wiki.occupyboston.org - User contributions [en]

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-27T19:23:55Z

Creightt:

Use the [http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Talk:Participatory_Budgeting&action=edit&redlink=1 Discussion] tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

==Intersection of Particiaptory Budgeting and The Occupy Movement==
At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 

==Proposal==

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

==How It Works ([http://participatorybudgeting.org/ taken directly from The Participatory Budgeting Project])==

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.
<div>
Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

==Why should we have PB?==

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

==History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil==

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

==Further Reading==


http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-part%20II-case%20studies.pdf

-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Media Conglomeration

2011-10-27T19:23:14Z

Creightt:

Use the Discussion tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.
<div>
==The Intersection of Media Conglomeration and The Occupy Movement==
Effective and true democratic participation is predicated on the existence of a well-informed populace. If not democracy quickly turns into plutocracy. The populace is easily co-opted by particular interest groups and at times even advocates against their own interest. And equally problematic, political demobilization and apathy become the norm, as the populace is unable to connect the dots between political activity and promoting their own interests. Unfortunately, the disseminators of information (i.e. media outlets) have intentionally chosen to neglect their obligation as broadcasters to honestly educate the populace, instead choosing to obfuscate the truth in order to promote their own interests at the detriment of society’s more general interests. The Occupy Movement must look to replicate the free flow and democratic exchange of ideas currently occuring at GA's and discussion boards like this Wiki page across the globe.
<div>
==History==
Up until the last several decades the government has played a vital role in regulating media broadcasting in order to facilitate competing viewpoints and the presentation of such viewpoints in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. However, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the federal government has abdicated this role, leaving media broadcasting to the whims of the market. For nearly 60 years the Federal Communications Commission enforced the Fairness doctrine, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance from multiple viewpoints. Under the urging of President Reagan, the FEC reversed this mandate, which would not have been completely detrimental if less than ten years later Clinton had not signed into law a bill setting the stage for the further monopolization of an already heavily monopolized industry. Passed with the intent of increasing competition, increasing diversity and decreasing consumer costs, the Telecommunications Act has actually led to the exact opposite.[http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF 1] The legislation was supposed to save consumers a collective total of $550 billion in phone and cable services, but since its passage cable rates have risen about 50 percent and phone rates 20 percent. Moreover, just five companies, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, NBC and AOL now control 75 percent of all prime-time television viewing. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. The top two radio broadcasting companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, control 42 percent of the market, and the top 10 companies 70 percent of the market. Coupled with the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in a complete dumbing down of the political conversation and has subsequently left the public with few outlets truly committed to factual public education.
<div>
Given this recent phenomenon, U.S. citizens have become increasingly ill informed about the very society in which they live and, more have lost their ability and desire to use their political and civil rights to advocate for their own well being.

==Proposal==

[http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF 1]Common Cause Report. ''The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned''. May 9, 2005.
</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-27T19:03:09Z

Creightt:

Use the [http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Talk:Participatory_Budgeting&action=edit&redlink=1 Discussion] tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

==Intersection of Particiaptory Budgeting and Occupy Movement==
At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 

==Proposal==

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

==How It Works ([http://participatorybudgeting.org/ taken directly from The Participatory Budgeting Project])==

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.
<div>
Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

==Why should we have PB?==

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

==History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil==

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

==Further Reading==


http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-part%20II-case%20studies.pdf

-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-27T19:02:28Z

Creightt:

Use the Discussion tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

==Intersection of Particiaptory Budgeting and Occupy Movement==
At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 

==Proposal==

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

==How It Works ([http://participatorybudgeting.org/ taken directly from The Participatory Budgeting Project])==

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.
<div>
Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

==Why should we have PB?==

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

==History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil==

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

==Further Reading==


http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-part%20II-case%20studies.pdf

-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-27T19:02:01Z

Creightt:

Use the Discussion tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

==Intersection of Particiaptory Budgeting and Occupy Movement==
At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 

==Proposal==

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

==How It Works([http://participatorybudgeting.org/ taken directly from The Participatory Budgeting Project])==

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.
<div>
Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

==Why should we have PB?==

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

==History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil==

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

==Further Reading==


http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-part%20II-case%20studies.pdf

-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-27T19:00:11Z

Creightt:

Use the Discussion tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

==Intersection of Particiaptory Budgeting and Occupy Movement==
At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 

==Proposal==

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

==How It Works(taken directly from [http://participatorybudgeting.org/ The Participatory Budgeting Project]==

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.
<div>
Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

==Why should we have PB?==

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

==History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil==

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

==Further Reading==


http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-part%20II-case%20studies.pdf
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-27T18:53:25Z

Creightt:

Use the Discussion tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

'''Participatory Budgeting'''

==Participatory Budgeting==
At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

'''Proposal '''(taken directly from [http://participatorybudgeting.org/ The Participatory Budgeting Project])

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

'''How It Works'''

Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

'''Why should we have PB?'''

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

'''History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil '''

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

'''The Intersection of Participatory Budgeting and Occupy Movement'''

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but I believe that it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 

'''Further Reading'''


http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-part%20II-case%20studies.pdf
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:47:46Z

Creightt:

Use the Discussion tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.
<div>
Advocates of [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality] fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as [http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1 television and radio.] According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Media Conglomeration

2011-10-27T18:47:05Z

Creightt:

Use the Discussion tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.
<div>
Effective and true democratic participation is predicated on the existence of a well-informed populace. If not democracy quickly turns into plutocracy. The populace is easily co-opted by particular interest groups and at times even advocates against their own interest. And equally problematic, political demobilization and apathy become the norm, as the populace is unable to connect the dots between political activity and promoting their own interests.
<div>
Up until the last several decades the government has played a vital role in regulating media broadcasting in order to facilitate competing viewpoints and the presentation of such viewpoints in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. However, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the federal government has abdicated this role, leaving media broadcasting to the whims of the market. For nearly 60 years the Federal Communications Commission enforced the Fairness doctrine, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance from multiple viewpoints. Under the urging of President Reagan, the FEC reversed this mandate, which would not have been completely detrimental if less than ten years later Clinton had not signed into law a bill setting the stage for the further monopolization of an already heavily monopolized industry. Passed with the intent of increasing competition, increasing diversity and decreasing consumer costs, the Telecommunications Act has actually led to the exact opposite.[http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF 1] The legislation was supposed to save consumers a collective total of $550 billion in phone and cable services, but since its passage cable rates have risen about 50 percent and phone rates 20 percent. Moreover, just five companies, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, NBC and AOL now control 75 percent of all prime-time television viewing. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. The top two radio broadcasting companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, control 42 percent of the market, and the top 10 companies 70 percent of the market. Coupled with the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in a complete dumbing down of the political conversation and has subsequently left the public with few outlets truly committed to factual public education.
<div>
Given this recent phenomenon, U.S. citizens have become increasingly ill informed about the very society in which they live and, more have lost their ability and desire to use their political and civil rights to advocate for their own well being.

 

[http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF 1]Common Cause Report. ''The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned''. May 9, 2005.
</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-27T18:46:07Z

Creightt:

Use the Discussion tab to discuss participatory budgeting. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

'''Participatory Budgeting'''

At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

'''Proposal '''(taken directly from [http://participatorybudgeting.org/ The Participatory Budgeting Project])

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

'''How It Works'''

Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

'''Why should we have PB?'''

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

'''History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil '''

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

'''PB and Occupy Movement'''

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but I believe that it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 

'''Further Reading'''


http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-part%20II-case%20studies.pdf
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Media Conglomeration

2011-10-27T18:37:30Z

Creightt:

Effective and true democratic participation is predicated on the existence of a well-informed populace. If not democracy quickly turns into plutocracy. The populace is easily co-opted by particular interest groups and at times even advocates against their own interest. And equally problematic, political demobilization and apathy become the norm, as the populace is unable to connect the dots between political activity and promoting their own interests.
<div>
Up until the last several decades the government has played a vital role in regulating media broadcasting in order to facilitate competing viewpoints and the presentation of such viewpoints in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. However, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the federal government has abdicated this role, leaving media broadcasting to the whims of the market. For nearly 60 years the Federal Communications Commission enforced the Fairness doctrine, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance from multiple viewpoints. Under the urging of President Reagan, the FEC reversed this mandate, which would not have been completely detrimental if less than ten years later Clinton had not signed into law a bill setting the stage for the further monopolization of an already heavily monopolized industry. Passed with the intent of increasing competition, increasing diversity and decreasing consumer costs, the Telecommunications Act has actually led to the exact opposite.[http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF 1] The legislation was supposed to save consumers a collective total of $550 billion in phone and cable services, but since its passage cable rates have risen about 50 percent and phone rates 20 percent. Moreover, just five companies, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, NBC and AOL now control 75 percent of all prime-time television viewing. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. The top two radio broadcasting companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, control 42 percent of the market, and the top 10 companies 70 percent of the market. Coupled with the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in a complete dumbing down of the political conversation and has subsequently left the public with few outlets truly committed to factual public education.
<div>
Given this recent phenomenon, U.S. citizens have become increasingly ill informed about the very society in which they live and, more have lost their ability and desire to use their political and civil rights to advocate for their own well being.

 

[http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF 1]Common Cause Report. ''The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned''. May 9, 2005.
</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Media Conglomeration

2011-10-27T18:35:19Z

Creightt:

Effective and true democratic participation is predicated on the existence of a well-informed populace. If not democracy quickly turns into plutocracy. The populace is easily co-opted by particular interest groups and at times even advocates against their own interest. And equally problematic, political demobilization and apathy become the norm, as the populace is unable to connect the dots between political activity and promoting their own interests.
<div>
Up until the last several decades the government has played a vital role in regulating media broadcasting in order to facilitate competing viewpoints and the presentation of such viewpoints in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. However, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the federal government has abdicated this role, leaving media broadcasting to the whims of the market. For nearly 60 years the Federal Communications Commission enforced the Fairness doctrine, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance from multiple viewpoints. Under the urging of President Reagan, the FEC reversed this mandate, which would not have been completely detrimental if less than ten years later Clinton had not signed into law a bill setting the stage for the further monopolization of an already heavily monopolized industry. Passed with the intent of increasing competition, increasing diversity and decreasing consumer costs, the Telecommunications Act has actually led to the exact opposite.[http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7382208452914738738#_ftnref 1] The legislation was supposed to save consumers a collective total of $550 billion in phone and cable services, but since its passage cable rates have risen about 50 percent and phone rates 20 percent. Moreover, just five companies, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, NBC and AOL now control 75 percent of all prime-time television viewing. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. The top two radio broadcasting companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, control 42 percent of the market, and the top 10 companies 70 percent of the market. Coupled with the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in a complete dumbing down of the political conversation and has subsequently left the public with few outlets truly committed to factual public education.
<div>
Given this recent phenomenon, U.S. citizens have become increasingly ill informed about the very society in which they live and, more have lost their ability and desire to use their political and civil rights to advocate for their own well being.

 

[http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7382208452914738738#_ftnref 1]Common Cause Report. ''The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned''. May 9, 2005.
</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Media Conglomeration

2011-10-27T18:33:50Z

Creightt:

Effective and true democratic participation is predicated on the existence of a well-informed populace. If not democracy quickly turns into plutocracy. The populace is easily co-opted by particular interest groups and at times even advocates against their own interest. And equally problematic, political demobilization and apathy become the norm, as the populace is unable to connect the dots between political activity and promoting their own interests.
<div>
Up until the last several decades the government has played a vital role in regulating media broadcasting in order to facilitate competing viewpoints and the presentation of such viewpoints in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. However, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the federal government has abdicated this role, leaving media broadcasting to the whims of the market. For nearly 60 years the Federal Communications Commission enforced the Fairness doctrine, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance from multiple viewpoints. Under the urging of President Reagan, the FEC reversed this mandate, which would not have been completely detrimental if less than ten years later Clinton had not signed into law a bill setting the stage for the further monopolization of an already heavily monopolized industry. Passed with the intent of increasing competition, increasing diversity and decreasing consumer costs, the Telecommunications Act has actually led to the exact opposite. The legislation was supposed to save consumers a collective total of $550 billion in phone and cable services, but since its passage cable rates have risen about 50 percent and phone rates 20 percent. Moreover, just five companies, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, NBC and AOL now control 75 percent of all prime-time television viewing. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. The top two radio broadcasting companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, control 42 percent of the market, and the top 10 companies 70 percent of the market. Coupled with the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in a complete dumbing down of the political conversation and has subsequently left the public with few outlets truly committed to factual public education.
<div>
Given this recent phenomenon, U.S. citizens have become increasingly ill informed about the very society in which they live and, more have lost their ability and desire to use their political and civil rights to advocate for their own well being.

 

Common Cause Report. ''The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned''. May 9, 2005.
</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Media Conglomeration

2011-10-27T18:32:49Z

Creightt:

Effective and true democratic participation is predicated on the existence of a well-informed populace. If not democracy quickly turns into plutocracy. The populace is easily co-opted by particular interest groups and at times even advocates against their own interest. And equally problematic, political demobilization and apathy become the norm, as the populace is unable to connect the dots between political activity and promoting their own interests.

<div>Up until the last several decades the government has played a vital role in regulating media broadcasting in order to facilitate competing viewpoints and the presentation of such viewpoints in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. However, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the federal government has abdicated this role, leaving media broadcasting to the whims of the market. For nearly 60 years the Federal Communications Commission enforced the Fairness doctrine, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance from multiple viewpoints. Under the urging of President Reagan, the FEC reversed this mandate, which would not have been completely detrimental if less than ten years later Clinton had not signed into law a bill setting the stage for the further monopolization of an already heavily monopolized industry. Passed with the intent of increasing competition, increasing diversity and decreasing consumer costs, the Telecommunications Act has actually led to the exact opposite. The legislation was supposed to save consumers a collective total of $550 billion in phone and cable services, but since its passage cable rates have risen about 50 percent and phone rates 20 percent. Moreover, just five companies, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, NBC and AOL now control 75 percent of all prime-time television viewing. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. The top two radio broadcasting companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, control 42 percent of the market, and the top 10 companies 70 percent of the market.[http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7382208452914738738#_ftn1 1] Coupled with the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in a complete dumbing down of the political conversation and has subsequently left the public with few outlets truly committed to factual public education.

<div>Given this recent phenomenon, U.S. citizens have become increasingly ill informed about the very society in which they live and, more have lost their ability and desire to use their political and civil rights to advocate for their own well being.

<div> [http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7382208452914738738#_ftnref 1] Common Cause Report. The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned. May 9, 2005.</div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Media Conglomeration

2011-10-27T18:31:26Z

Creightt: Created page with "Effective and true democratic participation is predicated on the existence of a well-informed populace. If not democracy quickly turns into plutocracy. The populace is easily co-..."

Effective and true democratic participation is predicated on the existence of a well-informed populace. If not democracy quickly turns into plutocracy. The populace is easily co-opted by particular interest groups and at times even advocates against their own interest. And equally problematic, political demobilization and apathy become the norm, as the populace is unable to connect the dots between political activity and promoting their own interests.

<div>Up until the last several decades the government has played a vital role in regulating media broadcasting in order to facilitate competing viewpoints and the presentation of such viewpoints in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. However, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the federal government has abdicated this role, leaving media broadcasting to the whims of the market. For nearly 60 years the Federal Communications Commission enforced the Fairness doctrine, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance from multiple viewpoints. Under the urging of President Reagan, the FEC reversed this mandate, which would not have been completely detrimental if less than ten years later Clinton had not signed into law a bill setting the stage for the further monopolization of an already heavily monopolized industry. Passed with the intent of increasing competition, increasing diversity and decreasing consumer costs, the Telecommunications Act has actually led to the exact opposite. The legislation was supposed to save consumers a collective total of $550 billion in phone and cable services, but since its passage cable rates have risen about 50 percent and phone rates 20 percent. Moreover, just five companies, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, NBC and AOL now control 75 percent of all prime-time television viewing. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. The top two radio broadcasting companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, control 42 percent of the market, and the top 10 companies 70 percent of the market.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7382208452914738738#_ftn1">[1]</a> Coupled with the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in a complete dumbing down of the political conversation and has subsequently left the public with few outlets truly committed to factual public education. 

<div>Given this recent phenomenon, U.S. citizens have become increasingly ill informed about the very society in which they live and, more have lost their ability and desire to use their political and civil rights to advocate for their own well being.

<div><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7382208452914738738#_ftnref">[1]</a> Common Cause Report. The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned. May 9, 2005.</div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:27:42Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality] fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as [http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1 television and radio.] According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:27:17Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality] fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as ["http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1" television and radio.] According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:26:49Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality] fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as [href="http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1" television and radio.] According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:26:08Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality] fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as <a href="http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1">television and radio</a> . According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:25:43Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality] fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as <a href="http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1">television and radio</a> . According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:25:13Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">[http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality] fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as <a href="http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1">television and radio</a> . According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:24:48Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality] fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as <a href="http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1">television and radio</a> . According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:22:14Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 network neutrality} fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as <a href="http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1">television and radio</a> . According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:15:01Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951">network neutrality</a> fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as <a href="http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1">television and radio</a> . According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:14:10Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of <a> href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951">network neutrality</a> fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as <a> href="http://wiki.occupyboston.org/index.php?title=Media_Conglomeration&action=edit&redlink=1">television and radio</a> . According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:13:10Z

Creightt:

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:02:59Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of network neutrality fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as. According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

Strategies, Proposals, Positions

2011-10-27T18:02:07Z

Creightt:

This Working group is dedicated to discussing societal issues, determining their root causes, and responding with actionable proposals.

