Demands/grievances

[Cliff Smedley]

There are getting to be quite a few emails about making demands/grievances.  I think this should be the Working Group that comes up with a proposal for that.  I would propose that we make a few targeted, impactful, no-brainer demands that can be high-profile and that we are comfortable that the broader public will agree with.  I would suggest something regarding the banks that is totally counter to Jared Polis's legislative record.  Let's see if we can bring about a change.  I'm pretty optimistic that we can.

Cliff

[Jim Miers]

Cliff, I heartily concur on the need to focus. Should it be something
the 99% can agree on? Are we talking about 99% of Americans or
Boulderites?

The media is hammering the lack of focus issue, but Occupiers from
various places, including Boulder, have been pushing back. They
repudiate the idea that the movement needs to be issue-specific. An
article (on either RSN or Truthout) argued that it makes sense for the
movement to just express general outrage and not let itself get bogged
down on issues. After all, most Occupiers are not policy wonks. In
addition, many groups are predominantly progressives, and they tend to
like to debate things endlessly.

However, it might be possible for the 99% to agree that the system
needs to be changed so the people have the power to begin to address
these issues. I think they would agree on a fundamental change that
would tilt the field in favor of the 99% and away from the 1%. The
only thing way to do is to get the money out of politics. Our
democracy has been broken by the corrupting influence of money on our
elected officials. I think Occupy is an expression of frustration
coming from a feeling of powerlessness. They can all agree the people
need more power.

Polls show widespread support of this idea with over 80% of Dems and
Independents supporting it and even 65% of Republicans.

[Evan Ravitz]

Hi. I just joined the list as my proposal was delegated to Goals and Strategies. I'll try to come Wed at 7, but as of Wednesday I don't have a place to live for a couple of weeks.

"Power to the People" was second only to "Peace" in the '60s and has been a goal -and strategy- for millennia.  I've been working on it since 1989. You can see why at http://spryeye.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-ive-devoted-20-years-to-better-and.html

Colorado has SOME people power: Here, ballot initiatives gave us the country's first Renewable Energy Mandate (Amendment 37), the country's strongest ban on lobbyists giving politicians ANYTHING (41), campaign finance reform (27), increased K-12 funding (23),  Background Checks at Gun Shows (22), Medical Marijuana (20),  cleaner hog farms (14) and Term Limits (12), just since 1994.

Most of the 99% support publicly-funded election campaigns so big corps can't buy politicians. 7 of 8 states with publicly-funded elections got them by ballot initiative, not by legislative action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_elections  MOST reforms start this way. More examples and references at http://Vote.org/initiatives

My website http://Vote.org supports the best, most "ready-to-go" plan for better and NATIONAL ballot initiatives, which is what we need to stop wars, bailouts for criminals, spying on citizens, persecution of medical marijuana users, getting a carbon tax, etc. It's led by former Sen. Mike Gravel, who did as much as anyone to end Vietnam, by filibustering solo until the draft was ended.

Endorsers of Gravel's National Initiative include: Patch Adams, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, "Granny D" Haddock, Julia Butterfly Hill, Ralph Nader, Coleen Rowley, Pete Seeger, Cindy Sheehan and Howard Zinn: http://Vote.org/endorsers

Unfortunately, there are those who think nobody, not the majority, not 80%, not even 99% should be able to "tell me what to do." However, people living in real societies have had to make laws, ever since "Thou shalt not kill."  If WE don't make the laws, THEY will, and we're here because of that. THEIR laws repress us and get us to subsidize their lying, cheating and stealing.

I urge people to read some at http://Vote.org There's centuries of work there, and the very best legal minds in the country have said it's legal.

Evan

--
Evan's Excellent Editing         Evan on Facebook
Gates of Paradise hot springs backpacking trips
Back to the Garden blog              303-923-5918

    Vote to take the "mock" out of democracy at Vote.org!

[David Furtney]

In principle, I favor the idea of a national initiative process.   So many things that the people support overwhelmingly are not being passed by Congress (for some strange reason ... :-)  However, I have concerns about the form of it I see on Vote.Org

1. It seems to rely on an "extra-constitutional" process to bootstrap itself into the constitution, bypassing the existing amendment process.   While that actually sort of makes sense, it is also problematic.  The 50% vote requirement also seem to be too small for a constitutional amendment.

