Meeting minutes, Dec. 6

Posted by & filed under .

12/6

Meeting began at 7:14

Josh and Walter decide to co-facilitate
Leah takes stack

Walter: we'll introduce ourselves, and talk about our participate in subgroups.
Josh: economic security, rights
Vivek: rights, economic security
Elena: economic security, rights, taxation
Isiah
Pam: first meeting: ideas on taxes
Rick: End corporate personhood.
John: End corporate personhood
Michael: same group, also banking, and Glass Steagall
Mohammad
David: Direct Action
Alvar(?): government
Glenda
Susan
Derrick: housing
Richard: Money out of politics; ending corporate person
Peter: for a while
Susan: Jobs for all
Leah: Jobs for All
Jessica:
Hermes: here to help

Walter: process.  Meetings function when people respect each other.  We ask that whenever you talk to each other, respect the people and their motives.  Went over hand signals.  Soon we'll get a chance to get on the agenda.  To get on stack, raise hand, Point of process (triangle), clarifying question (specific question as to data) point of information (point) objective statement, we make decisions through modified consensus process of 3/4.  This demands group has spent months creating 6 demands.  Articulation, brought to the table.  Collection(endorsement), then strategy- talk about workshops/outreach, execution (GA), implementation (public).  We're in a process to work with other groups, some the demands on our tables.  If you don't hear a demand get 2 more members.  Any more questions of the process.
Brenda: What is the Spokescouncil?
Walter: GA is the decisions making body of the movement. Spokescouncil is a body of group where every group brings representatives on either operations or movements.
Isiah: what are the necessary changes?
Walter: demands are articulated to the government.  Each group is making demands but makes them in different ways at different times.
Xxx: the people we're making demands to is the government, the US gov't.
Walter: open stack to be on the agenda.
Rick: at the last meeting, we were on the agenda to have something discussed, we agreed to put it on the top of the meeting.
Lee: At the end of the meeting you asked for it, but you told that we'd come up with the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
Elena: I'd like to talk about the economic security demand.  We want to present a revised version and have a vote.
Walter: We'd like to present “Money out of politics demands” and vote.  And solutions cluster.
Lee: I'd like to talk about the purpose of the group in general. W hat we're trying to achieve here as opposed to a particular demand.
Derrick: I'd like to report on “Occupy our Homes” and imperative of getting housing issues on the demands.  How we could get involved in specific actions.  New occupies.
Pam: I'm interested in taxes and payroll taxes in the past years.  But at some point try to reestablish at the same rate.  We should substitute a carbon tax for a payroll tax.  I don't know if anyone is working on that.  
Walter: we can talk about times.  We don't do “roll motion.”  
How would people feel with each demand subgroup getting 10 to 15 minutes to say with the demand has so far
Brenda: is everyone asking for a vote.
Elena: Point of information: someone has started a taxation subgroup. Greg.  So you get join us.
Walter: everyone cool with that – each group gets 10 minutes with a possible 5 minute extension.  If we could get literally 2-3 minutes to talk about the solutions cluster.  Since we've endorsed this action, its about getting out with other groups.  
Elena: After demands.
Walter: can we consens an addition 10 minutes where new people can share what they're passionate about and we can steer them in the right direction.
And another 5 minutes on meta discussion.
Is there anything missing on the agenda that they feel is missing.
Isiah: what about a system with no money?
Walter: This conversation is happening in three working group.  This group doesn't take an economic stand.
Rick?
Rick: We are proposing ending corporate personhood and would like to take to the GA.  [reads Demand].  This is very simple.  We're asking the GA to endorse 10 words.  Our main reasons behind this is one: obviously it's nonsensical to think that corporations are people.  It's nonsense for our Supreme court can say that corporations can donate as much money as they can.  This will also give us a huge popularity boost.  85% of democrats, 81% of independents, 70% of Republicans.  Once we end corporate personhood, we can elect true representatives.  This would allow us to take another big step, pass everything we want to pass.  One last thing, once we can get this passed, another issue is electoral reform.  We can get rid of the electoral college, run off elections, instant registration, national holiday for voting.  This is a fundamental step that will increase our popularity.  