SCROLL DOWN to see links to on-going policy statement development. Note the dates to see where the current conversation is happening. And note which docs have been APPROVED BY GA. If a doc has not been approved, then it is DRAFT (in process).

CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED 10/27/11: [[statement of purpose|
(DRAFT) Statement of Occupation (aka "the Roadmap")]]

== ~ * JOIN IN * ~ on the conversation!~: ==
* '''Next ONSITE Meeting Time:
Monday, 10/31/11, 7pm, meet by the library tent, 7:15 move someplace quiet, like South Station!?
* '''ONLINE discussions/collaboration:''' 
** Wiki (Document Development and Comment-posts) 
*** SCROLL DOWN and choose a link. Note the "tabs" on each page. One for the page, and one for "posts" ABOUT the page 
*** For wiki access, pleas choose the "join this wiki". 
*** [[Practice Statement|Practice Editing]] a Wiki here.
** Email Group discussing specific policies/technical mechanics: [http://groups.google.com/group/occupy-boston-spp?hl=en]] 
*** EMAIL DISCUSSION HISTORY (this is under construction but you can track the history at the googlegroup homepages) help: Terra 978 808 7173, [mailto:occupybostonvol@gmail.com occupybostonvol@gmail.com]
* Take the [[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0|Issue Survey]] (You can only take this once)
** Link to the [[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart]|Survey Results]] (constantly updating)
---- 
'''GENERAL ISSUES (brainstorming and process discussion)'''
* [[statement of purpose|(APPROVED) Statement of Purpose & (DRAFT) Statement of Occupation]] - Our first priority is to create an inclusive umbrella statement of purpose; specific issues will follow next. The GA approved the "Statement of Purpose", click on the link to see the text (it's at the bottom, after you click the link)

* [[Warren Buffet Ideas|Warren Buffet Ideas]] [Note: this 'congressional reform act' is bunk. see here: <http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/congressional-reform-act-2011.htm> in other news, buffet has made a few cool statements: <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html> thanks]
* [[Other General Ideas|Other General Ideas ]]
* [[Issues|Issues page]]

All documents created by this Working Group are DRAFT until it is approved by the GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

'''SPECIFIC ISSUES'''

* Constitutional Reform
** [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|End Corporate Personhood]]
* [[SPP Economic Regulation|Economic Regulation]]
** [[SPP Finanacial Regulation|Ideas]] and general discussion about financial reform 
** [[CostOfLiving|Lower cost of living]] 
** Financial Industry Reform 
*** [[Banking Regulation and Structure Reform|Banking Regulation/Structure Reform]] 
*** [[Monetary Policy and Federal Reserve System|Federal Reserve System]] 
*** Trading/Derivatives 
*** Currency Control 
** Free Trade 
** [[SPP Tax Reform|Tax Reform]] 
*** Flat Tax 
*** [[Participatory Budgeting|Participatory Budgeting]]
* Election Reform
** Start a [[Third Party|Third Party]]
** [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] (is also linked under "Sovereignty & Law", below)
* Media
** [[Media Conglomeration]]
** [[Network Neutrality]]
* [[SPP Human Needs|Human Needs]]/Rights
** [[Healthy Food as a Right|Healthy Food as a Right]] 
** [[Clean Water as a Right|Clean Water as a Right]]

** [[Shelter as a Right|Shelter as a Right]] 
** [[Housing Crisis|Housing Crisis]] 
** [[Health Care|Health Care as a Right]] 
** [[SPP Education|Education]] 
*** Student Debt [[Education and Student Debt|Education and Student Debt]] 
** Opportunity 
*** Working Rights Labor Issues 
** Access 
*** Physical 
*** Knowledge 
*** [[Network Nuetrality|Virtual/Internet and Network Nuetrality]] 
* [[SPP International Relations|International Relations]]
** [[Amendment for Peace|The Smedley Butler Amendment For Peace]] 
** War/Peace
* [[SPP Sovereignty and Law|Sovereignty and Law]]
** [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] 
** War on Drugs 
** Third World Debt 
** Foreign Aid 
*** how it contributes to regional conflict 
*** food/medical service distro and contribution to deprivation / violent corruption

Reducing the Cost of Government
* Senior Executive Service (has it outlived its usefulness and/or is it contributing to unnecessary expenditure)
* Bring Congressional Benefits and ALL Gov't employees benefits in line with median worker
* Stop spending on "roads to no where"

=Links=
----
* View the Google Group discussion: [http://groups.google.com/group/occupy-boston-spp/ Occupy-Boston-SPP] ''[>Note: The wiki has the capacity to organize more efficiently than the Google Group, but it is unclear which forum has precedence, so please be aware of both.]''
* Contact via [mailto:occupy.ideas@gmail.com occupy.ideas@gmail.com]
* The Reforms discussion often takes cues from community generated media. Explore the [[Press|Press]] and [[Education|Education]]pages.
* View preliminary results of the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h2b1NawJhhmdXBOm9RySsZRcAIOcl4jhhMBV--CiIwU/edit?hl=en_US "Issues Survey,"] aiming to estimate the levels of support for proposals in general topics, by Joshua Sager.
* [[Education|Articles of Interest, and Issues from other Occupy sites]]

=Page Notes=
---- 
Move to rename: ditch "SPP," - adopt "Reforms": reforms is not deep enough, restructuring is better. 
This avoids the extreme vagueness of 'ideas' and the over-complication of 'spp.' I will try to post a broad announcement on the google group to invite further discussion. [TF: yeah, but we're merging the facilitation/ideas group w/SPP, right?]

 
Sections to be addressed: 
Strategies, Issues, Objectives, Finished Proposals, Tactics, Meeting Notes (and schedule), Background Info.

Who knows what this note is for? I can't figure it out. Can someone explain it, or if you authored, it erase it? 
'''"Rights"''' or '''"Corrections" (C)'''*
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Strategies,+Proposals,+Positions Strategies, Proposals, Positions at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T18:00:13Z

Creightt:

<div>
Advocates of network neutrality fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as television and radio. According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Network Neutrality

2011-10-27T17:59:04Z

Creightt: Created page with "<div> Advocates of fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as television and radio. According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neut..."

<div>
Advocates of fear that the Internet is quickly following the same fate as television and radio. According to the political activist organization Common Cause, network neutrality is:
<blockquote>
“the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.”
</blockquote><div>In essence, Network neutrality contends that the Internet should remain very much in its current form and fears that oligopolistic control wielded by Internet providers will eradicate its defining and revolutionary hallmark, openness. There are three major areas of concerned outlined by Common Cause.</div><blockquote>
· Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
</blockquote><blockquote>
· Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
</blockquote><div>If the government does not step in to ensure the continued existence of network neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the major players in the Internet service industry (i.e. Comcast) kill another revolutionary media medium, effectively placing its immense power into the hands of a select few. And before long Internet will all too closely resemble the dull, homogenous, biased content we have come to see on television.</div></div>

Strategies, Proposals, Positions

2011-10-27T17:55:09Z

Creightt:

This Working group is dedicated to discussing societal issues, determining their root causes, and responding with actionable proposals.

SCROLL DOWN to see links to on-going policy statement development. Note the dates to see where the current conversation is happening. And note which docs have been APPROVED BY GA. If a doc has not been approved, then it is DRAFT (in process).

CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED 10/27/11: [[statement of purpose|
(DRAFT) Statement of Occupation (aka "the Roadmap")]]

== ~ * JOIN IN * ~ on the conversation!~: ==
* '''Next ONSITE Meeting Time:
Monday, 10/31/11, 7pm, meet by the library tent, 7:15 move someplace quiet, like South Station!?
* '''ONLINE discussions/collaboration:''' 
** Wiki (Document Development and Comment-posts) 
*** SCROLL DOWN and choose a link. Note the "tabs" on each page. One for the page, and one for "posts" ABOUT the page 
*** For wiki access, pleas choose the "join this wiki". 
*** [[Practice Statement|Practice Editing]] a Wiki here.
** Email Group discussing specific policies/technical mechanics: [http://groups.google.com/group/occupy-boston-spp?hl=en]] 
*** EMAIL DISCUSSION HISTORY (this is under construction but you can track the history at the googlegroup homepages) help: Terra 978 808 7173, [mailto:occupybostonvol@gmail.com occupybostonvol@gmail.com]
* Take the Issue Survey (You can only take this once)
** Link to the Survey: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0]] 
** Link to the Survey Results (constantly updating): [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart]] 
---- 
'''GENERAL ISSUES (brainstorming and process discussion)'''
* [[statement of purpose|(APPROVED) Statement of Purpose & (DRAFT) Statement of Occupation]] - Our first priority is to create an inclusive umbrella statement of purpose; specific issues will follow next. The GA approved the "Statement of Purpose", click on the link to see the text (it's at the bottom, after you click the link)

* [[Warren Buffet Ideas|Warren Buffet Ideas]] [Note: this 'congressional reform act' is bunk. see here: <http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/congressional-reform-act-2011.htm> in other news, buffet has made a few cool statements: <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html> thanks]
* [[Other General Ideas|Other General Ideas ]]
* [[Issues|Issues page]]

All documents created by this Working Group are DRAFT until it is approved by the GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

'''SPECIFIC ISSUES'''

* Constitutional Reform
** [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|End Corporate Personhood]]
* [[SPP Economic Regulation|Economic Regulation]]
** [[SPP Finanacial Regulation|Ideas]] and general discussion about financial reform 
** [[CostOfLiving|Lower cost of living]] 
** Financial Industry Reform 
*** [[Banking Regulation and Structure Reform|Banking Regulation/Structure Reform]] 
*** [[Monetary Policy and Federal Reserve System|Federal Reserve System]] 
*** Trading/Derivatives 
*** Currency Control 
** Free Trade 
** [[SPP Tax Reform|Tax Reform]] 
*** Flat Tax 
*** [[Participatory Budgeting|Participatory Budgeting]]
* Election Reform
** Start a [[Third Party|Third Party]]
** [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] (is also linked under "Sovereignty & Law", below)
* Media
** [[Monopolized Media Channels]]
*** [[Network Neutrality]]
* [[SPP Human Needs|Human Needs]]/Rights
** [[Healthy Food as a Right|Healthy Food as a Right]] 
** [[Clean Water as a Right|Clean Water as a Right]]

** [[Shelter as a Right|Shelter as a Right]] 
** [[Housing Crisis|Housing Crisis]] 
** [[Health Care|Health Care as a Right]] 
** [[SPP Education|Education]] 
*** Student Debt [[Education and Student Debt|Education and Student Debt]] 
** Opportunity 
*** Working Rights Labor Issues 
** Access 
*** Physical 
*** Knowledge 
*** [[Network Nuetrality|Virtual/Internet and Network Nuetrality]] 
* [[SPP International Relations|International Relations]]
** [[Amendment for Peace|The Smedley Butler Amendment For Peace]] 
** War/Peace
* [[SPP Sovereignty and Law|Sovereignty and Law]]
** [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] 
** War on Drugs 
** Third World Debt 
** Foreign Aid 
*** how it contributes to regional conflict 
*** food/medical service distro and contribution to deprivation / violent corruption

Reducing the Cost of Government
* Senior Executive Service (has it outlived its usefulness and/or is it contributing to unnecessary expenditure)
* Bring Congressional Benefits and ALL Gov't employees benefits in line with median worker
* Stop spending on "roads to no where"

=Links=
----
* View the Google Group discussion: [http://groups.google.com/group/occupy-boston-spp/ Occupy-Boston-SPP] ''[>Note: The wiki has the capacity to organize more efficiently than the Google Group, but it is unclear which forum has precedence, so please be aware of both.]''
* Contact via [mailto:occupy.ideas@gmail.com occupy.ideas@gmail.com]
* The Reforms discussion often takes cues from community generated media. Explore the [[Press|Press]] and [[Education|Education]]pages.
* View preliminary results of the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h2b1NawJhhmdXBOm9RySsZRcAIOcl4jhhMBV--CiIwU/edit?hl=en_US "Issues Survey,"] aiming to estimate the levels of support for proposals in general topics, by Joshua Sager.
* [[Education|Articles of Interest, and Issues from other Occupy sites]]

=Page Notes=
---- 
Move to rename: ditch "SPP," - adopt "Reforms": reforms is not deep enough, restructuring is better. 
This avoids the extreme vagueness of 'ideas' and the over-complication of 'spp.' I will try to post a broad announcement on the google group to invite further discussion. [TF: yeah, but we're merging the facilitation/ideas group w/SPP, right?]

 
Sections to be addressed: 
Strategies, Issues, Objectives, Finished Proposals, Tactics, Meeting Notes (and schedule), Background Info.

Who knows what this note is for? I can't figure it out. Can someone explain it, or if you authored, it erase it? 
'''"Rights"''' or '''"Corrections" (C)'''*
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Strategies,+Proposals,+Positions Strategies, Proposals, Positions at wikispaces]''

Talk:WG/Strategies/Ideas/Declaration of Occupation

2011-10-27T17:20:02Z

Creightt:

== Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ==

:Oct 16, 2011 12:28 pm

As of 10/16, 3:30 pm

Occupy Boston Declaration of Occupation

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, economic, social, and environmental messes that demands a radical clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by a system designed to serve a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine:

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own and control the media we require to inform ourselves of their many abuses of money and power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::Oct 16, 2011 1:05 pm

10/16, 4:00, in response to DebakaAmberpaw's suggestion in this thread, I've revised the 4th whereas statement to include something about the legal system. How does it sound?

Occupy Boston Declaration of Occupation

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, economic, social, and environmental messes that demands a radical clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by a system designed to serve a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine:

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus which we require to stay informed of, and attempt to rectify, their many abuses of power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::[[user:

]] AriaLItthous

I think it's more important to help clarify where the movement is going than it is what it is reacting to; whether that clarification/vision/identity results in "demands" or a road map or not, it's still an important discussion to have.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::[[user:

]] JSkeet

It is a discussion we should be having every day, you're absolutely right. But it is not something that I feel belongs in an declaration of occupation. As I said in another thread in response to your very same argument:

This is a declaration of occupation, which is intended to outline general grievances and a path toward a participatory response, ie our occupations, GA's, and popular movements.

It is NOT intended to present demands. If it is your vision to write a declaration that also includes demands, that is your prerogative and I highly anticipate seeing it and the discussion it sparks. However, I know for a fact that it will not pass GA, as there are many people involved in this movement that do not want to see demands put forth at this time.

My personal intention in writing this was to get something together that I thought WOULD pass GA: a declaration in support of the principals of democracy and social justice that we COULD all agree on, something that will go a long way toward offering up a more cohesive identity for this movement and perhaps lend itself toward figuring out "where this movement is going," as you say.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::[[user:

]] AriaLItthous

Ask me about the day Obama spoke to the Chicago New Party, (I was there) and I'll tell you why I'm responsible for the downfall of US Rep. Stan Rackowski. And I made an important strategic change to the Roadmap:

The Boston GA is not being asked to consent to #5-16. It is being asked to consent to “ASKING all elected officials to....”

I made an important strategic change to the Roadmap:

The Boston GA is not being asked to consent to #5-16. It is being asked to consent to “ASKING all elected officials to....”

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::[[user:

]] JSkeet

Man, that made no sense. Anyway, I've got another update to the proposal, as of 10/16 at 5:55. This one is in response a suggestion by pcovery in this thread to change a part of the introduction:

Occupy Boston Declaration of Occupation

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, economic, social, and environmental messes that demands a radical clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by the interests of a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine:

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus which we require to stay informed of, and attempt to rectify, their many abuses of power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 just jumping in - "the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before" can be said of anything that happens from this moment on. Maybe just acknowledgement of this as a time of crisis is enough. I'm also wondering how "radical clean-up" will be translated. The more idioms can be avoided the better, imho and... "a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine". that's more than a little melodramatic and paranoid-sounding. The changes in the ability of the population to participate might be worth highlighting, but the "ruling elite" talk is bit much

I hope to have more constructive things to add going forward, just felt compelled to get that out. Thanks to all who have already spent time crafting this and building something pretty amazing down at Dewey Sq.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 10/16, 10:55 pm. In response to totaltrash's suggestions above, as well at to pcovery's in another thread, there are two changes in the introduction paragraph: one subtle one in word choice, and one more drastic one in the final sentence. I don't know if I'm 100% on that last one, but I wanted to give it a shot and see how it went by ya'll, because I do recognize the validity of the concern over how it was phrased. But the question now is, is this actually an improvement?:

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental messes that demands an immediate clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by the interests of a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response that's unrelenting in its application of the weathered refrain, with liberty and justice for all.

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus which we require to stay informed of, and attempt to rectify, their many abuses of power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 10/18: This is what we ended up reading at GA last night. We got a lot of feedback through the consensus process and will be editing the document in the coming days, but for now here's what we're currently working with:

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental messes that demands a thorough and immediate clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response the likes of which the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine.

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus which we require to stay informed of, and attempt to rectify, their many abuses of power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 Edited, Statement of Occupation

Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and immediate clean-up. The common root of this disaster is the domination of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of the wealthy elite. Because the actions of the elite threaten our lives, the lives of all the Earth’s creatures, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston have abandoned the usual channels of democratic action. The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective response. Occupy Boston is that response.

