Difference between revisions of "Talk:Occupy Boston"

From wiki.occupyboston.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(1787 Occupy Manifesto: new section)
m (recalled nav suggestion)
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This proposal does not dictate how the 'The People's Act' and 'Amendment XXVIII' should read but rather suggests how the demands and the concerns of protesters can be written and passed into law.
+
==Rename: Occupy Boston==
 +
This is a suggestion to rename the 'Main Page' as 'Occupy Boston'. 'Main Page' is nondescript and generic, and generally looks bad when a visitor comes to the site.<br>
 +
If we 'move' the main page, how will the structure be affected? Will the header image lose its function?<br>
 +
I'm going to move it for now and see what happens. It can always be moved back. If no major loss of function occurs, I will keep the new name.
 +
--[[User:OneKarma|OneKarma]] 15:22, 5 November 2011 (EDT)
 +
*Good idea. --[[User:JSDwyer|JSDwyer]] 23:57, 6 November 2011 (EST)
  
 +
==Redundancy==
 +
Working groups are listed both on the main page and on the [[:Category:Working groups|working groups]] page. They didn't match. So I used the translocation thing to display the Working Groups page within the main page. To do it I put
 +
<nowiki>
 +
{{:Working Groups}}
 +
</nowiki>
 +
as a line on the main page. Editing there will take you to the Working Groups page and update both.
  
'We the People of the United States of America'  
+
This begs the question of why we need to reproduce the Working Groups page on the main page anyway. It might be better to describe what Working Groups are on the main page an give a link to page itself.[[User:Mcktimo|Mcktimo]] 23:48, 6 November 2011 (EST)
- in order to form a more perfect union. . .
+
*I agree. --[[User:JSDwyer|JSDwyer]] 23:57, 6 November 2011 (EST)
 +
[[User:OneKarma|OneKarma]] 13:40, 7 November 2011 (EST):
 +
*i wasn't aware there was such a function (translocation). that's brilliant.
 +
**on withdrawing the full wg text from the home page, i don't think it's necessary. the original page was as you suggest, mcktimo, but it gets fuzzy because a short description often favors one group (usually Media) over the others. media already has a link on the side-bar. also, because working groups form the general structure of OB, i think it is necessary to have that full section on the main, especially for first-timers.
  
We The People Initiative
+
==On Specialization==
- Initiative to form a consensus of our collective interests that distils the aims and specific demands of 'Occupy Wall Street' protests into two pieces of legislation designed for submission to the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate for two separate up-or-down votes.
+
*there needs to be a general discussion regarding the 'reduction factor' of the many wg's in existence. i feel as if OB is over-reducing/over-specializing its parts - a similar problem to our current government. if we want to effect change, we need to be not only aligned, but also unified.
 +
**the ga should determine a short list of priorities, then determine the necessary actions for achieving those goals, and then delegate those tasks into WG's who have authority to perform those tasks.
 +
**the current assembly is divided already into 30 working groups, and it can be very difficult for a motivated individual to find a group to call home. i believe we need to re-collect in a more organized forum.
 +
*these points will need to be presented to the GA. we must present an organizational 'master plan' to increase our efficiency.
 +
--[[User:OneKarma|OneKarma]] 13:40, 7 November 2011 (EST)
 +
==Recommended Re-Organization==
 +
see below, within double line-breaks. let me know what you think. thank you.
 +
: --[[User:OneKarma|OneKarma]] 21:58, 7 November 2011 (EST)
  
'The People's Act' Legislative Item #1
+
interesting, but I prefer the existing 3 categories [[User:Mcktimo|Mcktimo]] 12:31, 9 November 2011 (EST)
- a piece of legislation comprised of comprehensive social-economic reforms of the political process, with an emphasis on the role and function of money in our political system and process (elections).
+
----
 
+
----
'Amendment XXVIII' Legislative Item #2
+
navigation suggestion recalled. category tags implemented on wg pages and help pages.
- a piece of legislation that addresses and redresses social justice issues, with an emphasis on equality, equity and rights.
 