Walter; Now we open stack in response to “end corporate personhood.”
Rocky: Thank you for your proposition. But I disagree with the representative system.  As long as we have a representative system in this country, we'll have corruption.  In order to get rid of corruption, we need Internet democracy.  They have safe system, smart system.  We have to think better.  We need to use internet for our self government to get rid of corruption and representative system.
Walter: I completely support this demand and I encourage people to vote and ratify tonight.  By our process you can not bring this to the GA.  You have to get endorsement.  You now to have to shop it around.  The public forums.  If you all in good faith don't take this to the GA immediately but work through the rest of the process.  Going to the GA immediately would be against process.
Derrick: I echo Walter, we should support the demand.  I'm thinking about the constitutional process.  We may look at it as pie in the sky but the demand is germane to what we're doing.  They took the 14th amendment from freed slaves and gave it to corporations.  Especially in light of the campaign.  Romney said corporations are people.
Josh: Everyone said what I was going to say.  This is straight to the core.
Lee: I agree with the demand too.  But there's some things in the rationale are not at the root of the demand.  You talk about money and politics.  That's only tangentially related to free speech.  If you go first with separation of money and state that addresses your argument more directly.  In essence, maybe a friendly amendment, putting the two together.  Half of your argument relates to money out of politics.
Rick: direct response: they really are separate issues.  There are a lot of issues related to corporate personhood outside o politics.  Like corporations suing people, demanding right of free speech in terms of credit ratings.  This is something that has broad support while publicly funded campaigns will have more objections.  I'd like to keep this as a separate ideas.  
Xxxx: they are connected, but the difference is that personhood needs to be changed with a constitutional amendment.  Money out of politics can be done with normal legislative process.  We want to do what 83% have already agreed.  
Josh: 5 more minutes.
Lee: things you pointed out are separate and related to property rights.  We can't get a demand that will take away corporation's property rights
Susan: This is getting too complicated.  I think this is absolutely great.  We need things that are succinct.  People will get this.  The only I suggest is a little related to citizen's united.  Let's not assume that people know what citizen's united is.  It's such phony talk.  Citizens United sounds good.  The wording here is a little repetitive.  We may just want to say, 2 sentences, what Citizens United exactly is.  
Rich: I agree we should get broad based support before going to GA
Walter: that's our process.  
Rich: The endorsement of other working groups is what we're lacking.
Walter: There's no benchmark with that.  JFA came with endorsements from unions and failed.  We don't want to bring any more demands proposals without broad support.
Michael: The main point was to, the consensus is already there.  The main point is educating and raising consciousness.
Walter: as a way forward moving towards a vote, would it be acceptable to your subgroup, if Demands endorses this proposal, and co-endorsements, would you feel that we ratify within the working group and your subgroup makes every effort to shop it around.
Rick: Of course
Brenda: With citizens' united, that corporations have first amendment rights.  Corporate personhood is way beyond that.  It will affect the body of business law.  I think the first amendment rights is what's key.  It allows corporations to give freely.  
Rick: I see what you're saying.  The reason the supreme court can say that is because corporations are people.  If corporations don't have personhood, they won't have rights.  It will benefit society in other ways too.
Walter: before we go to the vote, this is one working group of 100.  Any demand that comes out will have its language changed as it moves around.  Just because we pass this demand it's not for the movement.
Lee: Does that mean we have a chance later to go back or is it out of our hands.  
Walter: you can come each week and let us know who has endorsed it and give us your strategy, any time, we come back to the body, they may change and alter.
Greg: My sense is is that, once the body here releases it, if they change the wording of the demand, they must come back to the group.
Walter: We approve of the idea, they may tweak the language, the Demands working group endorses it moving forward. It's about good faith promotion.
Xxx: clarifying point: within the constitution, personhood is defined as inalienable rights.  
Peter: clarifying.  14th amendment said corporations are individuals and gave them equal protection.  The corporation...
Josh: Temperature check on voting (positive).
Rick: can I read it again with the proposed changes.  [reads demand text]
Walter; all in favor of demands WG endorsing this demand and allowing it to go forward as?  (many people vote in favor).
