Occupy San Luis Obispo, CA — OccupySLO

Trina,
I posted awhile back a topic called "obstructionism at the GA". It described a process whereby a small group surrounded and removed a person that would not follow the Good Neighbor Policy. I don't know what happened as I was not there today, but you might want to review that post (I did not come up with the idea) and see if you think it workable.
Read More...

I think it is both. I think we need targeted actions that promote the changes we want and to support other groups' targeted actions that match our goals. I also think the reason for the verb is like saying we are not just going to go home and be quiet-- we will keep this in the forefront of people's minds until change happens.

It is just so easy to be complacent when everyone is just trying to live and survive.. Education is toying with a #OWS forum post suggestion that gives some specifics that people can do. I love Bernie Sanders petition that DanaMite posted. That piles on with www.movetoamend.org. The more the better. The crescendo needs to build.
Read More...

What occurred was bankers packaging sub-prime mortgages in complex, mixed packages and marketing them saying they were good loans, when in fact under historic banking practices the loans would not have been made. This is the manner in which they were sold. Then, knowing that these loans were often given to people who would not be able to pay them when the ARM went up in five years or even worse, the interest only loan began to need to pay principle, they shorted the very loans they were selling to customers. In essence, they lied to their investors about the safety of the loans and bet against the loans themselves and made a bunch of money ding so. I suggest you read Michael Lewis' book [u]Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World [u] for a complete description of what occurred in many countries.

Misrepresenting a product in full knowledge of the risks, so much so that they made money betting against the loans they were selling, sounds unethical as well as willfully misleading investors. THis was not a case of mismanagement
, but a case of selling an investment and betting on its failure knowing it would fail.

Perhaps you have the legal expertise to find out what crime this is.
Read More...

Five people met last night in Arroyo Grande. All are current members who attend GAs in SLO, but live in the south county. We were responding to a request by Logistics for an educational flyer to hand out at the courthouse.

We have gone over our consented statement of who we are and the consented statement of #OWS, that we officially are aligned with. These statements say that we are "a peaceful assembly and forum for the expression of free speech on a variety of economic and social justice issues..."

We have used the issues and demands of the #OWS group that got the most votes as being of concern to #OWS as the demands were created and will list them, describe them, and then include links for further reading and understanding under the ten or so issues we will start with. This will be a living document online that can grow as we learn of more resources and the flyer can also be reprinted. We hope to have the flyer completed in a week to go to printing. Some of us will be donating for the printing costs and we are asking for further help and donations with that. In addition, we intend to have the flyer active on the website so it can grow and more and more resources under each issue can be added. Direct action and education could add links and info on actions to take to under the issues that a potential participant might be interested in working on. We will be sending the first draft to those present at the meeting and would also send to the Tuesday Education meeting group if Miles can send me the names of those working last Tuesday. Onward----
Read More...

I TOTALLY agree that we have to stop talking partisan politics and work together.
It is SO historic that LA passed the resolution to amend the constitution. This must be done first.

In terms of the FED, in the vote on the Occupywall street demands, one of the top vote getters was a proposal for a forced acquisition of the Federal Reserve for $1 Billion dollars. I do not know if it is true, but according to coup media, President Kennedy, prior to his assassination, found out that in the original 1913 deal that started the FED, there was a back out clause that the investors who loaned the United States government the $1 billion could be paid by the United States to regain control of the FED and the US currency. The constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5) Currently that power rests with the private corporation registered in the State of Delaware- the Federal Reserve Bank.

Until and unless the constitution is amended so that corporations are NOT considered people, I would not want this buyout to happen, but if it did, then perhaps these secret deals that loan money interest free to banks that then buy US Treasury notes that PAY interest would not occur.
Read More...

THanks for the report and the efforts. We will add our education committee's working group ideas at today's meeting to your thoughts and ideas from your education committee subgroup held last night at the courthouse and provide response to yours. Our focus today is a response to Logistic's request for an educational flyer.

Your suggestion that meetings only take place at the courthouse on Tuesdays might preclude many of the 99% we seek to involve from participation. I hope we can discuss means to be as inclusive as possible at the next GA. Most organizations and change groups, such as Move to Amend, utilize the internet and multiple means of gaining assistance and participation. As posted on the Home page, LA got a resolution passed to support an amendment to the constitution, so Move to Amend is moving forward with their multiple pronged approach.

I wrote Sen. Feinstein about the Defense Act and here is her response.

"Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the detention provisions in the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I appreciate knowing your views and welcome the opportunity to respond.

This year's defense authorization bill would, among other things, authorize funding for the U.S. Department of Defense. As you know, section 1031 would authorize the U.S. government to detain suspected terrorists until the end of hostilities, and section 1032 would require that certain suspected terrorists connected to al-Qaeda be automatically detained in military custody when apprehended.

Like you, I oppose these provisions. Section 1031 is problematic because it authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process. In this democracy, due process is a fundamental right, and it protects us from being locked up by the government without charge. For this reason, I offered an amendment to prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial or charge. Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment failed by a vote of 45-55.