Because, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Because, this influence impedes progress toward a more just and sustainable society, perpetuates crisis and war at home and perverts democratic action,

Because, the pursuit of this agenda has an even more devastating effect on the more vulnerable and less empowered members of our community as well as on the ecosystems upon which our species depends,

Because, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus:

We have retaken the commons and resurrected democracy.

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic systems. We declare that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

 The mission of OB is to give birth to a just and compassionate body politic that treads lightly upon the Earth.

Our mission will be accomplished when these goals are met: 1. The US has a sustainable peace time economy. 2. The voices of the 99% are heard and acted upon. 3. The Earth’s rights are recognized as being on par with human beings. 4. In allocating resources, the US government priorities the needs of the 99% who are not wealthy.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 JSkeet -

Shorten wherever you can. The message needs to be crisp and not sound idealistic.

For ex:

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental messes that demands a thorough and immediate clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population. TAKE OUT - here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response. TAKE OUT: the likes of which the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine.

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our government. -- TAKE OUT: political and social lives,

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 Oh, and just a suggestion. Have someone who is involved in Marketing craft a simple and succint message. The above are just too many words to say the same thing different ways. You are going to cause words to be ripped apart and over-analyzed resulting in the MAIN MESSAGE being diluted, a very real danger to the movement. Messages communicated the wrong way can be divisive and can cause you to lose supporters and we can't afford that. SIMPLE, SIMPLE, SIMPLE and to the POINT...that's what I would recommend. Trim the fat off of this, state facts not ideological concepts. Yes, I want what's good for the "World" and for the "Earth" to be protected, but the fact of the matter is that your AUDIENCE is: the AMERICAN working and middle class Americans. This is who you are talking to and seeking support from.

Say the simple message is to "End the influence of money, corporations and special interests on politics" -

Then at the end state - "We stand in solidarity with all democracies around the world who encounter the same challenge - their 99% not being heard"

Thanks for "listening". I think you can tell I am passionate about a simple and succint message. It has more of a chance to be successful and less chance of being ripped apart.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 Is this the same group that's working on a Statement of Purpose, in another thread? Keep up the good work Jskeet, et al., you're getting there.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 Aria,

Let me know what you think of what I just proposed to JSkeet:

 OWS/OB & ALL Movements around the USA

"This is a non-partisan movement. We want to end corporate and financial influence on our government. Corporations should not have more of a voice and more rights than the American people. We demand greater accountability on Wall Street and greater responsiveness in Washington. We demand REAL change. We stand in solidarity with all the movements around the world protesting against corporate greed.

Let the voice of the 99% be heard!"

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 I don't think it has to be THAT short; you do cover most of the bases, but the language is choppy. What do you think of my changes to JSkeet's?

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 I do think it needs to be short...sorry. I like everything that is about the economy because that's what will draw most people. I would take out what is about the 'Earth' because although I too am for protecting the environment, I think it sounds too idealistic and may not appeal to a broad audience.

Shortened...

"Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and immediate clean-up. The common root of this disaster is the domination of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of the wealthy elite. The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective response. Occupy Boston is that response.

Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic systems. "

==== Ideas WG and Indiv. Proposals ====

::

 Hi,

I've been trying to convince the Ideas Working Group to set up a process parallel to theirs that would allow Individual Message Proposals (that conform to a consistent format) to be considered along side their Camel*. I'm not getting very far. Maybe a few more voices?

The basic idea would be to circulate/make available a form with slots for Mission, Goals, etc. with word limits, and allow individuals to fill in (all or some) of the blanks,and to make the resulting Message Proposals, written by individuals, not committtees, available to the whole community.

Honestly, I don't know if this falls w/in the the purview of the Ideas Proposal that was approved by GA, but I think it's a good one since it does actually allow real voices to be heard.

Thoughts? Anyone want to take it on?

A.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 - POSITIVE FEEDBACK - Thank you to the OccupyBoston organizers!

I like what OccupyBoston has posted on the General FAQ page as guidance to all supporters of this non-partisan movement - to communicate why most people regardless which party they vote for support this movement:

"What are you protesting? Most people who support Occupy Boston call for reforming Wall Street and removing special interest from government, but there no one single issue or demand that summarizes our movement. People are dissatisfied with how our country is being run and want fundamental, lasting change of many kinds."

Very nice OccupyBoston - thank you for communicating this!

Aria, I don't think a lengthy process as described above is needed for a Mission statement. We know what we want and we have to communicate it short and to the point for Statement of Purpose or Mission Statement.

What you proposed may be a good idea for an online forum for Goals, BUT it must it must be a content management mechanism that has ONE stream though (not a bunch of disjointed forums as we have on the Wiki). Without that it is very hard to collaborate, refine content and have an iterative process for improving language on Goals (and do like Goals better than Demands...)

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

Jskeet, can you please add a section on this page that contains the most up to date version of the Declaration? This section should only contain the most up to date version with no further comments so that newcomers to the conversation can see and work with the most current product. I would like to contribute but find it difficult to sift through the edits and I do not want to repeat things that have already been addressed.

=="plan our resistance" -->==
:[[user:Sage.Rad]] Yesterday 5:58 am
A quick point. Instead of "plan our resistance" i suggest "discuss alternatives" or "envision alternatives". I think it's baiting the authorities and alienating some of the public who may be sympathetic to say "plan our resistance" for reasons that seem obvious to me.

==I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Statement of Purpose as ya'll are envisioning it.==
:[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 12:25 pm
Or at least, I'm unsure if the statement of purpose that is intended to come out of this wiki process will just be a declaration of occupation, as this proposal is, or if it will propose specific remedies or demands as well.

In fact I'm even unclear about whether or not it is possible to have several SOPs coming out of this process - for instance one that does what this proposal attempts to do, and others that attempt to outline remedies, demands, etc - or if the goal is to formulate everything into one document.

If that is the envisioned process, I am strongly and principally opposed to it. Regardless of where I stand on the idea of making demands at this point in time (hint: I'm ambivalent, but generally in favor of it), I will not waste time in contributing to a document that will include demands, because I do not believe that it will pass GA. Instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, I'd prefer if we passed a document like this first, as its lack of demands or particular remedies is in perfect keeping with what I perceive to be the objectives of a declaration of occupation - that is, a document that expresses grievances, and proposes the beginning of a process toward rectifying them (our occupation movement!). Attaching demands to such a document, while perhaps feasible in other contexts, would in fact hinder our ability to pass anything of this sort. My opinion is that after over 2 weeks of occupying, we're due for something soon, and, as the consensus model reminds us, it's "Is this a proposal you could live with," not "Is this the very best thing we can come up with ever?"
====re: I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Statement of Purpose as ya'll are envisioning it.====
::[[user:anonymous-observer]] Thursday, 7:03 pm
JSkeet - please don't overthink it.

SIMPLICITY
It doesn't need to be perfect. It needs to be simple to appeal to a broad base, to draw a lot of people towards the movement.

GENERAL BROAD MESSAGE
There should NOT be a list of demands. There should be on singular demand that Washington will fix the mess we are in.

DON'T REINVENT THE WHEEL
Here is what was on the OB home page at one point (Saturday Marches Post): OccupyBoston demands (NOTE - one demand only...)
Quote: "greater accountability on Wall Street and greater responsiveness in Washington"

KEY POINT
The most common THEME on the BLOGS from supporters is ending the influence of money/corporations/special interests on our politics. Here are examples to support this.

BLOGGER 1
Downsizing corporate influence over the political process would be my best suggestion for a starting point- it covers a lot of ground while being fairly focused at the same time. Fix the political process and you solve a lot of the issues with Wall Street. "

BLOGGER 2
"That’s a good point. It’s really difficult to create a message that appeals to all of OB, as I’ve seen at the GAs. But maybe ending corporate/financial influence in politics would be a good starting point, as part of our overall protest against the broken system that has gotten us to this point."

BLOGGER 3
"What people want is the removal of the influence of money from government"

BLOGGER 4
"The removal of corporate influence, etc., is what drew me to the movement. Almost every thread on this site emphasizes everything but the main issue..."

BLOGGER 5
"...there seems to be a push by politicians and pundits for the Occupy movements to define specific policy changes but that would be a mistake. In my opinion, that would be painting the movements into a corner.
Look, PhD’s and Nobel Prize winners have been debating how to fix this mess since 2008 and there are still as many theories as there are economists. The politicians who ignored or mocked OWS last week are now asking for policy solutions? That’s like sobebody coming into your house, throwing your lamp on the floor and then demanding to know how you’re going to fix it!
For a public statement of policy I’d suggest something like, “Washington, Wall Street and Corporate America all co-operated in driving the country into the swamp we find ourselves in today. We’re not going to take it anymore. We demand that you effect systemic changes to redress the economic disparities that exist in the United States today. You broke it, You fix it. We are watching closely.”

Hope this helps...
====re: I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Statement of Purpose as ya'll are envisioning it.====
::[[user:anonymous-observer]] Thursday, 7:58 pm
Here is a DRAFT, short and sweet to pull all the suggestions above together and to promote the growth of a non-partisan movement.

OWS/OB & ALL Movements around the USA

"This is a non-partisan movement. We want to end corporate and financial influence on our government. Corporations should not have more of a voice and more rights than the American people. We demand greater accountability on Wall Street and greater responsiveness in Washington. We demand REAL change. We stand in solidarity with all the movements around the world protesting against corporate greed.

Let the voice of the 99% be heard!"

==Statement of Purpose==
:[[user:Charlie-Boo]] Oct 16, 2011 1:39 am
The displayed SOP with the "whereas" and "therefore"s is using legal language. We certainly don't want to copy the enemy.

1. All SOP should be about corporations causing unfairness and hardships among the people, or harming the country as a whole. That is why we OCCUPY WALL STREET (symbolically.)

2. No flaming "Fascist State" rhetoric - that says nothing and just turns off people.

3. You need to first ask for SYMPTOMS. Create a list of the effects of bad business behavior.

4. From the list of SYMPTOMS you develop a list of CAUSES.

5. From the list of CAUSES you develop a list of REMEDIES of the CAUSES.

6. You propose the remedies be put into law.

When and where do we show up to participate in a real brain-storming session? That is the onlY way you can develop your ideas - Oorganize, in person, interactively and analytically. I have developed computer systems for decades and I can show you how ideas are created and formalized - starting with the outline above.

Charlie V.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:bm_inboston]] Oct 16, 2011 10:11 am
I very much agree with the concern about flaming language. The statement needs to be STRONG and COMMANDING, but above all reasonable, adult, and digestible by the 99%. Radical hyperbole is the voice of perhaps 5% at best.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:bm_inboston]] Oct 16, 2011 10:59 am

Hell All,

We cannot hope to successfully address critical problems such as Wall Street reform, environmental concerns, health care reform, jobs, etc. as long as OUR (not “the”) Federal Government remains exclusively responsive to the 1%.

The SOP, therefore, ought to clearly and explicitly hold campaign finance reform [and/or a Constitutional Amendment (such as Sen. Kerry's or Rep. Edwards - Maryland) to permanently patch the gaping hole left by the Citizen's United] as a prerequisite, and as preparatory to addressing the myriad aforementioned policy concerns of average Americans.

We can plea for decades about housing, student loan debt, jobs, Wall Street reform, but until we cleanse our own governing process of heavy undue influence, we can be assured that NO ONE in D.C. will be listening.

This primary purpose of creating a more open and responsive Federal Government should be placed at the absolute center of the SOP for three critically important reasons:

1)It is something that Democrats, Conservatives, Libertarians, Socialists, and most others can agree upon. The movement will be killed (and ignored) if it is simply a list of demands from the left that plays like a broken record. The SOP needs to clearly invite all political views for a fair competition of ideas, and needs to fight for the same in DC. This ought to be an American Movement, not the Noam Chomsky, or Ron Paul Movement.

2)It is a logical prerequisite to addressing ALL other concerns. One must clear the wax out of government's ears before we expect it to be able to listen and respond.

3)It is highly actionable. An Amendment is already drafted, and floating behind the scenes of congress. This is “shovel ready.” If fighting the fight means marching out day in day out, across the country, collecting millions of signatures, one by one, pledging citizens to vote down members of Congress that fail to vote to send the Amendment through Congress to the states, then THE FIGHT IS ON – starting immediately. This is clear, actionable, and foundational to all other serious concerns.

Thanks, Brian M.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:bm_inboston]] Oct 16, 2011 11:02 am
Yes, Charlie -

When can we all meet up with a coffee and a white board?

(Good instincts)

Brian
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 11:55 am
Charlie, I am in no way trying to accomplish the lofty vision you have put forth for what a SOP should be. As I have said verbatim elsewhere: This is merely a declaration of occupation. It is NOT intended to present demands. If it is your vision to write a declaration that also includes demands, that is your prerogative and I highly anticipate seeing it and the discussion it sparks. However, I know for a fact that it will not pass GA, as there are many people involved in this movement that do not want to see demands put forth at this time.

My personal intention in writing this was to get something together that I thought WOULD pass GA: a declaration in support of the principals of democracy and social justice that we COULD all agree on, something that will go a long way toward offering up a more cohesive identity for this movement and perhaps lend itself toward drafting a list of demands in the future.

I would hate to see us wait another couple weeks trying to draft an SOP that accomplishes everything you want it to, only to see it shot down on the principled objection that it is presenting demands that not everyone agrees with. Let's start now, where we all agree, so we'll have something to point to while we try to hammer out the more ambitious position statements.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
bm_inboston, I admire your commitment to that cause, and in another context I may be inclined to agree with you on its importance, but this document is not meant to put forth any actionable items besides "Occupy!" That is our number one actionable item IMO, and although it's coming two weeks after the fact, a declaration of occupation is supposed to be a statement supporting that action as a valuable and necessary tactic in the collective process of rectifying the grievances that brought us out to occupy in the first place.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:bdkg]] Thursday, 1:37 pm
while cooperations are the domanate institution of our age they do not exist. in vacuum. if we focus too much on the corporations to the exclusion of other powerful institutions we may miss the message of our critique.

==Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation==
:[[user:pcovery]] Oct 16, 2011 5:49 am
In addition to disliking the overall tone of manifesto, I disagree with these parts, strongly:

"the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, economic, social, and environmental messes that demands a radical clean-up." The current situation in no way compares to the mess before the Civil War, or the Great Depression or even the uncertainty after the Revolution. Also, we are not in any way agreed on the need for "radical" anything. Similarly, this is overblown and will alienate a lot of us: "'business as usual' is no longer an option. The corrupt order, and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine."

"system designed to serve a wealthy elite" History shows there have been many interests and factors affecting our system. It is too simplistic to say it was designed to entirely suit one group.

"those pursuing this agenda also own and control the media we require to inform ourselves" This is outdated and irrelevant to your conclusion.

"our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance" Yet another controversial and unsupported claim.

I think it's important to keep our feet firmly planted in present reality and to build slowly within the existing system. Great disturbance will, justly, have little support because history has shown it to be a breeding ground for tyrants.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 11:40 am
Hey, I'm sorry for spamming the wiki with this proposal: when I wrote it there was no clear idea of where things like this should go, so I put it wherever I thought it would be relevant. A lot of valuable discussion was happening over at the SPP message board (http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/message/view/Strategies%2C+Proposals%2C+Positions/44258450), some of which I'll respond to here in an attempt to bring the discussion to one place.

To pcovery: I'm willing to alter the intro to speak more to contemporary history instead of the entire US history. I'll post the revision when I come up with it. However, I disagree that we have not more or less agreed on the need for radical solutions to our current problems: how else would you explain the popularity of a movement that has, thus far, firmly planted itself outside of the established political process, and whose language - in the form of the solidarity statements we write, the declarations some of our movement has ratified, the chants that we yell, and the actions that we take - is indeed demanding a radical departure from business as usual. I mean, did you SEE the document we passed in support of the Oct 15th day of action? Does that sound like business as usual to you, or that we are not clear on wanting a sharp break with the status quo? I wrote this based on the spirit of the movement thus far, that's all.

Also, I too believe that many factors and factions, not all of whom are wealthy, affect the society under which we live. I am not convinced, though, that our current economic and political system is fundamentally designed to cater to any of their interests over the interests of the wealthy, which is why I included that section.

The part on media may indeed be a weak point in the document. I'll consider revising, but keep in mind that I do not find it irrelevant to the conclusion at all, which is basically saying that it is only through a process like the one we have initiated with our movement - that is, a process outside the established and mediated channels of discussing political and economic theory and action - that we can begin the collective process of affecting the change we require. Again, I feel that the spirit on our movement is very representative of this idea. To be clear, though, I do not believe that our movement has a monopoly on the "correct" process for political and economic change - just that, if we were to rely solely upon established channels to be having these discussions, we wouldn't be having them at all!

As to the part referring to our assemblies, I believe it ties into my last point about the necessity for beginning these processes outside of established political channels, and I believe that if there is any lesson to be learned from the last year of political movements worldwide, it is that there is a widespread belief in just such a sentiment, as well as in the power of parallel democratic assemblies as a launching off point for sweeping change.

To Aria: This is a declaration of occupation, which is intended to outline general grievances and a path toward a participatory response, ie our occupations, GA's, and popular movements.

It is NOT intended to present demands. If it is your vision to write a declaration that also includes demands, that is your prerogative and I highly anticipate seeing it and the discussion it sparks. However, I know for a fact that it will not pass GA, as there are many people involved in this movement that do not want to see demands put forth at this time.

