|From:||shaista husain <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Sent time:||Saturday, October 15, 2011 4:22:41 PM|
|Subject:||Re: [september17discuss] MoveOn Execs Now Official Spokespeople For OWS, According to MSM Execs|
right, but it sounds like tea party propoganda if you ask me, the
notion that the imperialists are not home grown, they are foreigner
(like british in 1173) who have held our gov't hostage, as if our
gov't is just fine structurally, if only we could just remove these
aliens with real patriots.... I mean i might be reading too much into
this... but that is the tea party narrative..patriots.
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Cesar <email@example.com> wrote:
> They r 1 and the same and washington/wallSt a revolving door
> Sent from phone
> On Oct 15, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Snafu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I like this version because it clarifies that the real enemy is financial
> capital, not the politician, who still has a face and can be contested and
> thrown out of office. A derivative or a hedge fund are faceless and not
> accountable to anyone.
> On 10/15/11 2:24 PM, David DeGraw wrote:
> EXCELLENT Justine. our edit suggestions:
> The problems we face cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the
> Republican parties. Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall Street
> and we must never allow them to divide us. This is because *we are the 99%*,
> not just the 25% that votes republican, not just the 25% that votes
> democrat—we're much bigger than that. We The People, from all different
> walks of life and with opinions across the political spectrum, are uniting
> to find common ground and fight back against a common enemy - the global
> financial interests that have bought off our government and hold our economy
> On 10/15/2011 10:29 AM, Justine wrote:
> Winter, I can assure you can the group running ows.org is as far left as
> left goes, or post-left, or whatever the heck you want to call it :P And to
> be honest, I don't like the "American Dream" nonsense either. This is part
> of Patrick's PR strategy. He thinks he can make it work to our ends so for
> the time being we've been warily deferential to this particular judgement.
> Anyway we've listened to what you've all had to say in this thread and we're
> thinking of putting this statement, (or something similar) on the website:
>> The problems we face cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the
>> Republican parties. Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall
>> Street and we must never allow them to divide us. This is because *we
>> are the 99%*, not just the 25% that votes republican, not just the 25%
>> that votes democrat—we're much bigger than that. Therefore the Occupy
>> Movement will never endorse any politician. They are the 1% and we
>> don't need them to build a better world.
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Winter Siroco <email@example.com>
>> I am more concerned about the limited ability of raising our voices than
>> the fear of co-option and I do not mean on the street, where it is a
>> pleasure to be rounded by that many spirited people breaking their voices
>> I have not heard any reason against having an online voice directly
>> responding to the people at Liberty Plaza either and I am not not holding
>> my breath because NYCGA and particularly OccupyWallSt.org are independent
>> groups that may or obviously will not answer your question, Jem. Jon Good,
>> do not hold your breath for your questions either. These groups may be very
>> small and/or lazy, which has an advantage, it would keep them from being
>> co-opted. But then again, the reduced functionality of articulating, or
>> better said, amplifying very much needed revolutionary voices above those of
>> watered down reformists.
>> With 300.000 visitors a day OccupyWallSt.org is in a great position to
>> help to raise marginalized discourse, but these voices can not even get to
>> through the backdoor, or perhaps the apparently small group is less
>> "radical" than I wish. I have read the infamous "American Dream" sentence
>> in OccupyWallSt.org instead of the "American Delusion". Even common sense
>> sounds radical during these days of conformism and resignation, and we were
>> so thirsty that we are prone to see mirages. So, those who just turned off
>> their TV sets today will most likely end up being exposed to a lukewarm
>> version of radical changes some of us would like them to hear, instead to
>> the truly transformative discourse that we mostly talk to each other,
>> Mainstream press, is in crisis. It is a content a content and credibility
>> crisis of their own making, and we should provide the alternative too.
>> So what is the solution. It would help to create a blog that would
>> redirect the readers to the enormous amount of great articles and discourse
>> that is being generated out there by people recently awaken and those who
>> have been loosing their sleep for many years now, not necessarily
>> celebrities. The blog should have some bone and ambition, and it should be
>> linked to OccupyWallSt.org and NYCGA.
>> Of course, substantiation will redefine the economically-bound 99% into
>> real subgroups that will explore alternative strategies and confront
>> problems beyond the economic realm. The alternative seems transient
>> mobilization without long-lasting and deep political transformation.
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:53 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> There are some good points here. I am against official spokespeople, but
>>> I am very for an official web page that posts the official consensus of the
>>> GA on all important issues (and unimportant ones wouldn't be bad either.)
