Time to move forward

[Rocco]

overplay (overplays 3rd person present) (overplaying present
participle) (overplayed past tense & past participle )
1 verb If you say that someone is overplaying something such as a
problem, you mean that they are making it seem more important than it
really is. (=exaggerate)
I think the historical factor is overplayed, that it really doesn't
mean much. V n
2 If someone overplays their hand, they act more confidently than
they should because they believe that they are in a stronger position
than they actually are.

I think the tent and physical occupy has outlived its usefulness. We
have everyone's attention...it is time to remove the head of the snake
which is congress.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-non-violent-dismantling-deemed-a-success.html

[vgretch]

I think that the encampment is crucial. It is a home base for
supporters, as well as a 24/7 "visitors' center". I also shows the
persistent nature of the movement. I feel that it is unfair of me to
say this, because I am unwilling to sleep out in the winter myself.
However, I know that the hope that I get from this movement is related
to the trust I have in its persistence. I will support the encampment
in any way I can.

> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-non-violent-d...

[Rocco Campanella]

Hi Vgretch:

Thank you for your willingness to stand up for what you believe.  If  occupy groups across the nation  where made up of people like you it would scare the hell out of congress and Wall Street.

I don't disagree with what you are saying.  And it has nothing to do with what is fair for what you say as opposed to what you yourself are willing to do.  Many of us are simply not equipped health or age wise to do this.  However, that said, I am talking about the entire movement itself.  If someone wants to wage a campaign of maintaining a campsite on public property I have no problem with that.  What I am saying is that there is only some much energy to go around and the question is where is it best invested?  OWS does have a central purpose and that is to get money out of politics.  I think it is time to focus on that aspect as opposed to a focus on a campsite.  If we focus on a campsite then that is what the media will focus on.  And I think it is time to have the media focus on the corruption in congress.  And they will if we do because we now have their attention.

Now with all that said, I want to personally thank you for taking the time to use this group email for what it was intended.  If we don't present out different points of view nothing is going to get solved.  I may not agree with another person's position or ideas but I will defend to the death their right to state it and take action on it.  I just wish others in this email group would do what you have just done.

[Lauren Alnwick-Pfund]

I agree that encampments are important as places to interact with each other and be visible to the rest of the public. It is hard for me personally to camp out full-time, and I see no hypocrisy in finding other ways to demonstrate your support, whether it is by making contributions of food or supplies or by attending meetings, performing outreach, creating projects, and otherwise acting in the community. I would like to add another reason the encampments are important. They can be understood as an attempt to create a new space in our culture, both psychological and physical/geographic. A much-needed free and open space for people to voluntarily flood into as the unsustainable space we now inhabit continues its collapse. The new space is not going to be perfect, it's not clear yet what the boundaries are, but we do know it has to be better than what we have now.

 

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:54 AM, vgretch <vgr...@cableone.net> wrote:

[Rocco Campanella]

Thank you Lauren for taking the time to voice your opinion.  That is exactly what everyone should be doing.  The first place to make change is getting people together to pool ideas and voice their opinions.  If there is a primary reason why our government has been taken over by the barons of Wall Street it is General Public Apathy.  

The following Youtube presentation gives a very clear picture of why we have lost control..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs 

[Lauren Alnwick-Pfund]

When I hear that we need to "get money out of politics" my head almost explodes with the complexity of the problem. It is incredibly overwhelming to imagine achieving something like "ending corruption in government." I like to take the following approach to problem-solving: instead of asking ourselves "How do we stop these bad things from happening?" we can ask, "How do we make things the way we want them to be?" This is a positive, creative, and constructive thought process rather than a reactionary one. Instead of reacting to the bad, we must focus on generating something better that will make the bad system obsolete. Of course this has to happen on a local scale, globally. So... if we focus our attention on our town/county/bioregion, the problem immediately begins to seem more manageable. What can we do to make life better (i.e. more sustainable, more healthy, more positive, whatever you like) for one another RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW? We shouldn't need to wait until there is "no more corruption in government" or "money in politics" to act, or we'll be waiting FOREVER. And we don't have forever to turn things around. My brain just takes off with ideas when I ask myself, "What do I want? What kind of world do I want to live in?" We need to envision something/s workable and local, and make it happen together.

[Kara Jacks]

I understand how the camp doesn't make sense to people if they are
looking at it as an action in and of itself. However for all the
reasons allready stated it serves its purpose. It is a visitors
center. Its a gathering place. I want to start utilizing it as a
gathering place more. The G.A.s are limited to votes on courses of
action and adding information to the discussion specifically to
relevent to the item being voted on. We should come together at camp
and discuss what actions we want to take. I am still trying to put
together actions for December 6th but would like to be able to sit
down and look at people and get their commitment to specific details.
I'd like to do 3 different actions. Maybe a bank protest, protest the
title company where the auctions are taking place and maybe again at
the Omni building for purely symbolic reasons as our representatives
never really go to their offices here. ( I thought about the idea of
putting up signs at the homes being foreclosed on and thought perhaps
we might end up getting ticketed for littering or tresspassing or
something.) Please feel free to bring your ideas. i can't be at G.A.
tonight as I will be at work until 10:30

Kara

On Nov 30, 7:28 am, Rocco <woodlandstar.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-non-violent-d...