My personal intention in writing this was to get something together that I thought WOULD pass GA: a declaration in support of the principals of democracy and social justice that we COULD all agree on, something that will go a long way toward offering up a more cohesive identity for this movement and perhaps lend itself toward drafting a list of demands in the future.

To Charlie-Boo: We are all here because we are in general agreement that somehow, this system serves the few at the expense of the many. However, naming that system outright gets contentious and divisive: is it capitalism, is it the state, is the the fed, is it corporate influence in politics? This statement was meant to capture all of those sentiments and more in a way that was not divisive, and that rested upon a shared vision for a democratic and just society. Doing anything other than that is going to get whatever proposal you come up with rejected by the GA.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
Actually pcovery, I just looked over your first objection and attempted to alter it to speak more of contemporary history when I realized that it's actually already doing that. "We in the united states," implies those living here now. It is saying that this is the largest crises we've ever faced, and I believe that's true.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
I continue to strongly disagree and I believe that going down the path of this kind of manifesto will disqualify Occupy Boston from claiming anything about the "99%."

Point by point:
"We in the united states," may vaguely imply those living here now, but your claim still doesn't hold. 1963, 1968 and 1970 were all greater crises in my experience than the current situation.

Radical solutions are anathema to many, MANY people who have very good reasons to be highly suspicious of anyone claiming they are necessary. It does no good to explain offline that by "radical" you just mean that something besides voting. You are speaking to people who have seen the results of revolutions and the difficulty of building credibility for balanced systems. Freaking out every time a system gets skewed is a road many people have seen lead to disaster. Chanted slogans are fine to grab attention but they are far too naive and shallow to justify a position anywhere but on the margins.

When we talk of "design" of a system, I assume we're talking about the intentional framing of the U.S. government, amendments and legislation. This system is not designed to screw people over. It may have that inadvertent effect, but I protest claiming it is "designed" to be elitist.

You are indeed relying on established channels to have the current discussion. You're relying on the city's infrastructure and working people's donations to support the occupation; on the media to make the occupation have any effect on popular opinion; on the corporate and governmental systems to maintain food, order and expectations for future viability, as well as to turn popular opinion into actions. You are not nearly as revolutionary as you may imagine, thank goodness. Don't alienate people with unnecessary affectations of crisis.

I'm very supportive of OB, but I'm also very afraid of its spinning off into foolish rhetoric. Please don't go there.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
All radical as an adj means is, literally: Relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough. A radical solution to a problem, then, is one that prioritizes addressing the forces that created the problem in the first place. If you do not feel like the problems we face need a response that is far-reaching and thorough, what, may I ask, is the appropriate response?

I'm actually in favor of amending the "system designed to serve a wealthy elite," part, and replacing it with something like this: "While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by the interests of a wealthy elite..." This makes no claims about the original intent behind the designs of our political and economic systems, but still addresses the current reality of their subordination to the interests of wealth. Does that sound better?

I'm glad you feel that our movement exists within the procedural norms of our democratic process, and I think you're even correct in principle: we have a constitution that enshrines the rights of freedom of speech and assembly, and we are merely exercising those rights as an important part of the democratic process. This tangent was in relation to the whereas statement about media, though, and I'd like to keep on that point.

It is, of course, a powerful statement, one that is reflecting an often subtle reality: that the range of discussion and debate in this country is limited by the practices of for-profit media, and that media is (and this time not so subtly) being increasingly concentrated into the hands of a wealthy few. This arrangement presents us with a major hurdle when it comes to addressing abuses of wealth and power, and so I included it in the declaration to help set up the question of "why we occupy," which is addressed in the next whereas statement as well as the conclusion.

Also, there's no need to be patronizing. You are not talking to an ideologue here, and I am not someone who harbors illusions about how "revolutionary" I am. Of course, I do have strong and (usually) well informed opinions on the state of our crisis, but this document is actually a lot less reflective of them as it is of the tactical compromise that is inherent in this movement. And what amazes me about our situation right now is that even at compromise, this movement is assured of itself enough to make strong statements and radical demands, and that it's having the exact opposite effect of the alienation you're anticipating.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
Glad to hear you're not as much of an ideologue as you sound in the manifesto. Tell me you're also not naive enough to believe that "radical" in a political document means nothing more than "far-reaching or thorough."

Delusional people can make powerful statements. Whether the statement is true and useful interests me more. I think you are dead wrong in what is drawing widespread support to the Occupy movements; I think it is the openness of the agenda and the opportunity to include many points of view, not the radical demands, that are helping the movement.

Neither of us knows this clearly now in the moment, but I can tell you that I and pretty much everyone I know will back right away if the movement starts sounding like absolutist propaganda. I don't want to see the Right given such juicy meat for their skewers, and I don't think I'll live long enough to see the light at the end of the next 4 decades of backlash that such proclamations will induce.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] BurbanMom
The manifesto does sound to me like handing ammunition to those opposed to Occupy. I support Occupy and I am quite clear that what I object to is the degree of corporate control of our country through deregulation and a number of other dismantlings and tax code changes over the past 20 years.

If you want to write a manifesto that people will get behind it would need to be broad enough about the basic uniting reasons people attend or it will alienate people such as me. Your opening line about we in the United States have never seen simply isn't true and lends an air of inaccurate sensationalism to what follows. What is your aim in writing the manifesto?
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
I don't know, I thought radical meant what it meant. You equate it with revolutionary, I'm sure, but doesn't that just mean "radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc?" I'm sorry to poke fun but damn, aren't we by definition seeking a revolutionary change as well? Or are you not? I'm at a disadvantage here because all my cards are on the table, but I have no idea what you want to come out of this movement. Please, tell me!

Keep in mind too, that this is a declaration of occupation and that it makes no demands per se. But if affirming, in principle, a desire to see a political and economic structure that is more democratic and just makes one an absolutist engaging in lowly propaganda, then I suppose I am guilty as charged.

Anyway, give this process another day or two and see if what comes out isn't a more soothing call to action, ok? It's already being toned down significantly, and aren't we lucky you didn't see the first draft!
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
The aim for the manifesto is to rabble-rouse! No! The aim of the manifesto is to get everyone on our side. No! The aim of the manifesto is to get the people already on our side to start taking action. No! The aim of the manifesto is to advocate for incremental legislative change. Noooo! The aim of the manifesto is to capture and define the spirit of the moment.

Ah hell, now we're calling it a manifesto even!

To answer your question, burban, this declaration is intended to appease everyone ever associated, or anyone who may possibly be associated, with occupy boston without sacrificing too much in terms of principles or spirit. It doesn't mention capitalism, it doesn't mention any political parties or ideologies, it doesn't mention particular legislative demands, it doesn't mention particular grievances, it doesn't mention any hot-button political issues, it doesn't mention practically anything at all! It is simply a rhetorical device explaining that a large swath of people is upset with their economic and political situation, that the problems they face are urgent, and that they have a pretty good idea of who caused them.

If you can draft something that says that in a way that can get most of the people in the camp to agree with you, I'm all ears. Right now, this document comes pretty close, and I'm still revising it to address everyone's concerns!
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
LOL, I bet we're both glad about that 1st draft.

You don't have to go very far into the definition of radical before hitting "extreme," "drastic." And, as a noun, a radical is an extremist, using "direct and often uncompromising methods." You must know this; it's not a secret definition.

No, I am most definitely not seeking revolutionary change. I want to see some modest, thoughtful economic measures to be advocated so the Occupy groups can taste a measure of success and then develop their next legislative target.

Revolution absolutely will not sell, so I wonder why you would propose going that direction? Would you defend the results of revolutions, besides the very unique instance of the American one? Every other large country's revolution has produced a mess, and I can't even imagine that kind of mess if the US gets Civil-Warry in the current state of the world.

Any statement made officially by the occupation will contribute or detract from the credibility of the effort. Please, let's keep it realistic. Your declaration goes well beyond " a desire to see a political and economic structure that is more democratic!" That statement in itself is the purpose I gave this morning to a snarky opponent in a stairwell. I could totally support that!
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
I say we need radical and revolutionary changes, you say that's advocating radicalism and revolution! Le sigh... I suppose maybe it is asking a bit much of Americans to recognize the differences in usage of common English words. Consider "radical" slashed from the next draft, then.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
:) I'll look at it fresh tomorrow at lunch. Thanks for hanging in with this.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] anonymous-observer
Please, whatever you do keep it simple! There is a great book called "Make it Stick" and in order for a message to 'stick' it must be simple. We are all fighting against the influence of money on government. We are against corporate greed as a root cause for many symptoms like unemployment and the deterioration of life for working and middle class Americans. We are against business as usual in our working lives and politics as usual in our civic lives.

And why reinvent the wheel - look at what OWS is voicing. http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/
(This is a living document. you can receive an official press copy of the latest version by emailing c2anycga@gmail.com)

We should all craft the SAME MESSAGE - all the Occupy movements in the country. If as organizers you want to make a difference then don't craft a Declaration for Boston, but rather gather all the emails of all the organizers around the country and CRAFT A ONE LINER SIMPLE DECLARATION - PLEASE...this is the only thing that will make a difference. Standing united...
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/]]

The reason why we are writing our own declaration is because ratification of the OWS was blocked during the consensus process. I wrote this with the concerns expressed during that conversation and the ones that have followed in mind. I think it serves its purpose well.

As to that one liner, keep on brainstorming. It'd certainly be a powerful thing to get behind.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:Oct 16, 2011 10:45 pm]]

Try one more time - have Boston/NY take the lead to spread the message around the country. Contact them at OWS again with these suggestions. Trust me people are looking to OWS for some leadership and for a consistent message.

I wrote this to Noah in an email:

Hi Noah,

I am writing to suggest a new strategy for crafting the statement of purpose, which is to work directly with the OWS organizers to craft a SIMPLE / EFFECTIVE / CONSISTENT message that is ALL INCLUSIVE (aka non-partisan) and which resonates with the AMERICAN people.

I have been reading blogs on the various occupy sites around the country (USA) and a lot of people, working class and middle class Americans are behind you and some are wondering why the movements do not show solidarity and unity.

The solution is simple. Have Boston and New York take the lead. Contact your NY counter parts - I noticed this on their site:
http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/ NOTE: This is a living document. you can receive an official press copy of the latest version by emailing c2anycga@gmail.com. [?? Is this the right contact]

Rules for the Statement Of Purpose:

1. Simple Message: Succint (keep in mind that the more words, the more potential for people to mis-interpret and poke holes at it)

2. Consistent: Broadcast on EVERY 'Occupy' site the SAME message this will get the Media's attention and as a result the attention over there in Washington that this movement is here to stay

3. Effective: Promote a non-partisan message upfront (see example below)

4. Timely: Do not lose the momentum; we know our message - keep it simple and have OWS broadcast it to all sites so all supporters can get behind the cause

5. Targeted Audience: The American People
Note: It can be mention at the end that we stand in solidarity with all occupy movements around the World, with the same ideals but your main audience are the American people

Just an example -

"We are an American non-partisan movement, which is against the influence of money on politics and thus seeks to promote a separation of corporate interests from our government. We no longer wish to support business as usual in our for-profit establishments (corporations, colleges and universities) or politics as usual within our government. We demand REAL change. Let the voice of the 99% be heard!"

Best of luck! Be united if you want to succeed!!

A Strong Supporter

My demographic: An Independent / Middle-class / Middle-aged / Employed

IMPORTANT - get the SOP out in a timely manner so the movement doesn't lose supporters. Everyone is waiting for the STATEMENT OF PURPOSE and I would not waste any time in putting out a clear and concise message !
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:Oct 16, 2011 11:35 pm]] http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/
I sent the above message to their CALL TO ACTION working group at OWS and received the following response:

Thank you for contacting the c2a Team. If you are requesting a copy of
the Declaration of the Occupation, there is one posted in Google Docs.
You can download it here:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B-3axlz6o7heYzRjNDk5Y2YtMGRjNC00MjZlLWJjODctZmE0YjY3MDg0YTJl&hl=en_US
, or you can find a copy at our website www.nycga.net.

This is not a demands group. At this moment, no such working group
exists, and it is looking to stay that way.

This is not a subscription email, (although we're working on putting
together a newsletter). If you are from the media, and only if you are
from the media, please respond to this message with further
questions/requests for interviews.

The call to action working group meets every day at 6pm by the library
in Liberty Plaza.

Thank you, and have a great day!
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:anonymous-observer]] Oct 16, 2011 11:56 pm
JSkeet, you said "The reason why we are writing our own declaration is because ratification of the OWS was blocked during the consensus process."

You do have the power to influence that. The media will have a field day otherwise when they compare one declaration to another. OWS needs to step up and you can influence that. Do you have a contact of someone from that working group or maybe (if possible?)could some of you make it to Liberty Plaza for one of their 6PM library meetings?
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] anonymous-observer
I did not receive a response to the request for a united message sent across ALL Occupy Movements - a short and simple one.

I feel like the Wiki is becoming like the blogs with so much content all over the place. There is a sense of urgency to publish the SOP - a simple one that a broad audience can understand. I am repeating myself in multiple threads (since there are so many...) - in hope that the message that
MORE IS LESS resonates. Keep in mind that the majority of the audience are not academics. Look at the blogs - everyone is asking to end the influence of money on Washington.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] anonymous-observer
a-o, I agree with you that a SOP should be short, inclusive and punchy. I agree that we should get it drafted quickly, followed immediately by working groups on the various topics of interest under the umbrella SOP. Hopefully this weekend?
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
Thank you pcovery for supporting the idea that a Statement of Purpose should be broadcast with a sense of urgency. I also have a question for JSkeet since I am confused by this wiki and find it hard to navigate and manager content effectively towards specific goals (i.e. a collaborative effort to draft a SOP).

JSkeet - what is the difference between the Declaration of Occupation and the Statement of Purpose? Is this one and the same? There is some drafted SOP here:
http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/message/view/Home/44262084

Thank you.

==Equality, justice, dignity: a complement to the Declaration of Occupation==
:[[user:panagiotis1]] Oct 16, 2011 8:22 am
The following statement was written as a complement to Skeet's declaration, and is thus in the same spirit. It is a work in progress. There are elements in it that I think can be incorporated into a powerful declaration of the occupation.

We, Occupy Boston, are building a broad alliance of the discontented, the dispossessed, the alienated, and the exploited. As the 99%, we declare that the 1% will not make us pay for their crisis and will no longer corrupt the democratic process, depriving it of its significance. It is the democratic process that we seek to broaden and strengthen, letting people affirm their dignity by taking their lives and the wealth they create into their own hands, for the liberation of labor and humanity and for the progression to a more equitable and just society. As a precondition for the real democracy that we seek to establish, it is necessary that all individuals – irrespective of their race, sex, age, creed, skin color, or immigration status – are secured a decent level of healthcare, education, housing, income, and employment or retirement security so that they may participate meaningfully in the popular processes that we are developing in occupied squares throughout the United States.

We thus declare the urgent need for a society in which priority is placed on the free social and cultural development of all individuals, not on the maximization of capitalists’ profits, in which public goods and services are once more brought into the sphere of the commons, and in which workers democratically control the process of production, so that decisions regarding the allocation and distribution of our resources are made in a participatory and inclusive manner in the broader interests of our society.

In solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, the peoples of Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Spain, Greece, Italy, and Chile, and all those participating in this global uprising

Equality – Justice – Dignity
The General Assembly of Occupy Boston
====re: Equality, justice, dignity: a complement to the Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 11:45 am
I like what you wrote but am not sure how to work it into the document I submitted, and am also quite sure that many sections of it will prove impossible to pass through GA. In my opinion, if I were going to grab anything from this document, it'd be the first two sentences - I think they are beyond solid and clearly articulate just what is happening in this historical moment.

If you have any suggestions for how to merge the two effectively, let's talk - I'll be considering this myself.
====re: Equality, justice, dignity: a complement to the Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:panagiotis1]] Oct 17, 2011 10:45 pm
Yes I agree that much of it cannot (unless modified) can pass the GA, but its good to start with a lot and narrow it down. Hopefully I'll be by tomorrow, and if not because of work I'll definitely be there on Thursday all evening.
====re: Equality, justice, dignity: a complement to the Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:anonymous-observer]] Wednesday, 1:59 pm
The spirit of it is good and it is too ideological for a broader communication. Message needs to be simple and resonate with a broad base - the working and middle class Americans who are discontent with the state of affairs in our economy. FOCUS on the economy and economics is based on facts not ideological principles that would take generations and generations to solve. Keep the message simple so that solutions are palpable and reachable in the near future.

I am not the only one who thinks this - I am quoting another blogger right now (Saturday Marches):
" there seems to be a push by politicians and pundits for the Occupy movements to define specific policy changes but that would be a mistake. In my opinion, that would be painting the movements into a corner.

Look, PhD’s and Nobel Prize winners have been debating how to fix this mess since 2008 and there are still as many theories as there are economists. The politicians who ignored or mocked OWS last week are now asking for policy solutions? That’s like sobebody coming into your house, throwing your lamp on the floor and then demanding to know how you’re going to fix it!

For a public statement of policy I’d suggest something like, “Washington, Wall Street and Corporate America all co-operated in driving the country into the swamp we find ourselves in today. We’re not going to take it anymore. We demand that you effect systemic changes to redress the economic disparities that exist in the United States today. You broke it, You fix it. We are watching closely.”

State the ISSUE and a very BROAD DEMAND, which is that Washington needs to find some solutions - FAST...

