|
Post by Doug Baker on Jul 13, 2012 11:28:05 GMT -5
I have several questions for the Steering Committee.
1. What are the goals of the organization? 2. What long-term strategies will be used to achieve these goals. 3. How will the organization's work be funded? 4. What is the Delegates role in this process?
Thank you. Doug Baker GA06
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 13, 2012 19:12:19 GMT -5
I think you would be better served addressing that question to those who have come to be known as "the dissenters."
|
|
|
Post by miriam on Jul 13, 2012 19:40:04 GMT -5
Would you mind saying who those are?
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 13, 2012 20:01:54 GMT -5
I don't mind and I don't think the others do either, but I should probably check with them first. We are in the process of batting around ideas as to where to go from here, but the main idea is a neutral informational hub to serve as a network of networks, laying everything out on the table, and attempting to build a coalition of organizations that support some form of campaign finance and election reforms, and trying to figure out what the most sensible and workable solutions are.
Whether other delegates join us or not will be their decision, but there are a fair number of us, some of whom already run other groups and organizations, who are collaborating on this. We will likely end up shedding the Continental Congress and 99 Delegation/99 brand altogether, and we may salvage some things from the documents that have been created by this group, but we are all of the opinion that the document created by this group isn't going to go anywhere as it stands.
That being said, anyone who wants to help build something that may actually have a real shot at going somewhere is welcome.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 16, 2012 15:24:49 GMT -5
We're not dissenters, we're just concerned: www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Concerned-Citizens-Coalition/62539382373
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jul 16, 2012 19:54:56 GMT -5
We sure do like labels around here don't we. Here's some labels that might work for folks: "pragmatists", "reflective of the real 99%", "consensus builders", "those who actually talk to people dissimilar to them", "active listeners", "those who work off ethos & logic, and not pathos".
Some are more wordy than others,but there you go.
At the current, my perspective would be this:
1. Goals: Well, one goal at a time. We want to validate via other people the grievances written long ago, and want you to feel that you are contributing to the precise nature of said grievances, but in all actuality, the language will pretty much be what ever we want it to be. Or in simple terms: Nanny Nanny Boo Boo...you can't stop us.
2. Long term goals: Ah, well, let me see, ah, what defines long term? We'll simply obfuscate, hide, and dissuade anyone from sticking around that wants real consensus building, and basically end up with the most extreme radical left agenda block party that we can all pat each other on the back for.
3. Funding: The money man is ALL GONE. That cash cow that helped after the Brooklyn Bridge fiasco has long since dried up. We are waiting for another group of protesters to get their rights violated so we can capitalize on their misfortunes.
4. Delegates: The delegates have run the course in this project. They showed up to Philly to give credence and validity to a small group of folk's ego. Why would we want to insult them by actively giving them any power or autonomy of their own. That's just too democratic, and that's not our playbook baby, haven't you read the Go Getter yet? That's our playbook.
Finally, the word dissenter is one of the greatest labels of patriotism that you can bestow on someone. Next time you meet someone who says that they are a true patriot, find out who they support or active dissent against, and you'll quickly find that most of those so called patriots are really loyalists. Loyal to a cause that will never appreciate them, and purposely abuse and control their every action via precise messaging and demagoguery.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 16, 2012 20:05:01 GMT -5
Kelly just contributed the best post this board has ever seen.
HUZZAH!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 16, 2012 21:30:54 GMT -5
I believe the current plan is to let the Steering Committee hand pick a crew of hard-working, creative, and perfectly honest drafters, let them write a draft for submission, then release what's left after they've made certain all of their personal favorites are in there and the ones they find distasteful are not.
This was never designed to be a democratic enterprise. We allowed them to throw that out the window the moment we stopped questioning why the delegates weren't being granted the authority they were supposed to have, as had been stated on the 99D web site since the beginning.
As Kelly stated, we've simply validated the opinions of the Board and SC with our final product. No need to keep pretending there is a democracy in effect.
But, hey, we all just wanted to look cool playing Congress in our little civics class lesson of how America might have gone had our Founding Fathers been more concerned about individual ideals and egos than they were about trying to find the compromise for something that could truly work.
Let's face it... no matter how many times we try to compare ourselves the the early Continental Congress, it still won't make us anything remotely like them.
For some of us, this was a serious avenue of approach to bringing a level playing field back to the people. Instead, we wound up just thumbing our noses at them and started handing out candy-coated solutions that most people don't even want.
Wow. Maybe we weren't just playing at Congress, because we sound an awful lot like them. We engaged in the hypocrisy of democracy, engaging in the same moral superiority and authority that we wanted to change.
The only high ground we had was the table with the drug decriminalizers.
If anyone takes offense at this... good. I'm not in this to be the prim and proper nanny, baby sitting people's opinions with love and tenderness. I'm in this to promote real change and get the nation behind it, not gather the soccer mom reading circle for some friendly political banter. Play time should have been over for all of us years ago.
I warned people in my introductory post. This is how I am. There's a time for moderation and a time for blunt honesty.
This is the latter.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 16, 2012 23:55:03 GMT -5
Doug Baker, you have asked some very good questions and I have given them to the SC hopefully to get answers.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 17, 2012 11:30:59 GMT -5
High ground.
It took me a second reading to get that.
Thanks for the chuckle.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 17, 2012 14:04:16 GMT -5
Very amusing Kelly, and true, but Matt's post may have taken the cake. (I'll let you two fight for it...I only have one piece of cake).
I'm with the drug decriminalizers on the high ground, but that doesn't rank anywhere near the top of things we really need to do, nor do I think it would be a particularly good idea to include it at this time.
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith." -J. William Fullbright.
In this group it would seem dissent gets you branded a heretic. Seriously...a member of the steering committee essentially called me that for trying to help organize the forums so people could actually find things, somewhat like they are now, equating what I was asking for to what went down at the Council of Nicaea. I really do look forward to the Steering Committee's response to your questions though Doug.
FLS
LFGSD
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jul 17, 2012 14:18:29 GMT -5
Thanks for the dialogue everyone, and I wholeheartedly agree with the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, but who are we kidding, the SC hasn't been a part of this forum, has actually actively been against it, and really doesn't care what we have to say. They just want us to go away.
I can't tell you how many SC members approached me during the convention attempting to get me to vote their way...it's absolutely amazing. The same partisan BS that we rally against is at work here as well, and we frankly don't even have a legitimate process to properly dissent, or to exert any type of power, because again, this whole fiasco has zero transparency, zero accountability, and zero actual democratic mechanisms.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 17, 2012 14:22:25 GMT -5
Extinguished? How dare you call me extinguished?
My light yet shines. My candle shall not be snuffed.
Oh, DIStinguished. Well, that's very different.
Nevermind.
(Honk if you miss Gilda)
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jul 17, 2012 21:25:04 GMT -5
Good questions, Doug. Let me try and answer briefly.
1. What are the goals of the organization? Answer: Have the Style Committee draft a document with solutions separated by a. those legally applicable and possibly able to be Amendments to Constitution and b. those that can be legislated and then submit it. 2. What long-term strategies will be used to achieve these goals. Answer: Give the final Style Committee version to the press, all delegates and three branches of govt. 3. How will the organization's work be funded? Answer: There is no funding. 4. What is the Delegates role in this process? Answer: Vote on pieces and/or division into two categories and probably voting on approving the final draft.
Mike Kelley
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 18, 2012 12:04:12 GMT -5
Mike K.: It's seems clear you're working hard on this and have established a level of cooperation with the Corporation and its Steering Committee.
It's probably a fairly thankless task.
I'd like to make it less so.
THANK YOU.
|
|