 
 
October 15th - December 31st (Launch We The People Reform Initiative)
 
- a critical mass of protest synergies agrees on terms to launch the drafting of legislation as outlined below; open call for and selection of persons to form a 50 member (one per state as determined by state and local protesters) drafting committee.
 
 
 
January 1st New Year's Day (Drafting committees formed and finalised)
 
- open collaborative participation in support of drafting legislation that resembles wikipedia style submissions and editing. 'We The People.org,- .com. - .edu etc site serves as host of master documents for drafts of the 'Act' and the 'Amendment'- , edits, submissions to draft 'Act' and 'Amendment' must be approved by a simple majority of the perspective members on the 50 member drafting committee.
 
 
 
January 4th March 30th (Draft outline of 'The People's Act' and 'Amendment XXVIII')
 
- general outline of first drafts with bullet point summations of key points of the proposed legislation for comment, debate and on-line voting on overall legislation as well as specific potentially contentious parts of each legislative item. Early March: discussion and debate pauses for 50 member committee to consider and revise initial drafts to be posted and voted for on-line.
 
 
 
April 1st June 29th (1st Final Draft of 'The People's Act' and 'Amendment XXVIII')
 
- first final draft of 'Act' and 'Amendment' posted on-line for public review and consideration followed by a popular on-line vote on the 'Act' and 'Amendment' with real time disclosure and display of voting results.
 
 
 
June 30th July 4th (On-line voting and registration for 'Act' and 'Amendment')
 
- on-line registration and voting for 'Act' and 'Amendment' takes place simultaneously with final results posted on website: by end of day - Independence Day.
 
 
 
July 5th (CBO submission - scoring and analysis of legislation)
 
-sponsored by House, Senate or President, a 'citizen submission of legislation' the 'Act' -to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring or a reliable alternative that would yield the same kind and quality of result and analysis.
 
 
 
July 15th July 28th (Draft, enlist and vote on U.S. Legislators to sit on 'Super committee' 'The People's Committee of Congress')
 
- select members of Congress are asked to serve on a NON-government 'We The People' version of the 'Super Committee' tasked with putting the 'Act' and 'Amendment' through a Congressional style committee process in anticipation of their submission to Congress employing the full commitment of their congressional staffs and expertise during the August recess.
 
 
 
August 1st August 31st ('People's committee' meet during Congressional recess period to review and comment on draft 'Act' and 'Amendment'.)
 
- Legislators who agree to serve on the 'People's Super Committee' meet during the scheduled August Congressional Recess to review the draft 'Act' and 'Amendment' for the purpose of submitting specific proposals and revisions necessary to ensure compliance of the draft legislation with Congressional rules and procedures as both pertain to the submission and passage of each piece of legislation.
 
 
 
August 31st Public Consideration of Congressional input
 
- specific proposals and revisions submitted by the 'People's Super Committee' are posted on-line for discussion, consideration, revision, adoption, adaptation and finally voting.
 
 
 
September 6th Labor Day Weekend
 
- on-line vote on the specific proposals and revisions submitted by the 'People's Super Committee'
 
 
 
October 11th (2nd Final Draft of 'Act' and 'Amendment' posted on-line for debate and commentary)
 
- based on the outcome of the vote on the specific proposals and revisions made by the 'People's Super Committee' the 50 member drafting committee produces a 2nd Final Draft of the 'Act' and the 'Amendment'
 
 
 
Election Day Tuesday November 4th 2012
 
- National On-line vote for or against 'The People's Act' and 'Amendment XXVIII' same day and time of U.S. Presidential Election- if the legislation receives a simple majority of the on-line votes, that version of the 'Act' and 'Amendment' will be petitioned to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
 
 
 
77 Days between election and inauguration November 4th January 20th
 
- intensify campaign to submit 'The People Act' and 'Amendment XXVIII' to either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate for up-or-down votes. Petition a member of Congress and or the President of the United States to submit or sponsor 'Act' and or 'Amendment'.
 
 
 
Turn Out The VOTE! Mid-term elections for House and Senate
 
- campaign to elect representatives that support passage of 'The People's Act' and or 'Amendment XXVIII' if either has not been passed into law by the time mid-term elections are primaried and scheduled.
 
