[CIMC-work] Re: [Imc-chicago-video] Re: Imc-chicago-working Digest, Vol 11, Issue 39

Mon Mar 15 08:08:54 PST 2004

Not sure if this is getting through here and thought it might be something to 
keep in mind!

Protesters accuse PP of manipulation
Jane Walker 

  Protests: It began early on Saturday afternoon when people began to receive 
phone calls, text messages and e-mails from friends and acquaintances.

The message told them to assemble outside the Popular Party (PP) headquarters 
at 6 p.m. and ended with the words: "Pass on this message".

Thousands did.

As six o'clock approached, a few hundred people had arrived.They shouted, 
chanted and waved their fists at the PP building, protesting at the 
government's apparent manipulation of information about Thursday's atrocity.

An hour later the crowd had swollen to around 1,000 and, as the message spread, 
it grew to 3,000 people.

Many carried placards simply saying: "Peace". Others read: "Your war, our dead."

Although the demonstration was not authorised, police stood by, merely 
preventing the crowd getting too close to the glass facade of the PP 
headquarters. There were no political leaders, just anonymous citizens 
expressing their frustration.

Shortly before midnight, the crowd moved to the city centre at the Puerta del 
Sol, where they joined the several hundred people who had been holding a vigil 
outside the regional government buildings.

The chants grew louder, and so did the crowds. Many brought saucepans, bin lids 
and tin cans, and anything else they could bang together to make noise.

The protest continued there until nearly 3 a.m. yesterday morning, when many of 
the protesters moved to Atocha Station where they held a five-minute silence to 
remember those who had died there two days before.

Similar protests took place across the country. No one knew who organised them, 
but the massive support brought back memories of the huge anti-war 
demonstrations in which millions of Spaniards showed their opposition to the 
invasion of Iraq.

There were over 10,000 in Barcelona and thousands more in virtually every major 
town and city in Spain.

One of the protesters' main criticisms of the government has been its blatant 
manipulation of information and even downright lying.

© The Irish Times      

Quoting Thomas Yun <mayday at riseup.net>:

> I'm glad we're discussing this stuff at all.
> 
> Pertinent to the video collective as we are the newest members.  What
> Chris G is talking about points #3 and #4 about our mission.
> 
> paz,
> t
> y
> 
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:46:01 EST
> > From: ChrisGeovanis at aol.com
> > Subject: Re: [CIMC-work] quick note pertaining to US Process stuff
> > To: ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com, imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> > Message-ID: <2d.3ae2071d.2d84e929 at aol.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > IMHO, it is not 'easier' to discuss on this listserve, and some of this
> > needs
> > to be taken up in meetings. bummer, since meetings are tough for me too,
> > but
> > that's the way i see it. i think we should develop a list (or at least
> > begin
> > to) at tomorrow's meeting (to which i will probably be late, as i have
> > another
> > meeting at 1:30 pm), about issues we need to tackle, try to prioritize
> > items
> > along lines of importance, and get on with it, including in meetings of
> > working
> > group(s) that might be set up to do same. Here's a shoot-from-the-hip list
> > of
> > stuff we might want to take up over time:
> >
> > 1) consensus process for Chicago: what is it, how do we deploy it?
> > 2) editorial policy/mechanics: can the hide vs delete functionality be
> > reversed?
> > 3) editorial policy/philosophy: we should revisit same, revise where
> > appropriate, and reconsense on same.
> > 4) mission/statement of principles of unity (chicago): we should revisit
> > same, revise where appropriate, and reconsense on same.
> > 5) local membership and accountability to the global network: aak. this is
> > potentially thorny. please see my "still another note" below.
> > 6) training materials: we need 'em, and we need to get 'em up on our site.
> > i
> > actually have a lot of training stuff in the can for workshops hammerhard
> > has
> > done over the years, as well as workshops i've done on behalf of CIMC. i
> > am
> > happy to make this material available to the project if people like, and
> > working
> > with others to develop doc where needed.
> > 7) getting the above up on the site in the interest of transparency and
> > direct democracy: our process guidelines/rules/whatever, our editorial
> > policy, et
> > al needs to be accessible to people from our frontpage. a lot of it is;
> > more of
> > it should be, including stuff that we develop/reconsense/refine in the
> > coming
> > months.
> >
> > Note: I propose #'s 3 and 4 because we have many new people who were not a
> > party to our original meetings re mission and editorial policy, and since
> > the
> > collective in its early days did not lay down the greatest doc in the
> > world to
> > describe this stuff, we might as well take another crack at it. THEN same
> > should be deployed CLEARLY on our site. This does not have to be a
> > contentious
> > process, and i personally don't expect us to stray from our original sense
> > of
> > mission, but we need to lay it down on (virtual) paper, and to do that we
> > need to
> > involve the whole collective, including newer members, insofar as folks
> > want
> > to be involved.
> >
> > Another note: I am a huge fan of not reinventing the wheel where same is
> > not
> > necessary. so ... i think we should afford ourselves the opportunity to
> > survey
> > other sites for good copy, et al, as well as pitfalls we might want to
> > avoid.
> >
> > Still another note: re #5, local membership and accountability to the
> > global
> > network: i could be getting this really wrong, but i think 'we' just got
> > accused on the global process list of having '10' members (allegedly tiny)
> > and no
> > promulgated process in place. hrumphhh. we have never really defined
> > membership
> > per se in this collective much beyond 'a nebulous affinity group.' that
> > said,
> > i think there are about a bejillion individuals in different projects and
> > groups in the metro chicago area that 1)  see CIMC as a visible and
> > valuable crew
> > with which they feel real partnership and kinship in terms of getting
> > content
> > out to the larger activist community; 2) do NOT see CIMC as just a bunch
> > of
> > tech boys arguing amongst themselves; 3) would be horrified to learn that
> > 'their' IMC had been accused of being a tiny gaggle of unaccountable nits.
> >
> > HOWEVER, we could improve the way we promulgate some stuff, like standing
> > process, tools to use the site and the project, and some components of
> > outreach.
> > this would be a good idea in no small part, i think, because it would make
> > clearer to people who are thinking about taking a more active role as
> > volunteers
> > just exactly what it is that they are getting involved with. plus, i still
> > get
> > phone calls every week from people who want to know if we can send a
> > 'reporter' to their event. i happily explain how we work, encourage them
> > to get their
> > stuff on the wire, et al, but it would be great if we could get doc re
> > same up
> > on the site.
> >
> > in addition, since we have collective members (namely, regular volunteers
> > who
> > show up at meetings, do a lot of excellent volunteer work, produce actual
> > content -- and not just to pad their resumes or 'institution-build' to
> > strengthen
> > their position on the grants gravytrain) who've very generously offered to
> > take responsibility for monitoring relevant network-wide lists, we might
> > want to
> > try to lay down some 'guidelines' about how folks should do that, since
> > inevitably in some situations, those same folks will be identified as
> > speaking on
> > behalf of the collective. i raise this because, while i personally thrill
> > to
> > energizing debate on occasion, i think that when it comes to the global
> > network
> > lists it's important that folks -- even when speaking as individuals and
> > not
> > on behalf of the collective -- bear in mind the ease with which remarks
> > can be
> > misconstrued as 'flaming' or combative (ok, sometimes they ARE), and make
> > a
> > principled effort to be deliberative, constructive and positive where
> > possible.
> > i do NOT want to lay down 'rules' that seek to censor personal expression.
> > i
> > just think it might be good for us to have a discussion about how
> > 'ideally' to
> > interface with global listserves, even if all that means is that a person
> > clearly note in posts that they are writing AS AN INDIVIDUAL and not on
> > behalf of
> > our collective.
> >
> > super finally: the fact that we have not promulgated formal terms of
> > process/consensus for our group is a vulnerability, imho, both locally and
> > in the
> > global collective. maybe can't we just crib some language from somewhere,
> > discuss
> > and consense? i certainly DON'T want to derail our sometimes very
> > enjoyable
> > conversational approach to meetings, but maybe we need to revisit same and
> > tweak
> > accordingly.
> >
> > super duper finally: on the issue of sexism in imc's...this is a real
> > issue.
> > it's not one i feel personally particularly vulnerable to, but i've never
> > had
> > any particular difficulty in expressing my opinions, even when very pushy
> > dudes have not welcomed same. i have never, for the record, personally
> > experienced
> > any sort of sexism in our collective, and i don't think we have a problem
> > with this, unlike other collectives. then again, i was once accused of
> > being a
> > 'mannish bitch' by a rather unpleasant neighbor, so maby i'm as guilty of
> > dude
> > behavior as the next person, despite my actual gender. and i think that
> > part of
> > the problem with the discussion of sexism in the IMC is that sometimes we
> > womyn need to take responsibility for putting our voices forward
