|
Post by maureenmower on Jul 4, 2012 11:36:48 GMT -5
Well, it seems that the closing of the original forum was a very clear message from MP and his minions...
"We will not tolerate anyone thinking for themselves. We do not want delegates to communicate with each other and work together to come up with their own set of grievances. WE will tell you what to think and when to think it, and all we want from you is your signature on OUR document."
We all, I think, hoped that wasn't the case - but the proof is now in front of us.
I'm glad I didn't go. I would refuse to sign that document anyway. Even though I may agree with some of what is in it, the process has become so broken and the result so childish that I could not, in good conscience, sign my name to it.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 4, 2012 11:54:27 GMT -5
You're kidding me. So you ended up with way over 20 grievances? What a shame!
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 4, 2012 13:17:56 GMT -5
Jon Denn left yesterday. I walked out just before the end after an argument where Robert Manning reintroduced a grievance that had been defeated.
I know Kelly, Steve, Nathan, and David refused to sign. I refused, as well. I don't know if anyone else left their names off of it.
There are two issues still tabled to be added, without vote, to the drafting process.
It's a catastrophic failure, in my opinion as a moderate. And I was the last moderate standing when I walked.
But, we have a good network of people. We can adjust fire and find something more balanced upon which we can work.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jul 4, 2012 15:52:36 GMT -5
You know, those who would oppose our efforts could not have asked for a better bit of ammunition than the way this whole thing has turned out. I know it's only speculation, and that none of us truly wants to think that either MP or anyone on the SC is a "double agent" - but what better way to discredit not only those of us who signed up for this effort, but the entire 99% movement, than with the kind of colossal failure this endeavor has become? And there will even be a document to prove it!
At this point, it doesn't matter what MP's true intentions were. The result will be used against not just us, but our friends in the other groups as well. We can count on that.
I am very glad you started this forum, Matt. I'm equally glad I've saved all the emails we've all exchanged. If - or perhaps I should say "when" - the corporate media begins trying to portray the entire Occupy/99% movement as inane fools, using MP's document as the evidence, we at least can prove that the only thing that document represents is the stubbornness and egotism of MP and those who did his bidding.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jul 4, 2012 19:11:44 GMT -5
Maureen
Many of the 80 diehards are extremely happy with the results of the Continental Congress 2.0. Yes nobody got everything they wanted. Yes the process was a disaster from leaders that had never done this before and were too busy or too introverted which made them think they could wing it.
But we did it. We eliminated only the Term Limits category. And each subcommittee working in parallel ended up with one document with a set of grievances and a set of solutions.
My preference was to come up with Constitutional Amendments only. My reasoning is as soon as we fix the campaign funding and gerrymandering via the Constitution and a few other things, the legislation we want will come naturally with newly elected officials.
We marched to Independence Mall and read our grievances (along with a modified version of David Itkin's words). It was exhilarating.
I believe that if you asked most other delegates, they would say that they are proud of this document. I know I am.
I also have the utmost respect for my fellow delegates.
Thanks Mike Kelley
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jul 4, 2012 19:27:42 GMT -5
This is the first time I've had a chance to really look at the forums. I've been busy with Facebook updates (the people who sent me to Philly come before you guys, sorry).
Matt's assessments are pretty much correct. I'm going to compile my Facebook updates into a legible format. I'll let you know when it's done. It shouldn't take long, unless I fall asleep first. Just got home a little bit ago and I'm exhausted from all of this.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jul 4, 2012 20:11:47 GMT -5
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 4, 2012 21:30:48 GMT -5
I know it really doesn't matter but for the record, I could not have signed the document I just read. It is way too broad, too liberal and I am very disappointed. I appreciate everyone's hard work and realize you probably did your best under the circumstances. I wasn't there so really have no room to talk. Thank you for posting to the forum!
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jul 4, 2012 21:55:40 GMT -5
Hello, all! I think that 18 grievances does not qualify for "well over 20" and I think the result of the CC was (overall) a step in the right direction. The delegates ALL had genuine and deeply held convictions and they all wanted the document to notice their issues - topics such as health care, immigration, education, prisons, drugs, and war. Quotes like " how can we issue a document that is representative of our concerns if we do not demonstrate them with a mention in the petition?" In my opinion, that is a reasonable way to feel about such an endeavor when they were not given any reason to expect they would not be included beforehand. If we'd had strong leadership present that expressed the need for a shorter document - like MANY of us tried to do as we worked in our committees and spoke to the room....then PERHAPS we could have gotten that more focused document. The leadership was definitely not providing much if any guidance as to the writing of the document, BUT, who can blame them for not guiding when at the first sign of guidance from them we start complaining that they are telling us what to do??? A lot of complaining is done about the lack of logical compromise to achieve a balance in projects like what we have just tried to complete in Philly. We didn't have the opportunity thanks to time constraints to even debate, let alone pursue reasoned compromise. There was no time for "sausage making" as they say it in DC. If there had been time to debate and discuss the grievances in the group as a whole, then we might have been able to produce a document that was more concise. We needed stronger defenders of the conservative view...instead the few moderates and conservatives that we had tended to group together, quietly discuss amongst themselves and their neighbors and get frustrated. We needed leadership that forced us to talk things over and debate rather than make us just get up, make a short statement and get angry and be told we are out of time. As this is Way LONGER than I intended - just like something else I wrote earlier today... In conclusion, I just want you all to know that there are many of us that, in spite of disappointment in the organization and process, are still VERY proud of what we accomplished over the last few days. If you haven't seen the verbal version in print...I am attaching it to this. Happy Independence Day to all...at least for an hour or so more? KJ Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by christucker72 on Jul 4, 2012 23:38:27 GMT -5
So was there any vote, or discussion on the future of the corporate/organizational structure?
I agree w/ Dawn & many others that MP has repeatedly proven w/ his actions that he's willing to resort to anti-democratic tactics, make unilateral decisions in violation of previously published rules, he's an ineffective spokesman, a failure at building coalitions (e.g. we had 0 endorsements/allies), alienated countless well-intentioned volunteers, ineffective at getting media coverage, & apparently had regular temper tantrums, resigning many times. Early on Occupy groups criticized 99D & MP of intransparency & operating in hierarchical top-down fashion, which turned out to be true beyond anything I imagined.
Other than an email list of potential allies/volunteers, a name, & a 99D produced by 72 people, it's unclear what we'd gain by sticking w/ this tainted organization.
More than a good list of grievances, we need a robust, legitimate, growing (not shrinking) organization. If this can get the media talking about these issues, then great. But the organization's MP/SC (most) core, has proven what it's capable of, and what types of tactics, values, it's willing to revert to.
I think lessons of this squandered opportunity must be discussed, and we must carefully strategize about what to do in the future.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 5, 2012 0:00:08 GMT -5
As I have said before, one of the most important things to happen in Philly was the relationships forged there. Hopefully everyone will have a better understanding where each is coming from and be able to better work together in the future. I do think it is important to decide where to go from here. While I don't agree with occupy's consensus model, I do think there has to be more democracy than what has happened in the 99d in the past. For a real grass roots movement to take hold, it has to start from the bottom up, not the top down. But there still has to be leadership that can mend fences, garner support from other groups, work on getting media attention, etc. I agree with Chris Tucker's last statement and I think it should happen sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jul 5, 2012 8:07:43 GMT -5
The steering committee members and volunteers that ran the congress 2.0 were EXTREMELY sensitive to accusations of TOP-down management and did everything they could to eliminate it...even to the point of not even asking us to elect a leader. I think that was a GIANT mistake because without leadership we all just broke into committees to work on our pet projects and topics. Therefore, the organizational questions for our group in the future were never addressed. I think that is what you (Chris Tucker) meant, correct? I will be leaving Philly in an hour or so and be out of touch until about Saturday night...driving back to Texas, but I will check in then again. KJ
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 5, 2012 9:17:48 GMT -5
To be brief, Alex Easton Brown mentioned Sunday night that he was worried about anarchist infiltrators from Occupy.
Sadly, we grew our own anarchy in house by not following any agenda or set of rules.
I agree with KJ that the lack of any real structure was the single greatest problem and led to the inevitable outcome.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jul 5, 2012 10:14:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 5, 2012 12:14:48 GMT -5
Key point of that article: "personhood" is a red herring.
Couldn't even read that document you guys created. Don't think it has any chance of gaining traction.
|
|