2. What is this about requiring two elections with 50% margins a year apart?  Say what?  

[cliffs...@netzero.net]

Hi Dave,

Wow!  Those things are problematic!  However, I think we get the general idea of what is intended.  Maybe the Occupy Movement could do a better job with its own proposal along these lines.  The guy that proposed it should be encouraged to participate in such a discussion. 

There was another guy at the 2nd GA who wanted us to support Direct Democracy.  I wish that guy was still involved.  These people only give us one chance and then they are gone.  I hope these people will become more willing to join our google groups.

Cliff

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
ConsumerLifestyles.org

[Evan Ravitz]

Hi Dave. Glad you signed up here. Good questions. Some answers below...

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:41 AM, David Furtney <dafu...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

1. It seems to rely on an "extra-constitutional" process to bootstrap itself into the constitution, bypassing the existing amendment process.   While that actually sort of makes sense, it is also problematic.  The 50% vote requirement also seem to be too small for a constitutional amendment.

You're right. It follows the model of how the Constitution was ratified, which was not just "extra-constitutional" (of course) but also "extra-legal" under any existing laws. The 13 State legislatures refused to ratify the Constitution, so in the words of Madison, they "resorted to" the people to ratify it. It's based on the First Principle of democracies: "The People are sovereign." Without this extra-legal act by the people, there would be no Constitution and so no extra-constitutional process. The point is that the People rule, no matter what gets in the way.

Washington said: "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government." We made it -in spite of legal power, which opposed it- but we never altered it ourselves. We always had the right, but not the mechanism. One reason that mechanism was left out of the Constitution is that large-scale direct democracy was impossible back then, not having national newspapers, let alone the internet, to make it possible.

Please also see what America's most famous legal scholar says about our process, under "Real Leaders Agree." Yale's Akhil Amar was all over the TV news in 2000 talking about "Bush V. Gore," our most recent Constitutional crisis.  All serious legal scholars agree on this, otherwise there would be no Constitution.

 

2. What is this about requiring two elections with 50% margins a year apart?  Say what?  

Gravel's proposal says that simple laws can be passed by ballot  initiative with a simple majority. But he wants ballot initiative AMENDMENTS to the Constitution to be passed by TWO majority votes a year apart, to make sure people really want them, and understand them.

I was part of one of two big meetings Gravel held in 2002 to discuss details like these. I didn't agree with everything, and neither did others. But I see it as the start of a self-evolving process. Once people have this power, we can refine the process by using the initiative power it gives us. If we don't have national initiative power, all you can do is beg Congress. That isn't working. Occasionally they'll throw a bone, but usually the bone isn't very good, like the "campaign finance reform" they pass once a generation or so, always with loopholes big enough to drive their billion-dollar campaigns through.

It's not perfect, but it's by far the most evolved out there. And having the people ratify it makes it practical. Congress has refused to enable national ballot initiatives, both in 1907 and 1977. Gravel was part of the 1977 effort. He's tried other avenues too, like trying to put ballot initiatives on state ballots to ask for national ballot initiatives. The courts said that was an improper use of state initiatives.

As always with the really important things, we must "resort to" The People to empower ourselves.

"The age of the leaders has come and gone. Every person must be their own leader now. You must remove your projection, and contain the spirit of our time in your own life and your own nature because to go the old way and follow your leader is a form of psychological imprisonment...There is a very profound reason why there are no great leaders any more. It is because they are no longer needed."
  -Sir Laurens van der Post, statesman, military leader, author and close friend of Carl Jung

Evan

[lbrillante]

I would prefer that we start with discovering what our shared vision is... the intersection of our individual visions of what we want the future to look like taking into account what the majority of people might share with us.  From there we could develop a mission statement and goals also taking into account what the majority of Americans might support.

 

Making Demands may be part of accomplishing some of our goals but from that context if they are met or not met our goals remains the same and we find new ways to accomplish them. 

 

A Vision statement outlines what the organization wants to be, or how it wants the world in which it operates to be. It concentrates on the future. It is a source of inspiration. It provides clear decision-making criteria.

 

A Mission Statement  defines the fundamental purpose of an organization or an enterprise, succinctly describing why it exists and what it does to achieve its Vision.