> > assertively. i
> > mean, fuck the shackles, eh? that said, it would be good if we promulgated
> > in
> > our mission statement something explicit about this collective's rejection
> > of
> > sexism, as well as practical strategies to address same.
> >
> > christine
> >
> > In a message dated 03/13/2004 12:32:30 PM Central Standard Time,
> > ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com writes:
> >
> >
> >> Subj:Re: Re: [CIMC-work] quick note pertaining to US Process stuff
> >> Date:03/13/2004 12:32:30 PM Central Standard Time
> >> From:ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
> >> To:imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> >> Sent from the Internet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:42:09 -0600, Garth Liebhaber wrote:
> >> > Chris K.
> >> >
> >> > well i think it would be a lot easier and accurate to
> >> > converse in person on a lot of these issues.
> >>
> >>
> >> Garth,
> >>
> >> Well, I think it's a lot easier and accurate to converse on this list,
> >> though I'm open to conversing in person, as well.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > which lists are you on?  i know you are on global as well
> >> > as finance, are there others?  how well do you follow these
> >> > lists?  do you read every post? or every other day?  i'm
> >> > curious to know what we've been missing.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You can compare the messages I forward to this list against the archives
> >> of
> >> the lists I forward from. You can compare time and date stamps on both.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > am i alone to notice that admin sascha seems to have
> >> > suddenly declared us-process a formalized list with
> >> > decisionmaking capabilities?!  this is immediately after
> >> > another admin shot down my overtures to formalize the
> >> > list so that we might actually do something.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have not expressed an opinion on Sascha's "list rules." I forwarded it
> >> to
> >> this list as being a message of importance, in my role as liaison.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > i am also annoyed with your random forwards from us-
> >> > process. not that i have something to hide, but it's nice to
> >> > know which shoes i'm wearing while dancing.
> >>
> >>
> >> What is "random" and what is not (that is, systematic, or conforming to
> >> a
> >> pattern) is a judgement call.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > lastly, i still haven't waded through the pool of posts in
> >> > reaction to my post with the swear words.  i'll do that
> >> > when i'm done with my 15 page termpaper. did you
> >> > notice i how i attempted to summarize and put things in
> >> > context to facilitate the process with chicago collective?
> >>
> >>
> >> Would you list links to examples of what you're talking about?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > some of the intonations that i have picked up though
> >> > make me crunch my eybrows.  suddenly because garth
> >> > swore, everyone else has the instant moral high ground?
> >> > that's petty.
> >>
> >>
> >> I do not understand what you're talking about here. I, personally, have
> >> no
> >> problems with anyone using swear words.
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > not as angry, mostly annoyed, a little amused,
> >> > garth
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Kaihatsu wrote:
> >> >>  4. Chris K., hope you plan on coming to this Sunday's
> >> >>  meeting.  We haven't seen you in a while.  I think we
> >> >>  should discuss liason empowerment amongst other
> >> >>  things.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Garth, all,
> >> >
> >> > I can't make Sunday's meeting -- I'm out of town. I hope
> >> > you still consider this list as appropriate as a message
> >> > board for CIMC discussions and consensed decisions.
> >> > Thanks for everyone's patience.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:54:09 -0600, Garth Liebhaber
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>  hey all who've been torturing themselves with this,
> >> >>
> >> >>  1. I have taken a hiatus from reading the response on
> >> > US-
> >> >>  Process to my swear words.
> >> >>
> >> >>  2.  I did read Chris G.s emails and had a good talk with
> >> >>  her today.  Things to bring forth on Sunday.
> >> >>
> >> >>  3. I also did read the one Chris K. forward to our CIMC
> >> >>  Working list on list rules for US-Process.  I find it
> >> >>  upsetting because there had been explicit overtures/
> >> >>  implications/statements made that the US-Process site
> >> >>  was not a formal process list that could not pass
> >> >>  resolutions.  a.) who elected the administrators who are
> >> >>  now making decisions? b.) empowered liasons?  were
> >> > we
> >> >>  sent an invite? c.  Sascha's description of the list is
> >> > weak.
> >> >>  Is there a reason for that?
> >> >>
> >> >>  I find this a bit undemocratic and smelling like some of
> >> >>  the other endeavors that are pushed through by a few
> >> >>  people.
> >> >>
> >> >>  4. Chris K., hope you plan on coming to this Sunday's
> >> >>  meeting.  We haven't seen you in a while.  I think we
> >> >>  should discuss liason empowerment amongst other
> >> >>  things.
> >> >>
> >> >>  smiles,
> >> >>  garth
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>  Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
> >> >>  http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008
> >> >>  _______________________________________________
> >> >>  Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> >> >>  Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> >> >>  http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-
> >> > chicago-working
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _________________________________________________________
> >> > _
> >> > The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
> >> > A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist Web
> >> > Site and the Socialist Equality Party
> >> > wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> >> > Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> >> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-
> >> > working
> >> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > ---- End Original Message ----
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
> >> > http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> >> > Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> >> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________________
> >> The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
> >> A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist Web Site and the
> >> Socialist Equality Party
> >> wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> >> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> >> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> >>
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> >
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-
working/attachments/20040313/3efe1cca/attachment.htm
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> > Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> >
> >
> > End of Imc-chicago-working Digest, Vol 11, Issue 39
> > ***************************************************
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> created on May Day 1973.
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-video mailing list
> Imc-chicago-video at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-video
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

hotpress.com mail is virus-scanned and spam-proof. This, CDs for 10 Euro,
discounts all over Ireland - and lots more - for just20 Euro. 
To join: http://www.hotpress.com/