From:   Matthew Bralow <mbralow@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:27:51 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] DEMANDS
 

should be brought up at tomorrow eve's GA! hopefully we can come to

some type of interim resolution by end of meeting

 

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:23 AM, gail zawacki <witsendnj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed.  I am in contact with very long-time activists and this is at the

> core of their criticism.

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Chuck Schumer <csr2091@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> As I have noted publicly in a number of GA's, I am downright sick, tired

>> and embarrassed of the lack of concrete demands. Without specific demands,

>> this is nothing but a glorified camping trip. All the negative press

>> critiques this occupation for its lack of specific demands. With concrete,

>> reasonable, well-explained and well-researched demands, we will be taken far

>> more seriously and have more legitimacy with which to respond to attacks and

>> police brutality.

>>

>> I understand that there is a process and that that process is slow.

>> However, I have heard so many other unimportant things addressed at the GA,

>> and Saturday night (when the energy from the march was so high!) there were

>> two concerts going on at either end of the plaza but no productive work

>> being done. At the very least, we must publish an explanation of WHY there

>> are no demands yet and HOW those demands are being formulated.

>>

>> I'm writing this in part to relieve and express my frustration, but also

>> to make it extremely clear that I consider this issue enough to consider

>> implementing a block on my very involvement in this occupation. I can't keep

>> justifying the work and money I am putting in to this movement, however

>> beautiful and inspiring and joyous and necessary it is if there is no clear

>> goal.

>>

>> That's all I have to say about that, I suppose. I know everyone is working

>> so hard, and I love and support all of you. Nonetheless, this issue needs to

>> be addressed immediately.

>>

>

>

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >