Apart from the news, I've not heard anyone talking about them.
http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-protesters-were-long-haul-180515533.html
QuoteProtesters who have been camping out in Manhattan's Financial District say their movement has grown and become more organized, and they have no intention of stopping as they move into their third week, following the second weekend in a row of mass arrests.
The Occupy Wall Street demonstration started out small last month, with less than a dozen college students spending days and nights in Zuccotti Park, a private plaza off Broadway. It has grown sizably, however, both in New York City and elsewhere as people in other communities across the country display their solidarity in similar protests.
The event has drawn protesters of diverse ages and occupations who are speaking out against corporate greed, social inequality, global climate change and other concerns.
Kira Moyer-Sims, 19, of Portland, Ore., said things have changed a lot since the protest started, with the group much more organized. "We have a protocol for most things," she said, including what to do when people are arrested in terms of getting legal help.
She said the protest would only continue.
"They thought we were going to leave and we haven't left," she said of city officials.
"We're going to stay as long as we can," she added.
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the department wouldn't be changing its approach to handling the protest, that it would continue regular patrols and monitoring but not assign additional officers. Police officers have been a regular sight at the plaza.
"As always, if it is a lawful demonstration, we help facilitate and if they break the law we arrest them," Browne said.
The Fire Department said it had gone to the site several times over the past week to check for any fire safety hazards arising from people living in the plaza, but there have been no major issues.
On Sunday, a group of New York public school teachers sat in the plaza, including Denise Martinez. The 47-year-old Brooklyn resident works at a school where most students are at poverty level.
"The bottom line is the feeling that the financial industries here on Wall Street have caused the economic problems, and they're not contributing their fair share to solving them," she said of her reasons for camping out Sunday.
She said funding for education has shrunk to the point where her classes are as large as about 50.
"These are America's future workers, and what's trickling down to them are the problems - the unemployment, the crime."
Another voice on Sunday belonged to Jackie Fellner, a 32-year-old marketing manager from Westchester County.
"We're not here to take down Wall Street. It's not poor against rich. It's about big money dictating which politicians get elected and what programs get funded," she said.
Gatherings elsewhere included one in Providence, R.I., that attracted about 60 people to a public park. The participants called it a "planning meeting" and initially debated whether to allow reporters to cover it.
In Boston, protesters set up an encampment across the street from the Federal Reserve Building.
The New York City protesters have spent most of their time in the plaza, sleeping on air mattresses, holding assemblies at which they discuss their goals and listening to speakers including celebrity activist Michael Moore and Princeton University professor Cornel West.
On the past two Saturdays, though, they marched to other parts of the city, which led to tense standoffs with police. On Sept. 24, about 100 people were arrested and the group put out video which showed some women being hit with pepper spray by a police official. On Oct. 1, more than 700 people were arrested as the group attempted to cross to the Brooklyn Bridge.
Some of the protesters said they were lured onto the roadway by police, or they didn't hear the calls from authorities to head to the pedestrian walkway. Police said no one was tricked into being arrested, and those in the back of the group who couldn't hear were allowed to leave.
The NYPD on Sunday released video footage to back up its stance. In one of the videos, an official uses a bullhorn to warn the crowd. Marchers can be seen chanting, "Take the bridge."
Browne said that of the most recent arrests, the vast majority had been released. Eight people were held, three because of outstanding warrants and five others who refused to show any identification./quote]
Shoot the hippies.
They'll depart as soon as something shiny attracts their attention.
You haven't? It's all reddit will speak of.
Locally, i've heard nothing but a certain amount of disgust for them, with some just wishing the batons and rubber bullets would be brought out.
There was a protest in support of them in the beautiful river city, but it was a small affair in a beautiful (for indeed, does the river city possess any other?) public park.
Who is reddit? Won't they get hungry if they just hang out there.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2011, 05:16:25 PM
Who is reddit? Won't they get hungry if they just hang out there.
Site full of perverts.
The problem is that they're mostly morons from places like 4Chan.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 02, 2011, 04:55:40 PM
You haven't? It's all reddit will speak of.
Locally, i've heard nothing but a certain amount of disgust for them, with some just wishing the batons and rubber bullets would be brought out.
There was a protest in support of them in the beautiful river city, but it was a small affair in a beautiful (for indeed, does the river city possess any other?) public park.
Don't go to reddit, it gave me a virus.
I am SHOCKED that white Southerners are in support of bringing out the batons, water hoses, and rubber bullets to disperse a peaceful, constitutionally protected protest.
Quote from: Fireblade on October 02, 2011, 10:36:24 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 02, 2011, 04:55:40 PM
You haven't? It's all reddit will speak of.
Locally, i've heard nothing but a certain amount of disgust for them, with some just wishing the batons and rubber bullets would be brought out.
There was a protest in support of them in the beautiful river city, but it was a small affair in a beautiful (for indeed, does the river city possess any other?) public park.
Don't go to reddit, it gave me a virus.
I am SHOCKED that white Southerners are in support of bringing out the batons, water hoses, and rubber bullets to disperse a peaceful, constitutionally protected protest.
I don't think the constitution allows you one to march in the middle of traffic across bridges. I think there are actually laws against that.
y'all have very different conceptions of reddit than I do.
Too normalfag mainstream really. It isn't, for example, a cozy den like 4chan.
What we can agree on is they are morons, but I would argue they represent John Q Public of the internet to a large degree.
:huh:
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 02, 2011, 10:48:28 PM
y'all have very different conceptions of reddit than I do.
I have no conception of reddit. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 02, 2011, 10:48:28 PM
y'all have very different conceptions of reddit than I do.
I have no conception of reddit. :)
QuoteAccording to Google DoubleClick Ad Planner's estimate, the median U.S. Reddit user is male, 35-44 years of age, has some college education, and is making a middle-range income of $25,000 - $49,000 USD. The analysis also shows that the top audience interests of the site are development tools, scripting languages, and C and C++, suggesting a computer savvy demographic and culture.
Middle range looks rough!
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2011, 10:42:56 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on October 02, 2011, 10:36:24 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 02, 2011, 04:55:40 PM
You haven't? It's all reddit will speak of.
Locally, i've heard nothing but a certain amount of disgust for them, with some just wishing the batons and rubber bullets would be brought out.
There was a protest in support of them in the beautiful river city, but it was a small affair in a beautiful (for indeed, does the river city possess any other?) public park.
Don't go to reddit, it gave me a virus.
I am SHOCKED that white Southerners are in support of bringing out the batons, water hoses, and rubber bullets to disperse a peaceful, constitutionally protected protest.
I don't think the constitution allows you one to march in the middle of traffic across bridges. I think there are actually laws against that.
First of all.. oh noez, the poor people of New York had to suffer a minor inconvenience as they drove across the Brooklyn Bridge. Funny, though, that people in the financial "industry" break laws every single day but get rewarded for it. Walk onto the street though? Free trip to the police station.
Second of all, the girls that got maced by that pig? Yeah, they weren't doing anything illegal.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 02, 2011, 05:43:25 PM
The problem is that they're mostly morons from places like 4Chan.
Actually, it has apparently grown beyond that. Yay. :)
Reddit was never much like that. If anything, it's gotten closer to it as memes take the place of news, but its still a very, very different community, and in many respects a worse one.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2011, 05:17:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2011, 05:16:25 PM
Who is reddit? Won't they get hungry if they just hang out there.
Site full of perverts.
You'll have to be more specific than that.
I actually like reddit quite a bit. Subs like r/iama and r/askscience are wonderful, and r/politics reinforces and strengthens my beliefs. :showoff:
Quote from: Fireblade on October 02, 2011, 11:09:31 PM
First of all.. oh noez, the poor people of New York had to suffer a minor inconvenience as they drove across the Brooklyn Bridge. Funny, though, that people in the financial "industry" break laws every single day but get rewarded for it. Walk onto the street though? Free trip to the police station.
Poor comparison. At least the world got some use from the financial industry. I'm not sure what benefits are being received from children protesting. (Besides photo ops for Michael Moore)
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 02, 2011, 10:48:28 PM
y'all have very different conceptions of reddit than I do.
Too normalfag mainstream really. It isn't, for example, a cozy den like 4chan.
What we can agree on is they are morons, but I would argue they represent John Q Public of the internet to a large degree.
See, that's a problem. The Languish types don't really dig 4chan. We're too old for it, and we're not pedophiles or script kiddies.
4chan, Japan's retribution for 2 Nukes.
I trust you've all seen this site? http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
You gotta wonder if there ever going to be point where all of this blows up.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 10:03:39 AM
I trust you've all seen this site? http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
How embarassing. Are they really blaming Wall Street for all of those issues?
Well at least this woman does manage to smack on everyone - including the unions.
QuoteI am 32 and worked in customer service for over 15 years. Last job I was wrongfully fired and fought for and won my unemployment in 2009 from a well known corporation. I should have sued but didn't because of my lack of faith in the justice system. My husband, since 2006, works for a union shop for little pay for over 15 years. If we waited to marry as planned I couldn't afford to pay the medical bills. My husband and I can't afford to go to college and our jobs were not flexible with scheduling unless you were in good with someone at the company. I can't afford to pay for the physical therapy needed to treat my fybromyalgia. I have to choose between that, glasses I need or braces my son needs. I have a medical marijuana card for my chronic pain. I don't agree with mainstream medicine but can't afford a holistic doctor. I can't get a job because I am "over qualified" and the jobs out there pay less than my unemployment. We are lucky we inherited a home and have my husband's family living with us soon. They had to take money out of their 401K to pay for repairs on this house. We are lucky the house is big enough for all of us. Myself, my husband and his parents have all had to file bankruptcy. We went into debt fighting for joint custody and won of my step-daughter. Now we are in the process of fighting for full custody of my 14 yr old son, BECAUSE HE WANTS IT. I have been caught in a broken friend of the court system and have to defend myself for my natural approach to treating my pain. I'm a loving, caring mother, wife, sister and friend. I am the 99%.
Blaming your son = classy.
No one seems to have told these poor slobs that most of the big banks moved uptown years ago . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 03, 2011, 12:01:01 PM
No one seems to have told these poor slobs that most of the big banks moved uptown years ago . . .
I think they have bigger issues:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fzombies.jpg&hash=f00c2cd06a21d48d937b951029744b6ad9555a45)
Zombies are the worst thing to have happened to popular culture since reality TV.
Zombies predate reality tv. :contract:
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 10:03:39 AM
I trust you've all seen this site? http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
I hadn't, but I now intend on making the second one down my wife. :wub:
Pretty much all of these people need to work on their penmanship, though.
There's some heartbreaking stories in there.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 03, 2011, 01:31:47 PM
There's some heartbreaking stories in there.
Yeah. I've been hanging out on a few other hobby sites and the number of stories of hardship and poverty in the US are pretty disconcerting. A couple of bad bounces in the job market or with health can apparently leave people in a really bad way.
No shit. I had to stop reading it because it just made me angry and also guilty because even I have it better than some of those poor bastards.
Although some of them are weird, like the guy who says he makes minwage and then claims he owes the IRS $1000 because he "checked the wrong box"? :hmm: I mean, I know for a fact that if you make that little, the IRS generally owes you and I assume there are procedures in place to correct those mistakes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2011, 12:54:22 PM
Zombies predate reality tv. :contract:
Yeah, but I'm referring to the modern fad, when they suddenly became all popular again.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 03, 2011, 03:07:14 PM
No shit. I had to stop reading it because it just made me angry and also guilty because even I have it better than some of those poor bastards.
Although some of them are weird, like the guy who says he makes minwage and then claims he owes the IRS $1000 because he "checked the wrong box"? :hmm: I mean, I know for a fact that if you make that little, the IRS generally owes you and I assume there are procedures in place to correct those mistakes.
There were a couple of them with little hints that make you go :hmm:
For the most part thoughit seems difficult to connect these people's rage against Wall Street towards what their specific issues are. Almost all of them complain of:
1. Not being able to pay for health care; and
2. Crippling student debt.
Wall Street has very little to do with either.
Also the kid who complained about being bullied in school for being gay... :hmm:
Walls Street is just a symbol. A front for a system that is clearly in need of at least some refurbishement, at worst some major reconstruction.
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2011, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 03, 2011, 03:07:14 PM
No shit. I had to stop reading it because it just made me angry and also guilty because even I have it better than some of those poor bastards.
Although some of them are weird, like the guy who says he makes minwage and then claims he owes the IRS $1000 because he "checked the wrong box"? :hmm: I mean, I know for a fact that if you make that little, the IRS generally owes you and I assume there are procedures in place to correct those mistakes.
There were a couple of them with little hints that make you go :hmm:
Yeah, like "my creative writing degree." Jesus. I mean, I feel that you're in a fucked up place, but you're an even worse decisionmaker than I am.
QuoteFor the most part thoughit seems difficult to connect these people's rage against Wall Street towards what their specific issues are. Almost all of them complain of:
1. Not being able to pay for health care; and
2. Crippling student debt.
Wall Street has very little to do with either.
Also the kid who complained about being bullied in school for being gay... :hmm:
Well, the allocation of resources directed by the financial markets and their subsequent meltdown has injured prospects for long-term stable employment across the board.
And a lot of it is symbolic.
It's a shame, though. Fifty years ago, we could have had an army. Today, no one is willing to die all at once, only a day at a time.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 03, 2011, 01:31:47 PM
There's some heartbreaking stories in there.
Yeah, definitely.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 03, 2011, 03:26:46 PM
Walls Street is just a symbol. A front for a system that is clearly in need of at least some refurbishement, at worst some major reconstruction.
Wall Street is a short, winding street in downtown Manhattan filled with Class B office buildings and some condo conversions. If you take a right on Broad, you can take a tour of the New York Stock Exchange, where they make a nice little show ringing a bell, but in fact most of the trading is now done electronically.
It's probably a symbol for something but probably not what these guys think they are protesting. It's fitting that the protests themselves are in Zucotti Park off of Liberty and Broadway, a few blocks away from the actual Broad Street. They are really showing Men's Wearhouse and some cheap pizza place what's what.
Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back. Wall Street in general is a symbol of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, which is why it's being protested.
It's about time for that, IMO. That's what Tea Party should've been about, but in a twist of tragic irony, they became the most trusted tool of the people they claim to protest about.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 06:00:09 PM
Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back. Wall Street in general is a symbol of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, which is why it's being protested.
It's about time for that, IMO. That's what Tea Party should've been about, but in a twist of tragic irony, they became the most trusted tool of the people they claim to protest about.
Best system in the world didn't you know? The Invisible Hand is no doubt soon to appear and fix everything up! Meanwhile you can count on 'people' like Minsky to come up here and tell us all is well. He does make for a good mouthpiece for his handlers.
G.
I'm going to assume that you vehemently disagreed with my post.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 06:43:13 PM
I'm going to assume that you vehemently disagreed with my post.
:rolleyes:
Can't you read? Nevermind.
G.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 01:56:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 03, 2011, 01:31:47 PM
There's some heartbreaking stories in there.
Yeah. I've been hanging out on a few other hobby sites and the number of stories of hardship and poverty in the US are pretty disconcerting. A couple of bad bounces in the job market or with health can apparently leave people in a really bad way.
Yeah. US society is going to be a very interesting place in the next couple of decades, as the policies of the Democrats and the Republicans create an ever-larger underclass.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 06:43:13 PM
I'm going to assume that you vehemently disagreed with my post.
He seems unaware the Minsky is a Jewish lawyer. He doesn't have handlers, is one of the handlers. :rolleyes:
These are probably the same filthy anarchists that threw paint on my free range, shade grown Chinchilla coat during WTO-Seattle. :mad:
Quote from: Habsburg on October 03, 2011, 07:19:22 PM
These are probably the same filthy anarchists that threw paint on my free range, shade grown Chinchilla coat during WTO-Seattle. :mad:
Cry me a river, Cruela.
Quote from: Habsburg on October 03, 2011, 07:19:22 PM
These are probably the same filthy anarchists that threw paint on my free range, shade grown Chinchilla coat during WTO-Seattle. :mad:
Possibly the same ones that set off a bomb on Wall street a few years back.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 03, 2011, 05:51:58 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 03, 2011, 03:26:46 PM
Walls Street is just a symbol. A front for a system that is clearly in need of at least some refurbishement, at worst some major reconstruction.
Wall Street is a short, winding street in downtown Manhattan filled with Class B office buildings and some condo conversions. If you take a right on Broad, you can take a tour of the New York Stock Exchange, where they make a nice little show ringing a bell, but in fact most of the trading is now done electronically.
It's probably a symbol for something but probably not what these guys think they are protesting. It's fitting that the protests themselves are in Zucotti Park off of Liberty and Broadway, a few blocks away from the actual Broad Street. They are really showing Men's Wearhouse and some cheap pizza place what's what.
They could have the protests in Flushing Meadows and they'd still be meaningful in the same way. I don't get the topographic quibbling. :mellow: After 3 years of "Wall St. vs. Main St.", it's obvious that Wall St. has a symbolic meaning above and beyond describing a particular street in downtown Manhattan.
Quote from: Habsburg on October 03, 2011, 07:19:22 PM
These are probably the same filthy anarchists that threw paint on my free range, shade grown Chinchilla coat during WTO-Seattle. :mad:
See, this is why I have some sympathy for concealed carry laws.
Or maybe you mean they aren't inconveniencing the right people? I agree wholeheartedly, they should move the protests to the home addresses of financiers from the UES to Greenwich.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:32:10 PM
They could have the protests in Flushing Meadows and they'd still be meaningful in the same way. I don't get the topographic quibbling. :mellow: After 3 years of "Wall St. vs. Main St.", it's obvious that Wall St. has a symbolic meaning above and beyond describing a particular street in downtown Manhattan.
I'm not so sure. Part of the problem is that they're protesters, and you can hardly go wrong opposing things that protesters are for.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:34:22 PM
Or maybe you mean they aren't inconveniencing the right people? I agree wholeheartedly, they should move the protests to the home addresses of financiers from the UES to Greenwich.
Surely there are laws against that?
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2011, 07:38:46 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:34:22 PM
Or maybe you mean they aren't inconveniencing the right people? I agree wholeheartedly, they should move the protests to the home addresses of financiers from the UES to Greenwich.
Surely there are laws against that?
Well the capitalist police state is already trying their hardest... could be difficult to contain with all the different policing jurisdictions...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:41:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2011, 07:38:46 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:34:22 PM
Or maybe you mean they aren't inconveniencing the right people? I agree wholeheartedly, they should move the protests to the home addresses of financiers from the UES to Greenwich.
Surely there are laws against that?
Well the capitalist police state is already trying their hardest... could be difficult to contain with all the different policing jurisdictions...
You can hardly blame them for trying, what with a group of dedicated crazies trying to intimidate and murder them.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2011, 07:33:28 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on October 03, 2011, 07:19:22 PM
These are probably the same filthy anarchists that threw paint on my free range, shade grown Chinchilla coat during WTO-Seattle. :mad:
See, this is why I have some sympathy for concealed carry laws.
Won't it be disturbing if Park Avenuenites have to fortify their penthouses and acquire means of getting undesirables out of their castles?
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 06:00:09 PM
Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back. Wall Street in general is a symbol of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, which is why it's being protested.
It's about time for that, IMO. That's what Tea Party should've been about, but in a twist of tragic irony, they became the most trusted tool of the people they claim to protest about.
:yes:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 03, 2011, 10:41:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 06:00:09 PM
Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back. Wall Street in general is a symbol of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, which is why it's being protested.
It's about time for that, IMO. That's what Tea Party should've been about, but in a twist of tragic irony, they became the most trusted tool of the people they claim to protest about.
:yes:
Well yeah, I think the key here is that what we have is not free market, not capitalism. A destructive business class is kept in power by the other aristocrats at the state's expense, and this is very toxic. I do think that it is less regulation and less state involvement is the answer though, since it is in fact regulative power which allows the politicans to keep the Wall Street cronies in power.
As for the sad stories on the site, they are only losing my sympathy with the student loan groans. I too often read that "I thought after getting this degree I would automatically get an OSSUM job". Well, that's not how the world works, good morning.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2011, 02:31:38 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 03, 2011, 10:41:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 06:00:09 PM
Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back. Wall Street in general is a symbol of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, which is why it's being protested.
It's about time for that, IMO. That's what Tea Party should've been about, but in a twist of tragic irony, they became the most trusted tool of the people they claim to protest about.
:yes:
Well yeah, I think the key here is that what we have is not free market, not capitalism. A destructive business class is kept in power by the other aristocrats at the state's expense, and this is very toxic. I do think that it is less regulation and less state involvement is the answer though, since it is in fact regulative power which allows the politicans to keep the Wall Street cronies in power.
As for the sad stories on the site, they are only losing my sympathy with the student loan groans. I too often read that "I thought after getting this degree I would automatically get an OSSUM job". Well, that's not how the world works, good morning.
Then should the student loan have been offered? Obviously there was an expectation, one either shared or exploited by the lender, that after completion of a course of study one's earning power would increase to the point where the student loan would be trivial or at least not a net (and often catastrophic) loss.
You're suggesting that the lender is in a better position to judge the borrower's potential future earning power than the borrower is?
Quote from: Gups on October 04, 2011, 07:59:40 AM
You're suggesting that the lender is in a better position to judge the borrower's potential future earning power than the borrower is?
Of course they are. People taking out student loans are often under 25, and thus retarded. Also, doesn't the lender at least ask what you're studying? If you say something like Creative Writing, Philosophy, or any of the arts or humanities, then they're just exploiting the borrower, who is unlikely to ever get a good job.
In my experience in the US the only things taken into account when offering loans is income and expenses. I don't recall them ever asking for field of study, although it is handled by the university and they may have access to that information.
-taking income and wealth into account should be more than enough, college-goers have little more of that than clue about the world
-I thought there is a way for some kind of personal bankrupcy declaration in the States?
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2011, 08:37:07 AM
-taking income and wealth into account should be more than enough, college-goers have little more of that than clue about the world
I'm not sure the best idea is to push everyone out of the higher education system - except those able to pay for their college experience by themselves/family.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2011, 08:37:07 AM
-taking income and wealth into account should be more than enough, college-goers have little more of that than clue about the world
-I thought there is a way for some kind of personal bankrupcy declaration in the States?
Student loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy only in the event of undue hardship. This condition is set forth by statute (exceptions to discharge), but (although it somewhat varies by federal circuit, I believe) it can satisfied only if the three prongs of the
Brunner test are met--"(1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a "minimal" standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans." This is more strict that the usual debt, and in the 4th (my) Circuit a 60 year old woman with a low-paying job, diabetes and $161,000 of debt was found not to meet it.
Prior to 1998, you'd be right though. That's when they changed it to make student loans very difficult to discharge.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2011, 02:31:38 AM
Well yeah, I think the key here is that what we have is not free market, not capitalism. A destructive business class is kept in power by the other aristocrats at the state's expense, and this is very toxic. I do think that it is less regulation and less state involvement is the answer though, since it is in fact regulative power which allows the politicans to keep the Wall Street cronies in power.
As for the sad stories on the site, they are only losing my sympathy with the student loan groans. I too often read that "I thought after getting this degree I would automatically get an OSSUM job". Well, that's not how the world works, good morning.
I do not agree with you, but if I came from a Socialist hellhole I'd probably be like that as well. What confuses me is that Marty is pro-Socialist.
Anyway, Tam, I can see your point re: student loans. I don't think it rises quite to the level of disdain that should be reserved for people who bought houses they couldn't afford though. College and more advanced education are sold as a solid investment, and to an extent as the principal if not quite the sole method of social mobility in the United States.
But, yes, lending institutions should know the risks better than the borrower. That's why they're a lending institution. In addition to simply having the raw capital, they presumably have some expertise and should not engage in behavior with a great likelihood of failure.'
Of course, government guarantorship removes most of the disincentives from engaging in failure-prone behavior, doesn't it? It's like having all the lack of accountability of communism with none of the planning. The hilarious part is, I suspect, that SL lenders are mainly reaping interest payments from their down-on-their-luck/economically useless borrowers, while in many cases the government still winds up paying the principal because people eventually satisfy the dischargability requirements, or die.
Well this is certainly not an easy issue. We had a quite generous number of state-funded seats in higher education in the last two decades and it has caused a big degradation in the value of the diplomas.
But also, a strict class system is not good, and the state CAN view higher education as a solid investment in it's own future. So why not stuff like state student loans, with say, only inflation as interest? The students would not get something they falsely regard as free education (and because of this end up wasting those years and taxpayers money, degrading the worth of the papers of those who actually went to college to study), and the road into higher education would be open for poor people as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2011, 09:11:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2011, 02:31:38 AM
Well yeah, I think the key here is that what we have is not free market, not capitalism. A destructive business class is kept in power by the other aristocrats at the state's expense, and this is very toxic. I do think that it is less regulation and less state involvement is the answer though, since it is in fact regulative power which allows the politicans to keep the Wall Street cronies in power.
As for the sad stories on the site, they are only losing my sympathy with the student loan groans. I too often read that "I thought after getting this degree I would automatically get an OSSUM job". Well, that's not how the world works, good morning.
I do not agree with you, but if I came from a Socialist hellhole I'd probably be like that as well. What confuses me is that Marty is pro-Socialist.
that's because
a) Marty is aristocracy now. the welfare state exists to guarantee the upper class' position
b) living in a 60 years old, dying welfare state is not the only reason for my take on this
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 09:17:32 AM
Of course, government guarantorship removes most of the disincentives from engaging in failure-prone behavior, doesn't it? It's like having all the lack of accountability of communism with none of the planning. The hilarious part is, I suspect, that SL lenders are mainly reaping interest payments from their down-on-their-luck/economically useless borrowers, while in many cases the government still winds up paying the principal because people eventually satisfy the dischargability requirements, or die.
Indeed, I doubt the Stafford Loan lenders put any expertise into the approval process for individual applicants. From what I understand they are basically buying government guaranteed debt from the Department of Education.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 09:17:32 AM
College and more advanced education are sold as a solid investment, and to an extent as the principal if not quite the sole method of social mobility in the United States.
People with a high school education generally earn more than people who didnt finish high school. People with a post secondary degree generally earn more than people with a high school diploma. There are however no guarrantees. It is possible for an individual to be highly educated but completely unemployable and it is possible for someone who has little education to become very successful.
Education is the main method of social mobility. That and hard work. One might try to rely on being one of those lucky few who are in the right place at the right time and somehow strike it rich without the benefit of an education - or rely on the lottery...
The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security. The degree is just the beginning. The rest is what you do with the degree. That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security. The degree is just the beginning. The rest is what you do with the degree. That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.
This.
Kinda fun when the unions jump on - as if their hands are clean. :lol:
http://news.yahoo.com/unions-join-occupy-wall-street-031500781.html
QuoteUnions Join Occupy Wall Street
On Monday afternoon, the Transport Workers Union, Local 100 went to court to ask for an injunction to stop the New York Police Department from compelling city bus drivers to transport arrested Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. "We're a pretty mainstream blue collar union," says spokesman Jim Gannon. "We view the protests as young people who are articulating the same kind of things that we've been trying to articulate."
Gannon's union was one of the first to throw its support behind the demonstrators, and members will be marching with them in a protest Wednesday afternoon. He sees, in the anarchic Wall Street encampment, a sign of a grassroots revolt again austerity economics. "They've really thrown a spotlight on issues that are bothering people, especially bothering workers like our members," he says. "Right now, we're discussing how we're going to give them material support, what we should do for them."
A couple of weeks ago, Occupy Wall Street seemed destined for marginality. In July, when the Canadian anti-corporate organization AdBusters put out the call for demonstrators to camp out in the heart of American finance, it envisioned 90,000 participants, but only about a thousand showed up. For the first week, there was hardly any mainstream media coverage at all. But now, helped in part by publicity from police brutality and mass arrests, the demonstrations are mushrooming, capturing the attention of people all over the country. More and more people are turning up in New York's Zuccotti Park, while similar protests are breaking out in dozens of cities nationwide. Suddenly, mainstream progressives are wondering if this could be the beginning of the left-wing populist uprising they've been waiting for.
"It's so thrilling," says Van Jones. The former Obama adviser is a founder of the American Dream Movement, whose inaugural conference kicked off Monday in Washington, D.C., with a live feed from the demonstrations. The protesters, he says, "are calling the conscience of America back to this economic catastrophe. Nobody has been able to do that."
On Wednesday, several unions, including TWU, the United Federation of Teachers, and the Service Employees International Union, will be participating in an Occupy Wall Street march. MoveOn.org sent out its first email blast about the protests on Sunday. "We have been focused for much of the summer and fall on the need to make Wall Street and corporations pay their fair share," says Justin Ruben, MoveOn's executive director. "When this sprung up, we were watching with interest. As it grew last week, and as similar protests started springing up around the country, we thought it was important to bring it to our members' attention and to make it clear that the concerns these folks are raising are broadly shared, certainly by our members and I think by the majority of the American people."
It remains an open question whether the Occupy Wall Street movement can attain the same sort of national resonance as the Tea Party. Both are subcultures, but only Occupy Wall Street presents itself that way. The movement is steeped in the rhetoric, aesthetics, and folkways of an international, anarchist-inflected protest movement that can be alienating to people on the outside. Describing Occupy Wall Street's decision-making body, the General Assembly, Nathan Schneider writes, "Get ready for jargon: the General Assembly is a horizontal, autonomous, leaderless, modified-consensus-based system with roots in anarchist thought." Few people who aren't already committed to the movement are likely to have patience for this sort of thing. Meanwhile, drum circles and clusters of earnest incense-burning meditators ensure that stereotypes about the hippie left remain alive.
