Post by lsl on Dec 3, 2011 21:07:14 GMT -5
At the 12.3.11 GA, a written statement prepared by the Political Strategy Working Group, meant to convey a "commonality within a diversity of beliefs and goals" in OA, was distributed for consideration by the GA. It was agreed that discussion of the proposed statement would be deferred until 12.4.11. Since I will not be present on 12.4.11, I though I would offer some thoughts here. (I am not going to take the time to retype here the full text of the proposed statement. Perhaps someone in the PSWG will be able to do that.)
My initial reaction upon reading the proposed PSWG statement was that I would have only a few structural suggestions (see below). Upon reflection, though, while I appreciate the effort that must have gone into drafting the statement, I'm not sure that I see the need or benefit of the PSWG statement at this time. Every Press Release issued by our PR group has closed with a statement that conveys much the same sentiments: "Occupy Albany is built on the non-violent examples set by Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy Together movement. The Occupy movement is organized to address critical issues about the nation's economic crisis, consolidation of wealth and power, and the ability of citizens to meaningfully participate in a democracy unshackled by the interests of big money." (The last 7 words seem to be a recent [and to my mind] valuable addition.) Do we really need to offer the media (as suggested by the PSWG) a separate but very similar statement?
If the GA determines that the answer to the above question is "yes", then I would suggest the following with respect to the PSWG statement:
(1) In the opening phrase "The People of Occupy Albany hereby makes the following statement...", should we have "makes" or "make"? Either could be correct. I like the latter.
(2) The word "people" appears three times in the proposed text -- but is capitalized only in two of those instances. Why not capitalize it in each instance (although my next suggestion would eliminate one of those instances)?
(3) I'd combine two sentences in the middle of the proposed text and eliminate what I think is some redundancy. My revised text would read: "...the voice of the People [see #2 above], from whom the government's just power is derived, is drowned out by the corrupting influence that concentrated wealth [see #4 below] exerts on the government. We believe that this failure..."
(4) I would substitute "wealth" for "money" in the two instances in which the proposed statement uses the phrase "concentrated money".
My initial reaction upon reading the proposed PSWG statement was that I would have only a few structural suggestions (see below). Upon reflection, though, while I appreciate the effort that must have gone into drafting the statement, I'm not sure that I see the need or benefit of the PSWG statement at this time. Every Press Release issued by our PR group has closed with a statement that conveys much the same sentiments: "Occupy Albany is built on the non-violent examples set by Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy Together movement. The Occupy movement is organized to address critical issues about the nation's economic crisis, consolidation of wealth and power, and the ability of citizens to meaningfully participate in a democracy unshackled by the interests of big money." (The last 7 words seem to be a recent [and to my mind] valuable addition.) Do we really need to offer the media (as suggested by the PSWG) a separate but very similar statement?
If the GA determines that the answer to the above question is "yes", then I would suggest the following with respect to the PSWG statement:
(1) In the opening phrase "The People of Occupy Albany hereby makes the following statement...", should we have "makes" or "make"? Either could be correct. I like the latter.
(2) The word "people" appears three times in the proposed text -- but is capitalized only in two of those instances. Why not capitalize it in each instance (although my next suggestion would eliminate one of those instances)?
(3) I'd combine two sentences in the middle of the proposed text and eliminate what I think is some redundancy. My revised text would read: "...the voice of the People [see #2 above], from whom the government's just power is derived, is drowned out by the corrupting influence that concentrated wealth [see #4 below] exerts on the government. We believe that this failure..."
(4) I would substitute "wealth" for "money" in the two instances in which the proposed statement uses the phrase "concentrated money".