I was, however, able to reach a compromise with the authors of the defense bill to state that no existing law or authorities to detain suspected terrorists are changed by this section of the bill. While I would have preferred to have restricted the government's ability to detain U.S. citizens without charge, this compromise at least ensures that the bill does not expand the government's authority in this area.

I also oppose section 1032 of the defense bill, which creates a presumption that individuals associated with al-Qaeda will be held in military custody, as opposed to being processed through the criminal justice system. I disagree with this approach, and believe that the President should be able to hold captured terrorists in the military or the criminal justice systems based on the individual facts and evidence of each case. Accordingly, I offered an amendment to clarify that under section 1032, the presumption of U.S. Armed Forces detention only exists for an individual captured abroad. Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment also failed on a vote of 45-55."

So, all of our petition signing to Congress was unsuccessful and we pressure the president at this point. Eleven more senators would need to be replaced or change their minds.
Read More...

I am concerned that this thread has an agenda that is supporting a candidate and his views as opposed to reducing the divisions and sides called political parties so we can work together to find solutions to the national deficit, money in politics, unfettered greed hurting opportunity for the many, etc. I believe that your polar interpretation that I am against individualism is a problem. I am looking for a true balance of power in our government; a balance between parties, and a balance between collectivism and individualism. I can also make no sense of your response since I believe the lack of transparency in the packaging of loans in bundles for sale with deceitful rating procedures and unethical lending practices are ALL examples of individual greed- be it for bonuses or profits or shorting the market to bet against the loans your bank made. These are complex issues.
.

No one else is posting political material by a particular candidate. This seems like a personal agenda. Can you discuss issues separate from politics? Are you open to being influenceable? This is my last post on this thread. Enjoy
Read More...

I prefer to look at what is happening now in Germany in our financially linked world, rather than back at the Nazis. Cultures that stress individualism and the "free" markets are leading us to the financial brink internationally. I think you would enjoy a new book by Michael Lewis called Boomerang:Travels in the New Third World. I am just finishing the last chapter which is about the most financially insecure state in the nation- California.

I will look at all of your sites listed to understand where you are coming from and hope you will read this book. Lewis sees the current or threatened defaults in Iceland, Greece, Ireland, and California and the losses of the Germans in lending to them all as products of national cultures and beliefs. The problems are the problems of entire societies. A quote, "It's a problem of people taking what they can, just because they can, without regard to the larger social consequences. It's not just a coincidence that the debts of cities and states spun out of control at the same time as the debts of individual Americans."....Afterward, the people on Wall Street would privately bemoan the low morals of the American people who walked away from their subprime loans, and the American people would express outrage at the Wall Street people who paid themselves a fortune to design the bad loans."
i don't think more grand individualism is going to find us the solutions to the state the world is in.

The Greek culture has supported tax evasion, spiraling government pay, corrupt politicians and civil servants, inadequate or outright fabricated governmental accounting practices, and unsound lending by other nations. A default by Greece is probably inevitable unless the Germans take their debt on their backs. Cultures need to change, which is very difficult, but new understandings about interdependence and personal, governmental, and business transparency and accountability; not more individualism, are probably our only hopes of finding solutions.
Read More...

Professor slime is organizing an Education subgroup meeting to work on content for a draft informational flyer for dissemination at the courthouse.
This Tuesday night. Contact Professorslime for time. All brainstorm results will be sent to another subgroup working in Arroyo Grande on Wednesday at 5 pm at CJ's Cafe on Grand in AG.
Read More...

Education is having a subgroup meeting at CJ's Cafe at 611 East Grande Street at 5pm this Wednesday, 12/7.
We are hoping to brainstorm content for a first draft flyer for dissemination at the courthouse and to get to know one another.
We will bring input from another subgroup meeting in SLO on Tuesday night.
Read More...

Hi,
I would like to meet to talk about GA process and facilitation and Cuesta club educational forum collaboration. I am available Saturday before the march and after the GA.
Read More...

Hi,

I am a retired Family and Consumer Sciences teacher wanting a contact in the Cuesta club to assist in adding governmental and Cal Poly participants for the 2/1 community forum. Can anyone email me a name and contact?
Thanks
Read More...

Jacob,
I just finished the minutes and used the email list to send them out. I hope they can be posted from that.

You got the gist of the conversation very well though. Great ideas. I also like Damien's Buy Small Idea. The big issue is really people using expensive credit card debt to purchase gifts they can't afford. When people lose their jobs it affects their self-wortha and people often compensate by continuing to spend as they have before, but on credit. This worsens the situation. it is difficult for parents when kids see things on TV marketed towards the kids and ask their parents for things they cannot afford. I like Michelle's ideas of spending time on making gifts for others as well as helping children make gifts for others. For all these reason I like BOTH BUY LOCAL and BUY SMALL. How about only buy what you can afford?

I appreciated Damion's clarifications about BUY NOTHING was just for that day. We really need consumer education in the schools so all of these things are talked about as kids are growing up.
Read More...

Desire just sent me a GREAT pamphlet that is well researched, succinct, and thorough and asks occupiers to start discussions with people on the solutions and actions that people and the country might take.