Some Occupiers are so alienated from politics of any sort that they see their encampment as its own goal. "We're creating our own self-sustaining community here," says Jeff M., a 25-year-old musician who declined to provide his last name. As he spoke, he unpacked boxes of donated clothes, underwear, and blankets sent from all over the country, all of which are being handed out for free. "We're showing other people that 'Listen, we don't need to rely on big corporations. We can work together.' I know there are a lot of people here who are working on setting up classes on how to provide your own shelter, to sew your own clothes." Whatever the value of this sort of freegan survivalism, its appeal is probably limited.
But it's really easy to overstate this side of Occupy Wall Street. Some of what's going on is utopian and self-indulgent, but many of the protesters have clear-cut political agendas and serious demands. One sign on Monday read: NO MORE CARRIED INTEREST LOOPHOLES TAX BREAKS FOR BONUSES & STOCK OPTIONS CEO PAY INFLATION BRING BACK GLASS STEALGAL!
It doesn't get much more concrete than that.
Thus unions have recognized that despite some stylistic differences, Occupy Wall Street shares many of their goals. For progressives, this alliance is a tremendously encouraging sign. After all, one of the iconic moments from the 1970s was a bloody brawl on Wall Street between hippies and construction workers; as Rick Perlstein wrote in Nixonland: "Workers singled out for beating boys with the longest hair. The weapons of choice were their orange and yellow hard hats." This time around, there's visible solidarity between blue-collar workers and the counterculture.
"This really started in Wisconsin," with the protests against Gov. Scott Walker's attacks on unions there, says Gannon of the nascent movement. "I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam antiwar movement. It definitely feels like that—young kids, college kids, who see something they don't like, they're stepping up."
Also the bolded bit...:x
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security. The degree is just the beginning. The rest is what you do with the degree. That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.
I don't. I don't think a degree should automatically equate to cash or stable employment (although in a perfectly efficient market, it
would, with the only losses eaten being untimely death), but there's a difference between financial insecurity and a massive, unpayable debt that cannot even be routinely discharged by a bankruptcy procedure, based on a loan that never should have been offered in the first place. The problem I'm seeing here is: disincentivizing sober risk managemant + foolish borrowers + social expectation of college education + inflated requirements + university overproduction + lack of ordinary legal recourse = creating an army of destitute young adults.
The higher education system in the U.S. involves the poor allocation of resources, one driven by unchecked market forces validated by a technically inept government,.
Fuck, there's a name for that: an investment bubble.
Ide, in a perfectly efficient market educated people will still fail. Again you are assuming that education alone is enough. It is not.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security. The degree is just the beginning. The rest is what you do with the degree. That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.
I don't. I don't think a degree should automatically equate to cash or stable employment (although in a perfectly efficient market, it would, with the only losses eaten being untimely death), but there's a difference between financial insecurity and a massive, unpayable debt that cannot even be routinely discharged by a bankruptcy procedure, based on a loan that never should have been offered in the first place. The problem I'm seeing here is: disincentivizing sober risk managemant + foolish borrowers + social expectation of college education + inflated requirements + university overproduction + lack of ordinary legal recourse = creating an army of destitute young adults.
The higher education system in the U.S. involves the poor allocation of resources, one driven by unchecked market forces validated by a technically inept government,.
Fuck, there's a name for that: an investment bubble.
Beware what you ask for though.
Under your system in might make post-secondary education unavailable to a large number of young people if they're not deemed to be a good credit risk. So sorry really bright kid from the trailer park...
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 10:27:03 AM
Ide, in a perfectly efficient market educated people will still fail. Again you are assuming that education alone is enough. It is not.
A perfectly efficient market would assume rational, flexible actors ensuring that supply of graduates meets demands for graduates in any given field. Realistically, a perfectly efficient market does not and cannot exist. But I'm not hanging my entire argument on that one aside...
P.S. garbon--that hippie shit is pretty lame. 70 years ago it took tanks to disperse people. Now they'll wander off when they realize sewing clothes is 1)hard, 2)stupid and 3)smelly.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security. The degree is just the beginning. The rest is what you do with the degree. That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.
I don't. I don't think a degree should automatically equate to cash or stable employment (although in a perfectly efficient market, it would, with the only losses eaten being untimely death), but there's a difference between financial insecurity and a massive, unpayable debt that cannot even be routinely discharged by a bankruptcy procedure, based on a loan that never should have been offered in the first place. The problem I'm seeing here is: disincentivizing sober risk managemant + foolish borrowers + social expectation of college education + inflated requirements + university overproduction + lack of ordinary legal recourse = creating an army of destitute young adults.
The higher education system in the U.S. involves the poor allocation of resources, one driven by unchecked market forces validated by a technically inept government,.
Fuck, there's a name for that: an investment bubble.
Beware what you ask for though.
Under your system in might make post-secondary education unavailable to a large number of young people if they're not deemed to be a good credit risk. So sorry really bright kid from the trailer park...
Under the current system he gets a scholarship, would he get one under Ide's system?
Or he can learn to tackle.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security. The degree is just the beginning. The rest is what you do with the degree. That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.
I don't. I don't think a degree should automatically equate to cash or stable employment (although in a perfectly efficient market, it would, with the only losses eaten being untimely death), but there's a difference between financial insecurity and a massive, unpayable debt that cannot even be routinely discharged by a bankruptcy procedure, based on a loan that never should have been offered in the first place. The problem I'm seeing here is: disincentivizing sober risk managemant + foolish borrowers + social expectation of college education + inflated requirements + university overproduction + lack of ordinary legal recourse = creating an army of destitute young adults.
The higher education system in the U.S. involves the poor allocation of resources, one driven by unchecked market forces validated by a technically inept government,.
Fuck, there's a name for that: an investment bubble.
Beware what you ask for though.
Under your system in might make post-secondary education unavailable to a large number of young people if they're not deemed to be a good credit risk. So sorry really bright kid from the trailer park...
My argument is that it's stuck in this hybrid between capitalism and socialism that evidences the worst traits of both. Do you think
my system would involve
freer markets?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security. The degree is just the beginning. The rest is what you do with the degree. That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.
I don't. I don't think a degree should automatically equate to cash or stable employment (although in a perfectly efficient market, it would, with the only losses eaten being untimely death), but there's a difference between financial insecurity and a massive, unpayable debt that cannot even be routinely discharged by a bankruptcy procedure, based on a loan that never should have been offered in the first place. The problem I'm seeing here is: disincentivizing sober risk managemant + foolish borrowers + social expectation of college education + inflated requirements + university overproduction + lack of ordinary legal recourse = creating an army of destitute young adults.
The higher education system in the U.S. involves the poor allocation of resources, one driven by unchecked market forces validated by a technically inept government,.
Fuck, there's a name for that: an investment bubble.
Beware what you ask for though.
Under your system in might make post-secondary education unavailable to a large number of young people if they're not deemed to be a good credit risk. So sorry really bright kid from the trailer park...
Under the current system he gets a scholarship, would he get one under Ide's system?
Or he can learn to tackle.
Well the really bright kid would get a scholarship.
But not the kid who is merely bright - who has the ability to succeed in post secondary.
Tackling it is!
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 10:46:25 AM
But not the kid who is merely bright - who has the ability to succeed in post secondary.
Hey! Any kid who can defend the post in the secondary is going to get a scholarship.
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2011, 10:01:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security. The degree is just the beginning. The rest is what you do with the degree. That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.
This.
Yeah. The only real guarantee that your degree will be put to a good use is nepotism.
Hard work and a bit of luck will do the trick too, but it appears that the 99%-ers are arguing that hard work is not enough on its own and that even a little bit of luck is impossible to come by in the current set up.
If you have nepotism you dont really need a degree...
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:26:04 PM
If you have nepotism you dont really need a degree...
Depends. I mean, if your dad runs a private practice or is a partner, he can't just hire you as a new associate because he wants to. You still need the J.D. and bar certification. Same deal with a doctor's practice, and a lot of learned professions.
I guess if you own a widget factory it wouldn't matter.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:26:04 PM
If you have nepotism you dont really need a degree...
For some forms of nepotism, yeah, but in many cases it still matters.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:26:04 PM
If you have nepotism you dont really need a degree...
Depends. I mean, if your dad runs a private practice or is a partner, he can't just hire you as a new associate because he wants to. You still need the J.D. and bar certification. Same deal with a doctor's practice, and a lot of learned professions.
I guess if you own a widget factory it wouldn't matter.
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
Can't hurt. It's the difference between Ide, and JFK jr.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:26:04 PM
If you have nepotism you dont really need a degree...
Depends. I mean, if your dad runs a private practice or is a partner, he can't just hire you as a new associate because he wants to. You still need the J.D. and bar certification. Same deal with a doctor's practice, and a lot of learned professions.
I guess if you own a widget factory it wouldn't matter.
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
:yeahright:
I've seen more than a few sons and daughters of lawyers and judges who got some very hard to obtain jobs...
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2011, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
Can't hurt. It's the difference between Ide, and JFK jr.
"What do Ideologue and JFK Jr. have in common?"
"Neither one of us know how to fly a plane!"
That wasn't really fair. I think you are much smarter then JFK jr was. I was thinking of nepotism and his difficulty passing the bar reminded me a bit of you. That's why I made the comparison. I believe he ended up with nice jobs before crashing into the sea.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
... but it rarely hurts.
Anyhow, I thought that a big part of these protests are because professional qualifications are much less of a sure thing than they used to be.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 03:44:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
... but it rarely hurts.
Anyhow, I thought that a big part of these protests are because professional qualifications are much less of a sure thing than they used to be.
You are falling into the same trap Ide has fallen into. There is only one generation I can think of where a professional qualification amounted to a kind of golden ticket at that was the generation before mine when after the war there were a lot of jobs and not many people to fill them. It was truly a golden age. In my graduating class less than 60% of people got an articled position and of the lucky ones that did fewer still had jobs after their articles.
So what I would like to know is when was it that merely having a piece of paper was a "sure thing". This strikes me more as a reaction of the age of entitlement - Dammit, I went to school now give me my high paying job! What do you mean I have to compete for it!
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:26:04 PM
If you have nepotism you dont really need a degree...
Depends. I mean, if your dad runs a private practice or is a partner, he can't just hire you as a new associate because he wants to. You still need the J.D. and bar certification. Same deal with a doctor's practice, and a lot of learned professions.
