hey friends,
On a slightly different note, a very close friend of mine, Gary Ruskin, is
running a the Center for Corporate Policy, relatively new nonprofit focused
on fighting corporate crime and violence. Previously, he managed the Prop
37 campaign to label GMOs. Recently, he published a report highlighting how
big businesses are spying on activists and radical nonprofits (see this
article<http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-corporations-increasingly-sp…>
in
the LA Times).
Lately, Gary and I have been taking about how to begin organizing
"mainstream" (forgive the label) tech workers around progressive politics,
far beyond mere "civic hacking" on transit apps or Twitter accounts to
report inefficiencies. More on that in the coming months...
I'm writing to you all because Gary and I also asked:
Where do folks like the Center for Corporate
Policy<http://www.corporatepolicy.org>go to find allied talent who
might develop and evolve their online presence
and strategy? At first I thought, well, hmmm, the warm, loving, and
supporting Sudo Room crew.
So – if folks know folks up for the task of improving
www.corporatepolicy.org, let me know!
And – if folks are interested in the bigger picture of building bridges
between mainstream tech workers and radical activists, I'm eager to
continue that conversation, too.
sincerely,
Danny
should anyone that is attending this evenings festivities have room in
their conveyance for another such as myself
do tell!
i dont want to make my number public, so i will endeavor to keep
checking....
--
*Be seeing you.*
Hi everyone!
Do any of you have a split keyboard you would be down to barter/gift/sell
me?
Legalese: Barter items could include and are not limited to all or some of
the following:
- NOMS: If you have not yet tried my cooking, your future tongue will
soon be blessed by the gods of endless salivation. Argentinean specialty
(almost all of my recipes can be made veggie or vegan. Seriously.).
- SUCCULENTS: I have many of these little fractals, and can arrange them
in pretty pots in artistic ways.
- CREATIVE WRITING: My forte.
- SPANISH LANGUAGE LESSONS/TRANSLATION: De veras.
- ILLUSTRATION: :3 prrr
- SEWING/ALTERATIONS: I am better than average at it.
ChrisBee: What you SAID was this:
"Feel free to disagree with me, but when I hear/read discussions about
this based around "how safe is so-and-so compared to such-and-such area"
I think "Wow, if that isn't privilege/entitlement/self-absorption then I
don't know what is." Not saying that any of you are, but I'm just saying."
So if what you SAID is not what you MEANT, now's your chance to un-SAY it.
As my friends around here know, my safety-sense is calibrated to err on
the side of false-positives, and on that particular occasion I got a
false-negative, with the result that I and the person I was with got
held up at gunpoint. The gal who was physically assaulted and robbed of
her tablet was sitting in front of DeLauer's, and three assailants were
involved. The guy who got his windows smashed (twice) was parked
outside SR.
So: How much paranoia is justified, or should we get concealed-carry
permits and shoot any random JoeBob who approaches us on the streets at
night? Or should we wear pistols in holsters and hope that visible
deterrence is worth a damn against hardened criminals who might be
cranked up on meth?
The fact that you've been robbed, you've had friends who've been robbed,
and had a couple of friends die (presumably shot) (someone I knew also
died from a gang shooting) should, if anything, disabuse you of the
attitude that "being aware of your surroundings" is sufficient to avoid
an early meet-up with the Grim Reaper.
But instead you come up with this in your latest missive: "[don't']
assume everything is going to be fine if, say, you decide to send some
drunk texts while walking through Ghost Town at 3 am."
Excuse me but I've never been drunk in my life, and I don't even own a
cellphone (I get all the surveillance I want for my taxpayer dollars,
why pay another $600/year for even more?). The guy I was with wasn't
drunk or texting either. The gal who got assaulted and robbed wasn't
drunk; she was reading on her tablet, but it was at a bus stop in a
brightly lit area with lots of people coming & going. The guy whose car
windows got smashed: hmm, should his car have been more paranoid?, or
should his car get a concealed-carry permit?
In point of fact some parts of Oakland ARE safer than others. Look up
the crime maps and see for yourself. Whether, on balance, SR should
locate in whatever-neighborhood depends on a lot of things including
affordable space and access to public transport, and I'm not opposed to
taking calculated risks or making tradeoffs. But there's a world of
difference between _that_ and a smug callous attitude toward other
people's safety and other peoples' lives.
As for keeping the personal attacks out of it, you bloody well fired the
first shot, or rather, tossed a big honking hand-grenade of a personal
attack with your line about "privilege/entitlement/self-absorption." So
don't be surprised at the blowback.
-G.