Anyone against it going forward.
Are their any blocks.
Lee: blocks.  Specifically the language here.  The heart of the case, citizen's united.  It's important technical language  as it relates to going out.
Did the language of the decision make corporate personhood, or did it re-confirm the fact.  If we put something out there that is wrong, it hurts the movement.
Rick: it's a matter of language, if it's affirming a previous decision, we should say “affirm.”  
Walter: in our process, your block won't stop it from going forward.
Pam: Something this man said, 14th Amendment guarantees personhood for corporations.  
Rick: The supreme court interprets the constitution, the Supreme Court interpreted that way.  Citizens United reaffirmed this.
Michael: Thank you for all he comments and we'd to invite you into the group.  We want to move forward with your approved.
Lee took his block.  (declared changed to affirm).
Josh: no opposed?  (no)
Walter: If anyone after this meeting wants working with the subgroup, please join up with the subgroup.
Elena: last week economic security did not pass.  We took your suggestions and revised the demand.  
Greg: We took education out as there is an education group working right now.  And we took out the health care.  The preface is very similar.  There is some elaboration on social insurance.  [reads demand].  
Josh: open up stack.
Gwenda: I think its great you made it job related economic security and took everything else out.  The preface could be tighter.  What is the the average social security replacement rate.
Greg: Compared to your wage, you get about 35% of your wage in SS.  Europe is 75%.  In the US rely on private pensions.  A pretty standard European style income security.  
Gwenda: I think it's not clear.  The language is well used.
Elena: We can make an amendment.
David: A quick comment on language.  The first line.  It should say specifically, “We demand these economic security rights.”
Derrick: Interesting you brought this up.  This is talking about economic security rights.  You think it would segue into economic, such as housing.  I think it's very important that we vote on this.  The US violates its treaties because of this.  I work at the state division of human rights.  We can't get around this “at will” thing.  People who are good workers nothing we can do to protect this because it's an at will state.
Hermes: I suggest wording changes that we demand comprehensive economic security rights...
Greg: This is a full demand.  There is nothing else.  
Lee: this is something that goes into what I want to talk about – how this group works.  Two last point- the universal paid family leave and at will firing without good cause.  Several question.  How long is universal paid family leave?  Let's say its 6 weeks.  
Greg: Canada is 52 weeks.
Lee the ban on at will firing.  If we implement changes like this in the economy, it will retract.  We put together a list of things like, it's a great wish list, but we don't analyze economics.  If we get rid of at will firing, you go through.. the idea is that if you get rid of at will, what happens in Germany, the process is so long in Germany, they have a base 10% unemployment rate in the best economy in Europe.  This means that anyone can say “they don't have the right to fire me.”  Even if you don't agree with this in this group, what will be the 99%.  What will do to business owners. 
Xxxx: i don't understand the argument.  This is not a ban on at will firing, but one without just cause.
Lee: Let's say you have a company and you lose 1/3 your business.
Walter: let's stay on process.
Xxxx: seems to answer my question.
Lee: Anytime you have a process where you can not fire at will, then you are creating a new legal process.  It's expensive here.  That will effect the ability to hire/fire.  Let's say you're not doing your job.  If i want to fire you, then I can file a lawsuit saying that you fired me without cause.  Then I have to go through an expensive process.
Susan: I know that you worked hard on this.  My only suggestion is I think honest you should get the preface to three sentences.  We're most writers.  It repeats.  That's all.
Elena: we welcome as many people as possible to our subgroup.  The people with the main concerns, can you bring your editing skills to the subgroup.
Josh: When we vote, it goes to the same process.  
Walter: Everyone as it goes through will have a chance to re-articulate.  We want more than less.
Peter: can I ask a clarifying question?  Can you tell me what groups you plan to show this to? 
Greg: The whole labor movement for starts. 
Peter: part of the concerns that I have is that you are laying out a vision of a certain type of state and society and will clash with a lot of other people within the movement, and I hope that you seek out those people as people as well.  The autonomous and anarchists.  
Walter: take them from working group to working group.
Temperature check for voting.
