Neil Gaiman called for an Occupy Gallifrey weeks ago.
Although the Occupy [insert location here] anti-oligopoly movement appears to be losing a bit of its vigor, one enterprising website – Geeks Are Sexy – is attempting to breathe new life into the discriminating 99–per center's hoped-for zeitgeist. GAS – perhaps better known for such photo spectaculars as "Anna Fischer's …
Thanks for pointing out why "Occupy$CITY" are going to continue to be completely ignored by anyone with anything resembling power ...
If you don't have a coherent train of thought and corresponding RealWorld[tm] message to go along with your delivery, people with the ability to actually make changes to the system are going to think "Oh, look, another group of loony tree-sitters" ...
Mordor is just the beginning... lolll.
I fail to see your point as the President of the USA took notice of that movement.
The order/coherence train of thought often hides the authority of the "have", over those who have not - expression is valid in itself. People who can actually make changes are not likely to make it happen because they are more part of the problem than the solution, which is why lots of that movement is not about appealing to their "power" or "generosity", it's more about showing their true nature and sidetracking them through exposure of what they really stand for in the media. You can only ripoff people and harbor white collar criminals for so long before the desire for some accountability and social justice turns into anger...
You just have to remember that Sith legend and go back to your earlier teachings...
I meant Sith as in "all who have power are afraid to lose it" - and that can be played upon.
I take note of the fact that change takes more time to occur than for a tweet to circulate. Policy takes forever to change at higher levels. But policy at a personal level and awareness goes a long way at making changes in every day life.
I fail to see how "manor" as anything to do with it. I've seen that judgmental attitude often in my life. People who make claims for the average guy won't always be dressing up in DKNY shirts and won't necessarily resort to hours of makeup sessions to deliver their message to the media. This is not American Idol, friend.
On the contrary. Politicians have a habit of paying attention to whoever gains the most media attention and/or whoever shouts the loudest. That's why gobby mums with no idea what they're rabbiting on about have actually influenced government policies and legislation so many times.
I wish for once a politician would come out and say "You're a minority group and you're talking bollocks."
Mums (gobby or otherwise) are not a minority group, most women have children at some point in their lives. The groups that are formed on the Internet of Mums are well organised and motivated and tend to be the sort of people who vote. Now look at the people outside St Paul's at the moment, they don't have any coherent policies other than "capitalism is bad mkay", every other person there has different personal demands. Radio 4 news interviewed three different people all of whom said they were there for different reasons and couldn't understand what the interviewer meant when he suggested that this was a problem for their group.
Also, it does piss me off a bit that people protesting about capitalism are quite happy to take all the benefits that capitalism has given them while shouting about smashing the system. I'm reminded of the Life Of Brian - "What has capitalism done for us" etc. etc.
Women account for a tiny fraction over half of the population. It only requires a small fraction of them not being mothers for mothers to account for less than half of the population. Even allowing for alarming rates of teenage pregnancy, the 9% of the population that are female and 14 or under more than does it.
Last I heard, less than half means minority.
(Occupying Mordor is the wrong way round - Orcs and Goblins would probably constitute the 99% in Middle Earth)
It rather pisses me off that the whole protest is being framed simplistically as anti-capitalist because it's a bit more punchy than anti-the-version-of-capitalism-that-has-developed-over-the-last-20-years-or-so-and-possibly-only-parts-of-it which, granted, does include some who want the whole system brought down but also includes those who want a different kind of capitalism. I'll also grant you that the protesters are fairly inchoate in their argument, but the media are equally culpable in their reductionist misdirection - smashing the system is one option, but changing it *somehow* is another; conflating the two is just plain wrong.
I was being very generous and allowing 100% of the over 18 females to be mothers. It's nothing like that. Even with 90%, _they are still a minority group_ among voters. A goshdarned significant minority, but still a minority. Just as men are a minority. And pensioners.
While voting statistics can be taken into account on a cynical basis, considering large blocks in such a manner is rarely a good idea as they don't make decisions en masse on a single issue.