I have tried to attach things to these forum posts and have been unable to do so with my MacPro.

If you could get back to me with any hints to do so I would send it immediately, or give me an alternative way to get it to you. Perhaps the person who had access to copying could reproduce them.

Alternatively, if the attachments function doesn't work, give me an email so I can send it. I am much happier with the Mend the Fed section versus the End the Fed message without an alternative given. Let me know!
Read More...

Thanks, Michelle for explaining. Please look at the post I added on the topic.
Read More...

There was a post put up this morning that is now not there. I would like this explained. Without the group taking responsibility for disruptions and ignoring our policies there can be no democracy. I am copying below an article about dealing with people who refuse to honor policies and civil behavior at GAs. Ignoring the problem will simply cause new people to stop coming to the meetings and participating and you do so at risk to the growth of the movement.

During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language--NSFW]

Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson, Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future

I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain.

As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud.

1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms.
Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard.

2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not.

Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space.

Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to….

3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums.
When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible.

4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes?

This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave.

This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave.

When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line.

These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once.

Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well).

This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order.

Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings.

And finally:

5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way.
You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.
Read More...

Dear All,

Evan asked me to facilitate the GA last night. He suggested an agenda of a report on public comment, the conversation with the city administrator he spoke of, Nate's website migration, an indoor venue, and an agenda for Saturday.

Nate shared that he has not migrated the website yet. The changes were his based on his desire to have many work groups open to all. Regarding the public comment at the county yesterday, the posting on the website was late the night before. I shared some of the concerns voiced in these email threads and Nate said that email is not official in his opinion, only the website is. I asked for a proposal that was built by the group that said essentially to encourage inclusion whenever possible we give notice a week before so people know about actions. It was noted that the structure of five teams was tabled at the GA it was discussed in. However, since Outreach wasn't present Nate did not want to discuss the issue of adequate notice because that would be outreach's job. It was tabled. I noted that the structure was not consented, but the team of outreach was now used as a reason to table this discussion. A spontaneous work group at the site has been working on a mission statement and it was proposed that the GA group (very small this evening) present discuss and consent a mission statement for the movement. We stuck to the agenda at this time.

The agenda was built for Saturday and it is the structure proposal, lead time, venue, and inclusion.

The occupation issues are important and time consuming. On November 3rd the occupation in New York adopted a Spokes Council, an additional coordinating body. "The proposal was put forth by the Structure Working Group, which was born out of numerous discussions in the GA on the need for a more accountable body for operational decisions around the occupation. The main challenges the Spokes COuncil aims to address are: effective coordination between Operations Groups and Caucuses; making responsible, accountable and holistic budgetary decisions; and the ability for the GA to engage in broader movement discussions, rather than bogged down with time consuming, uncoordinated funding requests." The underlining is mine. Again, our issues are no different than others.

If our goal is to grow and reach the 99% regardless of political affiliation, etc. then it is my opinion that meetings, perhaps on Tuesdays, should not be the GA, but rather the group that focus on the occupation so that our GA can focus on broader movement discussions and encourage combined participation and affiliations with Cuesta, CalPoly, local leaders, and other organizations nationally working to get money out of our political system and provide economic justice for our nation.

I do not think our town or group is large enough to model completely on larger cities, but in order to grow we need to focus on the broad issues and encourage cooperative efforts between large segments of our population. Can we have weekly GAs to discuss the broader issues and have the occupation, like in New York, be a sub group of work and interest and not the sole or main focus. I do not think such a small working group and the Tuesday night GA are broad or inclusive enough to state the mission of Occupy SLO, especially since those of us not occupying have no clue that this work is going on or adequate notice to be involved. This is not inclusive nor supportive of broad appeal and growth. Wouldn't it be great to have our City Council and our Board of Supervisors send a resolution to Washington DC to ask for the overturn of the Citizen United's decision to affirm the "personhood of corporations"? Can we perhaps do some long term planning based on issues instead of operating in emergency crisis mode regarding the occupation?

I will post this on the website also since this email chain is not considered official.
Candia Katich
Read More...

There are other organizations that have educational resources that are working towards the Occupy movements common goal of challenging the foundations of our global system of corporatism and greed. These organizations are also working to "Reboot Democracy" in our nation. We could consider affiliating with Move to Amend with info on doing so at bit.ly/MTAappInfo

I would like to see us work through November and December preparing for increased actions on January 21st, the anniversary of the Citizen's United Supreme Court ruling. Here are some sources to consider using:
www.wilpf.org/CPOWER_2006update- Ten study sessions developed by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. They also make available for free the film, "The Corporation".
Articles- "Corporate Personhood and the "Right" to Harm the Environment at bit.ly/corp_harm_env
- Labor Organizing Must Challenge Corporate Rule at www.poclad.org/?pg=Articles&show=a000007.txt
Tools: Corporate Personhood Timeline at bit.ly/cpTimelineWNotes
What Could Change if Corporate Personhood Were Abolished? at bit.ly/WhatCouldChange
Corporate Personhood Talking Points at bit.ly/CPtalkingPoints
Read More...