All in favor of voting on the Economic Security proposal.  All in favor: 16. (passed)
Any blocks: Hermes.
Hermes: If the language isn't clear, there is a lot of uncertainty.  It needs to be concise.  We need to know exactly what the demand is.  There is a lot of problems with wording.
Xxx: can we vote, pending a rewrite.
Walter: you can ideally bring your demand next week with changes. 
Lee: can we propose a friendly amendment to address Hermes' concern?
Hermes: Just that get together with people to change the wording.  
Walter: We're going to other groups and getting feedback.  
Lee: can I suggest: “We demand the following:”
Josh: this should be discussed.
Lee: In the meantime it's friendly to limit.
Peter: to have a problem and vote against is not the same as a ethical block.
Walter: No votes: 1. 
Passes.
Walter: This demand is a, I've been working with Lee, Dr. Eric, Cecily, and a few people.  We think this demand speaks to the issue at the root of many other issues.  If you're in favor in ending war or health care benefits, and rich people control the political process.  We feel this demand is something that both left and right have to get behind.  It's a process demand.  
[Reads Demand].
Let's open stack
John: my point of information is brief- does anyone know that this is unconstitutional.  That's a point of information.
Walter: That's not a point of information.  Responding to your point.  This is not just about corporations, it about everyone.  If I am running for office, I can get community members to sign a petition, than the state will give money.  I'm not very fluent about campaign finance law.
Greg: I am enthusiastically in support.  The constitutional issues is a whole amendment rights things, say spending money is speech.  It probably does take a constitutional amendment to do but you don't have to do so in the demand.  My one question, I've thought about this for decades what about volunteers, what about citizens going on- in kind contribution.  That's one issue.  What about internal communications within organizations.  It's really tricky.  
Walter: as much as I would criticize a big bank, large labor unions have also subverted elections.  A large organization can tell their members to give their time to a campaign.  But this proposal will stop any direct transfers and radically change electoral process.  That's very different that establishing commercials and offices in support of campaigns.  We can't legislate against collective political action.  
Greg: What about internal donations within membership organization- postage materials.. offices.
Walter: my ignorance about these issues is profound.  We will shop around some of the implementation  with activists and experts.
Greg: I ask that you amend to allow for activism and volunteers.
David: probably point of information with friendly amendment- I want to remind people that Michael Bloomberg bought a 3rd term.  I ask that you don't stop at state and federal, but also local.  
Walter: We say municipal in one part, but not in other.  Friendly amendment accepted.  
Josh: I think it is the most important idea this movement should adopt.
Pam: this is public financing.  For that to go through, doesn't the US constitution have to be amended?  
Walter: Yes, the language in this from the 99% Declaration.  This comes from them.  They want a left wing Tea Party.
Elena; My Bloomberg concern was address.  This is another question- have you thought about a specific sum of money, public monies, that can go to candidates.
Walter: One of several issues with jobs for all is that it had number details.  The character of our implementation step is that instead of us assigning a cash figure, there are other activists who are working on cash numbers.  
Derrick: I'll make this is brief.  They're turning light out.  I totally support this proposal.  If you watch Dylan Radigan on MSNBC, he has a major emphasis on getting money out of politics.
Walter: There are numerous leaders, politicians for this, we can target those against it.
Josh; stack is closed.
Walter: We're not going to run around except say that Demands Working group endorses it.  We'll come back with reports.
Josh: Temp check on voting.
Any blocks. No
All in favor: 16.