 
 
 
 
Frequently Asked Questions
 
 
 
Q: What is the purpose of the 'The People's Act' and 'Amendment XXVIII'?
 
A: Incorporate the demands and the concerns of the 'Occupy Wall Street' protest into pieces of legislation that are voted on by Congress.
 
 
 
Q: What is in 'The People's Act' and 'Amendment XXVIII'?
 
A: The structure and content of the 'Act' and the 'Amendment' is determined by a transparent collaborative process that depends on the input and consideration of any and as many U.S. Citizens that participate in the process outlined above. This process and proposal does not attempt to define the 'Occupy Wall Street' protest but rather asks to be defined by the protest and the protesters in terms of the realities represented by the movement.
 
 
 
Q: Does this initiative as outlined above reign in or dilute the social movement that has been identified with the 'Occupy Wall Street' protest?
 
A: Yes, if the protesters fail to shepherd their demands through each stage of the process or if specific demands or interest are not vigorously promoted and defended in a transparent structured public discourse.
 
 
 
Q: What if we can not get the support or the participation of members of Congress?
 
A: We maintain the status-quo of a dysfunctional democracy that made the 'Occupy Wall Street' protest possible and necessary. It is the lack of support and participation of members of Congress in a fair and democratic process that has brought us to this point. Any request made of members of Congress is simply a request that they fulfil obligations to the country that they pledged themselves to upon being sworn into office.
 
 
 
Q: What is the advantage of channelling our movement and synergies through the process outlined above?
 
A: If successful the demands and concerns that the 'Occupy Wall Street' protest represent will have the force of law and become a part of this country's fundamental and founding principles.
 
 
 
Q: What is the disadvantage of the collaborative structure and the nature of this 'We the People Initiative'?
 
A: It will expose divisions and differences that could potentially splinter the movement and surrender the initiative to groups organised by 'Tea Party', 'Religious Conservative', and or Corporate interest.
 
 
 
Q: Who are the 50 members on the drafting committee?
 
A: Hopefully, they are professionals, academics, public intellectuals as well as state and local officials who lend their expertise to a collaborative drafting process as did those 'gentlemen' we call 'founding fathers' who came from various and sundry backgrounds.
 
 
 
Q: How are the 50 members nominated and selected?
 
A: The members are nominated by individuals who are organising 'Occupy Wall Street' protest in each state. Ideally, the protesters in each state can agree on and vote on a list of candidates that have views and perspectives that qualify them to represent the interest, unique concerns and demands of the protesters in a given state.
 
 
 
Q: Doesn't producing two pieces of legislation require some kind or level of legal training or expertise?
 
A: Yes, but no more or less that the lobby firms that draft legislation that members of Congress rubber stamp in exchange for hefty campaign donations. There are constitutional law professors, city council members, business owners etc among the protesters; they should be on the drafting committee.
 
 
 
Q: Who will host and be responsible for designing, hosting and maintaining the website that centralises the creative drafting process of drafting the 'Act' and the 'Amendment'?
 
A: The same type of people and expertise that are building and operating the on-line and technological aspects of the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement.
 
 
 
Q: Who is in charge of this entire process from draft to up-or-down votes on legislation that comes out of this process?
 
A: You! This proposal is being submitted with the hope that it will be spontaneously adopted and adapted by the various individuals who are passionate about the issues and concerns that are being expressed and addressed in the form of protest 'occupying' financial districts nationwide. If this proposal can not be sustained by popular support and interest there is little to no chance of either the 'Act' or the 'Amendment' being drafted or voted into law.
 
 
 
Q: What is meant by on-line registration and voting for different drafts of legislation?
 
A: Anyone, can register using basic and minimum information to ensure some degree of integrity to the voting process and results. For example, an imaged lettered verification form + last name- first initial- zip code and a single I.P. Address for each vote cast. You can vote and register all in one session on the site.
 
 
 
Q: How does this effort manage the large volume of comments and responses that would be submitted and directed at the various committees?
 
A: Ideally, the comments will take the form of specific and constructive ideas, proposals, and recommendations that are scored liked by a critical mass of the people who visit the site and participate in the process. The most liked or highly rated posted ideas, proposals and recommendations enter the work-flow of the drafting committee. This is similar to blog and newspaper website that list the top ten stories or post based on the number of people who read or indicated that they liked the post.
 
 
 
Q: What if you do not like a specific part of the legislation that the drafting committee produces?
 
A: Vote and Voice against it! Then propose an alternative. In other words, share your opinion and then your mind.
 
 
 
Q: What if you do not like the comments and recommendations made by the 'People's Super Committee'?
 
A: The People's Super Committee can only make recommendations to the drafting committee and those recommendations can only be considered by the 50 member drafting committee if they receive a majority of the vote by people like you. The purpose of including the input of members of Congress is the anticipation of the 'Act' and the 'Amendment' having to navigate the procedures and rules that govern the legislative process as it pertains to considering and passing new pieces of legislation.
 
 
 
Q: What if Congress votes down the legislation that we submit?
 
A: Remember them in the mid-term elections. If a nationwide effort produces a genuine piece of legislation for Congressional consideration, the strength of your local movement and participation will determine how your elected member of Congress votes. It only matters to them if you matter to them.
 
 
 
Q: Is it fair or reasonable to ask a group of members of Congress to give up their August recess to work on two major pieces of legislation that come out of the process outlined above?
 
A: During this last August (2011) recess members of the Congressional Black Caucus spent their free-time putting on Job Fairs and addressing the disproportionately high unemployment rate among African-Americans and Latinos. The idea behind this recess appointment of a 'People's Super Committee' is that the situation warrants it, no less than it the situation- warranted the 'Super Committee' that has been tasked with coming up with a debt reduction package under the threat of draconian cuts to domestic and military budgets.
 
 
 
Q: What do we do when 'The People's Act' and 'Amendment XXVIII' are either hijacked or stymied by one of the two major political parties in power?
 
A: This is the fate of most legislation that promotes the social welfare of our society. The time table for this initiative piggy-backs on the electoral wave that will be generated by the presidential election. This will give the 'Act' and the 'Amendment' momentum and a longer shelf-life in a media culture of sound bites and short uninformed attention spans. Anticipating a difficult road to passage, this initiative has an organisational grass roots structure that if realised will make a push for the legislation more effective during mid-term and off-years elections. Keep in mind that a million people in any one of the key battle ground states can determine the next couple national elections. Instead, of targeting weak members of congress, a national effort against any committee chair person in Congress should deprive them of their seat if the legislation gets stuck, buried or stonewalled. Any U.S. Senator that attempts to filibuster the legislation should immediately be targeted by a nationwide electoral campaign that deprives him or her of their seat no matter how entrenched or powerful they are or imagine themselves. Threaten the power and position of a committee chairperson and or U.S. Senator successfully once with an all out nationwide campaign and it will send a shock wave through Congress and force either of the two main political parties to spend a disproportionate amount of corporate dollars defending 'safe' seats while making vulnerable 'seats' that much more uncertain. It is not necessary to win every battle as long as the struggle drains their coffers.
 
 
 
Q: What does failure of this initiative and the legislation that it aims to produce look like?
 
A: It looks like the status-quo. The only acceptable defeat of any legislative item or initiative that emerges out of the process above or one similar to it is when a majority of the people have voted it down after a fair and open exchange of ideas. If the 'Act' and or 'Amendment' gets an up-or-down vote by both houses of congress, win or lose the results of a clean and fair legislative process should be accepted. We get what we want by making it happen; not by demanding what should have been won or lost in a long struggle that starts now!
 
 
 
Q: What if the President of the United States vetoes the legislation or there is a Supreme Court challenge?
 
A: Redirect the support that got the legislation through both houses of Congress to override the veto. Keep in mind that a super-majority vote will be needed to pass 'Amendment XXVIII' and super-majority vote of states legislature will been needed to ratify the 'Amendment' if it passes. The 'Act' will be easier to pass, nevertheless, the goal of the overall process that produces the legislation is to mobilise a citizen power base to compel super-majorities on the federal and the state level. The closer we get to achieving this goal, the less successful will be Congressional, Presidential and or Supreme Court attempts to block or negate the legislation that emerges out of this process. It is not simply a matter of taking power from 'Wall Street' but giving it back to the people.
 