Take this simple theoretical scenario. It may be extremely frustrating for someone who honestly worked all his life to learn such a thing. Let's say that person had invested in stock through mutual funds through some tax sheltering scenario, as this was promoted as a way for him to increase his revenues for retirement. People managing the funds are all about maximizing value for the shareholders i.e. them, investing the money of their clients, holding shares, fighting some proxy little feuds to gain some for of control, maybe for big players eventually being able to control one member of the board, or control some decisions that would be put forward at an annual shareholders meeting. So of course, you would think that maximizing value for shareholders would mean "improving" the business they invested in, investing in new technologies to do things differently, or finding new markets to expand sales or the business in general... but it's mostly not like that and not all these investors are the for the long term. The easiest way to maximize the revenues is to do more with less... and that mostly means less human resources, which is the costliest thing of all... i.e. with less workers. So through their voting, they will elect or support board members who can do that job. Maximizing shareholders value essentially means milking out human resources for cash or displacing the work force to emerging economies where workers have no rights - in the short term scenario. Even in a long term scenario, there will eventually come a point for the heavyweight portfolio managers where coming out is required i.e. selling, and to maximize profits they have again the same interest of maximizing value.
So what is this about? What the hell is the link with wall street and banking and workers. Well, private and organized mutual investment is mostly a way to "steal" someone from his job and make money doing it. Of course, educated people and people in finance, lawyers, bankers and all, they've always known about this, but they promote it as "helping growth". Free trade is the legal backbone required to displace the workforce abroad, and you need lawyers, regulators, bankers and finance people to make it happen... what do you think they discuss at summits like G20 and such?? To have attentive focused investing, you need very rich and intelligent people who have an open agenda, not corporate raiders and the ones I've named just before, you need people who want to revamp or expand or help out. But for the simple guy who invests his money and has someone else decide where it goes, well it might be used to deprive him of his own job in the end, or his brother's job, or some stranger's job and there will be a price... social costs, unemployment, medical and all or the cost will be pushed somewhere else in the world. The truth of the matter is that when you fund goes up, you've actually made a profit from milking about other's people jobs. The schemes are just set up in a way that you can never really pinpoint which individual did it. It's funny how your money can be used against you? Wall street is even worst... private investment is like contract killing... one day such and such big shot investors decide that such a company is not to be trusted anymore, that they're hopeless simply because they want to buy some shares cheaper later on when the stock goes down, or simply because they've just sold the shares at a high price and want to buy back some more at a cheap price again, because who would invest if there's not cut to be made rapidly. This is just for rich people to become richer out of poorer people who work their asses to make ends meet... whereas some people have so much that they can afford to put 100K to play russian roulette with your job and your life.
To make it happen for you and your community, you're way better investing in the social economy, putting down money to finance young people who want to start up, getting to know the credit unions in your neighborhood, creating some if none exist nearby, getting together with some friends and incorporating, creating trust funds to cater to your loved ones etc.
So you see, when people come to understand how the wheels turn, they're legitimately angry. And they should not be censored by the rhetoric of the "clean" democracy where naive people tell you that you need to organize and speak in a rational and polite tone to influence people with power and convince them to change things. Nah, you just scare them shitless until they break or change things a little bit because they'll settle for ripping off less but continue doing it instead of losing it all...
The problem is that politicians always characterise what they want as 'what the public wants'. With no real forum for public thought they can get away with saying anything. Look at how the current cabal tell us 'what we want' when clearly the election showed that we where that enamoured of any of them.
People on the street making vague demands at least forms a kid of public forum. It may not be great but what is the alternative? Writing to your MP? <fades to black as laughter becomes ever more psychotic/>
"maximizing value for the shareholders" I think you will find that this is the statutory duty of boards of directors; not that I agree with it.
As one quote has it "Be kind to those you step on when going up, because you will meet them when you are coming down again''
Newton put it in a very kind and humble nutshell when he said: "If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Love your name - I'm just about to put all my eggs into the openindiana basket. - tried ubuntu: quite decent; love SuSE but still some concerns; I'll see how it goes!
Their duty is to the corporation, and the interest of the corporation may not be the same as that of the shareholders, but it's all in the how to go about doing it. Furthermore the law has evolved in that respect and many corporations have social oriented goals even in their articles of incorporation...