I guess if you own a widget factory it wouldn't matter.
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
:yeahright:
I've seen more than a few sons and daughters of lawyers and judges who got some very hard to obtain jobs...
I know even more that worked very hard to get where they are.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 03:52:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 03:44:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
... but it rarely hurts.
Anyhow, I thought that a big part of these protests are because professional qualifications are much less of a sure thing than they used to be.
You are falling into the same trap Ide has fallen into. There is only one generation I can think of where a professional qualification amounted to a kind of golden ticket at that was the generation before mine when after the war there were a lot of jobs and not many people to fill them. It was truly a golden age. In my graduating class less than 60% of people got an articled position and of the lucky ones that did fewer still had jobs after their articles.
So what I would like to know is when was it that merely having a piece of paper was a "sure thing". This strikes me more as a reaction of the age of entitlement - Dammit, I went to school now give me my high paying job! What do you mean I have to compete for it!
My grandfather's generation: saved bits of string and used elastic bands because they grew up during the great depression.
My father's generation: grew up right after WW2. If you had a HS degree, you got a job. If you had a university degree, you got a professional-type job. Unless you were a hopeless screw-up.
My generation: a degree was necessary but not sufficient for getting a job - even a professional-type degree. It was a ticket to play, but you still had to win the game on your own. Otherwise, you might well end up waiting tables.
Everybody knows connections are immensely valuable for getting any job, from low-end work to the most prestigious professions. Being from an elite background seems to obviously make the likelihood of having valuable connections much higher.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 03:52:54 PMYou are falling into the same trap Ide has fallen into. There is only one generation I can think of where a professional qualification amounted to a kind of golden ticket at that was the generation before mine when after the war there were a lot of jobs and not many people to fill them. It was truly a golden age. In my graduating class less than 60% of people got an articled position and of the lucky ones that did fewer still had jobs after their articles.
So what I would like to know is when was it that merely having a piece of paper was a "sure thing". This strikes me more as a reaction of the age of entitlement - Dammit, I went to school now give me my high paying job! What do you mean I have to compete for it!
I'm not falling into any traps, at least not yet, I'm recounting what I'm hearing and reading. And, incidentally, I'm not just talking about recent graduates but also about educated mid-career people suddenly without work.
For arguments sake, let's posit two possible situations:
1. People are whining more. It really is no harder than it used to be.
2. It really is harder in aggregate than it used to be.
How do we determine which one is actually true?
My sense is that the increase in higher education combined with globalisation and the present economic downtown really has made it harder than it used to be to find a job, even if you're qualified. This, combined with mediocre health coverage for people not in good bargaining positions with their employers and abysmal coverage for the unemployed does in fact make things worse for more people.
Now, I could very well be wrong. Can you propose a good way to determine whether my impression above is correct or not, in a way that would convince men of good faith (as we both are :bowler:)?
I should note, also, that I'm talking primarily about the US here. I think the relative resilience of the Canadian economy combined with socialized medicine means that we're not experiencing the same issue up here. Nonetheless, it would be worthwhile to look at the same criteria in Canada as we do in the US. If, for example, only 20% of graduates in a class similar to yours end up in an articling position then we'll both have to concede that the dynamic has shifted in Canada at least in this area and the time you graduated was in fact a 'golden age' comparatively speaking. Conversely if the present rate is 50% or 70% or otherwise comparable, then we can say that things haven't in fact changed.
In short, in Canada I think things are pretty decent. There's not a particularly big group of people caught in difficult situations; and I don't see people really making claims to that effect.
On the other hand, in the US it seems a growing number of people, it seems, are claiming they're having it harder than they used to; a larger number of people than there used to be, and from demographics where you'd previously expect them to do okay.
Do you agree with those, or disagree? Anyone else?
Are there any readily available metrics we can look at to support or disprove those hunches, yours or mine?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 04, 2011, 04:09:40 PM
Everybody knows connections are immensely valuable for getting any job, from low-end work to the most prestigious professions. Being from an elite background seems to obviously make the likelihood of having valuable connections much higher.
The everybody knows arguments are usually based on false assumptions. For example, how is it that one gets "low end work" because of connections. I have done both low end and high end work. I dont know to many people that get both simply because they come from an elite background. :P
@Jacob, I dont think the whining has anything to do with jobs being harder or not. It has to do with the sense of entitlement that has not existed before. As Malthus said, my grandparents really did have it hard. They didnt complain. They just worked hard and lived frugally. My parents had many job opportunities. My generation had less. This generation might have less still but they are the first generation to have such a sense of entitlement to the good life simply because they are there.
edit: also another nitpick. We dont have "socialized medicine". If we did Doctors would all be employees of the State. Our system is quite different. We do have a single payor system but doctors can be very entreprenurial within and outside that system.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 03:52:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 03:44:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
If you have professional qualifications you really dont need nepotism :P
... but it rarely hurts.
Anyhow, I thought that a big part of these protests are because professional qualifications are much less of a sure thing than they used to be.
You are falling into the same trap Ide has fallen into. There is only one generation I can think of where a professional qualification amounted to a kind of golden ticket at that was the generation before mine when after the war there were a lot of jobs and not many people to fill them. It was truly a golden age. In my graduating class less than 60% of people got an articled position and of the lucky ones that did fewer still had jobs after their articles.
So what I would like to know is when was it that merely having a piece of paper was a "sure thing". This strikes me more as a reaction of the age of entitlement - Dammit, I went to school now give me my high paying job! What do you mean I have to compete for it!
It's not an "entitlement" if you paid for it. It's not like you can return the Goddamned thing for a refund.
If you want to make an argument that you're paying for the opportunity to compete, that's fine, I'm not disagreeing with you; are you suggesting that is way things should be? Because I don't see why, unless standing on a hillock of broken rivals is just the kind of thing that makes you feel better.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:13:49 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 04, 2011, 04:09:40 PM
Everybody knows connections are immensely valuable for getting any job, from low-end work to the most prestigious professions. Being from an elite background seems to obviously make the likelihood of having valuable connections much higher.
The everybody knows arguments are usually based on false assumptions. For example, how is it that one gets "low end work" because of connections. I have done both low end and high end work. I dont know to many people that get both simply because they come from an elite background. :P
Maybe "everybody knows arguments are usually based on false assumptions" but I don't think it is in this case. Certainly, it's been true in my observation everywhere in my varied career.
If your dad is the CEO of HP, you can easily get pretty decent starting jobs in any number of corporations (because the CEO of the other corporation is your golfing buddy), and your immediate bosses treat you very well comparatively speaking.
If your uncle runs the construction site, or your buddy has been on the crew for a long time, it's much easier for you to get a job than somebody nobody knows on-site.
If you know a couple of people at the videogame developer already, you have a much better chance of being told of the opening before it's filled and a couple of extra checkmarks on your post-interview consideration than some guy who's just a name on a resume.
You have a better chance getting the job at the movie theatre selling pop corn if you're drinking buddies with the assistant manager, compared to the person who just drops off their resume.
... I'm surprised that you'd find the notion that personal connections is a big help in finding a job controversial at all.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:22:25 PM
It's not an "entitlement" if you paid for it. It's not like you can return the Goddamned thing for a refund.
This is exactly the attitude I am talking about. You didnt pay for the good life. You paid for another step to help you toward the good life. You make of your degree what you will.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 04:23:16 PM
Maybe "everybody knows arguments are usually based on false assumptions" but I don't think it is in this case. Certainly, it's been true in my observation everywhere in my varied career.
I can tell you when I worked through high school on sod farm it had nothing to do with who I knew. It had to do with the fact that I was the biggest strongest fittest kid they could get for the job...
The I didnt get anywhere because I dont know people in high places does wash for me. Mainly because of my own personal experience.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:24:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:22:25 PM
It's not an "entitlement" if you paid for it. It's not like you can return the Goddamned thing for a refund.
This is exactly the attitude I am talking about. You didnt pay for the good life. You paid for another step to help you toward the good life. You make of your degree what you will.
A constant struggle of all against all: the good life!
And you missed this because I added it, but: do you really, really think that the present generation has a bigger sense of entitlement than previous generations who viewed blacks as cattle and the Third World as a source of oil and rares and too stupid and backwards to ever present a viable economic challenge? Do you
really?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:26:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:24:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:22:25 PM
It's not an "entitlement" if you paid for it. It's not like you can return the Goddamned thing for a refund.
This is exactly the attitude I am talking about. You didnt pay for the good life. You paid for another step to help you toward the good life. You make of your degree what you will.
A constant struggle of all against all: the good life!
And you missed this because I added it, but: do you really, really think that the present generation has a bigger sense of entitlement than previous generations who viewed other races as cattle and the Third World as a source of oil and rares and too stupid and backwards to ever present a viable economic challenge?
That is because you view life as some kind of zero sum game. That is another point we disagree on. The reason someone else failed is not because I succeeded. Indeed because I succeeded many more will have an opportunity. At a very basic level my associates and secretaries would not be working in these positions if I was still working on a sod farm. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:28:23 PM
That is because you view life as some kind of zero sum game. That is another point we disagree on. The reason someone else failed is not because I succeeded. Indeed because I succeeded many more will have an opportunity. At a very basic level my associates and secretaries would not be working in these positions if I was still working on a sod farm. ;)
They would be working for Ide instead, if you didn't take his place. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2011, 04:32:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:28:23 PM
That is because you view life as some kind of zero sum game. That is another point we disagree on. The reason someone else failed is not because I succeeded. Indeed because I succeeded many more will have an opportunity. At a very basic level my associates and secretaries would not be working in these positions if I was still working on a sod farm. ;)
They would be working for Ide instead, if you didn't take his place. :hmm:
:D
I don't think that life/the economy is a zero-sum game. Stop ascribing views to me I don't hold. :blurgh:
The problem isn't that the economy is zero-sum--it obviously can grow and the hard limits to its growth are determined by physical law rather than economic ones--but that it is not growing in a manner consistent with providing jobs and financial stability for a lot of people. If it's not doing that, it is broken.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:18:36 PM
@Jacob, I dont think the whining has anything to do with jobs being harder or not. It has to do with the sense of entitlement that has not existed before. As Malthus said, my grandparents really did have it hard. They didnt complain. They just worked hard and lived frugally. My parents had many job opportunities. My generation had less. This generation might have less still but they are the first generation to have such a sense of entitlement to the good life simply because they are there.