All opposed: 0
Walter: Solutions cluster, there have been 2 months of demands group trying to figure out in this room are socialists, communists, Republican, or anarchists.  We are very diverse here.  We feel here that when Jobs For All, the first demand, went to the GA, it missed something that had been going on in the movement before the demands group formed.  We have working groups.  The only way OWS can create a platform is to have direct consultation with this goal.  Andy has come to make these conversations have.  Solutions cluster- we can not ignore the fact that a lot of people in this city support the movement but we need a platform.  We are creating a spokes-cluster, we are creating a framework of debate and dialogue of how the movement works forward.  We're hoping that at 4PM, red structure at Zucotti, we'll have a meeting.  We are in touch with call to action.  They are responsible for the past 2 documents (principles of solidarity and declaration).  Visions and Goals have been meeting tirelessly to create long term goal.  They are working on a vision statement.  Think tank meets everyday for 5 hours to go over operational and ideological details.  Open source- best way to use open source software to collect and build ideas.  They are important allies.  If any demands has a basis of credibility.  These groups have been having conversations.  We'd like to invite all groups to participate in the solutions cluster.  In addition, we are reaching out to En Espanol, Women of Occupy Wall Street, People of Color, LGBQT- they are all trying to answer “What do you want.”  If we don't, no one is going to care.  How this goes forward.  I would like people to volunteer to go to these working groups.  We're not trying to get people to get a sit down with delegates to make this conversation more effectively.  We'd like these groups to come to the WBAI radio show.  Sorry I talked so much.
Peter: When you say you'd like to come to WBAI, but does that mean as a speaker?
Walter: Yes.
Peter: Has this been consensed upon?
Walter: It would be nice if some of the core groups of  OWS were there. 
Josh: Five more minutes?
Derrick: can we take volunteer groups now?
Walter: Yes, I'd like to get outreach volunteers now.
Greg: The one question I have is the forum on the 13th, it's already been organized by several groups in the movement.
Walter: if it's impossible to get them on... we can talk about it on Sunday.
Greg: we have...
Walter: Ideally we'd like to delegates to have a quick meeting, we need to create a process.
Greg: when is it set to happen?
Walter: 1 hour meeting, one hour break.  
Greg: I don't see anyone we can talk about changing the forum without talking to core organizers.
Walter: as far as the forum, it needs to be dealt with the organizers.
Elena: The delegates will meet at Zucotti at 4PM, and we will go to different subgroup meetings, and ask them to come to the meeting.
Greg: These groups are already working with the groups on the forum.
Walter: We need to do legwork.  
Derrick: I need clarifying.  I've been going to Visions and Goals for a while.  I've been going to People and Color.  I'm willing to do.  What message from us?  We're saying we'll meet at 4 on Sunday to create a solutions cluster for all groups interested in articulating an platform for NYCGA.
Lee; What happens in the meting?
Walter: We set up a framework with the delegates so we can share the conversations.  
Steven: on Monday, there will be a major occupation of West Coast ports.  How will Occupy Wall St. Going to hook up with Occupy Wall Street. 
Walter: i can get you in touch with Direct Action.
Josh: if you're interested in participating, sign on, and Walter will send a blurb about the cluster.  But certain subgroups.
Leah: I have a smart phone with the times.  
Josh: We can meet afterwards.
Lee: this will raise questions.
This movement in the beginning, with the marches, got widespread support.  Meetings have much less than participate in marches.  The phrase that caught on is “We are the 99%.”  The only way it will be effective, is if this movement moves on behalf of what the vast majority of the people want.  If we splinter.  If we go left.  It will dilute the power of the movement.  I am concerned.  In the third meeting Jobs For All was already set in stone. My point is , this group has stepped away from “What will the 99% support.”  Has anyone every stated whether this has 99% of the support?  Rather the demands have been created by the political orientations of this group.  I see a lot of people come once or twice.  They are more moderate, economic centrist.  They get turned off and don't come back.  IF we're not doing that in the group, then this movement will be “we want these things, irregardless of what other want.”  We take 10-15 minutes to discuss and ratify major changes to our economic and political system.  Typically there are numerous demands in one demand.  Each demand just gets one or two minutes of discussion.  But they are far reaching and huge.  Major changes in our society.  No supporting analysis that I've seen.  No references, no documentation or discussion.  Just email that go back and forth.  One really prime example. JFA called for 25 million jobs with government support.  I raised one question- how much will it cost.  Even the people in the group were behind it, they don't care.  Why 25 million jobs with 14 million unemployed.  When I talked to people not involved in the movement, they look at things like that, they wonder how you can even think this.  So what I”m saying is this.  The work we're doing is on behalf of a broad group.  We're going to WBAI on a demand that already got shot down at the GA.  This is one of the first mass media issues of the group.  Then the whole movement gets down.  