Talk:WG/Strategies/Ideas/Declaration of Occupation

2011-10-27T17:17:10Z

Creightt: /* Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal */

== Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ==

: Oct 16, 2011 12:28 pm

As of 10/16, 3:30 pm

Occupy Boston Declaration of Occupation

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, economic, social, and environmental messes that demands a radical clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by a system designed to serve a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine:

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own and control the media we require to inform ourselves of their many abuses of money and power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

:: Oct 16, 2011 1:05 pm

10/16, 4:00, in response to DebakaAmberpaw's suggestion in this thread, I've revised the 4th whereas statement to include something about the legal system. How does it sound?

Occupy Boston Declaration of Occupation

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, economic, social, and environmental messes that demands a radical clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by a system designed to serve a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine:

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus which we require to stay informed of, and attempt to rectify, their many abuses of power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::[[user:

]] AriaLItthous

I think it's more important to help clarify where the movement is going than it is what it is reacting to; whether that clarification/vision/identity results in "demands" or a road map or not, it's still an important discussion to have.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::[[user:

]] JSkeet

It is a discussion we should be having every day, you're absolutely right. But it is not something that I feel belongs in an declaration of occupation. As I said in another thread in response to your very same argument:

This is a declaration of occupation, which is intended to outline general grievances and a path toward a participatory response, ie our occupations, GA's, and popular movements.

It is NOT intended to present demands. If it is your vision to write a declaration that also includes demands, that is your prerogative and I highly anticipate seeing it and the discussion it sparks. However, I know for a fact that it will not pass GA, as there are many people involved in this movement that do not want to see demands put forth at this time.

My personal intention in writing this was to get something together that I thought WOULD pass GA: a declaration in support of the principals of democracy and social justice that we COULD all agree on, something that will go a long way toward offering up a more cohesive identity for this movement and perhaps lend itself toward figuring out "where this movement is going," as you say.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::[[user:

]] AriaLItthous

Ask me about the day Obama spoke to the Chicago New Party, (I was there) and I'll tell you why I'm responsible for the downfall of US Rep. Stan Rackowski. And I made an important strategic change to the Roadmap:

The Boston GA is not being asked to consent to #5-16. It is being asked to consent to “ASKING all elected officials to....”

I made an important strategic change to the Roadmap:

The Boston GA is not being asked to consent to #5-16. It is being asked to consent to “ASKING all elected officials to....”

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::[[user:

]] JSkeet

Man, that made no sense. Anyway, I've got another update to the proposal, as of 10/16 at 5:55. This one is in response a suggestion by pcovery in this thread to change a part of the introduction:

Occupy Boston Declaration of Occupation

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, economic, social, and environmental messes that demands a radical clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by the interests of a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine:

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus which we require to stay informed of, and attempt to rectify, their many abuses of power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 just jumping in - "the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before" can be said of anything that happens from this moment on. Maybe just acknowledgement of this as a time of crisis is enough. I'm also wondering how "radical clean-up" will be translated. The more idioms can be avoided the better, imho and... "a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine". that's more than a little melodramatic and paranoid-sounding. The changes in the ability of the population to participate might be worth highlighting, but the "ruling elite" talk is bit much

I hope to have more constructive things to add going forward, just felt compelled to get that out. Thanks to all who have already spent time crafting this and building something pretty amazing down at Dewey Sq.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 10/16, 10:55 pm. In response to totaltrash's suggestions above, as well at to pcovery's in another thread, there are two changes in the introduction paragraph: one subtle one in word choice, and one more drastic one in the final sentence. I don't know if I'm 100% on that last one, but I wanted to give it a shot and see how it went by ya'll, because I do recognize the validity of the concern over how it was phrased. But the question now is, is this actually an improvement?:

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental messes that demands an immediate clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by the interests of a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response that's unrelenting in its application of the weathered refrain, with liberty and justice for all.

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus which we require to stay informed of, and attempt to rectify, their many abuses of power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 10/18: This is what we ended up reading at GA last night. We got a lot of feedback through the consensus process and will be editing the document in the coming days, but for now here's what we're currently working with:

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental messes that demands a thorough and immediate clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response the likes of which the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine.

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Whereas, this influence has consistently been used to impede progress toward a more just and sustainable society, and has often perpetuated crisis and war at home and abroad in furtherance of its own undemocratic agenda,

Whereas, the pursuit of this agenda has had profoundly detrimental effects on all working and middle class communities - and particularly on communities of color, youth, and other marginalized segments of our population – as well as on the environmental systems upon which our species depends,

Whereas, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus which we require to stay informed of, and attempt to rectify, their many abuses of power,

And whereas, our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance,

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain these oppressive and undemocratic arrangements, just as we declare our affirmation in the belief that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 Edited, Statement of Occupation

Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and immediate clean-up. The common root of this disaster is the domination of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of the wealthy elite. Because the actions of the elite threaten our lives, the lives of all the Earth’s creatures, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston have abandoned the usual channels of democratic action. The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective response. Occupy Boston is that response.

Because, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our political and social lives,

Because, this influence impedes progress toward a more just and sustainable society, perpetuates crisis and war at home and perverts democratic action,

Because, the pursuit of this agenda has an even more devastating effect on the more vulnerable and less empowered members of our community as well as on the ecosystems upon which our species depends,

Because, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or indirectly, the media and legal apparatus:

We have retaken the commons and resurrected democracy.

Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic systems. We declare that a better world is possible, and that it is our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

 The mission of OB is to give birth to a just and compassionate body politic that treads lightly upon the Earth.

Our mission will be accomplished when these goals are met: 1. The US has a sustainable peace time economy. 2. The voices of the 99% are heard and acted upon. 3. The Earth’s rights are recognized as being on par with human beings. 4. In allocating resources, the US government priorities the needs of the 99% who are not wealthy.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 JSkeet -

Shorten wherever you can. The message needs to be crisp and not sound idealistic.

For ex:

The times in which we live confront us with a combination of crises the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental messes that demands a thorough and immediate clean-up. While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of a wealthy elite, at the expense of the vast majority of the population. TAKE OUT - here and around the world, not to mention other living creatures on this planet. In light of these interlocking crises, which threaten our lives, our livelihoods, our liberty, our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, believe that "business as usual" is no longer an option. The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response. TAKE OUT: the likes of which the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine.

Whereas, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and crushing debt, not to mention corporate greed and unaccountability, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence money has on our government. -- TAKE OUT: political and social lives,

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 Oh, and just a suggestion. Have someone who is involved in Marketing craft a simple and succint message. The above are just too many words to say the same thing different ways. You are going to cause words to be ripped apart and over-analyzed resulting in the MAIN MESSAGE being diluted, a very real danger to the movement. Messages communicated the wrong way can be divisive and can cause you to lose supporters and we can't afford that. SIMPLE, SIMPLE, SIMPLE and to the POINT...that's what I would recommend. Trim the fat off of this, state facts not ideological concepts. Yes, I want what's good for the "World" and for the "Earth" to be protected, but the fact of the matter is that your AUDIENCE is: the AMERICAN working and middle class Americans. This is who you are talking to and seeking support from.

Say the simple message is to "End the influence of money, corporations and special interests on politics" -

Then at the end state - "We stand in solidarity with all democracies around the world who encounter the same challenge - their 99% not being heard"

Thanks for "listening". I think you can tell I am passionate about a simple and succint message. It has more of a chance to be successful and less chance of being ripped apart.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 Is this the same group that's working on a Statement of Purpose, in another thread? Keep up the good work Jskeet, et al., you're getting there.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 Aria,

Let me know what you think of what I just proposed to JSkeet:

 OWS/OB & ALL Movements around the USA

"This is a non-partisan movement. We want to end corporate and financial influence on our government. Corporations should not have more of a voice and more rights than the American people. We demand greater accountability on Wall Street and greater responsiveness in Washington. We demand REAL change. We stand in solidarity with all the movements around the world protesting against corporate greed.

Let the voice of the 99% be heard!"

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 I don't think it has to be THAT short; you do cover most of the bases, but the language is choppy. What do you think of my changes to JSkeet's?

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 I do think it needs to be short...sorry. I like everything that is about the economy because that's what will draw most people. I would take out what is about the 'Earth' because although I too am for protecting the environment, I think it sounds too idealistic and may not appeal to a broad audience.

Shortened...

"Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial, social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and immediate clean-up. The common root of this disaster is the domination of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of the wealthy elite. The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective response. Occupy Boston is that response.

Occupy Boston, acting in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples' movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic systems. "

==== Ideas WG and Indiv. Proposals ====

::

 Hi,

I've been trying to convince the Ideas Working Group to set up a process parallel to theirs that would allow Individual Message Proposals (that conform to a consistent format) to be considered along side their Camel*. I'm not getting very far. Maybe a few more voices?

The basic idea would be to circulate/make available a form with slots for Mission, Goals, etc. with word limits, and allow individuals to fill in (all or some) of the blanks,and to make the resulting Message Proposals, written by individuals, not committtees, available to the whole community.

Honestly, I don't know if this falls w/in the the purview of the Ideas Proposal that was approved by GA, but I think it's a good one since it does actually allow real voices to be heard.

Thoughts? Anyone want to take it on?

A.

==== re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal ====

::

 - POSITIVE FEEDBACK - Thank you to the OccupyBoston organizers!

I like what OccupyBoston has posted on the General FAQ page as guidance to all supporters of this non-partisan movement - to communicate why most people regardless which party they vote for support this movement:

"What are you protesting? Most people who support Occupy Boston call for reforming Wall Street and removing special interest from government, but there no one single issue or demand that summarizes our movement. People are dissatisfied with how our country is being run and want fundamental, lasting change of many kinds."

Very nice OccupyBoston - thank you for communicating this!

Aria, I don't think a lengthy process as described above is needed for a Mission statement. We know what we want and we have to communicate it short and to the point for Statement of Purpose or Mission Statement.

What you proposed may be a good idea for an online forum for Goals, BUT it must it must be a content management mechanism that has ONE stream though (not a bunch of disjointed forums as we have on the Wiki). Without that it is very hard to collaborate, refine content and have an iterative process for improving language on Goals (and do like Goals better than Demands...)

'''re: Up-to-date Revisions to the Proposal'''
user: Tyler Creighton

Jskeet, can you please add a section on this page that contains the most up to date version of the Declaration? This section should only contain the most up to date version with no further comments so that newcomers to the conversation can see and work with the most current product. I would like to contribute but find it difficult to sift through the edits and I do not want to repeat things that have already been addressed.

=="plan our resistance" -->==
:[[user:Sage.Rad]] Yesterday 5:58 am
A quick point. Instead of "plan our resistance" i suggest "discuss alternatives" or "envision alternatives". I think it's baiting the authorities and alienating some of the public who may be sympathetic to say "plan our resistance" for reasons that seem obvious to me.

==I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Statement of Purpose as ya'll are envisioning it.==
:[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 12:25 pm
Or at least, I'm unsure if the statement of purpose that is intended to come out of this wiki process will just be a declaration of occupation, as this proposal is, or if it will propose specific remedies or demands as well.

In fact I'm even unclear about whether or not it is possible to have several SOPs coming out of this process - for instance one that does what this proposal attempts to do, and others that attempt to outline remedies, demands, etc - or if the goal is to formulate everything into one document.

If that is the envisioned process, I am strongly and principally opposed to it. Regardless of where I stand on the idea of making demands at this point in time (hint: I'm ambivalent, but generally in favor of it), I will not waste time in contributing to a document that will include demands, because I do not believe that it will pass GA. Instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, I'd prefer if we passed a document like this first, as its lack of demands or particular remedies is in perfect keeping with what I perceive to be the objectives of a declaration of occupation - that is, a document that expresses grievances, and proposes the beginning of a process toward rectifying them (our occupation movement!). Attaching demands to such a document, while perhaps feasible in other contexts, would in fact hinder our ability to pass anything of this sort. My opinion is that after over 2 weeks of occupying, we're due for something soon, and, as the consensus model reminds us, it's "Is this a proposal you could live with," not "Is this the very best thing we can come up with ever?"
====re: I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Statement of Purpose as ya'll are envisioning it.====
::[[user:anonymous-observer]] Thursday, 7:03 pm
JSkeet - please don't overthink it.

SIMPLICITY
It doesn't need to be perfect. It needs to be simple to appeal to a broad base, to draw a lot of people towards the movement.

GENERAL BROAD MESSAGE
There should NOT be a list of demands. There should be on singular demand that Washington will fix the mess we are in.

DON'T REINVENT THE WHEEL
Here is what was on the OB home page at one point (Saturday Marches Post): OccupyBoston demands (NOTE - one demand only...)
Quote: "greater accountability on Wall Street and greater responsiveness in Washington"

KEY POINT
The most common THEME on the BLOGS from supporters is ending the influence of money/corporations/special interests on our politics. Here are examples to support this.

BLOGGER 1
Downsizing corporate influence over the political process would be my best suggestion for a starting point- it covers a lot of ground while being fairly focused at the same time. Fix the political process and you solve a lot of the issues with Wall Street. "

BLOGGER 2
"That’s a good point. It’s really difficult to create a message that appeals to all of OB, as I’ve seen at the GAs. But maybe ending corporate/financial influence in politics would be a good starting point, as part of our overall protest against the broken system that has gotten us to this point."

BLOGGER 3
"What people want is the removal of the influence of money from government"

BLOGGER 4
"The removal of corporate influence, etc., is what drew me to the movement. Almost every thread on this site emphasizes everything but the main issue..."

BLOGGER 5
"...there seems to be a push by politicians and pundits for the Occupy movements to define specific policy changes but that would be a mistake. In my opinion, that would be painting the movements into a corner.
Look, PhD’s and Nobel Prize winners have been debating how to fix this mess since 2008 and there are still as many theories as there are economists. The politicians who ignored or mocked OWS last week are now asking for policy solutions? That’s like sobebody coming into your house, throwing your lamp on the floor and then demanding to know how you’re going to fix it!
For a public statement of policy I’d suggest something like, “Washington, Wall Street and Corporate America all co-operated in driving the country into the swamp we find ourselves in today. We’re not going to take it anymore. We demand that you effect systemic changes to redress the economic disparities that exist in the United States today. You broke it, You fix it. We are watching closely.”

Hope this helps...
====re: I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Statement of Purpose as ya'll are envisioning it.====
::[[user:anonymous-observer]] Thursday, 7:58 pm
Here is a DRAFT, short and sweet to pull all the suggestions above together and to promote the growth of a non-partisan movement.

OWS/OB & ALL Movements around the USA

"This is a non-partisan movement. We want to end corporate and financial influence on our government. Corporations should not have more of a voice and more rights than the American people. We demand greater accountability on Wall Street and greater responsiveness in Washington. We demand REAL change. We stand in solidarity with all the movements around the world protesting against corporate greed.

Let the voice of the 99% be heard!"

==Statement of Purpose==
:[[user:Charlie-Boo]] Oct 16, 2011 1:39 am
The displayed SOP with the "whereas" and "therefore"s is using legal language. We certainly don't want to copy the enemy.

1. All SOP should be about corporations causing unfairness and hardships among the people, or harming the country as a whole. That is why we OCCUPY WALL STREET (symbolically.)

2. No flaming "Fascist State" rhetoric - that says nothing and just turns off people.

3. You need to first ask for SYMPTOMS. Create a list of the effects of bad business behavior.

4. From the list of SYMPTOMS you develop a list of CAUSES.

5. From the list of CAUSES you develop a list of REMEDIES of the CAUSES.

6. You propose the remedies be put into law.

When and where do we show up to participate in a real brain-storming session? That is the onlY way you can develop your ideas - Oorganize, in person, interactively and analytically. I have developed computer systems for decades and I can show you how ideas are created and formalized - starting with the outline above.

Charlie V.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:bm_inboston]] Oct 16, 2011 10:11 am
I very much agree with the concern about flaming language. The statement needs to be STRONG and COMMANDING, but above all reasonable, adult, and digestible by the 99%. Radical hyperbole is the voice of perhaps 5% at best.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:bm_inboston]] Oct 16, 2011 10:59 am

Hell All,

We cannot hope to successfully address critical problems such as Wall Street reform, environmental concerns, health care reform, jobs, etc. as long as OUR (not “the”) Federal Government remains exclusively responsive to the 1%.

The SOP, therefore, ought to clearly and explicitly hold campaign finance reform [and/or a Constitutional Amendment (such as Sen. Kerry's or Rep. Edwards - Maryland) to permanently patch the gaping hole left by the Citizen's United] as a prerequisite, and as preparatory to addressing the myriad aforementioned policy concerns of average Americans.

We can plea for decades about housing, student loan debt, jobs, Wall Street reform, but until we cleanse our own governing process of heavy undue influence, we can be assured that NO ONE in D.C. will be listening.

This primary purpose of creating a more open and responsive Federal Government should be placed at the absolute center of the SOP for three critically important reasons:

1)It is something that Democrats, Conservatives, Libertarians, Socialists, and most others can agree upon. The movement will be killed (and ignored) if it is simply a list of demands from the left that plays like a broken record. The SOP needs to clearly invite all political views for a fair competition of ideas, and needs to fight for the same in DC. This ought to be an American Movement, not the Noam Chomsky, or Ron Paul Movement.

2)It is a logical prerequisite to addressing ALL other concerns. One must clear the wax out of government's ears before we expect it to be able to listen and respond.

