|
Post by sheshan12 on Jul 5, 2012 5:11:28 GMT -5
I signed the 99% declaration in solidarity with those who want a government of the people. However, those fools who defeated the employment grievance with it's original content have drank the Jim Jones cool aid. The grievance's original content was intended to help the service industry, the industrial industry, equal pay laws and the national infrastructure. One may say that the radical right had fiscal concerns. But, three times the question for resubmission of any employment grievance was called. Three times the radical right shouted down the question. When the question on the employment grievance was heard, a poison pill amendment was added calling for a restriction on including illegal workers on work programs with exception for agricultural workers. Not funny dude. The radical right set their sites on the lowly working class politicians and corporation. They had contempt for the Philadelphia police department. Yet, not one proposal to single out multiple million dollar incomes as a tax bracket was submitted. Dude! why protect their interest? I say to the radical right. You fools. You reject the concept of renewable energy, global warming and collectively working as a nation. You believe this billion dollar elite will offer you and your family a salary compatible with future energy cost. You think farm labor is for another class of person. You think wrong! Your heroes will never hear you either. ~!~
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jul 5, 2012 8:39:32 GMT -5
I share your disappointment that there was no coherent, concise grievance offered for showing concern over employment issues in our country. However, I think your assumptions about the reasons for the defeat of the issue to be included in the document are incorrect. Most of the people voting against the issue were doing so because it was not written clearly as a grievance and no one had a way to improve it to the satisfaction of the congress. I didn't meet ANY delegates from the radical right at our conference, but the centrists and the delegates that were more conservative than most of us voted against such things because (and this is important) THE ONLY TWO TOPICS THAT RECEIVED CLOSE TO 99% SUPPORT (for inclusion in the petition) WERE "CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM" AND "ELECTION REFORM"! Since we were supposed to represent the 99% and we could only muster between 51% and 88% support for issues like employment, education, the economy, immigration reform, criminal justice reform, health care concerns, civil rights concerns, environmental concerns, government ethics, consumer protection, etc., IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THOSE THINGS ... it means that we did not think they should be in a document that is designed to represent our 99% constituents. That is the reason that the moderates, conservatives, and liberals like myself voted against so many of those issues.
I am a science teacher and I voted against education concerns, so you can see that I (along with others mentioned) did not vote to show we don't care...just that we don't think they are a grievance that the 99% would want included in our petition! Sincerely, KJ Lowry
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 5, 2012 12:55:08 GMT -5
the thing is we CAN get there, we just can't get all the way there right now. the country is too polarized.
When I say providing a quality public education is the single most important thing we can do to ensure the long-term prosperity of our country, I don't ever really hear any disagreement. The disagreements are in HOW we provide it.
What EVERYONE seems to be missing here is HOW DO WE START ON THE SAME PAGE? We have to create a frame that 99% can agree with and start from that. I have not seen this group or any other pull this off yet.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 5, 2012 14:07:14 GMT -5
For the record, *I* am the "fool" who tried to block the defeated employment grievance when it was reintroduced on the last day.
You know why?
It's right there in the above post... we can't push everything at once. Doing that killed this petition and there isn't any saving it.
It's too radically leftist and will never gain the support from the people, as a whole.
I refused to sign because I could not, as a representative of *all* of the people, put my name on something that will only serve to divide.
You can have your solidarity. I'll maintain my convictions.
We failed the public at large. I'm not proud of that.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 5, 2012 14:56:14 GMT -5
Sometimes I wish there was a like button on here! I agree with what Matt Forbes said. The list of grievances is too far left, has too much in it and will go no where. It should have had only those grievances that received at least 80% of the vote. Even that may be too low. You can not push everything at once and expect it to get anywhere. The grievances needed to cover election reform, closing the revolving door and corporations are not people/money is not speech and that is it.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 5, 2012 15:39:24 GMT -5
Agreed Dawn. I still don't understand why a higher threshold for inclusion was not established since we weren't trying to speak for the majority, but for the entire 99%.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 5, 2012 16:04:52 GMT -5
Also, for the record, the "radical right", as you seem to think the moderates were, never said anything about the police. I will, however, give you some guesses on who did.
We were at different conferences in the same room. I saw a radical agenda destroy any chance at us uniting people across the ideological spectrum, you saw a group trying to circumvent your radical agenda.
Wait. Nevermind. We were at the same conference.
What those who voted this through don't understand is that many of us in the opposition were voting against ideas for which we care a great deal; however, we needed to start small, gain popular support, have some success to gain credibility, then work on the other issues.
The final document will damage the credibility of anyone attached to it. The organization, itself, was already losing any good reputation and this pretty much sealed its demise.
Believe me. Try to send the whole petition *with* the solutions and you'll see how quickly everything in it gets torn apart.
I wish it were otherwise, sheshan, but I think everyone needs to climb up out of the rabbit hole and realize this isn't some fanciful wonderland.
We screwed the pooch on this. All of us, signers and non-signers alike.
