From:   shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:26:18 AM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: Re: Re: [september17discuss] MoveOn Execs Now Official Spokespeople For OWS, According to MSM Execs
 

remove what as i speak?

 

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Winter Siroco <wintersiroco@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just remove it as you speak.

> Cesar

>

> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM, <jemcgloin@verizon.net> wrote:

>>

>> I don't like the "never" thing.  It is unwise to limit ourselves forever,

>> if unnecessary.

>>

>>

>> On 10/15/11, Winter Siroco<wintersiroco@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Justine, we do not need any tag, but tags would not be a problem if they

>> are no obstacle for the evolution of our thoughts. I do not know where

>> Patrick is coming from, but we should not dilute our valid discourse with

>> nonsense for the sake of mobilizing people, because the result will be the

>> damping down the small waves of a few drops falling in the calmed ocean. All

>> the way around, the attitude and character should remain energetic, so that

>> more drops fill the bucket and a storm pours in the thirsty forest.

>> You can state the economic distribution fact about the 99%, but we are

>> obviously not the 99%, and those about to discover new realities will be put

>> off by learning who they are from others. There is no learning without

>> discovery.

>> I suggest to start shifting away from the 99% meme and leave the rest.

>> Actually, I think that it is more inviting to see a few determined than an

>> undefined and all encompassing that may include racists and bigots alike.

>> I would not completely exclude an electoralist approach in the future; we

>> could discuss this more in depth.

>> So I propose:

>>>

>>> 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. Therefore the Occupy

>>> Movement will never endorse their politicians. They are part of the

>>> 1%. We are bigger than that, and we don't need them to build a better world.

>>

>>  Cesar

>> I think is the similar to what Jon Good posted a few minutes ago - the 99%

>>

>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Justine <justine@occupywallst.org>

>> 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.

>>>

>>> Thoughts?

>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Winter Siroco <wintersiroco@gmail.com>

>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> 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

>>>> everyday.

>>>> 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,

>>>> converts.

>>>> 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.

>>>> Cesar

>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:53 PM, <jemcgloin@verizon.net> 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<clenchner@gmail.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

>>>>> effort.

>>>>> 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 Moore.

>>>>> Charles

>>>>>

>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM, David DeGraw <David@ampedstatus.com>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 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 >