3)It is highly actionable. An Amendment is already drafted, and floating behind the scenes of congress. This is “shovel ready.” If fighting the fight means marching out day in day out, across the country, collecting millions of signatures, one by one, pledging citizens to vote down members of Congress that fail to vote to send the Amendment through Congress to the states, then THE FIGHT IS ON – starting immediately. This is clear, actionable, and foundational to all other serious concerns.

Thanks, Brian M.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:bm_inboston]] Oct 16, 2011 11:02 am
Yes, Charlie -

When can we all meet up with a coffee and a white board?

(Good instincts)

Brian
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 11:55 am
Charlie, I am in no way trying to accomplish the lofty vision you have put forth for what a SOP should be. As I have said verbatim elsewhere: This is merely a declaration of occupation. It is NOT intended to present demands. If it is your vision to write a declaration that also includes demands, that is your prerogative and I highly anticipate seeing it and the discussion it sparks. However, I know for a fact that it will not pass GA, as there are many people involved in this movement that do not want to see demands put forth at this time.

My personal intention in writing this was to get something together that I thought WOULD pass GA: a declaration in support of the principals of democracy and social justice that we COULD all agree on, something that will go a long way toward offering up a more cohesive identity for this movement and perhaps lend itself toward drafting a list of demands in the future.

I would hate to see us wait another couple weeks trying to draft an SOP that accomplishes everything you want it to, only to see it shot down on the principled objection that it is presenting demands that not everyone agrees with. Let's start now, where we all agree, so we'll have something to point to while we try to hammer out the more ambitious position statements.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
bm_inboston, I admire your commitment to that cause, and in another context I may be inclined to agree with you on its importance, but this document is not meant to put forth any actionable items besides "Occupy!" That is our number one actionable item IMO, and although it's coming two weeks after the fact, a declaration of occupation is supposed to be a statement supporting that action as a valuable and necessary tactic in the collective process of rectifying the grievances that brought us out to occupy in the first place.
====re: Statement of Purpose====
::[[user:bdkg]] Thursday, 1:37 pm
while cooperations are the domanate institution of our age they do not exist. in vacuum. if we focus too much on the corporations to the exclusion of other powerful institutions we may miss the message of our critique.

==Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation==
:[[user:pcovery]] Oct 16, 2011 5:49 am
In addition to disliking the overall tone of manifesto, I disagree with these parts, strongly:

"the likes of which we in the United States have never seen before: a toxic mix of financial, economic, social, and environmental messes that demands a radical clean-up." The current situation in no way compares to the mess before the Civil War, or the Great Depression or even the uncertainty after the Revolution. Also, we are not in any way agreed on the need for "radical" anything. Similarly, this is overblown and will alienate a lot of us: "'business as usual' is no longer an option. The corrupt order, and the intolerable crises amidst which we live demand a profound, collective response, a popular and participatory response of the sort the ruling elite can neither allow, nor even imagine."

"system designed to serve a wealthy elite" History shows there have been many interests and factors affecting our system. It is too simplistic to say it was designed to entirely suit one group.

"those pursuing this agenda also own and control the media we require to inform ourselves" This is outdated and irrelevant to your conclusion.

"our peacefully gathered democratic assemblies are amongst the last uncorrupted arenas we have to educate ourselves and plan our resistance" Yet another controversial and unsupported claim.

I think it's important to keep our feet firmly planted in present reality and to build slowly within the existing system. Great disturbance will, justly, have little support because history has shown it to be a breeding ground for tyrants.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 11:40 am
Hey, I'm sorry for spamming the wiki with this proposal: when I wrote it there was no clear idea of where things like this should go, so I put it wherever I thought it would be relevant. A lot of valuable discussion was happening over at the SPP message board (http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/message/view/Strategies%2C+Proposals%2C+Positions/44258450), some of which I'll respond to here in an attempt to bring the discussion to one place.

To pcovery: I'm willing to alter the intro to speak more to contemporary history instead of the entire US history. I'll post the revision when I come up with it. However, I disagree that we have not more or less agreed on the need for radical solutions to our current problems: how else would you explain the popularity of a movement that has, thus far, firmly planted itself outside of the established political process, and whose language - in the form of the solidarity statements we write, the declarations some of our movement has ratified, the chants that we yell, and the actions that we take - is indeed demanding a radical departure from business as usual. I mean, did you SEE the document we passed in support of the Oct 15th day of action? Does that sound like business as usual to you, or that we are not clear on wanting a sharp break with the status quo? I wrote this based on the spirit of the movement thus far, that's all.

Also, I too believe that many factors and factions, not all of whom are wealthy, affect the society under which we live. I am not convinced, though, that our current economic and political system is fundamentally designed to cater to any of their interests over the interests of the wealthy, which is why I included that section.

The part on media may indeed be a weak point in the document. I'll consider revising, but keep in mind that I do not find it irrelevant to the conclusion at all, which is basically saying that it is only through a process like the one we have initiated with our movement - that is, a process outside the established and mediated channels of discussing political and economic theory and action - that we can begin the collective process of affecting the change we require. Again, I feel that the spirit on our movement is very representative of this idea. To be clear, though, I do not believe that our movement has a monopoly on the "correct" process for political and economic change - just that, if we were to rely solely upon established channels to be having these discussions, we wouldn't be having them at all!

As to the part referring to our assemblies, I believe it ties into my last point about the necessity for beginning these processes outside of established political channels, and I believe that if there is any lesson to be learned from the last year of political movements worldwide, it is that there is a widespread belief in just such a sentiment, as well as in the power of parallel democratic assemblies as a launching off point for sweeping change.

To Aria: This is a declaration of occupation, which is intended to outline general grievances and a path toward a participatory response, ie our occupations, GA's, and popular movements.

It is NOT intended to present demands. If it is your vision to write a declaration that also includes demands, that is your prerogative and I highly anticipate seeing it and the discussion it sparks. However, I know for a fact that it will not pass GA, as there are many people involved in this movement that do not want to see demands put forth at this time.

My personal intention in writing this was to get something together that I thought WOULD pass GA: a declaration in support of the principals of democracy and social justice that we COULD all agree on, something that will go a long way toward offering up a more cohesive identity for this movement and perhaps lend itself toward drafting a list of demands in the future.

To Charlie-Boo: We are all here because we are in general agreement that somehow, this system serves the few at the expense of the many. However, naming that system outright gets contentious and divisive: is it capitalism, is it the state, is the the fed, is it corporate influence in politics? This statement was meant to capture all of those sentiments and more in a way that was not divisive, and that rested upon a shared vision for a democratic and just society. Doing anything other than that is going to get whatever proposal you come up with rejected by the GA.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
Actually pcovery, I just looked over your first objection and attempted to alter it to speak more of contemporary history when I realized that it's actually already doing that. "We in the united states," implies those living here now. It is saying that this is the largest crises we've ever faced, and I believe that's true.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
I continue to strongly disagree and I believe that going down the path of this kind of manifesto will disqualify Occupy Boston from claiming anything about the "99%."

Point by point:
"We in the united states," may vaguely imply those living here now, but your claim still doesn't hold. 1963, 1968 and 1970 were all greater crises in my experience than the current situation.

Radical solutions are anathema to many, MANY people who have very good reasons to be highly suspicious of anyone claiming they are necessary. It does no good to explain offline that by "radical" you just mean that something besides voting. You are speaking to people who have seen the results of revolutions and the difficulty of building credibility for balanced systems. Freaking out every time a system gets skewed is a road many people have seen lead to disaster. Chanted slogans are fine to grab attention but they are far too naive and shallow to justify a position anywhere but on the margins.

When we talk of "design" of a system, I assume we're talking about the intentional framing of the U.S. government, amendments and legislation. This system is not designed to screw people over. It may have that inadvertent effect, but I protest claiming it is "designed" to be elitist.

You are indeed relying on established channels to have the current discussion. You're relying on the city's infrastructure and working people's donations to support the occupation; on the media to make the occupation have any effect on popular opinion; on the corporate and governmental systems to maintain food, order and expectations for future viability, as well as to turn popular opinion into actions. You are not nearly as revolutionary as you may imagine, thank goodness. Don't alienate people with unnecessary affectations of crisis.

I'm very supportive of OB, but I'm also very afraid of its spinning off into foolish rhetoric. Please don't go there.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
All radical as an adj means is, literally: Relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough. A radical solution to a problem, then, is one that prioritizes addressing the forces that created the problem in the first place. If you do not feel like the problems we face need a response that is far-reaching and thorough, what, may I ask, is the appropriate response?

I'm actually in favor of amending the "system designed to serve a wealthy elite," part, and replacing it with something like this: "While each of these crises has its own determinants, they also all share a common root cause: the domination of our social, economic, and political order by the interests of a wealthy elite..." This makes no claims about the original intent behind the designs of our political and economic systems, but still addresses the current reality of their subordination to the interests of wealth. Does that sound better?

I'm glad you feel that our movement exists within the procedural norms of our democratic process, and I think you're even correct in principle: we have a constitution that enshrines the rights of freedom of speech and assembly, and we are merely exercising those rights as an important part of the democratic process. This tangent was in relation to the whereas statement about media, though, and I'd like to keep on that point.

It is, of course, a powerful statement, one that is reflecting an often subtle reality: that the range of discussion and debate in this country is limited by the practices of for-profit media, and that media is (and this time not so subtly) being increasingly concentrated into the hands of a wealthy few. This arrangement presents us with a major hurdle when it comes to addressing abuses of wealth and power, and so I included it in the declaration to help set up the question of "why we occupy," which is addressed in the next whereas statement as well as the conclusion.

Also, there's no need to be patronizing. You are not talking to an ideologue here, and I am not someone who harbors illusions about how "revolutionary" I am. Of course, I do have strong and (usually) well informed opinions on the state of our crisis, but this document is actually a lot less reflective of them as it is of the tactical compromise that is inherent in this movement. And what amazes me about our situation right now is that even at compromise, this movement is assured of itself enough to make strong statements and radical demands, and that it's having the exact opposite effect of the alienation you're anticipating.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
Glad to hear you're not as much of an ideologue as you sound in the manifesto. Tell me you're also not naive enough to believe that "radical" in a political document means nothing more than "far-reaching or thorough."

Delusional people can make powerful statements. Whether the statement is true and useful interests me more. I think you are dead wrong in what is drawing widespread support to the Occupy movements; I think it is the openness of the agenda and the opportunity to include many points of view, not the radical demands, that are helping the movement.

Neither of us knows this clearly now in the moment, but I can tell you that I and pretty much everyone I know will back right away if the movement starts sounding like absolutist propaganda. I don't want to see the Right given such juicy meat for their skewers, and I don't think I'll live long enough to see the light at the end of the next 4 decades of backlash that such proclamations will induce.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] BurbanMom
The manifesto does sound to me like handing ammunition to those opposed to Occupy. I support Occupy and I am quite clear that what I object to is the degree of corporate control of our country through deregulation and a number of other dismantlings and tax code changes over the past 20 years.

If you want to write a manifesto that people will get behind it would need to be broad enough about the basic uniting reasons people attend or it will alienate people such as me. Your opening line about we in the United States have never seen simply isn't true and lends an air of inaccurate sensationalism to what follows. What is your aim in writing the manifesto?
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
I don't know, I thought radical meant what it meant. You equate it with revolutionary, I'm sure, but doesn't that just mean "radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc?" I'm sorry to poke fun but damn, aren't we by definition seeking a revolutionary change as well? Or are you not? I'm at a disadvantage here because all my cards are on the table, but I have no idea what you want to come out of this movement. Please, tell me!

Keep in mind too, that this is a declaration of occupation and that it makes no demands per se. But if affirming, in principle, a desire to see a political and economic structure that is more democratic and just makes one an absolutist engaging in lowly propaganda, then I suppose I am guilty as charged.

Anyway, give this process another day or two and see if what comes out isn't a more soothing call to action, ok? It's already being toned down significantly, and aren't we lucky you didn't see the first draft!
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
The aim for the manifesto is to rabble-rouse! No! The aim of the manifesto is to get everyone on our side. No! The aim of the manifesto is to get the people already on our side to start taking action. No! The aim of the manifesto is to advocate for incremental legislative change. Noooo! The aim of the manifesto is to capture and define the spirit of the moment.

Ah hell, now we're calling it a manifesto even!

To answer your question, burban, this declaration is intended to appease everyone ever associated, or anyone who may possibly be associated, with occupy boston without sacrificing too much in terms of principles or spirit. It doesn't mention capitalism, it doesn't mention any political parties or ideologies, it doesn't mention particular legislative demands, it doesn't mention particular grievances, it doesn't mention any hot-button political issues, it doesn't mention practically anything at all! It is simply a rhetorical device explaining that a large swath of people is upset with their economic and political situation, that the problems they face are urgent, and that they have a pretty good idea of who caused them.

If you can draft something that says that in a way that can get most of the people in the camp to agree with you, I'm all ears. Right now, this document comes pretty close, and I'm still revising it to address everyone's concerns!
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
LOL, I bet we're both glad about that 1st draft.

You don't have to go very far into the definition of radical before hitting "extreme," "drastic." And, as a noun, a radical is an extremist, using "direct and often uncompromising methods." You must know this; it's not a secret definition.

No, I am most definitely not seeking revolutionary change. I want to see some modest, thoughtful economic measures to be advocated so the Occupy groups can taste a measure of success and then develop their next legislative target.

Revolution absolutely will not sell, so I wonder why you would propose going that direction? Would you defend the results of revolutions, besides the very unique instance of the American one? Every other large country's revolution has produced a mess, and I can't even imagine that kind of mess if the US gets Civil-Warry in the current state of the world.

Any statement made officially by the occupation will contribute or detract from the credibility of the effort. Please, let's keep it realistic. Your declaration goes well beyond " a desire to see a political and economic structure that is more democratic!" That statement in itself is the purpose I gave this morning to a snarky opponent in a stairwell. I could totally support that!
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] JSkeet
I say we need radical and revolutionary changes, you say that's advocating radicalism and revolution! Le sigh... I suppose maybe it is asking a bit much of Americans to recognize the differences in usage of common English words. Consider "radical" slashed from the next draft, then.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
:) I'll look at it fresh tomorrow at lunch. Thanks for hanging in with this.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] anonymous-observer
Please, whatever you do keep it simple! There is a great book called "Make it Stick" and in order for a message to 'stick' it must be simple. We are all fighting against the influence of money on government. We are against corporate greed as a root cause for many symptoms like unemployment and the deterioration of life for working and middle class Americans. We are against business as usual in our working lives and politics as usual in our civic lives.

And why reinvent the wheel - look at what OWS is voicing. http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/
(This is a living document. you can receive an official press copy of the latest version by emailing c2anycga@gmail.com)

We should all craft the SAME MESSAGE - all the Occupy movements in the country. If as organizers you want to make a difference then don't craft a Declaration for Boston, but rather gather all the emails of all the organizers around the country and CRAFT A ONE LINER SIMPLE DECLARATION - PLEASE...this is the only thing that will make a difference. Standing united...
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/]]

The reason why we are writing our own declaration is because ratification of the OWS was blocked during the consensus process. I wrote this with the concerns expressed during that conversation and the ones that have followed in mind. I think it serves its purpose well.

As to that one liner, keep on brainstorming. It'd certainly be a powerful thing to get behind.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:Oct 16, 2011 10:45 pm]]

Try one more time - have Boston/NY take the lead to spread the message around the country. Contact them at OWS again with these suggestions. Trust me people are looking to OWS for some leadership and for a consistent message.

I wrote this to Noah in an email:

Hi Noah,

I am writing to suggest a new strategy for crafting the statement of purpose, which is to work directly with the OWS organizers to craft a SIMPLE / EFFECTIVE / CONSISTENT message that is ALL INCLUSIVE (aka non-partisan) and which resonates with the AMERICAN people.

I have been reading blogs on the various occupy sites around the country (USA) and a lot of people, working class and middle class Americans are behind you and some are wondering why the movements do not show solidarity and unity.

The solution is simple. Have Boston and New York take the lead. Contact your NY counter parts - I noticed this on their site:
http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/ NOTE: This is a living document. you can receive an official press copy of the latest version by emailing c2anycga@gmail.com. [?? Is this the right contact]

Rules for the Statement Of Purpose:

1. Simple Message: Succint (keep in mind that the more words, the more potential for people to mis-interpret and poke holes at it)

2. Consistent: Broadcast on EVERY 'Occupy' site the SAME message this will get the Media's attention and as a result the attention over there in Washington that this movement is here to stay

3. Effective: Promote a non-partisan message upfront (see example below)

4. Timely: Do not lose the momentum; we know our message - keep it simple and have OWS broadcast it to all sites so all supporters can get behind the cause

5. Targeted Audience: The American People
Note: It can be mention at the end that we stand in solidarity with all occupy movements around the World, with the same ideals but your main audience are the American people

Just an example -

"We are an American non-partisan movement, which is against the influence of money on politics and thus seeks to promote a separation of corporate interests from our government. We no longer wish to support business as usual in our for-profit establishments (corporations, colleges and universities) or politics as usual within our government. We demand REAL change. Let the voice of the 99% be heard!"

Best of luck! Be united if you want to succeed!!

A Strong Supporter

My demographic: An Independent / Middle-class / Middle-aged / Employed

IMPORTANT - get the SOP out in a timely manner so the movement doesn't lose supporters. Everyone is waiting for the STATEMENT OF PURPOSE and I would not waste any time in putting out a clear and concise message !
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:Oct 16, 2011 11:35 pm]] http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/
I sent the above message to their CALL TO ACTION working group at OWS and received the following response:

Thank you for contacting the c2a Team. If you are requesting a copy of
the Declaration of the Occupation, there is one posted in Google Docs.
You can download it here:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B-3axlz6o7heYzRjNDk5Y2YtMGRjNC00MjZlLWJjODctZmE0YjY3MDg0YTJl&hl=en_US
, or you can find a copy at our website www.nycga.net.