 

Goals are steps we take to achieve the mission. Goals are clearly stated and contain specific objectives

Demand  1 a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience>  b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

[Jim Miers]

The premise of Evan’s proposal is that we must change the rules of our
political system so the people have the power to say for themselves
what they want the future to look like. I agree with that approach,
although I’m not sure that a National Initiatives amendment is the
best first step toward that goal. I need to study this issue more.
So far, the two ideas I’ve seen are 1) getting money out of our
existing system of representative democracy system through campaign
reform and 2) a national initiative to change our system to involve
more direct democracy. Both of these involve an amendment to the US
Constitution, and they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they
could be synergistic. Assuming they are both good ideas, the question
becomes, which should happen first?

Normally, I would concur with Lauren that in starting a new
organization it is wise to agree on vision and mission statements.
However, for our small group to wrestle with a broad vision statement
about what we want the world or the organization to be seems
problematic for the following reasons:

1) Without polling resources, we would only be guessing what the 99%,
the Occupiers nationally, or even Occupy Boulder would want if they
had the power to achieve their goals.
2) I can’t think of anything that the 99% would all agree on except
that they want more power and the 1% to have less.
3) Every substantive issue that is identified will be divisive and the
99% will start to shrink.

Of course, the vision could be a world where the 99% have more power,
and the mission could be to achieve that via a constitutional
amendment. However, I’m guessing Lauren has more substantive issues
in mind when she talks about how “we want the future to look.” I say
give the people power and let them decide how it should look.

On Oct 30, 9:58 pm, lbrillante <lbrilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would prefer that we start with discovering what our shared vision is...
> the intersection of our individual visions of what we want the future to
> look like taking into account what the majority of people might share with
> us.  From there we could develop a mission statement and goals also taking
> into account what the majority of Americans might support.
>
> Making Demands may be part of accomplishing some of our goals but from that
> context if they are met or not met our goals remains the same and we find
> new ways to accomplish them.  
>

> A *Vision statement* outlines what the organization wants to be, or how it

> wants the world in which it operates to be. It concentrates on the future.
> It is a source of inspiration. It provides clear decision-making criteria.
>

> A* Mission Statement*  defines the fundamental purpose of an organization
> or an enterprise, succinctly describing why it exists and *what it does to
> achieve its Vision. *
>
> *Goals* are steps we take *to achieve the mission*. Goals are clearly

> stated and contain specific objectives

> *Demand  *1 *a* *:* an act of *demanding*<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demanding>or asking especially with authority <a
> *demand* for obedience>  *b* *:* something claimed as due <a list of *demand
> **s*>

[lbrillante]

I think it's definitely worth exploring and as far as what I had in mind it was more like  and of course this is just on my own without input.

So for example a broad vision of the future could be ' To live in a world where the hearts, minds, and wills of all people are represented by the government'. 

An 'example' of a mission '

"We occupy Boulder in protest of corruption and the co-opting of our political power by the wealthy and corporations that use it to abuse us and to increase their wealth and power.

 

We strive to awaken and inspire all people to reclaim their political power and to work to restore a more representative form of government.

 

To this end we align ourselves with and take actions to achieve goals that the greatest majority of people can support."

I am certain that this is not idea wording but you get the point.

Example of Goals

-To pass an amendment to the constitution to get money out of politics.

 

-To pass an amendment to the constitution that resolves that corporations are NOT people and money is NOT free speech.

 

-To create a true and verifiable election process that allows for all eligible citizens to vote

I just want to say if we are not going to get to this at any point... it will kick me out of the system.  I feel certain of that and I realize that I can feel comfortable with demands that serve whatever 'shared goals' we discover but without doing that..I feel sick about demands.  With goals making a demand is just a step to accomplish the goal and if it doesn't work... okay try something else to make the goal a reality.  But randomly on their own they feel like an unhealthy approach to me and I am not interested.

I just don't agree that we can't find a shared vision that most of us can get behind and others of us will be in consensus with.  If that is the case I should probably give up now and I'm not kidding.

[Jim Miers]

I agree with everything you say. I will move to do a temperature
check on your ideas. If the others like it, I think we should just
tweak the language and go with it. I feel just as strongly as you do
about this. The people will always be fighting losing battles until
we get the money out of politics, and I am not interested in working
on anything else. Its the only way we can make a difference at this
point.