 
 
Q: What can I do right now to make this happen?
 
A: - Using your facebook, twitter, blogs, email, stamps and envelops to share this idea with as many people as possible.
 
 
 
- Ask people with a significant on-line presence to start a sign-up list for people who are willing to dedicate time and energy to building the site, serving on the committees etc.
 
 
 
- Petition and nominate your member of Congress to serve on the 'People's Super Committee'. Start a facebook page or a Google-circle for the petition state-by-state.
 
 
 
- Think about that woman or man who has articulated views that you want to be considered by the 50 member drafting committee and start a campaign to draft that person into service on the 50 member drafting committee! Promote them using the ideas that they shared with you and which made you think that they speak to an interest of the general public.
 
 
 
- Start a email list of supporters that you can direct to this effort at critical points when it starts to reach escape volatility challenges by entrenched money interest.
 
 
 
- If you are a student at a university or college get your political science departments and law schools on board.
 
 
 
- Those that have capacity on a server should offer to host a domain for the drafting committee or offer technical support for the site when it is up and running.
 
 
 
- Address any concerns or weaknesses that you find with this idea by improving it with ideas of your own.
 
 
 
- If you have connections to people that carry weight with law firms get them to ask their firm to donate hours pro-bona in support of this process and the pieces of legislations.
 
 
 
- If you are affiliated with a think-tank, newspaper, catering company or socially responsible lobby or investment organisation secure sponsorships of this idea and practical things like donating space to host 'The People's Super Committee'.
 
 
 
- If a gathering of either the 50 member drafting committee or the recess meeting of member of Congress on the 'People's Super Committee' takes place in your area volunteer to staff the location and offer administrative support if you have those expertise.
 
 
 
- But most important, when and where you see this idea gaining traction support it!
 
 
 
== 1787 Occupy Manifesto ==
 
 
 
1787 Occupy Manifesto
 
 
 
'''Every word of this document – except those between [ ] - is taken from the Antifederalist Papers written and published between 1787-1789 to protest the architecture of the current dysfunctional government.'''
 
 
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 4 - 1788) No government can flourish unless it be founded on the affection of the people. (Antifederalist No. 26 -1788) There are many among you that will not be led by the nose by rich men, and would scorn a bribe.  Rich men can live easy under any government, be it ever so tyrannical. They come in for a great share of the tyranny, because they are the ministers of tyrants, and always engross the places of honor and profit, while the greater part of the common people are led by the nose, and played about by these very men, for the destruction of themselves and their class.  Be wise, be virtuous, and catch the precious moment as it passes, to refuse this [dysfunctional] federal government, and extricate yourselves and posterity from tyranny, oppression, aristocratical or monarchical government.
 
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 55 - 1787-88) It is extremely clear that [the writers of the Constitution] had in view the several orders of men in society, which we call aristocratical, democratical, mercantile, mechanics etc., and perceived the efforts they are constantly, from interested and ambitious views, disposed to make to elevate themselves and oppress others. Each order must have a share in the business of legislation actually and efficiently. It is deceiving a people to tell them they are electors, and can choose their legislators, if they cannot, in the nature of things, choose. . . from among themselves, and [persons] genuinely like themselves.
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 1- 1787) [The Aristocracy] consist generally, . . ., of holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, B[an]k[er]s and L[aw]y[er]s: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination.
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 55- 1787-88) There are three kinds of aristocracy spoken of in this country-the first is a constitutional one, which [has come to] exist in the United States in our common acceptation of the word. Montesquieu, it is true, observes that where part of the persons in a society, for want of property, age, or moral character, are excluded any share in the government, the others, who alone are the constitutional electors and elected, form this aristocracy. This, according to him, exists in each of the United States, where a considerable number of persons, as all convicted of crimes, under age, or not possessed of certain property, are excluded any share in the government.
 
