[Sdalliance] My schedule for January 20th.

Wed Jan 4 21:27:03 PST 2017

Tanner, I hope you have sufficient clarification by now about why the Allen Morse post ended up being COMMENTED ON (objected to) and reposted on this list. It was apparently an accident. However, are you suggesting that we should NEVER post offensive quotations (from wherever) on our listserv in order to CRITICIZE those offensive quotations?  The group has not yet agreed on process. So we can all take your remarks about respecting process as a proposal about which process we should have. I will oppose it if it actually comes before a meeting of the whole group for adoption. There are simply times when the entire organization needs to be included in a conversation, no matter how large the organization grows to become. We can't all be at all the meetings. Banning substantive conversations from the listserv and requiring that those conversations only happen in person, at meetings, would be undemocratic because only the people at the meeting would know what was said. As far as it being a "security" risk to have listserv conversations, of course electronic media like email and listservs are not hard for the police state to monitor. BUT neither are our in person meetings. The left in San Diego and elsewhere have always had to be aware of the widespread use of agents, and this has increased since the post 9/11 days of Bush Junior and more so under Obama. It is not going to go away. So I hope our policy, if we eventually adopt one, is that we do not talk about illegal activity in our organization's meetings or online media, UNLESS the group has consciously decided (voted, consensus, whatever method) to talk about it (civil disobedience, for example). Keeping the discussion on legal topics is no ultimate guarantee of safety from police troublemaking, but it goes a long way. mk   

---------- Original Message ----------

I just want to chime in here on a few things.  First, I believe that the comments about Mexicans posted are not acceptable language on this listserv or anywhere within the group.  It is important that we clarify why they are on here.  Second, I personally believe that moderation for this kind of language is not prior restraint and that it can be a concern for security.  I created this listserv from the emails voluntarily provided at meetings as a means of basic communication.  I am the only one currently with functional administration and moderation privileges for the listserve.  I do not/have not claim(ed) any authority from that and want these privileges expanded to the communications committee level ASAP (I am on the communications committee.)  I have not moderated or censored any posts for content.  So having clarified my personal position, I do, however, want to add that on a personal level I do not feel that an extended discussion like this is acceptable online or that the listserve should be used for anything but basic informational clarification.  The first email I sent tried to clarify as such.  There are almost 70 people on here and that should be respected.  In my personal opinion, I think a discussion of these issues at the committee level should be brought up, that further discussion should take place at that level, and that any serious decisions should then be brought to the group.  Respecting process is important. Tanner      
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Monty Kroopkin <mkroopkin at juno.com> wrote:
Yessenia, I now wonder if you “did see that”, then why didn’t you respond to the post that Fred sent to our list? Why did you ask me “Please explain what this is all about, and what it's doing here, in all of our inboxes.” If you saw that I was replying to what Fred posted, why didn’t you ask HIM that question? Regarding the issue you raise about “moderating” our listserv and who has “access”, I have to wonder what you imagine would happen to any hope of building a multi-tendency left alliance if people start seeing their posts censored. This is not a political party. We all expect other members of the coalition to say things we find disagreeable. This is NOT a ‘security’ issue. This is a political issue. The prospects for working out how several left organizations can collaborate are challenging enough without adding list “moderation” and causing anybody to worry whether one group has not only seized control of the listserv, but also thinks it has the wisdom and the right to decide which “line” and which “language” is to be approved for group consumption. We need confidence in the transparency of the list administration and in the freedom of all groups and members to say what they want to the rest of us. The best way to deal with anything posted on the listserv if people are offended by it is to have a robust conversation about it and decide if any action is needed, not to engage in prior restraint. I hope the group will try to discuss some guidance to the communications/security committee. Especially important is to realize that this is not an illegal underground organization. Our security needs are not like that. The infiltration and surveillance abilities of the police state are such that we should always assume we have an agent or two in the organization and that all our communication is reported to whatever pig agencies care to monitor it (either electronically or in person). If we are planning an action and want to minimize the prospects of the information getting into the wrong brains, or getting there too soon, then that is one kind of security need we should work out, as well as possible (never assuming we are leak proof). If we are concerned to protect individual identities from being too public, that is another kind of security need we should work out. We should not be blocking our own membership from reading internal draft documents, on the other hand, out of some vague concern about “security”. (This apparently did already come up in one of our committees). What “security”? A draft document which at some point (when finalized) will be a public document? Where is the “security risk” in such a draft being shared outside the committee, to the whole group, in advance of the whole group meeting, so that we can all think about the draft before the meeting and decide if we like the draft or want to amend it? Too much “security” inside an organization, especially a coalition, can breed paranoia and suspicions toward our own members. And that is exactly one of the situations a police agent provocateur would want to create to kill the organization. COINTELPRO and other notorious examples of political police spying have done a lot of this historically.