[Jim Miers]

Evan, I am very excited to learn from your wealth of knowledge on
ballot initiatives, especially since that may be one of the next steps
for Move to Amend in Denver and Colorado. I have an open mind on
whether enabling a national ballot initiative process would be a
better first step toward changing the balance of power than Move to
Amend. However, I think a prior question is whether we can form a
consensus in the goals and strategies group that Occupy should focus
trying to change the system through an amendment to the US
Constitution. That would be a major step. Then we could look at all
the possibilities for what type of an amendment would be the best to
do first. Does that make sense to you?

On Oct 29, 8:05 pm, Evan Ravitz <e...@vote.org> wrote:
> Hi. I just joined the list as my proposal was delegated to Goals and
> Strategies. I'll try to come Wed at 7, but as of Wednesday I don't have a
> place to live for a couple of weeks.
>
> "Power to the People" was second only to "Peace" in the '60s and has been a
> goal -and strategy- for millennia.  I've been working on it since 1989. You

> can see why athttp://spryeye.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-ive-devoted-20-years-to-bette...

>
> Colorado has SOME people power: Here, ballot initiatives gave us the
> country's first Renewable Energy Mandate (Amendment 37), the country's
> strongest ban on lobbyists giving politicians ANYTHING (41), campaign
> finance reform (27), increased K-12 funding (23),  Background Checks at Gun
> Shows (22), Medical Marijuana (20),  cleaner hog farms (14) and Term Limits
> (12), just since 1994.
>
> Most of the 99% support publicly-funded election campaigns so big corps
> can't buy politicians. 7 of 8 states with publicly-funded elections got
> them by ballot initiative, not by legislative action:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_elections MOST reforms start this way.
> More examples and references athttp://Vote.org/initiatives
>

> My websitehttp://Vote.orgsupports the best, most "ready-to-go" plan for

> better and NATIONAL ballot initiatives, which is what we need to stop wars,
> bailouts for criminals, spying on citizens, persecution of medical
> marijuana users, getting a carbon tax, etc. It's led by former Sen. Mike
> Gravel, who did as much as anyone to end Vietnam, by filibustering solo
> until the draft was ended.
>
> Endorsers of Gravel's National Initiative include: Patch Adams, Noam
> Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, "Granny D" Haddock, Julia Butterfly Hill, Ralph
> Nader, Coleen Rowley, Pete Seeger, Cindy Sheehan and Howard Zinn:http://Vote.org/endorsers
>
> Unfortunately, there are those who think nobody, not the majority, not 80%,
> not even 99% should be able to "tell me what to do." However, people living
> in real societies have had to make laws, ever since "Thou shalt not kill."
> If WE don't make the laws, THEY will, and we're here because of that. THEIR
> laws repress us and get us to subsidize their lying, cheating and stealing.
>

> I urge people to read some athttp://Vote.orgThere's centuries of work

> Evan's Excellent Editing <http://bit.ly/evanedit>
> Evan<http://evanravitz.com/>on
> Facebook <http://facebook.com/ravitz>
> Gates of Paradise <http://evanravitz.com/paradise> hot springs backpacking
> trips
> Back to the Garden <http://spryeye.blogspot.com/>blog
> 303-923-5918
> *[image: Iridescent clouds over
> Boulder]<http://picasaweb.google.com/Evan.Ravitz>
> *
> *    Vote to take the "mock" out of democracy at Vote.org <http://vote.org/>
> !
> **
> *

[Evan Ravitz]

Jim, I'm sorry I didn't spot this message until now. I guess you're right. I don't care how we go about it. We can support both Move to Amend and National ballot initiatives. I think initiatives are a far greater reform because they're a gateway to all other reforms. But some are fixated on a one-time Amendment about corporations that they think will solve all our problems permanently. What if that Amendment turns out not to solve everything, like many Campaign Finance Reforms that are passed. Then you have to start Amending all over again.

See you at the Peace Ctr.

Evan

Evan's Excellent Editing         Evan on Facebook

Gates of Paradise hot springs backpacking trips
Back to the Garden blog              303-923-5918

    Vote to take the "mock" out of democracy at Vote.org!