This has to do with the concept of "sustainability" i.e. integrating "all" costs to behavior i.e. beyond the perceived raw interests of the investor... Because if you ask someone at what cost he's ready to have his portfolio go up and you really personalize the scenario with the impacts on his family, friends, and community, then I think most people would think outside of their boxes. It's just they're too busy to be interested, and they can do it all online etc. It's very impersonal. But I'm not fooling myself, and it's mostly wishful thinking to think any of this will change. Which is why ultimately I believe in "degrowth". Because the waste is not in human resources, the waste is in how we consume things, and people simply work too much so they can't educate their kids right, take care of their healt and take the time to ascertain the value of their everyday life decisions, amongst other things. Caring for others is something that has to be learned, but it takes time and effort, and leads to solidarity and community. And it's possible to have it outside of the religion too. Proper urban design is central also in achieving this... people must rely less on buying stuff from outside their neighborhood, cities must make space for community gardens, green rooftops must be implemented etc. If all hope is lost for these things, then I simply believe in using knowledge and opportunity to undo those in power, by all means.
openIndiana... well, it's bright as the sun yet unstained by Oracle lollll. Good luck with that!
is for people with certain personal care or mobility needs. It doesn't matter whether you're working or not.
Employment and Support Allowance replaces Incapacity Benefit and has two streams depending on whether your sickness is or is not permanent and severe enough that you can't ever be expected to work.
Wall Street, the movie with Sheen and Michael Douglas is such a great Oliver Stone movie... but I remember in the extras how Douglas was saying that throughout his life after the movie he'd get messages and calls from people who admired the character of Gordon Gecko, idolized him, and even that it motivated them into going into finance...
Those people are quite educated and they have a long standing rhetoric to oppose the claim of the layman for some accountability, plus it's a superficial world where many will judge someone's claim based on how someone dresses and which smartphone he uses. Yet these hotshots are very afraid of their past shady deals and of what people might think of them when we learn how they spend their money in every day life... i.e. drugs, offshore dealings, trade of human beings and such...
Exposing them is very important. The first step in this direction is talking about their business and attracting attention, and eventually scrutiny... if not by the authorities then by digital vigilante. You have to work at both ends of the spectrum i.e. regulation/legal and the fishes within the tank. And raise awareness and leverage action of the normal people i.e. doing less business with banks and investment firms and focusing on real people with real ideas.
This erosion process is slow one, but it has started. They will slowly be undone...
Listen boyo, at least I'm trying to make an argument, which is the purpose of making comments on a forum. I'm no little boyscout trying to make an impression. I don't have to make an argument so that you or anyone else may like it and I'm at liberty to use whichever means I want, be them fiction or otherwise. I'm not your biatch. All you do is repeat the same sentence and hide behind generalities and condescending remarks. You lack substance. According to what you said, those people and I would need a sophisticated pr line and some fancy clothes to be entitled to speak up. Snob. You have no clue what freedom of speech is about nor creative thinking for that matter, nor don't you seem to understand what a metaphor is neither artistic representations of society i.e. through cinema, obviously. People won't be censored because they're not on par with what you consider appropriate and presentable. Grow up, it's a free world.
Douglas comments on the DVD extras is no fiction. Do you even know what I'm talking about? Oliver Stone never makes movies lightly and he carefully studied that industry back in the 80's before making Wall Street, which is very representative of that era.
I mean, why don't you just say what you have to say and get the f... lost. I'm voicing my opinion and don't you ever imply that I'm not entitled to do so. Got it?
"why don't you just say what you have to say and get the f... lost."
So I need to get the fuck lost ... because you think so? Do you have even half a clue as to why your opinion on my commentary completely destroys your concept of the concept that you are trying to get across?
"I'm voicing my opinion and don't you ever imply that I'm not entitled to do so."
Where did I ever say you weren't allowed to comment?
Yes, I do. I don't think you do.
What I meant is that I don't intend to be your pen pal. When I said get lost, that is meant in relation to you picking on my comments, not in relation to your presence on the thread or the site, as however I dislike your stance, I fully respect your right to be here and express yourself. This thread was not meant as a serious take on the "occupy" movement, I just decided to talk about serious stuff. For christ's sakes, it's called occupy mordor, so "fiction" is quite present on the outset. I would never point out to what type of attention you attract, even though I did browse through some of your 2700+ comments, and I could. I'm fully aware of the tone I used and I wanted to give you a taste of your own medicine, let's put it like that, because how you go on making points by telling people to get a job and stereotyping on college students as brainless retards and so many other people based on appearance and style, I find repulsive and slanderous. Mind you you're not the only one doing it and you have the right to do it. I just find it's low. It is a way of disallowing other people's expression through trivializing them and defaming them instead of focusing on ideas. I think you fully understand it but somehow you don't seem to care. I may only have a few posts on the site but I'm quite experimented. Many wouldn't reply, but I will stand up for what I believe and I won't be intimidated. So that's just it. So long.