 
 
The second is an aristocratic faction, a junto of unprincipled men, often distinguished for their wealth or abilities, who combine together and make their object their private interests and aggrandizement. The existence of this description is merely accidental, but particularly to be guarded against.
 
 
 
The third is the natural aristocracy; this term we use to designate a respectable order of men, the line between whom and the natural democracy is in some degree arbitrary. We may place men on one side of this line, which others may place on the other, and in all disputes between the few and the many, a considerable number are wavering and uncertain themselves on which side they are, or ought to be.
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 1 - 1787) [The “Aristocratick combination”] brand with infamy every man who is not as  determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry. [B]etter remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise.  If we can confederate upon terms that [will] secure to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional security to the whole.
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 2 - 1788 [The] public credit has suffered, and . . . our public creditors have been ill used. Those inconveniences have resulted from the bad policy of Congress. But what [is to be done] on the present occasion to remedy the existing defects of the present [Congress]?  There are two opinions prevailing in the world-the one, that [human] kind can only be governed by force; the other, that they are capable of freedom and a good government. Under a supposition that [human] kind can govern themselves, I would recommend that the present [Constitution]  should be amended.
 
 
 
[The Occupy movement] is yet too young to know what we are fit for.  We ought to consider, as Montesquieu says, whether the construction of the government be suitable to the genius and disposition of the people, as well as a variety of other circumstances.  (Antifederalist No. 3 - 1788) We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history.
 
 
 
Many of us are proud, and are frequently disappointed that office confers neither respect or difference. No [person] of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments-[but] will be respected in none. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions.
 
 
 
If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable-a FEW will, and must govern them. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. All human  authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance.
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 4 - 1788) We are threatened with danger [according to some,] for the non-payment of our debt[.]  It is little usual for nations to send armies to collect debts.  Do you believe that the mighty [China], beholding the greatest scenes that ever engaged the attention of a [leader] of that country, will divert himself from those important objects, and now call for a settlement of accounts with America? This proceeding is not warranted by good sense.  Do you suppose the [Chinese] will risk a contest with the United States [?]  Let [us] not . . . be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
 
 
 
Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government. . .; revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome- -instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned . . . against faction and turbulence. [L]icentiousness is dangerous, and . . . it ought to be provided against. I acknowledge, also, the [current] form of government may effectually prevent it. Yet there is another thing it will as effectually do- -it will oppress and ruin the people.
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 6 -1787-88)  The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery of language in the growing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence led to clasp the . . . Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happines.  If anarchy, therefore, were the inevitable consequence of rejecting [dysfunctional government], it would be infinitely better to incur it, for even then there would be at least the chance of a good government rising out of licentiousness.
 
 
 
This ought to teach us to depend more on our own judgment and the nature of the case than upon the opinions of the greatest and best of men, who, from constitutional infirmities or particular situations, may sometimes view an object through a delusive medium; but the opinions of great men are more frequently the dictates of ambition or private interest.
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 7- 1787)  The time in which the constitution or government of a nation undergoes any particular change, is always interesting and critical. Enemies are vigilant, allies are in suspense, friends hesitating between hope and fear; and all men are in eager expectation to see what such a change may produce.
 
 
 
[Denfenders of the current dysfunction have stated that objections to it] are more calculated to alarm the fears of the people than to answer any valuable end. W[ere] that the case, as it is not, will any[one] in [a] sober sense say, that the least infringement or appearance of infringement on our liberty -that liberty which has lately cost so much blood and treasure, together with anxious days and sleepless nights-ought not both to rouse our fears and awaken our jealousy?
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 8- 1788)Instead of a congress whose members could serve but three years out of six-and then to return to a level with their fellow citizens; and who were liable at all times, whenever the states might deem it necessary, to be recalled-- [this] Congress, is. . .composed of a body whose members during the time they are appointed to serve, can receive no check [or balance] from their constituents [while in office].
 
 
 
[W]ill you be necessarily compelled either to make a bold effort to extricate yourselves from these grievous and oppressive extortions, or you will be fatigued by fruitless attempts into the quiet and peaceable surrender of those rights, for which the blood of your fellow citizens has been shed in vain. But the latter will, no doubt, be the melancholy fate of a people once inspired with the love of liberty, as the power vested in congress of sending troops for suppressing insurrections will always enable them to stifle the first struggles of freedom.
 