Josh: can we extend 10 minutes.
Stack:
Josh: I came to my meeting 4 meetings ago.  I wanted to keep it really simple and direct.  Have demands address economic inequality, disparity, money out of politics.  But when I saw all the demands being raised that I personally take issue on, that are kind of contentious, we will lose a lot of people.  I would like to say, it's an ongoing feeling of conflict.  I do believe that the smartest most strategic thing to do is the focus on the demands that appeal to everyone.  This is something I hope happens for solutions cluster.  As much as i agree with everything.
John: I so agree what we just heard.  I've spoken to a number of people, I've been doing a fair number of others.  Brilliant ideas that won't go anywhere.  I wish there was a way to differentiate between goals that we'd like and demands we will make not of our government but of ourselves.  What are we going to do?  I respect all the left wing stuff, but ass they said we are going to turn off a lot of people if we ask for the sky.  We have to be realistic.  We've gotta start at the beginning and not reach for the starts.
Walter: I think the biggest problem that a horizontal direct democracy system have is that we're all on different pages on our language with changes.  I worked very closely with Lee, we have a lot of conversations with non-activist friends.  The left has a bunker mentality.  We stick together and hope for change.  But there are so many new people here.  So responding to what you're saying, no one is asking us to have clean policy details.  No one will give us a damn thing if we ask.  These goals are part of a process.  It has to continue at the pace of democracy, which is slow is hell.  NYC people don't fuck around with things just because they are in the media.  They're wondering what now, what do you want.  That impetus is what drives that.  The NYCGA can say pinpoint things that people can get behind and will want to give up their time.  I think demands need to talk to more people here.  It's high ...time we get on the page, because we're under attack in the whole ... country.  We won't survive as movement until we gather around specific issues.
Derrick: I came as a housing activists with national issues, there are definite issues.  I've been involved in many communities in the city.  They say we've been angry for years, so what?  What's gonna happen.  We have to have to demand.  99%?  That's a real tension there.  Built into the thing.  Who are the 99%?  We have to bring them in and identify who they are.  Do we have to go crazy over the percentages?  Can we talk about what we agree with?  Not everyone agreed with the Declaration of Independence?  The media is laughing at us.  We have to have demands.  It's the same old thing.  We have to do something.  
Peter: We have some demands that are popular right now.  We have some demands that are more contention.  OWS has already changed the discussion.  JFA hasn't even been an option.  We have the option to change the debate.  People are complex.  Most people have a Utopian core.  That's all we ever talk about.  We should appeal to this.  
Pam: I think, more analysis would be good. Specific demands would be great.  Inequality and money out of politics are two issues that OWS stands for.  We have support throughout the nation.  I think you should say OK.  You can still work on a surtax.  You can, my view is that payroll tax is not a great tax, it taxes labor.  I think you should try to do more things to adopt proposals that will lessen inequality and income distribution in this economy.  Like an millionaire's surtax, I think, the payroll tax does not hep labor because it's a disincentive for employers to hire workers, now Obama has reduced payroll taxes since last year, so less money is taken out of individual payments.  This is all good it puts more money in pockets.  Instead of having a payroll tax, or go back to the regular level, we should support a carbon tax.  This is a tax on things in our society that are bad.  Coal, oil, gasoline, have the government raise money this way.  Rather than labor.  We want more people hired.  Anyway, you should think things.  Trying to get minimum wage hire.  50% of the median wage.  Try to make a list of demands that reduce income inequality.
Darryl: I have a question for demands.  I think it's realistic to stop about platform.  This whole discussion.  Demands should be do more internal politicking.  There's an idea in the movement. That not having demands is a strength.  You don't know what you want and you except to get it.  It's absolutely ridiculous  Everyone here needs to campaign within the group.  I don't think you'll lose people by making a specific ideology.  Basic things.  People can agree on.  Universal health care.  It's cheaper and better.  Get rid of wars.  They can be  list of 10 or things that everyone can agree on.  Getting rid of corporate personhood. Regulation of banks.  Real SEC.  Whatever.  These things are basic.  We can agree upon.  I think Demands should have two fold mission.  First list, and then you go solutions, and then you internal stuff.  I think that's, the other piece is promoting it among the groups.  It's absolutely ridiculous.  It's one of the most retarded things I've heard in my life.  