=====
On 13-12-02-Mon 7:17 PM, Chris Bee wrote:
> What I meant was that if you spend any amount of time in Oakland it
> behooves you to be aware of your surroundings and not assume
> everything is going to be fine if, say, you decide to send some drunk
> texts while walking through Ghost Town at 3 am. I realize that not
> every "I got robbed in Oakland" story starts like this but you'd be
> surprised at how many do.
>
> BTW I am not the douchebag you seem to think I am. I've been robbed
> (in Temescal no less), had close friends robbed, even had a couple
> friends die as a result of shit like this so it's something I'm pretty
> familiar with. I'm not saying what I'm saying lightly, I'm saying this
> because I don't want sudoers to think that one part of Oakland is
> necessarily safer or less safe than another part. So let's keep the
> personal attacks out of it, it's a shitty thing to go through but we
> shouldn't take shots at each other.
>
> -chrisbee
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:54 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne
> <g2g-public01(a)att.net <mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote:
>
>
> Re. Sonja:
>
> Exactly what I've done: not gone back to SudoRoom after having had
> a gun pointed at my guts right in the doorway. Chances are at
> least one person reading this is pleased with that outcome, but at
> least four I know aren't.
>
> Re. ChrisBee:
>
> Right, blame the fucking victims, three or four of us that I know
> of who've been robbed, assaulted, or had car windows smashed and
> stuff stolen coming & going from SR or parked nearby, and possibly
> one or two I missed.
>
> Let's see, where have we heard your line of bullshit before?...
> she shouldn't have been wearing those clothes either...? I take
> it you agree with that too.
>
> I'll quote you directly for what comes next, just so the context
> of my reply is clear:
>
>
> "Feel free to disagree with me, but when I hear/read discussions
> about this based around "how safe is so-and-so compared to
> such-and-such area" I think "Wow, if that isn't
> privilege/entitlement/self-absorption then I don't know what is."
> Not saying that any of you are, but I'm just saying."
>
> So it's "privilege/entitlement/self-absorption" to value being in
> a safe location where you're less likely to be subjected to
> violence on the street? I'm going to say something to you that I
> haven't said to anyone in a damn long time: Go fuck yourself.
>
> -G.
>
>
> =====
>
>
>
> On 13-12-02-Mon 6:02 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
>> Yeah but what if taking responsibility for your safety means not
>> going where you've been robbed before?
>>
>> On Monday, December 2, 2013, Chris Bee wrote:
>>
>> (shakes head, sighs)
>>
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again...in most cases,
>> putting the onus of personal safety on a neighborhood is
>> totally missing the point that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR
>> OWN SAFETY, full stop. Saying that you are (relatively) more
>> or less safe depending on where you are is...is...well, it's
>> wrong thinking on so many levels that I don't even know where
>> to begin.
>>
>> Feel free to disagree with me, but when I hear/read
>> discussions about this based around "how safe is so-and-so
>> compared to such-and-such area" I think "Wow, if that isn't
>> privilege/entitlement/self-absorption then I don't know what
>> is." Not saying that any of you are, but I'm just saying. I
>> like and respect my sudo peoples...a lot. That's why I'm
>> pointing this out. I don't want anyone to be lulled into a
>> false sense of security/anxiety by thinking that just because
>> you're in one area bad shit is less prone to happen to you,
>> or vice versa. It's on all of us to be aware of what's going
>> on around us and to be prepared to deal with whatever
>> situations may come our way, alone or otherwise. Good
>> Samaritans notwithstanding, the cops are...well, the odds of
>> them being there when you "need" them (I personally don't)
>> are next to nil, and they only seem to make things
>> complicated after the fact.
>>
>> What we should be focused on is locating an affordable space
>> that meets the needs of BAPS/sudo/CCL.
>>
>> Sorry if I seem a little impatient but I've seen too many
>> important discussions get derailed like this, and right now I
>> think this is pretty high on our list of immediate concerns.
>>
>> And again, If anyone wants to straighten me out on this issue
>> I'm all ears/eyes.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> -chrisbee
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Sonja Trauss
>> <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oh man I'm I total idiot, I just realized where 8th and
>> Alice is - I saw "8th st" and "near BART" and thought you
>> were talking about w Oakland BART.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>>
>> Sonja, given that -- as you say -- West Oakland is
>> "pretty mixed" racially and culturally, what is it
>> that leads you to conclude that Amber was talking
>> about black people, and commenting on race?
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Sonja Trauss
>> <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah you need to give black people more credit.
>> Did you know, some of them like coffee shops
>> also? some of them can read? Some of them have
>> computers? Some of them might become sudo
>> members? Black people are pretty similar to white
>> people and like lots of the same things!!! Wow.
>>
>> In any case w. O. Is pretty mixed. There are lots
>> burners and anarchists there that would like sudo
>> room too. My roommate Randall will be there every
>> day if you move to 8th and Alice.
>>
>> Listen if anyone on this list is actually worried
>> about the harmful effects of gentrification, I'm
>> happy to brainstorm how to accomplish these
>> two specific goals:
>> Under no circumstances should the west
>> Oakland housing projects move or be converted.
>> (This will not be a real concern for 25 years,
>> but still)
>> Make new building in w o very very easy. The main
>> attractive feature of w O is cheapness of rent.
>> We still have plenty of empty space. There is no
>> reason that supply tightness should cause rents
>> to rise for 50 more years SO LONG AS ANTI
>> GENTRIFICATION concerns DONT PREVENT NEW BUILDING.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>>
>> Everybody has different views on
>> gentrification. But speaking for myself, the
>> kind that bothers me is the high-security
>> condos with on-site parking where rich people
>> get cheap real estate and then have zero
>> incentive or inclination to engage with their
>> neighbors. They drive to work, drive to Whole
>> Foods, and in between sit behind bars on
>> their balconies while their neighbors push
>> shopping carts by their fortresslike front
>> doors to the recycling center.
>>
>> Sudo Room *exists* to build community. It may
>> not build the kind of community that
>> everybody wants to participate in, but it
>> does offer opportunities that don't exist
>> absent a hacker space. It's hard for me to
>> imagine Sudo Room doing damage to its
>> neighborhood, and even if something
>> unexpected happened, I think its community
>> would act quickly to correct the problem.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:45 AM,
>> AnimationAmber .
>> <amberyadaanimation(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It should be noted that aiming for a
>> space in a "less-gentrified" neighborhood
>> does overlook the possibility that Sudo's
>> presence would have a gentrifying effect.
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -amber
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Marc
>> Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Matt, Jenny and myself went and
>> looked at another space that could
>> potentially be a new sudo space.
>>
>> We've started gathering information
>> about it here:
>>
>> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/8th_and_Alice
>>
>> My personal feeling about the space is:
>>
>> This is an awesome space with lots of
>> natural light. It addresses two of
>> the major concerns raised about The
>> Omni in being two blocks from BART in
>> a neighborhood that seems/feels safer
>> than the area around MacArthur BART,
>> and in being located in a less
>> gentrified neighborhood. The one
>> drawback in comparing it to the
>> current space and The Omni is the
>> lack of a big separate common area
>> for events. It is _very_ similar to
>> Noisebridge in almost every way.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
maybe it's been a while since i was last at sudoroom.org, but the new
homepage is beautiful! thank you to whoever updated it and to romy for
drawing one of my favorite comics!
<3,
marina
...for some reason it didn't carbonate, so it's going to do so in the sudo
fridge for the next couple days. That means we had to bring the CO2 up to
14 psi, which is considerably over serving pressure (5 psi). So, unless you
feel up to a flat mate shower, please do not tap the keg till it's ready.
"We will not drink any mate before its time." -Orson Welles, famous sudoer
(I think)
-chrisbee
Hey all,
I wanted to forward some expectations on behalf of landlord George Rosen.
1. Please be mindful of maintaining the furniture in the building.
2. Please limit scuffs on walls and carpets, or various other damage that
can be avoided.
3. We need to participate in cleaning up or painting over scuffs and
markings, especially obvious places such as some of the common room walls.
(volunteers?)
4. It is essential to make more room by cleaning the sudo room so it can be
more usable, making us less reliant on the common space and providing wider
passage.
5. Please keep the bathrooms clean, and check them regularly.
6. Please do not tamper, move, remove, or otherwise augment any of the fire
safety equipment in the building.
7. Please keep the heating and air conditioning under control, not left on
at high or low temperatures at inappropriate times. The 2141 systems should
be fully operational, the 2135 system is almost repaired.
Finally, thank you for your patience, and as always, thank you for flying
SUDO.
// Matt
For those of you who are members of the Cooperative Development Center Federal Credit Union and/or interested in political dimensions of democratic organizations... Read on
And to all a happy Sunday!