You are wrong. To enumerate all of the things you are wrong about would require a bigger wall-o-text than your ramblings.
Art is a recreation of reality through the value system of the artist. By recreating reality, however imperfectly, you have joined the ranks of artists. Now you need to pull yourself out of the 95% of artists that are complete crap and write something worth reading.
You don't speak for everyone as far as I know...
Saying that someone is wrong, then going about saying it's too long to say why makes for some of the weakest argument I've ever heard.
Creating is a way of life for true artists, which makes your implied statement about the quality of their creation moot at best, but at worst you were talking about the artists themselves. Not very classy to say the least. But I wish I'd be one of them artists if not being one of them means being one of you and jake lolll.
By the way I fail to see something worth reading in all your 34 posts. So it goes to show it's a matter of opinion. If me stuff is not worth reading then just don't, friend.
I think for a general analysis of the duties of a board of director, of the concept of maximizing value for shareholders vs. stakeholders, and a peek into the concept of sustainable value, one can easily look into those "worthless artists" at wikipedia... :
Maybe some stuff worth reading there...
Then putting the pieces together and adjoining information deficiencies with the lack of local knowledge and interest for fast growth, and analyzing the legal backbone of trade, one can easily elaborate scenarios where one is deprived of his wealth through his own wealth. It is easily conceivable. What's wrong is trying to discredit an argument based on judgment on what people look like or because one can't stand creativity, or simply the laziness to make any valid argument whatsoever.
You and your "conveniently appearing pal" haven't added much. I've made a full argument here, albeit not a perfect one, and I've documented my sources. I've reached out to some people, and I'm done for this thread. Your attempt at shutting me down has failed and you will never prevail. You don't have what it takes.
There's a lot of criticism about what the shareholder interest is, and the duties of the directors in terms of sustainability and it's important for people to ask questions about how their money is used if they want to make sustainable decisions and positively influence others. The case law has also evolved tremendously since the early 20th century, yet proponents of the right would have us think otherwise, portraying anyone who talks about sustainability or the environment or employees rights or social programs or accountability of the financial elite as a commie, "get a job" worthless artist tard. Prejudice is their game, and their arrogance hides their emptiness and intellectual dishonesty. Worst is that they can't even make a worthy argument. I've met tons of them in my life. They're used to little pointless slapstick remarks and their rhetoric can't go further than that.
It just so happens that I'm highly educated and I can easily express myself, and the best they can do is tl;dr me. I've seen lots of poverty and exploitation in my youth and so I'll always fight for the ones who have no voice because they haven't been given a chance.
The "occupy" movement encompasses tons of different types of activists and I'll concede that their message might not always be clear or coherent. But it takes lots of guts to do a "sit in" and take the streets to voice your opinion. I value that, and I find those people courageous. Some of them have nothing to lose. In any case it takes much more spine to express yourself openly than to hide behind handles on a forum and defame people because of their looks. Those people are the tip of the iceberg. There's lots of disenfranchised people in this world, and their expression in itself bears value... the rights to association and expression are fundamental to a healthy democracy. Occupy whatever and voice your opinion, network, share experiences and make alliances and build plans for something more equitable and fair. And good luck!
And only your posts in those 24 hours in said sub-thread. Might want to ask yourself why you haven't had any replies to your screeds in those 24 hours.
Talking to one's self is the entire problem with the Occupy$CITY "movement".
That, and citing Wiki isn't valid at any accredited university that I'm aware of.
Catch clues, youngster. They are free.
The thread was never a big one, and it's past the main page for some time now. Yeah it seems I somehow occupied it with my posts lolll.
This is no university, this is a forum. I dropped out of junior high, you sized me there, and I'm obviously not making a thesis out of the material so your comment about wikipedia is immaterial! It was all meant as background stuff, especially the "criticism" sections of those articles. I just thought it could be useful...
As for clues, well thanks mate for your generosity but I think I'll take a rain check on that:) Nothing is ever free - I've learned that in my short jobless preteen life!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019