Susan: i have a craving for a short list of demands in addition to our long list.  We have JFA.  Then maybe something simple.  Like you were saying “Millionaire surcharge.”  Bam bam bam bam.  Short, concrete, practical.  What we have now is beautiful, but that's different.  They're more like visions.  There's visionary goals and bullet points.  If there is anyway, or look at Michael Moore's list.  He's got a great demands list.  Then we are addressing what you're saying too.
Jay: I just came here.  There seems to be a pus inside and outside for a list of demands.  I of course, would be weary of this.  Here's something close to a list of demands that has tremendous appeal.  A real SEC. Under present existing laws.  Every large bank in the US.  This is not a right or left issues.  A list of questions.  Do you think this guy should get a bank bonus?  Do you think law should not be enforced against rich?  I think the division between right and left isn't important at this moment.  No one can stand against the idea that thieves and thugs get away with it.  We ask Why does this guy get this money.  The basic core is: What the hell is going on.  Give me some answers.
Smith: Everyone is focusing on minutiae on their demands.  They want more jobs, but you could put it all under better economy.  We should focus on humanity, for humanity, by humanity.  Since corporations are now people.  I think this would make a big difference.  SO they have more power and resources.  It would make it simply, like feudalism.  Better economy, health, education.  Founding fathers wanted freedom of tyranny.  We're trying to attack form the minutiae, doesn't make sense.
Elena: My concern is that, everyone is echoing this, hashing out all these details, emotional sometimes, about certain rights we want to see changed, implemented, there is a sense of urgency we lose sight of us.  There is a class issue here.  It's rarely addressed.  We are only now starting to talk about class.  I see people who don't have a place to live.  There are things we have to address right now.  People are losing their home, jobs, unemployment benefits.  These are urgent matters.  Right wing, left wing, I don't give a damn.  And all these people starving don't care either.  I don't give a fuck.  This sense of urgency, we need to put fire under our asses.
Sahtni: i first had a question.  I was curious to what he was referring to, to have a platform first.  So my only comment.  It's good to have a sense of urgency, but if we don't know how things are working, how do we come up with real solutions.  As much as we want to go fast, if we don't have true understanding of what we're solving and what is the most effective way to bring out these solutions, it's about efficiently.  That takes time, it takes education.  We all have different backgrounds.  How to transform the overall thing.  It might take more time.  I am trying to find a group that is working on, we are confronting an overall system.  If we're going to change, it will be more than 10.  If you're going to change a system, you need to know what to replace it.  
Lee: quick response: right now there is a consensus out there- the American political system as we have it.  The only way it's gonna get changed is if 80-90% of the population says “This has got to go.”  90% are against money in politics and the corrupted form it has.  It's against contracts, lack of enforcement at the SEC, EPA, the OSHA, these are things that the 90% will be behind.  We have to start with these things.  Most importantly, we can then get to a democratic system.  Until we change a consensus on how it runs, if we don't get 90% of the public, nothing happens.  If we push them, if you push public housing, 50% of the people won't be behind it.  That's what the public wants.  The whole JFA.  25 million jobs.  How to pay?  I just want to make sure that as we talk about these things, we have to conscious about things out there.  We'll leave until the last meeting.
Xxxx: We need good... smiths?  The govt has refine programs to help 2million people.  Only 1/4 people used it.  We need to get material on that and pass it on to people.  Once people associate OWS to keeping people in their homes.  Focus on that.  Get your word-smiths out.  Put these things out.  Reach out across the world.  Quickest way is the identify...
Walter: Legwork, we're creating a solutions cluster.  We need all the groups talking to each other.  We will create a platform.  We'll create a framework.  At Zucotti , 4pM, first solution cluster.  This meeting is tiring.  It has serious activism.  It represents groups within the community.  I would like us all to take one extra meeting to get brothers and sisters to another sit down. 
Derrick: What happened with Occupy Our Homes showed us how important it is.

 

Comments are closed.