Sorry, I've been sick all day. Fraud? The 1% profited through collusion with government
-- y'all forgotten the foundational premise of OWS?
If "collusion" does not suffice to raise the injustice, deceit and fraud, which are basically the same, won't help, since corporations make their profits mostly without fraud or deceit, but through the sheer strength of their immense power and wealth with which they coerce our government.
Does everything have to be spelled out? It's not a mission statement or analysis or white paper or manifesto, just an explanation why OWS doesn't support politicians.
I also suggested you delete "only" in "...only the top 1% profited at the expense..." because it's not the only 1% that profits at whoever's expense.
Keep it simple, keep it true:With the collusion of both parties, the top 1% has profited at the expense of everyone else.
Where is the GA meeting for this?
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Cesar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
You just have to leave form at info desk. Right now wait for them there they should go to pick the form.
Sent from phone
A proposal can only be submitted if someone actually showed up to the facilitation meeting today at 4PM, according to the team member at the info table. I didn't catch where they said the meeting was; it sounded like "129 Charlotte pl," but no such street exists in manhattan. Does anybody know where to go?
Since I've already blown my lunch hour learning this, I can't be there at 4. Can somebody?
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Cesar <email@example.com>
It has been both fraud and legal, but who writes the law these days? Perhaps there is a way to incorporate both in the same sentence.
"Deceit" might work: falsely representing yourself and your intentions (e.g. We wanna help the American people become, you can trust us, we don't "redline" anymore, these mortgage-backed securities are guaranteed to perform well, we're going "green!")
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, shaista husain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I must agree with you, its was Rob who was arguing earlier--that "fraud" happened in broad daylight--i don't remember the point he made---
-fraudulent and criminal --together in my view should be included, perhaps even being more specific "through fraud and loopholes"---using our tax dollars to reward their crimes.. .anyway i can go on and on, so go ahead add it here last minute, what you think deserves to be included, and if there is no issue=let's move forward, and remember these issues may come up in GA so lets be ready to address them.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:09 PM, David DeGraw <David@ampedstatus.com>
Shaista, Excellent / brilliant game plan on presenting to GA - LOVE it. imo, fraud is a key word to use, far too many people still think the economic crisis is the result of Wall Street execs just being incompetent. we need to drive home that it was the result of deliberate, outright fraudulent activity. that being said, if most of you don't want the word "fraud" used, i still fully support the statement - great work!
On 10/19/2011 11:19 AM, shaista husain wrote:
I think we took out the word "fraud" because it was argued that this was in broad daylight, not consiratorial. although yes, it is criminal what has happened, but if we don't elaborate on the criminality here, it seems awckward....
"The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people because they've been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, and the occupation does not support their candidates. With the collusion of both parties, only the top 1% has profited, at the expense of everyone else. We have moved beyond false hopes, submission to eloquent speeches, and populist manipulation. We rely on cooperation and solidarity among us to imagine, create and materialize the changes needed for a sustainable world. From diverse multicultural, racial, ethnic, and sexual backgrounds, from different walks of life, we have begun to unite on common ground to oust the global financial powers that have bought our government and who hold us hostage to their greed."
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM, David DeGraw <David@ampedstatus.com>
is this is the final statement that will be proposed at the GA, or were there more edits?
"The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people because they've been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, and the occupation does not support their candidates. With the collusion of both parties, only the top 1% has profited through fraud, at the expense of everyone else. We have moved beyond false hopes, submission to eloquent speeches, and populist manipulation. We rely on cooperation and solidarity among us to imagine, create and materialize the changes needed for a sustainable world. From diverse multicultural, racial, ethnic, and sexual backgrounds, from different walks of life, we have begun to unite on common ground to oust the global financial powers that have bought our government and who hold us hostage to their greed."
is there going to be a title / headline to the statement, ie: Statement From the We Will NOT Be Co-Opted Working Group - something like that???
On 10/19/2011 9:26 AM, shaista husain wrote:
Hey Gail i like your point on Obama, a lot of people of color, despite not approving of Obama' policies, still echo that same broken record of the lesser evil argument to continue reluctantly supporting Obama, good folks who don't want to succumb to Tea Party or Republicans. We need to have some way of addressing this huge base of supporters, honest hard working folks, balanced folk, who have no alternative to the democratic party. I am speaking specifically of the black working class (aka black middle class.) I do make the point that no matter who you vote for in 2012 the republicans have already won, their policies are already in motion, no matter who wins. We need to think strategically how to address this sensible bases--but there lies the dilemma--and they are the ones who, when they move, they usher in change, as was evident with the overwhelming support given to obama--initially, he was able to mobilize this base with enormous support behind him for changes he promised but never delivered. This base is in limbo now--and looking to this movement for a way forward.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:01 AM, gail zawacki <email@example.com>
Thanks, Sebastian - signed with the following comment!
I was a huge Obama supporter but it's now obvious to me that we do not have a real democracy in this country, and the media is pure propaganda. If MoveOn members (I'm one) want to join OWS (I did) that's fine, but as an organization that represents the pseudo-electoral politics as usual, MoveOn has no role in OWS.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Sebastian Fernandez Giraldo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sorry I haven't been following the conversation but I thought you guys might want to know about this it was posted to reddit http://signon.org/sign/moveon-please-stop.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=1390101. Obviously it's a matter of personal opinion. Just thought I'd share.
Full disclosure: I signed it. "I'm not for or against you guys but I it's true that your involvement could keep a lot of people who are against you from coming out and joining. Sorry but we are not your tea party. "
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Doug Singsen <email@example.com>
I'm not saying we should be hostile. In fact, I specifically said that we shouldn't be. What I said was that we should clearly differentiate ourselves from MoveOn. And yes, humans can change. But we're not talking about an individual human here, we're talking about an organization. And organizations have identity and inertia. They're created to serve a purpose, and that purpose has a definitive effect on their viewpoint and practices. I think it's very unlikely that MoveOn will ever be anything but a liberal wing of the Democratic Party. If people grow disenchanted with that model, they're more likely to leave MoveOn than to change its fundamental politics.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Jon Good <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Those forces are not immutable, Doug. Human beings have opinions, and they can be changed. WE are starting to change them.
The success of our movement has provided evidence to people that what they believed to be impossible (a belief they held partially because those in power want us to think it's impossible) can actually happen.
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful. But I disagree that we should be immediately hostile.
Supporting MoveOn is inconsistent with the idea that we don't support the Democrats, since MoveOn is joined at the hip to the Democrats. I don't think we should start attacking MoveOn, but we need to distinguish our agenda from theirs so that people outside the movement understand that we are pushing for much bigger changes than MoveOn wants, and that we don't support the Democrats. If MoveOn still wants to support us once we've made that clear, great, but if we don't make that clear, then MoveOn will be able to present their agenda as representing the Occupy movement, thereby co-opting it and blunting its transformative potential. And we need to be realistic about what MoveOn represents: they are for all intents and purposes a support group for the supposedly "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party. But that "progressive" wing, which still sees Obama as its ally, is in fact not progressive at all, but supports Wall Street to the hilt.
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Developmenthttp://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
622 E 11, #10