From:   Jon Good <>
Sent time:   Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:00:00 AM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] dangers of not having a clear message, NY Times article Sept 24, Metropolitan section, pg 1

These are great, but I think they can be tightened up so they are immediately accessible to anyone who reads them regardless of their age, education, or first language.


1) Stop the special laws that let banks and corporations take our money and resources

2) Create a real democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people

3) End oppression of all groups

4) Promote peace, solidarity, and economic justice

NOTES on why I put them this way:

1) This is a simple statement of how crony capitalism works.

2) Most Americans still do believe in the promise America we learned in grade school, and so referencing Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, while somewhat corny, will totally work.

3) "Marginalized" is a nice word for educated people to use, but it is totally meaningless (or inspires indignation) to people who don't know what it means, or have misconceptions about what it means. No groups should be oppressed. Seriously

4) Is fine the way it is

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Winter Siroco <> wrote:
I agree, perhaps it could be 

  • To end the Wall Street dictatorship and the aristocratic rights to tax exemption,
  • Creating a real participatory democracy,
  •  Ending the oppression of all marginalized groups, and
  •  Promoting peace, solidarity, and economic justice.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:32 AM, gail zawacki <> wrote:
"Making the banks, corporations, and the rich pay"

I'm afraid this will just play into the notion that we are a bunch of lazy bums! At least add "pay...their fair share."

In general though I think it's safer and true to emphasize that corporate money is controlling our government, which is no longer democratic.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Doug Singsen <> wrote:
Andy Warhol was a great artist, but he is not necessarily the best guide to political strategy. He saw fame as an end in itself, which is not what we are trying to achieve here, so I think that his perspective is actually not something we want to follow. Many people may see the Times article and not look for any further information because of what they read there.


On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:49 AM, grimwomyn <> wrote:
Absolutely- but remember that Andy Warhol said of press coverage, don't read what they write about you, but measure it in inches. The actual information is a google away for people who are supportive. I am so happy with all the coverage, negative or not, pieces of our motives are getting out there. Well done everyone.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Jackie DiSalvo <> wrote:

The NY Times, which had previously published mainly a large picture of women dancing bare breasted, now printed a Sunday article by Gina Bellafante which trivializes our movement. One problem with not having demands (or goals? messages?)  or spokespersons is that journalists who want to put down our movement and discourage people from joining will get away with quoting only people who make us look unserious. (There is another Times article by Colin Moynihan almost entirely about the arrests which, however, does sum up  the purpose of Occupy Wall Street in 1 sentence which says we are against “a financial system that participants say favors the rich and powerful over ordinary citizens.”)


I know the bourgeois media will always attack us, but are we doing enough to inhibit their distortions?


Here she quotes a “half naked” woman dancing on Bway who is said to be time traveling back to 1968 and says “I’ve been waiting for this all my life,” but the context makes dubious what she’s been waiting for; someone else says she just came “to create spectacles,” another wants “to get rid of the combustion engine (not a bad idea, but hardly our critique of the domination by the 1%); another is a right wing supporter of Milton Friedman and Ron Paul who just wants “to get rid of the Federal Reserve.” Similarly the only sign quoted says “Even if the world were to end tomorrow, I’d still plant a tree” and in this context underlines its unconcern for real political change (“clamoring for nothing in particular to happen,”),  not its positive commitment.  

With only such messages as evidence, she gets away with implying that we are ignorant about the economy, and mocks our having no demands and our “wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgably.


We need to make incontestably clear what our message is.



From: On Behalf Of Winter Siroco

“ Five demands from the NYCGA: how to link the struggle for democracy to the struggle for social and economic justice”


After a lot of talking and consulting some of us agree with 4 points that everybody may endorse. Of course, everybody should seriously think about specific strategies to accomplish these goals.   


Our goals are:

·   Making the banks, corporations, and the rich pay,

·   Creating a real participatory democracy,

·   Ending the oppression of all marginalized groups, and

·   Promoting peace, solidarity, and economic justice.