>>> If the GA decides that we will not have demands, or puts out a list of
>>> demands, that decision and the fat that it is the official position of the
>>> NYC General Assembly should be easy to find for the lazy and/or understaffed
>>> media. I have still not heard a good reason why we can't have an official
>>> web page, or even why a website with the name NYCGA is not the official site
>>> of the NYCGA.
>>> On 10/14/11, Charles Lenchner<email@example.com> wrote:
>>> 1. One of the reasons Chris Bowers' post on DailyKos was so helpful is
>>> that OWS and OccupyTogether had done a poor job of making it easy to find
>>> and join occupations around the country. That post, which has been
>>> liked/shared/tweeted more than 40k times and has appeared on countless other
>>> media, was a tremendous service at a time when OWS didn't have it's own
>>> 'official' web presence. While I've heard that NYCGA.net is such a thing,
>>> I've also heard that the official site lies in the future, and that 'there
>>> is no can there be an official site' because of how OWS is organized.
>>> 2. Such an approach to the website is mirrored by the general attitude
>>> towards binding decisions and hierarchy. No one has the authority to say
>>> 'this is official, this is inside, that is outside.' Only GA decisions can
>>> do that, and if the past is a guide, the GA is openly resisting efforts to
>>> be explicitly for or against any other entity, candidate or political
>>> 3. On those ground, as long as these people are identified as MoveOn,
>>> then the MSM is just doing what it should do: locate credible, reputable
>>> spokespeople who can give insight on current events. It's likely that these
>>> MoveOn people are known personally to the producers, and with the recent
>>> support (with bodies!) given by MoveOn to the OWS, MoveOn is defacto in the
>>> same position as any other group whose members are involved in OWS. Which is
>>> to say: present, accounted for, and not entitled to represent themselves AS
>>> the movement, but only as part of the movement.
>>> 4. If there is a quote showing that a MoveOn spokesperson claimed to
>>> represent the GA, I'd like to see it.
>>> 5. The MSM need not do anything special to help the 99% look like it
>>> belongs on the Dem side of the aisle. It is enough that we live in a two
>>> party political system. I can only sympathize with the Paulites who have
>>> shown real dedication in supporting OWS. Their presence might not last, but
>>> it must be incredibly frustrating to be seen as supporting something that is
>>> de-facto on the left, liberal side of the political divide, where you might
>>> find elected Democrats like Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, but not any Tea
>>> Party loving Republicans. Democracy For America, the DCCC, Progressive
>>> Democrats of America aren't joining the OWS bandwagon because of some
>>> political error; it's because this movement includes many Democrats and
>>> overlaps with many of the forces on the left side of the Democratic Party
>>> (*cough* LABOR).
>>> 6. Want the MSM to give more deference to a clear OWS voice? No problem.
>>> Create a diverse cadre of spokespeople trained to appear on television,
>>> stick to carefully thought out talking points while conforming to cable tv
>>> culture. Let them represent ONLY positions approved by the GA, and have the
>>> ability to say, explicitly, that they are speaking on behalf of OWS. This
>>> would take about two days of hard work. Ah, but who has the right to embark
>>> on such a project? Until then, expect the press to look for folks they know
>>> how to handle, be they MoveOn, Democrats, Naomi Klein, Van Jones or Michael
>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM, David DeGraw <David@ampedstatus.com>
>>>> top MoveOn leaders / executives are all over national television
>>>> speaking for the movement. Saying We, We, We, We and directing people to
>>>> OccupyWallStreetEvents.com, which redirects to the DailyKos.
>>>> again, fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM is
>>>> clearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS. I just had an off-record
>>>> discussion w/ NBC executives who say that other news execs there plan to use
>>>> them to divide the movement. This is an blatant attempt to fracture the 99%
>>>> into a Democratic Party organization. The leadership of MoveON and the Daily
>>>> Kos are Democratic Party operatives. They do a lot of great work, but they
>>>> are divide and conquer pawns. For years they ignored Wall Street protests
>>>> to keep complete focus on the Republicans, in favor of Goldman's Obama and
>>>> Wall Street's Democratic leadership.
>>>> if anyone at Move On or Daily Kos would like to have a public debate
>>>> about these comments, we invite it.
>>>> if MoveOn leaders / executives are going to keep going on National TV to
>>>> speak for OWS, we need them to make a clear statement.
>>>> please urgently propose that statement or a plan to call them out in an
>>>> effective way.
>>>> know there are some people who think any attempts at co-option will be
>>>> unsuccessful, and there is some truth to that, but we can't let blatant
>>>> co-option attempts continue w/out a response. the longer we remain silent
>>>> as people get on national tv claiming to speak for and lead the movement,
>>>> the more damage will be done.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|