:Danny
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Tim Huet" <easytospell(a)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM
Subject: from Tim Huet; URGENT info and help needed
To: "tim(a)arizmendi.coop" <tim(a)arizmendi.coop>
> {This is a matter of great urgency for what-should-be a democratic
> organization that can do great good for its community. I apologize for
> the mix of personal and work email addresses, especially if you got
> duplicate messages. I'm trying to get this message out to members of
> the Cooperative Development Center Federal Credit Union before Tuesday's
> meeting; I'm writing you as people who hopefully know me as someone who
> has dedicated myself to building democratic organizations and would not
> do the things that certain people in power are accusing me of. Please
> feel encouraged to forward this message on to any friends you know who
> might be members of the credit union to assist the effort to fight this
> assault on democracy.}
> Hello. I have started to receive enquires from friends and worried
> credit union members regarding the action of the credit union's
> Supervisory Committee to suspend Tye Kirk, Mike Leung, and myself.Let me
> begin by saying that I believe the suspensions reflect a grave
> governance crisis for the credit union, but I also believe the credit
> union is financially secure.My primary interest continues to be to
> revive the credit union as a democratic institution and have it serve
> its community/members well, even if other parties wish to engage in
> factional warfare and divert resources that could better serve the members.
> I will provide a brief response to the charges here because past
> experience indicates I might not be given a fair opportunity to respond
> to charges in the meeting.Though fair process would involve an unbiased
> investigation, the Supervisory Committee did not even interview me
> before issuing its charges and suspension.The allegations are that Tye,
> Mike, and I...
> ·"Attempted to hold one or more Board meetings without giving notice to
> the other directors"
> ·"At improper meetings attempted to remove two legally seated directors..."
> We never endeavored to remove other board directors. We endeavored to
> have timely legal elections as part of the 2013 annual meeting.I tried
> everything I could to inform Board Chair Garrett and Vice Chair Shabaka
> the bylaws called for their terms to end with the next annual meeting
> unless re-elected at that meeting.
> The reason the election could not happen on the meeting date Mr. Shabaka
> proposed (11/1/13) was because Mr. Garrett, as Board Chair, did not
> fulfill his legal duty of appointing a Nominating Committee with a
> sufficient period to seek out qualified candidates.It would be
> understandable if Mr. Garrett simply forgot that his maximum three-year
> term was coming to an end (though two annual meetings without an
> election in a row should never happen in a credit union with three-year
> terms).But his failure to take appropriate action/responsibility once
> notified of his lapse is entirely another matter.Instead of seeking
> guidance and approval from the National Credit Union Administration
> (NCUA) about how we could carry out an election with the greatest haste
> and least waste of member resources, Mr. Garrett and Mr. Shabaka kept
> pushing toward an early annual meeting without elections...and
> apparently stayed on the board without being re-elected.So we had a 2013
> "annual meeting" with no elections or substantial opportunity for the
> members to give input, at the cost of thousands of members' dollars; and
> now we will apparently have an extra annual meeting/election in early
> 2014 (likely costing thousands more of the members' dollars). Yet the
> Supervisory Committee (primarily charged with making sure members' funds
> are not wasted) ignored this violation.
> We tried to organize a meeting of the board within seven days of the
> annual meeting as the bylaws would appear to require; the bylaws require
> this meeting primarily to elect new officers (presumably because an
> election would have happened and there might be occasion/need for a
> change of officers).There was an effort to reach every board member and
> the one possible time that Mr. Shabaka, Mr. Leung, Mr. Kirk and I could
> make was arrived at, with the hope that Mr. Garrett would be able to
> find a way to fulfill this obligation under the bylaws.But when Mr.
> Garrett was called and asked about time in the remaining day to meet the
> bylaw obligation, he would not listen or engage in a cooperative effort
> to fulfill our obligation; he instead hung up on the caller.Though I
> expect Mr. Garrett will have more opportunities to speak for himself, he
> apparently objected that only he as the Chair could call a meeting (not
> true).But the real issue was that a meeting was required the bylaws; he
> was responsible as anyone to understand the bylaw requirements; and
> particularly if he was the only one who could call the meeting he would
> be the person most responsible for making sure not to violate that
> bylaw...but he wouldn't want to have a meeting where he wouldn't be
> eligible to be elected to a one-year officer term when he was beyond his
> election term and it could not be presumed he would be re-elected.So
> another actual bylaw violation -- failure to have the meeting within
> seven days -- due to Mr. Garrett's inaction and obstruction.
> Yet the Supervisory Committee again ignored this in favor of suspending
> directors trying to work out bylaws that would comply with NCUA
> regulations, allow for lawful elections, etc. (the bylaws supposedly
> adopted by the previous board, including Ms. Pitrie of the Supervisory
> Committee, proved to be a jumble of contradictions that could not
> possibly have been approved by the NCUA).
> This is despite the Supervisory Committee's claim that it "takes
> seriously your, and each of our members' rights, to vote on the
> composition of your Board."The Supervisory Committee is required by law
> to let the members decide on approving suspension and
> reinstatement...and only if members show up December 3^rd (Ed Roberts
> Campus, above Ashby BART, 3075 Adeline; 6 p.m.) who care about democracy
> will a fair process and result be assured.
> Thanking you for your consideration,
> Tim Huet