This is not a demands group. At this moment, no such working group
exists, and it is looking to stay that way.

This is not a subscription email, (although we're working on putting
together a newsletter). If you are from the media, and only if you are
from the media, please respond to this message with further
questions/requests for interviews.

The call to action working group meets every day at 6pm by the library
in Liberty Plaza.

Thank you, and have a great day!
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:anonymous-observer]] Oct 16, 2011 11:56 pm
JSkeet, you said "The reason why we are writing our own declaration is because ratification of the OWS was blocked during the consensus process."

You do have the power to influence that. The media will have a field day otherwise when they compare one declaration to another. OWS needs to step up and you can influence that. Do you have a contact of someone from that working group or maybe (if possible?)could some of you make it to Liberty Plaza for one of their 6PM library meetings?
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] anonymous-observer
I did not receive a response to the request for a united message sent across ALL Occupy Movements - a short and simple one.

I feel like the Wiki is becoming like the blogs with so much content all over the place. There is a sense of urgency to publish the SOP - a simple one that a broad audience can understand. I am repeating myself in multiple threads (since there are so many...) - in hope that the message that
MORE IS LESS resonates. Keep in mind that the majority of the audience are not academics. Look at the blogs - everyone is asking to end the influence of money on Washington.
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] anonymous-observer
a-o, I agree with you that a SOP should be short, inclusive and punchy. I agree that we should get it drafted quickly, followed immediately by working groups on the various topics of interest under the umbrella SOP. Hopefully this weekend?
====re: Serious Concerns: Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:

]] pcovery
Thank you pcovery for supporting the idea that a Statement of Purpose should be broadcast with a sense of urgency. I also have a question for JSkeet since I am confused by this wiki and find it hard to navigate and manager content effectively towards specific goals (i.e. a collaborative effort to draft a SOP).

JSkeet - what is the difference between the Declaration of Occupation and the Statement of Purpose? Is this one and the same? There is some drafted SOP here:
http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/message/view/Home/44262084

Thank you.

==Equality, justice, dignity: a complement to the Declaration of Occupation==
:[[user:panagiotis1]] Oct 16, 2011 8:22 am
The following statement was written as a complement to Skeet's declaration, and is thus in the same spirit. It is a work in progress. There are elements in it that I think can be incorporated into a powerful declaration of the occupation.

We, Occupy Boston, are building a broad alliance of the discontented, the dispossessed, the alienated, and the exploited. As the 99%, we declare that the 1% will not make us pay for their crisis and will no longer corrupt the democratic process, depriving it of its significance. It is the democratic process that we seek to broaden and strengthen, letting people affirm their dignity by taking their lives and the wealth they create into their own hands, for the liberation of labor and humanity and for the progression to a more equitable and just society. As a precondition for the real democracy that we seek to establish, it is necessary that all individuals – irrespective of their race, sex, age, creed, skin color, or immigration status – are secured a decent level of healthcare, education, housing, income, and employment or retirement security so that they may participate meaningfully in the popular processes that we are developing in occupied squares throughout the United States.

We thus declare the urgent need for a society in which priority is placed on the free social and cultural development of all individuals, not on the maximization of capitalists’ profits, in which public goods and services are once more brought into the sphere of the commons, and in which workers democratically control the process of production, so that decisions regarding the allocation and distribution of our resources are made in a participatory and inclusive manner in the broader interests of our society.

In solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, the peoples of Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Spain, Greece, Italy, and Chile, and all those participating in this global uprising

Equality – Justice – Dignity
The General Assembly of Occupy Boston
====re: Equality, justice, dignity: a complement to the Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:JSkeet]] Oct 16, 2011 11:45 am
I like what you wrote but am not sure how to work it into the document I submitted, and am also quite sure that many sections of it will prove impossible to pass through GA. In my opinion, if I were going to grab anything from this document, it'd be the first two sentences - I think they are beyond solid and clearly articulate just what is happening in this historical moment.

If you have any suggestions for how to merge the two effectively, let's talk - I'll be considering this myself.
====re: Equality, justice, dignity: a complement to the Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:panagiotis1]] Oct 17, 2011 10:45 pm
Yes I agree that much of it cannot (unless modified) can pass the GA, but its good to start with a lot and narrow it down. Hopefully I'll be by tomorrow, and if not because of work I'll definitely be there on Thursday all evening.
====re: Equality, justice, dignity: a complement to the Declaration of Occupation====
::[[user:anonymous-observer]] Wednesday, 1:59 pm
The spirit of it is good and it is too ideological for a broader communication. Message needs to be simple and resonate with a broad base - the working and middle class Americans who are discontent with the state of affairs in our economy. FOCUS on the economy and economics is based on facts not ideological principles that would take generations and generations to solve. Keep the message simple so that solutions are palpable and reachable in the near future.

I am not the only one who thinks this - I am quoting another blogger right now (Saturday Marches):
" there seems to be a push by politicians and pundits for the Occupy movements to define specific policy changes but that would be a mistake. In my opinion, that would be painting the movements into a corner.

Look, PhD’s and Nobel Prize winners have been debating how to fix this mess since 2008 and there are still as many theories as there are economists. The politicians who ignored or mocked OWS last week are now asking for policy solutions? That’s like sobebody coming into your house, throwing your lamp on the floor and then demanding to know how you’re going to fix it!

For a public statement of policy I’d suggest something like, “Washington, Wall Street and Corporate America all co-operated in driving the country into the swamp we find ourselves in today. We’re not going to take it anymore. We demand that you effect systemic changes to redress the economic disparities that exist in the United States today. You broke it, You fix it. We are watching closely.”

State the ISSUE and a very BROAD DEMAND, which is that Washington needs to find some solutions - FAST...

Participitory Budgeting

2011-10-26T02:18:38Z

Creightt: moved Participitory Budgeting to Participatory Budgeting: mispelled

#REDIRECT [[Participatory Budgeting]]

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-26T02:18:38Z

Creightt: moved Participitory Budgeting to Participatory Budgeting: mispelled

'''Participatory Budgeting'''

At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

'''Proposal '''(taken directly from [http://participatorybudgeting.org/ The Participatory Budgeting Project])

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

'''How It Works'''

Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

'''Why should we have PB?'''

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

'''History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil '''

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

'''PB and Occupy Movement'''

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but I believe that it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 

'''Further Reading'''


http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-part%20II-case%20studies.pdf
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

Strategies, Proposals, Positions

2011-10-26T02:12:03Z

Creightt:

This Working group is dedicated to discussing societal issues, determining their root causes, and responding with actionable proposals.

SCROLL DOWN to see links to on-going policy statement development. Note the dates to see where the current conversation is happening. And note which docs have been APPROVED BY GA. If a doc has not been approved, then it is DRAFT (in process).

To join in on the conversation:
* '''Next onsite Schedule/Meeting Time:
(Most recent meeting was 10/24/11.)
* '''Online discussions:''' 
** Wiki (Document Development and Comment-posts) 
*** SCROLL DOWN and choose a link. Note the "tabs" on each page. One for the page, and one for "posts" ABOUT the page 
*** For wiki access, pleas choose the "join this wiki". 
*** [[Practice Statement|Practice Editing]] a Wiki here.

** Email Group discussing specific policies/technical mechanics: [http://groups.google.com/group/occupy-boston-spp?hl=en]] 
*** EMAIL DISCUSSION HISTORY (this is under construction but you can track the history at the googlegroup homepages) help: Terra 978 808 7173, [mailto:occupybostonvol@gmail.com occupybostonvol@gmail.com]
* Take the Issue Survey (You can only take this once)
** Link to the Survey: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0]] 
** Link to the Survey Results (constantly updating): [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart]] 
---- 
'''GENERAL ISSUES (brainstorming and process discussion)'''
* [[statement of purpose|Statement of Purpose]] - Our first priority is to create an inclusive umbrella statement of purpose; specific issues will follow next.

* [[Warren Buffet Ideas|Warren Buffet Ideas]] [Note: this 'congressional reform act' is bunk. see here: <http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/congressional-reform-act-2011.htm> in other news, buffet has made a few cool statements: <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html> thanks]
* [[Other General Ideas|Other General Ideas ]]
* [[Issues|Issues page]]

All documents created by this Working Group are DRAFT until it is approved by the GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

'''SPECIFIC ISSUES'''

* Constitutional Reform
** [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|End Corporate Personhood]]
* [[SPP Economic Regulation|Economic Regulation]]
** [[SPP Finanacial Regulation|Ideas]] and general discussion about financial reform 
** [[CostOfLiving|Lower cost of living]] 
** Financial Industry Reform 
*** [[Banking Regulation and Structure Reform|Banking Regulation/Structure Reform]] 
*** [[Monetary Policy and Federal Reserve System|Federal Reserve System]] 
*** Trading/Derivatives 
*** Currency Control 
** Free Trade 
** [[SPP Tax Reform|Tax Reform]] 
*** Flat Tax 
*** [[Participatory Budgeting|Participatory Budgeting]]
* Election Reform
** Start a [[Third Party|Third Party]]
** [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] (is also linked under "Sovereignty & Law", below)
* [[SPP Human Needs|Human Needs]]/Rights
** [[Healthy Food as a Right|Healthy Food as a Right]] 
** [[Clean Water as a Right|Clean Water as a Right]]

** [[Shelter as a Right|Shelter as a Right]] 
** [[Housing Crisis|Housing Crisis]] 
** [[Health Care|Health Care as a Right]] 
** [[SPP Education|Education]] 
*** Student Debt [[Education and Student Debt|Education and Student Debt]] 
** Opportunity 
*** Working Rights Labor Issues 
** Access 
*** Physical 
*** Knowledge 
*** [[Network Nuetrality|Internet]]and Network Neutrality 
'''''' physical 
'''''' virtual
* [[SPP International Relations|International Relations]]
** [[Amendment for Peace|The Smedley Butler Amendment For Peace]] 
** War/Peace
* [[SPP Sovereignty and Law|Sovereignty and Law]]
** [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] 
** War on Drugs 
** Third World Debt 
** Foreign Aid 
*** how it contributes to regional conflict 
*** food/medical service distro and contribution to deprivation / violent corruptoin

=Links=
----
* View the Google Group discussion: [http://groups.google.com/group/occupy-boston-spp/ Occupy-Boston-SPP] ''[>Note: The wiki has the capacity to organize more efficiently than the Google Group, but it is unclear which forum has precedence, so please be aware of both.]''
* Contact via [mailto:occupy.ideas@gmail.com occupy.ideas@gmail.com]
* The Reforms discussion often takes cues from community generated media. Explore the [[Press|Press]] and [[Education|Education]]pages.
* View preliminary results of the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h2b1NawJhhmdXBOm9RySsZRcAIOcl4jhhMBV--CiIwU/edit?hl=en_US "Issues Survey,"] aiming to estimate the levels of support for proposals in general topics, by Joshua Sager.
* [[Education|Articles of Interest, and Issues from other Occupy sites]]

=Page Notes=
---- 
Move to rename: ditch "SPP," - adopt "Reforms": reforms is not deep enough, restructuring is better. 
This avoids the extreme vagueness of 'ideas' and the over-complication of 'spp.' I will try to post a broad announcement on the google group to invite further discussion. [TF: yeah, but we're merging the facilitation/ideas group w/SPP, right?]

 
Sections to be addressed: 
Strategies, Issues, Objectives, Finished Proposals, Tactics, Meeting Notes (and schedule), Background Info.

Who knows what this note is for? I can't figure it out. Can someone explain it, or if you authored, it erase it? 
'''"Rights"''' or '''"Corrections" (C)'''*
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Strategies,+Proposals,+Positions Strategies, Proposals, Positions at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-26T02:10:16Z

Creightt:

Arts/Media/Education

2011-10-26T02:08:14Z

Creightt: /* Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world */

This is for GENERAL READING AND EDUCATION...to both help folks get up to speed on the issues, or to store reference writings/data/documentation for the issues/visioning/policy groups to refer to in their posts.
==Info and News about Money, Politics, Corruption, Corporations, Housing, (Un)employment, and the Economy==
=====Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world =====
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. - by Andy Coghlan and Debora MacKenzie New Scientist: http://bit.ly/qWB5sm Updated 13:15 24 October 2011,

'''"Anonymous" Inspiration''' 
[http://www.whatis-theplan.org/ The plan]

'''Charts/Numbers Framing "the Issue"''' 
[http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1 what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about]

'''This is the face of the 99%''' 
[http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.comn wearethe99percent]

'''Chart of the Day: These are the 47 Percent''' 
Brian Beutler 
''Talking Points Memo'' 
10/14/11 
[http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php]

'''Could This Time Have Been Different?''' 
Ezra Klein 
''Washington Post'' 
10/8/2011 
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/could-this-time-have-been-different/2011/08/25/gIQAiJo0VL_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/could-this-time-have-been-different/2011/08/25/gIQAiJo0VL_blog.html]

'''SWAT Teams in St. Louis Protecting Bank of America; Refusing Customer Withdrawals''' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Db_P0wHsSz0# http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Db_P0wHsSz0#]

'''Group Pushes for Corporate Tax Holiday''' 
''NPR'' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.npr.org/2011/10/04/141054578/group-pushes-for-corporate-tax-holiday http://www.npr.org/2011/10/04/141054578/group-pushes-for-corporate-tax-holiday]

'''5 Facts You Should Know About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans''' 
Zaid Jilani 
''ThinkProgress'' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans]

'''The Reign of the One Percenters''' 
''Orion Magazine'' 
9/10/2011 
[http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6470 http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6470] 
Author’s postscript/response to Occupy Wall Street: [http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/newsfrom187/entry/6518 http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/newsfrom187/entry/6518]

'''Good capitalism does exist. And it's more crucial now than ever''' 
Will Hutton 
''The Guardian Observer'' 
10/1/2011 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/will-hutton-ed-miliband-new-capitalism http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/will-hutton-ed-miliband-new-capitalism]

'''The Truth About “Class War” in America''' 
Richard D. Wolff 
9/28/2011 
[http://www.zcommunications.org/the-truth-about-class-war-in-america-by-richard-d-wolff http://www.zcommunications.org/the-truth-about-class-war-in-america-by-richard-d-wolff]

'''The Curse of Tina''' 
Adam Curtis 
''BBC's Adam Curtis Blog'' 
9/13/2011 
Blog post on the creation and proliferation of neoliberal think tanks 
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html]

'''Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal''' 
Matt Taibbi 
''Rolling Stone'' 
8/24/11 
[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824]

'''Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans''' 
''Bloomberg'' 
8/21/11 
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html]

'''Dylan Ratigan’s Mad As Hell Moment''' 
''MSNBC'' 
8/2011 
[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-mad-as-hell-moment.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-mad-as-hell-moment.html]

'''How to fix America's jobs crisis''' 
Fareed Zakaria 
''CNN'' 
6/5/2011 
[http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fareeds-take-how-to-fix-americas-jobs-crisis http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fareeds-take-how-to-fix-americas-jobs-crisis]

'''Debt Crisis Hangs Over Washington Politics''' 
Mara Liasson 
''NPR'' 
4/29/11 
[http://www.npr.org/2011/04/29/135829375/debt-crisis-hangs-over-washington-politics http://www.npr.org/2011/04/29/135829375/debt-crisis-hangs-over-washington-politics]

'''Michael Lewis Drops Some Wisdom on Wall Street''' 
Michael Lewis 
''Columbia Journalism Review'' 
3/15/2010 
[http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_lewis_drops_some_wisdo.php http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_lewis_drops_some_wisdo.php]

'''The Quiet Coup''' 
Simon Johnson 
''The Atlantic'' 
5/2009 
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/]

'''How Washington's Bailout Will Boost Wall Street Bonuses''' 
Stephen Gandel 
''Time'' 
10/27/2008 
[http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853846,00.html#ixzz1ZgCSAOVZ http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853846,00.html#ixzz1ZgCSAOVZ]

'''The Giant Pool of Money''' 
''This American Life and NPR's Planet Money'' 
5/9/2008 
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money]

'''Return to the Giant Pool of Mone'''y 
''This American Life and NPR’s Planet Money'' 
9/25/2009 
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-pool-of-money http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-pool-of-money]

'''Planet Money’s blog''' 
''NPR'' 
September 2008 - present 
Comprehensive explanation of how our economic system works. 
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/]

'''Thinking About Empowered Participatory Democracy''' 
Erik Olin Wright and Archon Fung 
2003 
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf

'''Envisioning Real Utopias''' 
Erik Olin Wright 
2009 
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/ERU.htm

'''A global assessment of wealth and wellbeing''' 
[http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=US http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=US]

'''Why tax havens cause poverty''' 
[http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/ http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/]

'''Widely acclaimed report on tax havens, banking secrecy jurisdictions, etc.''' 
[http://www.amazon.com/Tax-Havens-Globalization-Cornell-Studies/dp/0801476127/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317858538&sr=1-5 http://www.amazon.com/Tax-Havens-Globalization-Cornell-Studies/dp/0801476127/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317858538&sr=1-5]

'''Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1996-2000''' 
[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGNlOWMxMzItMjIzNy00MDA1LWJjZTYtMTExNDMxMTBhYjhj&hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGNlOWMxMzItMjIzNy00MDA1LWJjZTYtMTExNDMxMTBhYjhj&hl=en_US]

