower them to return
to their natural state of vitality, aliveness, and joy.

I had a deep sense while having this vision that others joining me in seeing
it will not only help to open the human heart to a deeper desire to be kind
and caring to our ocean neighbors, but will add to the energetics needed to
draw this reality to their world and lives.

I am hopeful that you will share this vision and the possibilities it offers
with the people on your focusing list.
With great aloha,

Bobbie Sandoz, author, Listening to Wild Dolphins