---------- Original Message ----------

From: Yesenia Padilla <yeseniatpadilla at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 16:29:30 -0800
Subject: Re: [Sdalliance] My schedule for January 20th.
To: Eric Chamberlin <grshado at yahoo.com>
Cc: Monty Kroopkin <mkroopkin at juno.com>, 
 "Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca" Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca

Hi Eric: Thanks, I did see that, but the reason i called this particular instance out is that this brings up a larger issue of who has access to our listserv and whether or not our listserv should be moderated...can we add this to the communications meeting agenda? Thanks,  Yesenia

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Eric Chamberlin <grshado at yahoo.com> wrote:
Yesenia, If you look carefully you will see that Monty, like you, and like me is responding to a post that was originally intended for San Diego Alliance for Justice but was sent to our list by mistake. A big mistake it is too because you are absolutely right about the language!  I was sceptical about the SDAFJ before I'm now repulsed.  Eric

From: Yesenia Padilla <yeseniatpadilla at gmail.com>
 To: Monty Kroopkin <mkroopkin at juno.com> 
Cc: Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
 Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [Sdalliance] My schedule for January 20th.

Monty: This email you've just shared on the Alliance listserv contains anti-Mexican language that is deeply inappropriate and should under no circumstances be expressed in this space. Please explain what this is all about, and what it's doing here, in all of our inboxes.  Thanks, YeseniaOn Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Monty Kroopkin <mkroopkin at juno.com> wrote:Fellow Worker Fred, The original post by Allen C. Morse III was to ResistTrump_J20 resisttrump_j20 at googlegroups. com  which is the group listserv for the San Diego Alliance for Justice (SDAFJ), that has been meeting on Mondays.  I think that that is where you meant to respond. You responded to the listserv Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca  which is for the 'left allliance' that has been meeting on Sundays and which still has no name. ---------- Original Message ----------To: 5540al at gmail.comFrom: Fred Lonidier <pres2034 at san.rr.com>Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:04:17 -0800Cc: Sdalliance at lists.resist.caSubject: [Sdalliance] My schedule for January 20th.I like the morning event at 10:30am at City College very much but am not going to attend the event at Chicano Park. You guys just don't realize that this event will be only about Mexicans and saving Mexican jobs! The labor unions will be there because they want to preserve the status quo and be able to pay cheap labor. Unfortunately, this is what must change in America and I have no interest in supporting that at all!Your reference to the labor movement does not make any sense; unions don't "pay" wages, businesses do. �I don't think you know anything about the Justice for Janitors campaign by SEIU or HERE (hotel & restaurant workers) or the United Domestic Workers fights for union contracts for higher wages, benefits and grievance procedures. �Unions have backed the $15 per hour here and all over the country. �Also here, the labor movement with its allies on the City Council got improvements for taxi drivers. �Most of these campaigns and many others involve immigrant workers from many countries including Mexico.Fred LonidierUC/AFT Local 2034 past presidentLabor Council DelegateI am somewhat concerned the direction this group has taken and when I sat on the J20 planning subcommittee, I felt that what I had to say was cut off and summarily dismissed by those trying to dominate the committee. What bothered me most was things that were voted down by that committee suddenly showed up back off the table again because the "dominators" didn't like it! Also work done by people who put time and care in was just summarily rejected. As a consequence, there's a flyer out there I DO NOT like at all!This is the 4th of January and still there is no finalized agenda from what I understand. Time's a wasting folks, this needs to be done already and instead it's discuss and argue, nothing is being accomplished! It's DISTRESSING for an action person like myself! I am so disappointed I decided not to attend any meetings this week. I'm seriously considering whether to even stay with this group or just strike out on my own on January 20th. There are some other groups that have a great agenda and are doing some pretty good stuff that I might join up with.I would like to enlighten everyone concerning a "safe protest". Do you think we'll be the only ones out there? Donald Trump supporters, which includes a large amount of SDPD are going to be out there looking for a fight! We should not expect a smooth sail, but instead be prepared for a very rough ride and be very happy if it doesn't happen! The Donald Trump supporters will be spoiling for a fight at Chicano Park, this should be expected, and SDPD might just stand back and let it happen! Therefore, informing SDPD what we're doing might be a big mistake and make us targets to be picked off! We should not inform the SDPD what we're doing...no, no, no!-Allen C. Morse III5540al at gmail.com --  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ResistTrump_J20" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to resisttrump_j20+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to resisttrump_j20 at googlegroups. com. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/resisttrump_j20/ 0e01d55d-198f-4663-a690- 6b206587f5d6%40googlegroups. com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.______________________________ _________________ Sdalliance mailing list Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca http://lists.resist.ca/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/ sdalliance -- Yesenia Padilla
_______________________________________________Sdalliance mailing listSdalliance at lists.resist.cahttp://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance

 -- 
Yesenia Padilla
_______________________________________________
 Sdalliance mailing list
 Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
 http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/sdalliance/attachments/20170105/67c2d265/attachment-0001.html>