'''Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005''' 
[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGJjMTU3NDAtOTI1OS00YjlmLTg0OTYtOTZiYTIwMjRhN2Mw&hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGJjMTU3NDAtOTI1OS00YjlmLTg0OTYtOTZiYTIwMjRhN2Mw&hl=en_US]

-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Education Education at wikispaces]''

Arts/Media/Education

2011-10-26T02:06:17Z

Creightt: /* Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world */

This is for GENERAL READING AND EDUCATION...to both help folks get up to speed on the issues, or to store reference writings/data/documentation for the issues/visioning/policy groups to refer to in their posts.
==Info and News about Money, Politics, Corruption, Corporations, Housing, (Un)employment, and the Economy==
=====Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world =====
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. - by Andy Coghlan and Debora MacKenzie New Scientist: http://bit.ly/qWB5sm Updated 13:15 24 October 2011,

'''"Anonymous" Inspiration''' 
[http://www.whatis-theplan.org/ The plan]

'''Charts/Numbers Framing "the Issue"''' 
[http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1 what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about]

'''This is the face of the 99%''' 
[http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.comn wearethe99percent]

'''Chart of the Day: These are the 47 Percent''' 
Brian Beutler 
''Talking Points Memo'' 
10/14/11 
[http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php]

'''Could This Time Have Been Different?''' 
Ezra Klein 
''Washington Post'' 
10/8/2011 
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/could-this-time-have-been-different/2011/08/25/gIQAiJo0VL_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/could-this-time-have-been-different/2011/08/25/gIQAiJo0VL_blog.html]

'''SWAT Teams in St. Louis Protecting Bank of America; Refusing Customer Withdrawals''' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Db_P0wHsSz0# http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Db_P0wHsSz0#]

'''Group Pushes for Corporate Tax Holiday''' 
''NPR'' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.npr.org/2011/10/04/141054578/group-pushes-for-corporate-tax-holiday http://www.npr.org/2011/10/04/141054578/group-pushes-for-corporate-tax-holiday]

'''5 Facts You Should Know About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans''' 
Zaid Jilani 
''ThinkProgress'' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans]

'''The Reign of the One Percenters''' 
''Orion Magazine'' 
9/10/2011 
[http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6470 http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6470] 
Author’s postscript/response to Occupy Wall Street: [http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/newsfrom187/entry/6518 http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/newsfrom187/entry/6518]

'''Good capitalism does exist. And it's more crucial now than ever''' 
Will Hutton 
''The Guardian Observer'' 
10/1/2011 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/will-hutton-ed-miliband-new-capitalism http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/will-hutton-ed-miliband-new-capitalism]

'''The Truth About “Class War” in America''' 
Richard D. Wolff 
9/28/2011 
[http://www.zcommunications.org/the-truth-about-class-war-in-america-by-richard-d-wolff http://www.zcommunications.org/the-truth-about-class-war-in-america-by-richard-d-wolff]

'''The Curse of Tina''' 
Adam Curtis 
''BBC's Adam Curtis Blog'' 
9/13/2011 
Blog post on the creation and proliferation of neoliberal think tanks 
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html]

'''Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal''' 
Matt Taibbi 
''Rolling Stone'' 
8/24/11 
[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824]

'''Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans''' 
''Bloomberg'' 
8/21/11 
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html]

'''Dylan Ratigan’s Mad As Hell Moment''' 
''MSNBC'' 
8/2011 
[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-mad-as-hell-moment.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-mad-as-hell-moment.html]

'''How to fix America's jobs crisis''' 
Fareed Zakaria 
''CNN'' 
6/5/2011 
[http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fareeds-take-how-to-fix-americas-jobs-crisis http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fareeds-take-how-to-fix-americas-jobs-crisis]

'''Debt Crisis Hangs Over Washington Politics''' 
Mara Liasson 
''NPR'' 
4/29/11 
[http://www.npr.org/2011/04/29/135829375/debt-crisis-hangs-over-washington-politics http://www.npr.org/2011/04/29/135829375/debt-crisis-hangs-over-washington-politics]

'''Michael Lewis Drops Some Wisdom on Wall Street''' 
Michael Lewis 
''Columbia Journalism Review'' 
3/15/2010 
[http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_lewis_drops_some_wisdo.php http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_lewis_drops_some_wisdo.php]

'''The Quiet Coup''' 
Simon Johnson 
''The Atlantic'' 
5/2009 
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/]

'''How Washington's Bailout Will Boost Wall Street Bonuses''' 
Stephen Gandel 
''Time'' 
10/27/2008 
[http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853846,00.html#ixzz1ZgCSAOVZ http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853846,00.html#ixzz1ZgCSAOVZ]

'''The Giant Pool of Money''' 
''This American Life and NPR's Planet Money'' 
5/9/2008 
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money]

'''Return to the Giant Pool of Mone'''y 
''This American Life and NPR’s Planet Money'' 
9/25/2009 
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-pool-of-money http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-pool-of-money]

'''Planet Money’s blog''' 
''NPR'' 
September 2008 - present 
Comprehensive explanation of how our economic system works. 
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/]

'''Thinking About Empowered Participatory Democracy''' 
Erik Olin Wright and Archon Fung 
2003 
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf

'''A global assessment of wealth and wellbeing''' 
[http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=US http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=US]

'''Why tax havens cause poverty''' 
[http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/ http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/]

'''Widely acclaimed report on tax havens, banking secrecy jurisdictions, etc.''' 
[http://www.amazon.com/Tax-Havens-Globalization-Cornell-Studies/dp/0801476127/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317858538&sr=1-5 http://www.amazon.com/Tax-Havens-Globalization-Cornell-Studies/dp/0801476127/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317858538&sr=1-5]

'''Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1996-2000''' 
[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGNlOWMxMzItMjIzNy00MDA1LWJjZTYtMTExNDMxMTBhYjhj&hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGNlOWMxMzItMjIzNy00MDA1LWJjZTYtMTExNDMxMTBhYjhj&hl=en_US]

'''Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005''' 
[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGJjMTU3NDAtOTI1OS00YjlmLTg0OTYtOTZiYTIwMjRhN2Mw&hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGJjMTU3NDAtOTI1OS00YjlmLTg0OTYtOTZiYTIwMjRhN2Mw&hl=en_US]

-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Education Education at wikispaces]''

Arts/Media/Education

2011-10-26T02:04:34Z

Creightt: /* Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world */

This is for GENERAL READING AND EDUCATION...to both help folks get up to speed on the issues, or to store reference writings/data/documentation for the issues/visioning/policy groups to refer to in their posts.
==Info and News about Money, Politics, Corruption, Corporations, Housing, (Un)employment, and the Economy==
=====Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world =====
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. - by Andy Coghlan and Debora MacKenzie New Scientist: http://bit.ly/qWB5sm Updated 13:15 24 October 2011,

'''"Anonymous" Inspiration''' 
[http://www.whatis-theplan.org/ The plan]

'''Charts/Numbers Framing "the Issue"''' 
[http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1 what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about]

'''This is the face of the 99%''' 
[http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.comn wearethe99percent]

'''Chart of the Day: These are the 47 Percent''' 
Brian Beutler 
''Talking Points Memo'' 
10/14/11 
[http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php]

'''Could This Time Have Been Different?''' 
Ezra Klein 
''Washington Post'' 
10/8/2011 
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/could-this-time-have-been-different/2011/08/25/gIQAiJo0VL_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/could-this-time-have-been-different/2011/08/25/gIQAiJo0VL_blog.html]

'''SWAT Teams in St. Louis Protecting Bank of America; Refusing Customer Withdrawals''' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Db_P0wHsSz0# http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Db_P0wHsSz0#]

'''Group Pushes for Corporate Tax Holiday''' 
''NPR'' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.npr.org/2011/10/04/141054578/group-pushes-for-corporate-tax-holiday http://www.npr.org/2011/10/04/141054578/group-pushes-for-corporate-tax-holiday]

'''5 Facts You Should Know About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans''' 
Zaid Jilani 
''ThinkProgress'' 
10/4/11 
[http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans]

'''The Reign of the One Percenters''' 
''Orion Magazine'' 
9/10/2011 
[http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6470 http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6470] 
Author’s postscript/response to Occupy Wall Street: [http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/newsfrom187/entry/6518 http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/newsfrom187/entry/6518]

'''Good capitalism does exist. And it's more crucial now than ever''' 
Will Hutton 
''The Guardian Observer'' 
10/1/2011 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/will-hutton-ed-miliband-new-capitalism http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/will-hutton-ed-miliband-new-capitalism]

'''The Truth About “Class War” in America''' 
Richard D. Wolff 
9/28/2011 
[http://www.zcommunications.org/the-truth-about-class-war-in-america-by-richard-d-wolff http://www.zcommunications.org/the-truth-about-class-war-in-america-by-richard-d-wolff]

'''The Curse of Tina''' 
Adam Curtis 
''BBC's Adam Curtis Blog'' 
9/13/2011 
Blog post on the creation and proliferation of neoliberal think tanks 
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html]

'''Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal''' 
Matt Taibbi 
''Rolling Stone'' 
8/24/11 
[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824]

'''Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans''' 
''Bloomberg'' 
8/21/11 
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html]

'''Dylan Ratigan’s Mad As Hell Moment''' 
''MSNBC'' 
8/2011 
[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-mad-as-hell-moment.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-mad-as-hell-moment.html]

'''How to fix America's jobs crisis''' 
Fareed Zakaria 
''CNN'' 
6/5/2011 
[http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fareeds-take-how-to-fix-americas-jobs-crisis http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fareeds-take-how-to-fix-americas-jobs-crisis]

'''Debt Crisis Hangs Over Washington Politics''' 
Mara Liasson 
''NPR'' 
4/29/11 
[http://www.npr.org/2011/04/29/135829375/debt-crisis-hangs-over-washington-politics http://www.npr.org/2011/04/29/135829375/debt-crisis-hangs-over-washington-politics]

'''Michael Lewis Drops Some Wisdom on Wall Street''' 
Michael Lewis 
''Columbia Journalism Review'' 
3/15/2010 
[http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_lewis_drops_some_wisdo.php http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_lewis_drops_some_wisdo.php]

'''The Quiet Coup''' 
Simon Johnson 
''The Atlantic'' 
5/2009 
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/]

'''How Washington's Bailout Will Boost Wall Street Bonuses''' 
Stephen Gandel 
''Time'' 
10/27/2008 
[http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853846,00.html#ixzz1ZgCSAOVZ http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853846,00.html#ixzz1ZgCSAOVZ]

'''The Giant Pool of Money''' 
''This American Life and NPR's Planet Money'' 
5/9/2008 
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money]

'''Return to the Giant Pool of Mone'''y 
''This American Life and NPR’s Planet Money'' 
9/25/2009 
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-pool-of-money http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-pool-of-money]

'''Planet Money’s blog''' 
''NPR'' 
September 2008 - present 
Comprehensive explanation of how our economic system works. 
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/]

'''A global assessment of wealth and wellbeing''' 
[http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=US http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=US]

'''Why tax havens cause poverty''' 
[http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/ http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/]

'''Widely acclaimed report on tax havens, banking secrecy jurisdictions, etc.''' 
[http://www.amazon.com/Tax-Havens-Globalization-Cornell-Studies/dp/0801476127/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317858538&sr=1-5 http://www.amazon.com/Tax-Havens-Globalization-Cornell-Studies/dp/0801476127/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317858538&sr=1-5]

'''Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1996-2000''' 
[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGNlOWMxMzItMjIzNy00MDA1LWJjZTYtMTExNDMxMTBhYjhj&hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGNlOWMxMzItMjIzNy00MDA1LWJjZTYtMTExNDMxMTBhYjhj&hl=en_US]

'''Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005''' 
[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGJjMTU3NDAtOTI1OS00YjlmLTg0OTYtOTZiYTIwMjRhN2Mw&hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8ZwU8P4sgUSMGJjMTU3NDAtOTI1OS00YjlmLTg0OTYtOTZiYTIwMjRhN2Mw&hl=en_US]

'''Thinking About Empowered Participatory Democracy''' 
Erik Olin Wright and Archon Fung 
[http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf]
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Education Education at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-23T19:50:22Z

Creightt:

'''Participatory Budgeting'''

At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

'''Proposal '''(taken directly from [http://participatorybudgeting.org/ The Participatory Budgeting Project])

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

'''How It Works'''

Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

'''Why should we have PB?'''

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

'''History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil '''

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

'''PB and Occupy Movement'''

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but I believe that it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-23T19:49:40Z

Creightt:

'''Participatory Budgeting'''

At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

'''Proposal '''(taken from [http://participatorybudgeting.org/ The Participatory Budgeting Project])

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

'''How It Works'''

Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

'''Why should we have PB?'''

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

'''History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil '''

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

'''Intersection of PB and Occupy Movement'''

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but I believe that it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Ideas/Participatory Budgeting

2011-10-23T19:48:54Z

Creightt:

'''Participatory Budgeting'''

At its core, the Occupy Movement looks to (re)democratize a political system whose democratic institutions have fallen prey to some very undemocratic tendencies. The solidification of corporate personhood as defined by two centuries of Supreme Court cases and the revolving door between business and government leadership have created a political environment in which the interests of big business regularly trump the interests of the average American. 

Many, mainly on the right, will say that the United States is not a democracy; it’s a republic (i.e. representative democracy). The United States is indeed a representative democracy, but maybe the time has come for the American people to move beyond the constraints of representative democracy by becoming active participants in the decision-making that affects our daily lives. Reforming or reconstructing the system in a way that puts every person, whether an actual human or corporation, on equal footing in the democratic process is not going to be easy. Other proposals have already been forth such as a constitutional amendment to end [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|corporate personhood.]] I would like to propose [http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Participatory_Budgeting participatory budgeting] as another incremental, but potentially very powerful step in deepening our democratic processes and constructing a truly [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/DD-1.pdf egalitarian democracy.]

'''Proposal '''(taken from [http://participatorybudgeting.org/ The Participatory Budgeting Project])

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Most examples involve city governments that have opened up decisions around municipal budgets, such as overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies. In other cases, states, counties, schools, universities, housing authorities, and coalitions of community groups have used participatory budgeting to open up spending decisions to democratic participation.

OccupyBoston should pressure city governments across the country to implement PB programs. Moreover, OccupyBoston should use PB style deliberation to allocate funds for the camp and larger campaign. 

'''How It Works'''

Community members make budget decisions through an annual series of local assemblies and meetings. Although there are many models of participatory budgeting, most follow a basic process: diagnosis, discussion, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring. 

* Residents identify local priority needs, generate ideas to respond to these needs, and choose budget representatives for each community.
* These representatives discuss the local priorities and develop concrete projects that address them, together with experts.
* Residents vote for which of these projects to fund.
* The government implements the chosen projects.
* Residents monitor the implementation of budget projects.

'''Why should we have PB?'''

* '''Gives community members a say''': Ordinary people have more voice – and they get to make real decisions.

* '''Makes for better and more equitable decisions''': Local residents know best what they need, and budget dollars are redistributed to communities with the greatest needs.

* '''Develops active and democratic citizens:''' Community members, staff, and officials learn democracy by doing it. They gain more understanding of complex political issues and community needs.

* '''Builds communities and strengthens community organizations:''' Politicians build closer relationships with their constituents. Community members get to know their elected officials and local governments.

* '''Makes government more accountable and efficient''': When community members decide spending in public assemblies, there are fewer opportunities for corruption, waste, or costly public backlash.

'''History-PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil '''

In stark contrast to local, state, and federal government budgeting in the U.S., the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre uses a system of empowered participatory budgeting for allocating its $1.6 billion annual budget. At first glance the system seems to be quite onerous, but in practice has proven extraordinarily effective at providing funds where they are needed and broadening the very definition of democracy.

The budgeting deliberation begins in March with the sixteen administrative regions holding annual meetings during which ordinary residents from the region meet to review and discuss the implementation of the prior year’s budget and decide on regional objectives for the current budget. Delegates are also elected at this initial meeting with the task of holding regular meetings throughout the region over the following three months to hear resident testimony. At the end of the three months, the second annual regional meeting is held in order for the delegates to present a set of regional budget proposals formulated from resident desires and needs. The assembly ratifies proposals and elects two delegates to represent the region at the city-wide Participatory Budgeting Council, which deliberates during the following five months to construct a city-wide budget based on the regional proposals. The entire process is wholly democratic, relying heavily on active citizen participation, and operates within a framework of reasoned deliberation rather than confrontational partisanship.

Since its inception the process has attracted participation from over one hundred thousand citizens of Porto Alegre’s 1.3 million person population and has proven far more effective at providing necessary social provisions for its inhabitants. For example, in 1988, one year before implementation, only 75% of households had access to water and sewage while in 1997 that number had risen to 98%. Moreover, the number of schools increased four fold since 1986. Since 1989, PB has spread to over [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4840 1,200] cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, this includes PB processes in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, [http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/ Chicago], and most recently [http://pbnyc.org/ New York]. 

'''PB and Occupy Movement'''

PB offers a concrete and proven method for democratizing our current system. It may appear to have little significance in a political system dominated by corporate powerhouses, but I believe that it offers a great potential in reversing a long history of political apathy. Letting the people directly allocate discretionary city spending will not by itself revolutionize our political system, but bringing to life a generation of active citizen participants will. 
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Participitory+Budgeting Participitory Budgeting at wikispaces]''