Sisters and brothers:
1.    Count me in for the Cuba trip if there is a role for a 
superannuated physicist/musician/radical activist.  I can pay my own way 
and will add 10% to help make resources available for deserving indigent 
radical scientists or students.  Possibly my sociologist/anthropologist 
wife will also want to be part of the group.  We need a lead organizer 
who can put in the time and has access to the particulars.  I'll help 
with the shit work.  I will inquire whether a young friend high-school 
physics teacher who has organized two trips to Cuba will help.  (Cuba 
first because of the maturity of their scientific establishment.  If we 
go to Haiti we should be prepared to help.)
2.   As for a session at AAAS:  I don't believe that we have a 
sufficiently cohesive scientific identity to create a session.  Besides 
we will have a much greater impact on ourselves and on the meeting if we 
arrange to participate in their sessions.  Drawing from the now ancient 
SftP playbook let me suggest the following.  Those in our ranks who have 
sufficient stature in a particular discipline should submit an abstract 
written in sufficiently Aesopian language that it allows for a critical 
presentation.  Others of us study the actual critical paper and the most 
offensive abstracts of the other presenters (or the abstract of the most 
offensive other presenter(s)).  We attend the session raising questions 
from the floor, thereby generating a real discourse on the key questions 
such as "whom does this science serve" etc.  By this means we can be 
heard in as many non-concurrent sessions as we have scientists with the 
epaulets to get listed as a presenter.  If we start now to prepare for a 
meeting months off we will probably be able to enlist students and 
others in our little preparation study groups.  We should not identify 
ourselves as SftP or any other organization; but i'm sure that some will 
detect the re-emergent spirit of SftP.  Let me add that our criticism 
must be perceived as ethical criticism of what others are doing, or how 
they and their results are being used, or of how funding is distorting 
their results and judgment, but not of them as conscious enemies.  Shake 
'em up. Lead them to doubt. Compel them to see the contradiction between 
their own moral sensibility and the orientation of their science.  
(Think of Ghandi and ML King not Pol Pot.)  If we set about to do this 
we will find ourselves working together and relating as humans instead 
of abstracted bile-ridden emailers.  We don't have to resolve all our 
differences; but in working together we can find reason to respect 
(maybe even love) one another.
3.   George has published a communication of mine that suggests we 
concoct some minimal set of rules of conduct for the list serve to which 
we all commit.  Please respond by sending to George one or more 
suggested rules or a denial that there should be any.  Please express 
yourself.  (You have more choices in this vote than you've ever had in 
voting for president or representatives.)
herb