I think the previous generations agitated too, to be honest. I mean, the On-to-Ottawa Trek in 1935 are not too different in sentiment than the Occupy Wall Street movement. Plenty of people complained in the past.
Also, I think it's inaccurate to characterize the current protests as just an expression of young peoples' entitlement. If you browse through the link I posted upthread there are war veterans, mid-career IT professionals, someone who's prostituting herself be able to afford medicine, someone who's passing on buying medicine to treat their life threatening condition so she can put her kids through school, people who've lost everything due to illness, people who've lost good jobs and been unable to find anything at all and so on.
Yeah, there are also people who say "I want to be an artist" and the like. I agree that that's pretty much just a sense of entitlement (as are others) - it's never been easy to be an artist - but many of these other stories sound more to me like they're out of a Steinbeck novel than Douglas Coupland. And I've been hearing a lot more of that these last few years, and I'm wondering how much there is to it.
Simply saying "young people these days are just feeling more entitled" isn't really enough of an answer, in and of itself.
Quoteedit: also another nitpick. We dont have "socialized medicine". If we did Doctors would all be employees of the State. Our system is quite different. We do have a single payor system but doctors can be very entreprenurial within and outside that system.
Sure, we don't. And neither do any of the countries in Europe. But right now we're discussing (at least I am) the situation in the US, and "socialized medicine" is used to describe our single payor system and the various other hybrids in effect in Europe.
I'm sorta midway. I do have the impression that the incomming generation "has it harder", at least here in Ontario, and I think this has to do with changes in the way the economy is structured - it just seems that the economy has lost a lot of those lower-middle-class type positions that one could get with a high school education. Its "haves" and "have-nots" now more than it used to be, and the "have-nots" of course outnumber the "haves" ...
I dunno about kids these days being filled with a sense of entitlement - I've disagreed with CC on this issue before - I well remember in the '80s thinking that the baby boomers had the most massive entitlement complex around: they could, and did, simply assume that a university degree got them a job - whereas, as we all know, this wasn't true for us. ;)
As to whether lawyers have it better or worse specifically - well times are tough all over, but they were equally tough in the mid-90s. I do think clients are more demanding now.
I want to hit somebody with a truncheon and a water cannon.
I'll tell you who's entitled, though. Those veterans. By law. I probably shouldn't have decided to pursue a career in the civil service during a tanking economy and in the immediate aftermath of two wars.
Not that a Canadian would know anything about two wars. Or, to an extent, a tanking economy. Free. Rider.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 04:38:26 PM
Sure, we don't. And neither do any of the countries in Europe. But right now we're discussing (at least I am) the situation in the US, and "socialized medicine" is used to describe our single payor system and the various other hybrids in effect in Europe.
Just because the Americans mislabel it for the purposes of their own internal debate doesnt mean we should continue the error.
Regarding the rest, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the misery caused by how scewed up the US health care system is and other causes. The misery caused by a failure to provide adequate medical coverage despite the fact they spend more per capita then anyone else is, imo, a different issue.
I am focusing on the Ide's of the world that think just because they paid for an education that they should be living the good life and since they are not they should get a refund.
Quote from: Malthus on October 04, 2011, 04:41:37 PM
I'm sorta midway. I do have the impression that the incomming generation "has it harder", at least here in Ontario, and I think this has to do with changes in the way the economy is structured - it just seems that the economy has lost a lot of those lower-middle-class type positions that one could get with a high school education. Its "haves" and "have-nots" now more than it used to be, and the "have-nots" of course outnumber the "haves" ...
I kind of feel the same way. Even if the economy were going fairly well, a lot of those mid level jobs just aren't around, the manufacturing and light industrial jobs that you can do with a high school education and maybe some specific job training. Makes it tough for so many people; not everyone is cut out to go to college, and even then I think a college education can be over hyped. It's very expensive, and those coming out can be saddled with such heavy debt, and they may wind up with a normal paying job, like many college grads, not a big salary job.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 04:38:26 PM
Sure, we don't. And neither do any of the countries in Europe. But right now we're discussing (at least I am) the situation in the US, and "socialized medicine" is used to describe our single payor system and the various other hybrids in effect in Europe.
Just because they Americans mislabel it for the purposes of their own internal debate doesnt mean we should continue the error.
Regarding the rest, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the misery caused by how scewed up the US health care system is and other causes. The misery caused by a failure to provide adequate medical coverage despite the fact they spend more per capita then anyone else is, imo, a different issue.
I am focusing on the Ide's of the world that think just because they paid for an education that they should be living the good life and since they are not they should get a refund.
You know, I never said I should be living the good life, dude. Those are words you're putting in my mouth. I just think I should be able to get a
decent job instead of being sandwiched in a state of strident, massive competition for jobs I'm qualified for and a state of overqualification for stopgap work.
I ain't in the market for no $2000 stroller. I never wanted that kind of life, and still do not. I don't even want children to put in the stroller. I only wanted to help people and make enough to live and die in a dignified manner.* This is clearly because I'm an entitled douchebag.
*Well, and to freeze myself, but this is surprisingly affordable.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:52:48 PM
You know, I never said I should be living the good life, dude. Those are words you're putting in my mouth. I just think I should be able to get a decent job instead of being sandwiched in a state of strident, massive competition for jobs I'm qualified for and a state of overqualification for stopgap work.
So are you rethinking your argument that education be a guarrantee of results in the job market because you paid for it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
I am focusing on the Ide's of the world that think just because they paid for an education that they should be living the good life and since they are not they should get a refund.
Well, I think being conned into overpaying for college is a contributing factor to the angst of the younger generation.
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2011, 04:56:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
I am focusing on the Ide's of the world that think just because they paid for an education that they should be living the good life and since they are not they should get a refund.
Well, I think being conned into overpaying for college is a contributing factor to the angst of the younger generation.
If the "Con" was that they thought they simply by going to University they would be get a good job then I have no sympathy for them.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:32:10 PM
They could have the protests in Flushing Meadows and they'd still be meaningful in the same way. I don't get the topographic quibbling. :mellow:
Because it is illustrative (symbolic perhaps?) of a deeper problem that explains the total inefficacy of these protests: the lack of understanding of that which is being protested.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:56:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:52:48 PM
You know, I never said I should be living the good life, dude. Those are words you're putting in my mouth. I just think I should be able to get a decent job instead of being sandwiched in a state of strident, massive competition for jobs I'm qualified for and a state of overqualification for stopgap work.
So are you rethinking your argument that education be a guarrantee of results in the job market because you paid for it?
Is that the subjunctive (if so, cool) or are you missing a "should"? Of course I still think it
should, yes. It should not be a crapshoot, and degree programs should not so overproduce that they're effectively defrauding investors. I certainly agree with you that it is not, but unlike you I'm not in a position to say "the world is good enough." I doubt I'll ever feel that way, but we've had different formative experiences.
I mean, I get what you're saying that it's "not just your degree, but also hard work!" But that's sort of a false distinction, isn't it? I mean, maybe you're a lot smarter than me, but I thought my J.D. and clinical
was pretty hard work. And if that wasn't enough, then my school ought to have required and been better at facilitating the means for its customers--or students, if you disagree that a customer service model is appropriate--to achieve those requisites.
And, yeah, yeah, not taking the bar is on me. It was a mistake. But 1)that was no guarantee of work either*, 2)SC has a
bullshit reciprocity stance that would reduce my marketability in other states to the same levels they exist at presently, and 3)for someone with a professional degree walking into a GS-6 or GS-7 gig should be no problem. My father did; actually, he had a M.A.. In History. If it's entitlement to think I should have the same opportunities as my father, when I live in the fucking future, when I did in fact work harder than he did (or at least get a degree that involved some practical training), then color me entitled.
Of course, people actually died in Vietnam, so that might explain the difference.
*Or a guarantee of admission, even if I passed. I did notice something cool when looking up SL dischargeability, that I need to look into: if I did take the SC bar, and passed--or applied for provisional membership, that'd be cheaper and less time-consuming--but was refused a place based on my criminal history,
which was known in all its details to the University of South Carolina, I
think I could cancel my student loans.
Of course, I'd probably have to be rejected from every state in the union before they discharged that kind of blood debt.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:07:13 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:32:10 PM
They could have the protests in Flushing Meadows and they'd still be meaningful in the same way. I don't get the topographic quibbling. :mellow:
Because it is illustrative (symbolic perhaps?) of a deeper problem that explains the total inefficacy of these protests: the lack of understanding of that which is being protested.
They need leadership. A vanguard, if you will.
I hate young people.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 05:09:33 PM
They need leadership. A vanguard, if you will.
It's true - Marx would be apoplectic if he were alive and saw these protests.
Problem is Marx was wrong.
Keynes was right. :contract:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 05:09:33 PM
They need leadership. A vanguard, if you will.
It's true - Marx would be apoplectic if he were alive and saw these protests.
Problem is Marx was wrong.
Keynes was right. :contract:
Without it, they are left to suffer at the whim of whichever one of them manages to make the biggest noise. And that's almost always not good.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:07:13 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:32:10 PM
They could have the protests in Flushing Meadows and they'd still be meaningful in the same way. I don't get the topographic quibbling. :mellow:
Because it is illustrative (symbolic perhaps?) of a deeper problem that explains the total inefficacy of these protests: the lack of understanding of that which is being protested.
Would moving the protest help this problem?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 05:09:33 PM
They need leadership. A vanguard, if you will.
It's true - Marx would be apoplectic if he were alive and saw these protests.
Problem is Marx was wrong.
Keynes was right. :contract:
I raise you: Friedman.
QuoteFriedman was an important member of the team during World War II that developed a new proximity fuse for anti-aircraft projectiles, which prevented shells from exploding unless they were near the object they are meant to destroy.