 
 
(Antifederalist No. 26- 1788) Let me entreat you, my fellows, to consider well what you are about. Read the said constitution, and consider it well before you act.  Aristocracy, or government in the hands of a very few nobles, or RICH MEN, is therein concealed in the most artful wrote plan that ever was formed to entrap a free people. The contrivers of it have so completely entrapped you, and laid their plans so sure and secretly, that they have only left you to do one of two things-that is either to receive or refuse it. And in order to bring you into their snare, you may daily read new pieces published in the newspapers, in favor of this [current] government; and should a writer dare to publish any piece against it, he is immediately abused and vilified.
 
 
 
 
Look round you and observe well the RICH MEN, who are to be your only rulers, lords and masters in future! Are they not all for [the current dysfunction]? Yes! Ought not this to put you on your guard? Does not riches beget power, and power, oppression and tyranny?
 
 
 
'''Note: This proposed draft 2011 Occupy Manifesto consist of words and thoughts taken in part or in whole from the Antifederalist Papers. The words and thoughts are also in varying degrees taken out of the context that defined the ratification debates and discourse surrounding the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Below are two links: (1) to a short 6 page essay about the Antifederalist {www.apsanet.org/imgtest/ConstThoughtAntifederalists.pdf} (2) to the Antifederalist Papers – 264 pages. Educate your perspective! {freedomsadvocate.com/files/ref/TheAntiFederalistPapers.pdf}'''
 

Latest revision as of 02:29, 31 December 2011

Rename: Occupy Boston

This is a suggestion to rename the 'Main Page' as 'Occupy Boston'. 'Main Page' is nondescript and generic, and generally looks bad when a visitor comes to the site.
If we 'move' the main page, how will the structure be affected? Will the header image lose its function?
I'm going to move it for now and see what happens. It can always be moved back. If no major loss of function occurs, I will keep the new name. --OneKarma 15:22, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Good idea. --JSDwyer 23:57, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Redundancy

Working groups are listed both on the main page and on the working groups page. They didn't match. So I used the translocation thing to display the Working Groups page within the main page. To do it I put {{:Working Groups}} as a line on the main page. Editing there will take you to the Working Groups page and update both.

This begs the question of why we need to reproduce the Working Groups page on the main page anyway. It might be better to describe what Working Groups are on the main page an give a link to page itself.Mcktimo 23:48, 6 November 2011 (EST)

  • I agree. --JSDwyer 23:57, 6 November 2011 (EST)

OneKarma 13:40, 7 November 2011 (EST):

  • i wasn't aware there was such a function (translocation). that's brilliant.
    • on withdrawing the full wg text from the home page, i don't think it's necessary. the original page was as you suggest, mcktimo, but it gets fuzzy because a short description often favors one group (usually Media) over the others. media already has a link on the side-bar. also, because working groups form the general structure of OB, i think it is necessary to have that full section on the main, especially for first-timers.

On Specialization

  • there needs to be a general discussion regarding the 'reduction factor' of the many wg's in existence. i feel as if OB is over-reducing/over-specializing its parts - a similar problem to our current government. if we want to effect change, we need to be not only aligned, but also unified.
    • the ga should determine a short list of priorities, then determine the necessary actions for achieving those goals, and then delegate those tasks into WG's who have authority to perform those tasks.
    • the current assembly is divided already into 30 working groups, and it can be very difficult for a motivated individual to find a group to call home. i believe we need to re-collect in a more organized forum.
  • these points will need to be presented to the GA. we must present an organizational 'master plan' to increase our efficiency.

--OneKarma 13:40, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Recommended Re-Organization

see below, within double line-breaks. let me know what you think. thank you.

--OneKarma 21:58, 7 November 2011 (EST)

interesting, but I prefer the existing 3 categories Mcktimo 12:31, 9 November 2011 (EST)



navigation suggestion recalled. category tags implemented on wg pages and help pages.