I accept my responsibility. You should accept your role in this failure, as well.
|
|
|
Post by milinsky on Jul 5, 2012 16:48:50 GMT -5
Geez - I will reserve my judgment. The comments are a reflextion of something I sadly did not observe. Can anybody please direct me to the end product of the work of the 99% CC 2.0 ? Where can I review the list of greviences? Thx
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 5, 2012 16:57:13 GMT -5
Joel,
Under the Starting Off thread, I believe, Nate Dunn has a link that leads to both the working copy and the styled draft that was read on Independence Mall.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jul 5, 2012 19:23:39 GMT -5
I absolutely agree with KJ and Matt Forbes. Great succinct observations. I'm not sure who these "radical right" folks were, but perhaps you might be referring to me, who, by the way if you were listening or spoke with me individually would know that as an independent, I'm probably more liberal, progressive, and even socialist than most liberals you will meet, though even with that said, if I see value in a moderate/conservative viewpoint, I will always welcome it's relevancy into my own thinking. Good ideas are good ideas, no matter who says them. Unfortunately, conservatism by it's very nature restricts the value of the many, and especially in our modern age, corrupts intrinsic good for the sake of profit. Bottom line, I am a pragmatist and a genuine reformer who believes that the needs of the many are more important than the desires of the few.
I do know there were some libertarians and some "tea party" folks in the room, but again, they were far from conservative. I don't think I met a single actual conservative, let alone anyone that would be from the "far right". Who I did meet were a lot of progressive and extreme progressive activists who soil the good name that progressivism should stand for, and that would rather fulfill their ideological wet dream in a closed room (I thought we were representing the 99 percent of Americans that are without great power and money, and who continue to see their "real" liberty and civil rights eroded) than build consensus on the macro issues we can all agree on, that will lead us to a better place to speak about the issues that are more specific and require more time for deliberation by the very nature of their complexity.
Now let's get this real straight so there is no confusion. I want "real change" in this country, not just to attend a "drink the koolaid" seminar so I can pay $20 for the DVD (oh yes, there will be DVD's folks). Though I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of this convention, I am very much encouraged in the genuine passion and concern in the delegates I had the humble honor of spending great conversation with. The same goes for the wonderful residents of Philadelphia I also had the chance of speaking with throughout my stay, and everyone alluded to the fact that "someone has to do something" to make things better for real folks.
I am proud to be an American, but I don't need to wave a flag and thump my chest to be a patriot, nor do I have to conclude there is absolutely one way to solve any one grievance. Also to rely on the "magic wand" of the Amendment process to solve the 100's of grievances that were discussed not only shows a lack of maturity and respect for the making of good public policy, it shows how ignorant one is about the reality of our current legislators (both federal and state) who are unwilling to end their own political careers just to fulfill one's fictional dream.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jul 6, 2012 0:32:30 GMT -5
sheshan, I don't know who you are, or if we met at the congress. I do know (reflecting what others have said here) that there were no far-right folks in the room, and no one who was trying to subvert the effort. I did notice two groups: the majority seemed to be operating off of soundbites. The minority seemed to be using thought and logic to create meaningful discourse. Unfortunately (and I'm guilty of this), those who wanted meaningful discourse were far too quiet, while those who knew the catchphrases were as loud as possible. I don't mean to be an asshole here, but sheshan, please re-read your post. The divisive tone, the implied hatred for those who do not share your opinion, the seething readiness for a fight; all of these things are exactly what's wrong with the political landscape that we find ourselves operating in. The opportunity that we had at this event was to find the common ground where at least 95% of the 99%--and indeed, some of the 1% as well--could agree, and deliver a concise, effective statement that HERE are the problems, HERE is what we have been talking about these past years. We could have united left, right, and center under one banner, rallied around one cause: the cause to repair the government that is supposed to serve the people. Instead, we created a hyper-partisan, left-wing document that will serve to reaffirm the beliefs of the far-left, and reignite the anger of everyone else.
I will share with all of you that as I was leaving Philadelphia, driving in my car along I-95, I was fighting a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes. I feel that I failed the people who sent me there.
I was supposed to do something great. Instead, I did nothing at all.
-Nathan Dunn, New York District 20.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jul 8, 2012 13:19:30 GMT -5
Shesahn, it's funny that you referenced cult leader Jim Jones, perhaps that reflects your age, but he actually did something with this cult like following in taking them to Africa and actually drinking the proverbial Kool Aid.
You should have used someone like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum, who refuse to do anything besides dividing people even more, and taking their money (politics is a profitable business now-a-days) in the process.
|
|
|
Post by sheshan12 on Jul 9, 2012 3:25:19 GMT -5
Okay young man, my rant was for the record. I'm through name calling. However, I do remember you and your wet dream labels. I have no real interest in your contemptuous point of view. Although, you could benefit from my views. You should reference my first post to see the consistency. Sarah Palin rates a laugh [Ha!]. The real world is run by operators and owners [cronyism and oligarchy]. That is since the founding fathers. (see the 15th and 19th amendments) My point is owners have the money. By necessity, they must be part of the solution. Jim Jones foreshadows the state of our union. Willfully or not, we will suffer death before defeat. The BELIEF like the Ottoman Turks that horses and blood lines define their world view until the end. I don't sit and think about this stuff. I just know the truth when I hear it. [Jim Jones, death before defeat -metaphor about the economy]
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 9, 2012 13:51:58 GMT -5
which is exactly why you should realize how important it is that we frame this properly, and that the current framing will not engage population as a whole. what you say to the radical right, even if it is true, just continues the status quo and doesn't get them to engage in a conversation, which is the first step to building a constructive dialogue to figure out how we can work together to enact positive change in our society.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jul 11, 2012 19:44:33 GMT -5
Again...the top 1% love to see the bottom 99% eat each other alive. Good times.
|
|