Heh.
Ide, law school was not hard work. The articles and the years of being a junior lawyer after law school - now that was hard. Both in the sense that it was hard to get such positions and it was hard work once those positions were obtained. Looking back on it, law school was the easiest thing I ever did.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:07:13 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 03, 2011, 07:32:10 PM
They could have the protests in Flushing Meadows and they'd still be meaningful in the same way. I don't get the topographic quibbling. :mellow:
Because it is illustrative (symbolic perhaps?) of a deeper problem that explains the total inefficacy of these protests: the lack of understanding of that which is being protested.
Better a slightly misdirected protest than no protest at all. I think it's downright humiliating how little resistance ordinary people put up while oligarchs picked up one resounding victory after another in their war on equitable society. It's like liberal Americans took lessons from Russia and China on political docility.
As stupid as certain facets of these protests may seem, I really hope that this isn't just a fad. Unfortunatley, I'm afraid that people of liberal persusasion by the very nature of their ideology lack the necessary amount of bile to keep going for extended period of time.
The hipster fuckers will wander off when it gets cold.
Any oligarchs who happen to pass by must be laughing their ass off. Because these protests are not just slightly misdirected, they are self-marginalizing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:31:44 PM
Ide, law school was not hard work. The articles and the years of being a junior lawyer after law school - now that was hard. Both in the sense that it was hard to get such positions and it was hard work once those positions were obtained. Looking back on it, law school was the easiest thing I ever did.
And one day you can be ruler of the Queen's Navy.
But just so we're clear it's not like I expected hard work to
end. Or any work to end, for that matter.
I think we're sort of arguing past each other. "I want a job." "Work hard!" "Where?" "At your job!" "What?"
But I dunno, maybe you're right. The hardest thing I'm dealing with these days is keeping my morale up.
P.S.: I also suspect, though I can't claim with certainty, that some of that is distance, and the effect of being faced with novel challenges. I find the concepts of my 1L year pretty trivial now, but at the time I found them difficult.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 05:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:31:44 PM
Ide, law school was not hard work. The articles and the years of being a junior lawyer after law school - now that was hard. Both in the sense that it was hard to get such positions and it was hard work once those positions were obtained. Looking back on it, law school was the easiest thing I ever did.
And one day you can be ruler of the Queen's Navy.
But just so we're clear it's not like I expected hard work to end. Or any work to end, for that matter.
I think we're sort of arguing past each other. "I want a job." "Work hard!" "Where?" "At your job!" "What?"
To the extent we are arguing past eachother it is based on the fact that you are upset that you paid for an education that didnt immediately result in gainful employment but then you at times deny that you think an education should be a guarrantee of such a thing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
Any oligarchs who happen to pass by must be laughing their ass off. Because these protests are not just slightly misdirected, they are self-marginalizing.
Exactly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
Any oligarchs who happen to pass by must be laughing their ass off. Because these protests are not just slightly misdirected, they are self-marginalizing.
Teabaggers also started off as a joke. Who's laughing now? Nobody, of course.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 05:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:31:44 PM
Ide, law school was not hard work. The articles and the years of being a junior lawyer after law school - now that was hard. Both in the sense that it was hard to get such positions and it was hard work once those positions were obtained. Looking back on it, law school was the easiest thing I ever did.
And one day you can be ruler of the Queen's Navy.
But just so we're clear it's not like I expected hard work to end. Or any work to end, for that matter.
I think we're sort of arguing past each other. "I want a job." "Work hard!" "Where?" "At your job!" "What?"
To the extent we are arguing past eachother it is based on the fact that you are upset that you paid for an education that didnt immediately result in gainful employment but then you at times deny that you think an education should be a guarrantee of such a thing.
Well one thing I think you're overlooking is how my education locks me out of a lot of lower-end jobs at the same time it (putatively) opens up doors to higher-end ones. If the higher-end ones are in short supply, it's difficult (and not
just because of arrogance) to go back to waiting tables, but also because prospective shit-job employers realize I'm not in it for the long or even medium haul and could be out by the end of my first shift depending on whether or not I get a phone call.
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
Any oligarchs who happen to pass by must be laughing their ass off. Because these protests are not just slightly misdirected, they are self-marginalizing.
Teabaggers also started off as a joke. Who's laughing now? Nobody, of course.
I thought the teabaggers started out as a large grass roots political movement protesting government waste and taxes and became well I am not sure what they became.
How is that similar to the wall street bunch.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:46:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
Any oligarchs who happen to pass by must be laughing their ass off. Because these protests are not just slightly misdirected, they are self-marginalizing.
Teabaggers also started off as a joke. Who's laughing now? Nobody, of course.
I thought the teabaggers started out as a large grass roots political movement protesting government waste and taxes and became well I am not sure what they became.
How is that similar to the wall street bunch.
They're both dumb and disorganized a little laughable?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 05:46:10 PM
Well one thing I think you're overlooking is how my education locks me out of a lot of lower-end jobs at the same time it (putatively) opens up doors to higher-end ones. If the higher-end ones are in short supply, it's difficult (and not just because of arrogance) to go back to waiting tables, but also because prospective shit-job employers realize I'm not in it for the long or even medium haul and could be out by the end of my first shift depending on whether or not I get a phone call.
I am not pursuaded by an argument that says that an education has rendered you unemployable.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 05:47:09 PM
They're both dumb and disorganized a little laughable?
One can get complete idiots elected. The other are just a bunch of idiots. It is true though that the word idiot can be used in a sentence describing both.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:31:44 PM
Ide, law school was not hard work. The articles and the years of being a junior lawyer after law school - now that was hard. Both in the sense that it was hard to get such positions and it was hard work once those positions were obtained. Looking back on it, law school was the easiest thing I ever did.
Getting an articling position was like a bizzare lottery. The insanity of it in Toronto was made manifest by the fact
it all happened in a single week - that is, *all* interviews etc. took place over one week.
Students scuttled like roaches from one office to another. They all had more-or-less similar resumes touting various extra-curricular activities and reasonable marks, and who got what position just seemed the luck of who clicked on the interview - I got my position, I kid you not,
because I had an interesting tie, and was able to explain it (it had an Escher print on it).
So I can't classify getting a position as "hard work", at least not to me - more like winning an odd lottery. Now getting hired back, that was hard work. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:52:43 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 05:46:10 PM
Well one thing I think you're overlooking is how my education locks me out of a lot of lower-end jobs at the same time it (putatively) opens up doors to higher-end ones. If the higher-end ones are in short supply, it's difficult (and not just because of arrogance) to go back to waiting tables, but also because prospective shit-job employers realize I'm not in it for the long or even medium haul and could be out by the end of my first shift depending on whether or not I get a phone call.
I am not pursuaded by an argument that says that an education has rendered you unemployable.
It doesn't help one's chances. I've been turned down from a few jobs around town because of my J.D., although it's possible that being honest and saying that I was still looking for employment more commensurate with my education and experience may have been the actual decisive factor; I could have lied, but 1)lying is wrong and 2)didn't believe such lies would be plausible, because of my J.D. (And I've gotta mention the J.D., otherwise there's a huge gap in my work history which, again, could only be covered by lying, and in this case colorful and hard-to-believe lies, like "I was caretaking for my cancer-ridden mother. Here's a photoshopped picture of me by her grave. Oh, shit, did I say photoshopped out loud? Well, I'm proficient in Photoshop, as you can see."
Also, as you phrase your argument in terms of "competition," do you accept that some or many people graduating will fail at that competition, leading to serious economic, and often physical and spiritual, dislocation? Do you assert that--either one will do--this is a
just or
necessary situation?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:07:13 PM
Because it is illustrative (symbolic perhaps?) of a deeper problem that explains the total inefficacy of these protests: the lack of understanding of that which is being protested.
What would be an efficacious protest?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 04, 2011, 06:07:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:07:13 PM
Because it is illustrative (symbolic perhaps?) of a deeper problem that explains the total inefficacy of these protests: the lack of understanding of that which is being protested.
What would be an efficacious protest?
Chav-like.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:25:56 PMI can tell you when I worked through high school on sod farm it had nothing to do with who I knew. It had to do with the fact that I was the biggest strongest fittest kid they could get for the job...
The I didnt get anywhere because I dont know people in high places does wash for me. Mainly because of my own personal experience.
Do you not think the need for strong fit kids has something to do with it as well?
I mean, what if they don't need any strong fit kids at all? Or what if there were a hundred strong fit kids, but only one job on the sod farm? Don't you think the sod farmer might pick his nephew over you if there's only one job and his nephew hasn't been able to find any other job?
It is a fact of life that successful people always underestimate how lucky they were to become successful, and unsuccessful people always overestimate how unlucky they were to be unsuccessful.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:47:03 PMRegarding the rest, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the misery caused by how scewed up the US health care system is and other causes. The misery caused by a failure to provide adequate medical coverage despite the fact they spend more per capita then anyone else is, imo, a different issue.
I am focusing on the Ide's of the world that think just because they paid for an education that they should be living the good life and since they are not they should get a refund.
I think focusing on Ide's flippant comments misses what seems to be the real issue, namely that a variety of factors are screwing over a larger segment of the American middle class more severely than it has in the past. It has been claimed for a while that the poorer are getting poorer and that the trend of improving quality of life for the majority of the US has been replaced by one of decline.
Is it true? I don't know, but I think the question of whether it is is much more interesting than making fun of Ide.
Quote from: Malthus on October 04, 2011, 04:41:37 PM
I'm sorta midway. I do have the impression that the incomming generation "has it harder", at least here in Ontario, and I think this has to do with changes in the way the economy is structured - it just seems that the economy has lost a lot of those lower-middle-class type positions that one could get with a high school education. Its "haves" and "have-nots" now more than it used to be, and the "have-nots" of course outnumber the "haves" ...
I dunno about kids these days being filled with a sense of entitlement - I've disagreed with CC on this issue before - I well remember in the '80s thinking that the baby boomers had the most massive entitlement complex around: they could, and did, simply assume that a university degree got them a job - whereas, as we all know, this wasn't true for us. ;)
As to whether lawyers have it better or worse specifically - well times are tough all over, but they were equally tough in the mid-90s. I do think clients are more demanding now.