[Rocco Campanella]

Hi Kara:

Actually it is not that complicated IF an amendment is made to the constitution.  The following is just one example and there are many out there now on the net.  If this were to be enacted the "money out of politics" would end overnight.

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

What does this actually mean?  Here are Jimmy's notes on his ammendment:

Line one: simply put, this part of the amendment would forbid any candidate for federal office (President, House or Senate) from accepting money to run or campaign for that office.  This would include self-funders, corporations, labor unions, etc.

Line Two: this part of the amendment cuts off the Supreme Court's ability to strike down any and all campaign finance laws passed by Congress.  This is THE most important aspect of the amendment.  Without it, the Supreme Court will continue to say corporation and people can use their money as a device for political speech.

Line Three: this part of the amendment establishes a national day of voting. Most civilized countries have already-established national days of voting and their voter participation far exceeds ours.

Here is Lawrence Lessig's DRAFT of the amendment. As always we would like your comments for debate.

"No non-citizen shall contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office. United States citizens shall be free to contribute no more than the equivalent of $100 to any federal candidate during any election cycle. Notwithstanding the limits construed to be part of the First Amendment, Congress shall have the power to limit, but not ban, independent political expenditures, so long as such limits are content and viewpoint neutral. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

From Free Speech For People and their co-founder and director John Bonifaz, here is the People's Rights amendment

"Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable."

From John Bonifaz:

"The People’s Rights Amendment, which John and Free Speech For People advocate, would overturn the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and would ensure that people, not corporations, govern in America."

[Rocco]

I just posted this on OWS (Idaltu)

An alternative to campsites

Getting rid of campsites does not mean going home. It means having
booths in parks etc where information is distributed, a Kisok type
system, tied by computers across the nation. Then a printer that can
be used to print out the names of public officials that are deeply
invested in special interests...keep it local but have that network
set up. Want to get everyone's attention? What would happen if we
start investigating this at local levels?

On Nov 30, 11:05 am, Rocco Campanella <woodlandstar.ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Kara:
>
> Actually it is not that complicated IF an amendment is made to the
> constitution.  The following is just one example and there are many out
> there now on the net.  If this were to be enacted the "money out of
> politics" would end overnight.
>
> http://www.getmoneyout.com/
>

> *"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or

> foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to
> any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or
> opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any
> other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal
> office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S.
> Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set
> forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for

> Federal office."*

>
> What does this actually mean?  Here are Jimmy's notes on his ammendment:
>

> *Line one: simply put, this part of the amendment would forbid any

> candidate for federal office (President, House or Senate) from accepting
> money to run or campaign for that office.  This would include self-funders,
> corporations, labor unions, etc.
>
> Line Two: this part of the amendment cuts off the Supreme Court's ability
> to strike down any and all campaign finance laws passed by Congress.  This
> is THE most important aspect of the amendment.  Without it, the Supreme
> Court will continue to say corporation and people can use their money as a
> device for political speech.
>
> Line Three: this part of the amendment establishes a national day of
> voting. Most civilized countries have already-established national days of
> voting and their voter participation far exceeds ours.

> *
>
> *Here is Lawrence Lessig's DRAFT of the amendment. As always we would like your
> comments for debate<http://www.getmoneyout.com/comments_on_amendment_drafts>
> .*
>
> *"No non-citizen shall contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any

> candidate for Federal office. United States citizens shall be free to
> contribute no more than the equivalent of $100 to any federal candidate
> during any election cycle. Notwithstanding the limits construed to be part
> of the First Amendment, Congress shall have the power to limit, but not
> ban, independent political expenditures, so long as such limits are content
> and viewpoint neutral. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the

> purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."*
>
> *
> *
>
> *From Free Speech For People <http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/> and their

> co-founder and director John Bonifaz, here is the People's Rights amendment

> *
>
> *"Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution

> intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of

> natural persons.*
>
> *Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does

> not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate
> entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any
> foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation
> as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives,
> deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress

> and the States under this Constitution.*
>
> *Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the

> people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise
> of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are

> inalienable."*
>
> From John Bonifaz:
>
> *"The People’s Rights Amendment, which John and Free Speech For People

> advocate, would overturn the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United
> v. FEC and would ensure that people, not corporations, govern in America."

> *
> *
> *