|Sent time:||Sunday, October 16, 2011 3:27:29 PM|
|Subject:||[september17discuss] Re: email overload|
You can edit your membership so you can receive a notification for
every 100 emails posted. Or not receive emails at all and just check
the group on your own
On Oct 16, 1:31 pm, "acpolla...@juno.com" <acpolla...@juno.com> wrote:
> PLEEEEAAASSSE (yes, I'm shouting), can everyone try to limit themselves to 3 or 4 posts a day?IMO any topic that requires the kind of back and forth in which 100 messages are sent in a given day (like fine-tuning a document, or a back and forth and back and forth on racial diversity) really either needs to be on a list dedicated to it, or needs to be handled at an inperson meeting, or both.I am working through 400 emails just from the last 24 hours!Andy ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: jemcgl...@verizon.net
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [september17discuss] MoveOn Execs Now Official Spokespeople For OWS, According to MSM Execs
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:11:28 -0500 (CDT)
> What I mean by "we will never have the 99%," Is that 99% of the population ill will not think that we are on their side. The last Time poll said that about 54% of the US does. (with 23% against and 23%unsure). By asking the 99% to support us, we make clear that we are focused on the richest people on the planet and their corporations. I think it is good for us to stay focused, and for people to see who we are focused on.
> I like your emphasis on creativity, but I happen to think a major problem is that Americans have no memory. I see "99%" as being both creative and historic. It is only delusional if you believe is more than a rhetorical devise. I do think we need to sharpen the message, but any sharpening will also include a bit of delusion. Indeed the more we sharpen the message the more delusional it is, its the nature of language. I just think that going out of the way to be inclusive (which I used to be against, has served us well) and we should move slowly from inclusion to definition, because we still need 10s of millions more on the street.
> Thnx, John On 10/16/11, Winter Siroco<wintersir...@gmail.com> wrote:Jem, you are restating the rethinking process for all parts involved that I suggest, but with other words.There is nobody here trying to impose a solution taken from the closet, so far I can read. Everybody should be a little bit humble and more ready to create than to remember. I do not know what means to have the 99%, and it will remain unclear which side is our side if we decide to remain in the blurry undefined side forever. It may feel powerful to believe that we are almost everybody, but it is delusional. There will be no transformation without definition, only transient agitation. Cesar
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 2:39 AM, <jemcgl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In plain language, I think you guys are getting carried away. The 99% meme is working. Obviously we will never have all of the 99% and if we could the whole 100% on our side it would be good too, but the 1% is the most potent enemy we face. We were formed to be an inclusive movement, not a specific ideology. We are still discussing and inventing the change we want to see and the strategies and tactics needed to achieve them. I have been with you since we voted to occupy Wall St on Aug 2, and I am no more convinced that socialism, communism, or anarchy can run the world effectively than you are that capitalism can. As a student of history I happen to like representative democracy, although there could be a better way, and I am listening to all of you as you try to explain your visions. But please don't short circuit the process because you have decide that you are the biggest faction. If there has been some consensus reached by the NYC General Assembly that we are creating socialist revolution, please let me know what i missed because I didn't sign up for that. On 10/15/11, Winter Siroco<wintersir...@gmail.com> wrote:Justine, you can call me Cesar. I am glad that you recognize your voice as the most prominent in the movement. The goal of direct democracy should not be abandoned by anybody, because it is key to the ongoing success of the mobilization and its continuation and growth strongly depends on its improvement. If we give up our imagination to new forms of political organization, we will be soon back to "normal". Yes it is time to move past the 99% narrative because our struggle is within the 99%, and I do not mean we should start fighting each other, as usual. I mean that we (and by we I do not mean the 99%, I just mean we, hoping that somebody may agree :) start searching for a solution that starts by promoting and inventing new political mechanisms and methods that favor true democracy and are impervious to the repeatedly failed-and-rescued pseudopolitical-economical "system" that is sliding into feudalism. My point with electoral politics, is that while the new forms of political representation mature, we should not discard any strategy, and that it is not beyond reach to generate associations within neighborhoods that would end up with true representatives in the City Halls. For example,a City Concilwoma/en who would not even be a professional politician (it would have a normal job and its salary would be dedicated to the GA), but just the voice person of its local GA at the City Council meetings. Now back to the document with the latest input:Both the Democratic and Republican parties have repeatedly failed to solve our problems, on thecontrary, they are responsible of our problems. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been very efficient rescuing from collapse the top 1% to the expense of everybody else. Both parties are bought and corrupted by Wall Street, and they do not represent the 99%.Therefore the Occupation will never endorse their politicians.We must never allow them to divide or distort us.We are stronger than them, and we don't need them to build a better world.
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Justine <just...@occupywallst.org> wrote:Winter, I agree with you wholeheartedly. One thing I've said from the beginning is that the people are ready for a radical message and we should make every effort to stay true to our platform. Rather than inching towards the republicans and democrats to gain their support we should stand our ground while reaching out our hands. In order to do this we obviously can't drop certain terms like "anarchist communism", but sometimes it's hard to determine exactly where that line should be. Originally our group's goal was to focus purely on the logistics of horizontal organizing to empower the people to create their own change, but as we became the most prominent voice in the movement our mission became more complicated :\\I know many of you have qualms with the "99%" message. One of the reasons we've supported this narrative is because it raises class consciousness and promotes egalitarianism in a way that appeals to the current generation. It also helps us move past the intraclass war that's hitherto plagued American politics. We're also still looking for ways to more strongly integrate other messages like social justice for marginalized people. Or perhaps it's time to start moving past this narrative altogether as the 99% message has done a great job serving its purpose.Snafu: We're not telling people they shouldn't vote, we're simply making it clear that partisan politics isn't what this movement is about. There's a thousand other movements for people interested in spectator politics. From day one, at least to my understanding, is that this is a revolutionary movement and that isn't something you can vote for.
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Winter Siroco <wintersir...@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 WallStreet 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. CesarI 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 <just...@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 <wintersir...@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, <jemcgl...@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<clench...@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 <Da...@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.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|