Yeah, I have the same reaction.
I'm not saying it's incredibly harder. I don't know. I'm reasonably okay in my own little bubble.
I mean, I know people who got into the video game industry even two or three years after me had it harder than I did, and the ones coming in now much much harder, while the people who started out a few years before me are way better off; but whether that maps to society as a whole I don't know.
But it seems people are claiming so, and I hear enough consistent anecdotes that I'm ready to believe there's something to it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:46:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
Any oligarchs who happen to pass by must be laughing their ass off. Because these protests are not just slightly misdirected, they are self-marginalizing.
Teabaggers also started off as a joke. Who's laughing now? Nobody, of course.
I thought the teabaggers started out as a large grass roots political movement protesting government waste and taxes and became well I am not sure what they became.
That's the myth. Some people wanted the Tea Party to be something it was not, and when they found it was not what they wanted they decided it had been "Hijacked", rather then admit that they had been wrong the first time.
From the toronto star yesterday
Quote1982 — 11 per cent total unemployment, 18.2 per cent unemployment for 15 to 24 age group
1992 — 11.2 per cent total unemployment, 17.2 per cent unemployment for 15 to 24 age group
2009 — 8.3 per cent total unemployment, 15.2 per cent unemployment for 15 to 24 age group
August 2011 — 7.3 per cent total unemployment, 17.2 per cent unemployment for 15 to 24 age group
Source: Statistics Canada
the youth unemployement as a whole hasn't changed much in the last 29 years in canada, but what has changed is that the overall level of unemployement has dropped so the perception of today's youth is that it's harder to get a job since their older counterparts are now more likely to be employed in comparisson to themsleves.
Oh Ide!
http://whitewhine.com/
Read it and enjoy. You'll enjoy the entitled rich folk on there. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
The higher education system in the U.S. involves the poor allocation of resources, one driven by unchecked market forces validated by a technically inept government,.
The problem is, the system
isn't driven by unchecked market forces--much like the housing market, it's been distorted by government policies that encourage lenders to make unsound loans, and the all-too-often-real perception that the government will act as the guarantor of last resort. The problem isn't that there is too little regulation, but that the regulation that exists isn't appropriate regulation.
I'm not saying that a pure market system is the best model for financing higher education, but we'd be a lot better off is the government quit subsidising and backing student loans and expanded grants instead.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 07:05:46 PM
Oh Ide!
http://whitewhine.com/
Read it and enjoy. You'll enjoy the entitled rich folk on there. :)
"And that, your honor, is why I was in blackface." :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2011, 04:56:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
I am focusing on the Ide's of the world that think just because they paid for an education that they should be living the good life and since they are not they should get a refund.
Well, I think being conned into overpaying for college is a contributing factor to the angst of the younger generation.
If the "Con" was that they thought they simply by going to University they would be get a good job then I have no sympathy for them.
No, the con was the amount they paid.
Quote from: HVC on October 04, 2011, 06:56:25 PM
From the toronto star yesterday
Quote1982 — 11 per cent total unemployment, 18.2 per cent unemployment for 15 to 24 age group
1992 — 11.2 per cent total unemployment, 17.2 per cent unemployment for 15 to 24 age group
2009 — 8.3 per cent total unemployment, 15.2 per cent unemployment for 15 to 24 age group
August 2011 — 7.3 per cent total unemployment, 17.2 per cent unemployment for 15 to 24 age group
Source: Statistics Canada
the youth unemployement as a whole hasn't changed much in the last 29 years in canada, but what has changed is that the overall level of unemployement has dropped so the perception of today's youth is that it's harder to get a job since their older counterparts are now more likely to be employed in comparisson to themsleves.
That would seem to indicate that any such whining in Canada would be misplaced. Especially since student loans and medical insurance/ costs for individuals haven't increased hugely and there hasn't been a huge crash in real estate wiping out a lot of savings and equity.
The question then, to me at least, is how the numbers compare in the US.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 07:05:46 PM
Oh Ide!
http://whitewhine.com/
Read it and enjoy. You'll enjoy the entitled rich folk on there. :)
Found this linked to it. http://www.newswise.com/articles/whites-believe-they-are-victims-of-racism-more-often-than-blacks?ret=/articles/list&category=life&page=1&search%5Bstatus%5D=3&search%5Bsort%5D=date+desc&search%5Bsection%5D=30&search%5Bhas_multimedia%5D
:lmfao:
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 06:41:05 PM
Is it true? I don't know, but I think the question of whether it is is much more interesting than making fun of Ide.
On the one hand: it involves me, so it's by default more interesting than the non-me alternative. On the other hand: :(
Ed: looks a lot like First World Problems. (I think FWP has the catchier title, also.)
QuoteQuoteI left the remote on the other couch and can't be bothered getting out of my blanket to get it.
This is a definite FWP winner. Potential solutions are:
Purchasing a snuggie
Wait until someone comes into the room, and ask them to change the channel
Buying more remotes
Getting fewer couches
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 06:35:28 PM
Do you not think the need for strong fit kids has something to do with it as well?
Isnt that my point. You need to have the skills necessary for the position and the ability to work hard to be successful no matter what piece of paper or connections you might have - absent the nepotism that was posed earlier as a possibility.
Quote from: dpsThe problem is, the system isn't driven by unchecked market forces--much like the housing market, it's been distorted by government policies that encourage lenders to make unsound loans, and the all-too-often-real perception that the government will act as the guarantor of last resort. The problem isn't that there is too little regulation, but that the regulation that exists isn't appropriate regulation.
I'm not saying that a pure market system is the best model for financing higher education, but we'd be a lot better off is the government quit subsidising and backing student loans and expanded grants instead.
That's what I said... I know it's not easy, but sometimes we
can agree, man. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:45:22 PM
I'll tell you who's entitled, though. Those veterans. By law. I probably shouldn't have decided to pursue a career in the civil service during a tanking economy and in the immediate aftermath of two wars.
Not that a Canadian would know anything about two wars. Or, to an extent, a tanking economy. Free. Rider.
Don't you still have a criminal record? :unsure:
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:47:03 PMRegarding the rest, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the misery caused by how scewed up the US health care system is and other causes. The misery caused by a failure to provide adequate medical coverage despite the fact they spend more per capita then anyone else is, imo, a different issue.
I am focusing on the Ide's of the world that think just because they paid for an education that they should be living the good life and since they are not they should get a refund.
I think focusing on Ide's flippant comments misses what seems to be the real issue, namely that a variety of factors are screwing over a larger segment of the American middle class more severely than it has in the past. It has been claimed for a while that the poorer are getting poorer and that the trend of improving quality of life for the majority of the US has been replaced by one of decline.
Is it true? I don't know, but I think the question of whether it is is much more interesting than making fun of Ide.
I think I saw figures (for US) that unemployment has been rising sharply for those who dropped out of highschool and then those with only a highschool diploma. For those who acquired a undergrad degree, while still not lovely, the unemployment figure doesn't look as bad.
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2011, 07:20:59 PM
No, the con was the amount they paid.
Definitely, I'm Ph.D. student in a hard science. At least in my field I'm not sure the services that the department provides to the undergraduates are really worth the ever-increasing tuition costs they pay. A lot of professor's in my field don't really care if their students learn anything. For class they just copy lecture notes onto the whiteboard that they wrote 15 years ago. The good ones still understand what their notes are talking about. The bad ones on the other hand... The whole teaching aspect of their job is an annoying distraction. Their raison d'être is to bring in federal grant money to the university to
most efficiently waste your tax dollars fund their grad students (like me) to do research and write more papers, so the professor can bring in more grants. The university gets its cut from all the grants that are brought in, so they are happy.
Of course on the other hand a ton of the undergraduate students can't do basic arithmetic properly, and are in math intensive majors. Most of that might just be a reflection on how deeply dysfunctional the public schools are in Jerry Brown land. Of course my experience comes from one of the sh*ttier UC campuses (hints: Pulp fiction and late 80s vampire movie), so it's definitely not getting the best California has to offer. These mathematically-challenged engineers and scientists generally graduate with their degrees of course. Then they wonder why all the jobs in Silicon Valley end up going to H-1Bs instead. :lmfao:
It is dumb to expect that just receiving a college degree will get you a good job. Even more so if the quality of the degree is shit. No argument there. I'm just not sure though that the quality of the degrees given still justify their price tag. If you paid
any money for a degree from a university that graduates bachelors from the departments of Electrical Engineering or Physics that think 2/5 = 1/3, you got ripped off.
I shouldn't really laugh though, since I'll have a Ph.D. from that sort of university. They paid me to get the degree at least. Hard sciences generally pay you to get a Ph.D. in them, so that right there should tell you something...
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2011, 06:39:32 PM
It is a fact of life that successful people always underestimate how lucky they were to become successful, and unsuccessful people always overestimate how unlucky they were to be unsuccessful.
As I said, I got my break because of the pattern on my tie at the interview. :D
OTOH, it was a reasonable amount of work to get into the position of having the interview.
Quote from: Gbeagle on October 05, 2011, 03:46:59 AM
I shouldn't really laugh though, since I'll have a Ph.D. from that sort of university. They paid me to get the degree at least. Hard sciences generally pay you to get a Ph.D. in them, so that right there should tell you something...
... that profs are looking for low-paid labour to do the boring tasks they don't want to do? ;)
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
Any oligarchs who happen to pass by must be laughing their ass off. Because these protests are not just slightly misdirected, they are self-marginalizing.
Teabaggers also started off as a joke. Who's laughing now?
President Obama, whose re-election chances have been lifted in a big way by their antics.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 04, 2011, 06:07:43 PM
What would be an efficacious protest?
Grass roots targeted boycotts attached to specific agendas, for example.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2011, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
Any oligarchs who happen to pass by must be laughing their ass off. Because these protests are not just slightly misdirected, they are self-marginalizing.
Teabaggers also started off as a joke. Who's laughing now?
President Obama, whose re-election chances have been lifted in a big way by their antics.
I hope so.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 01:56:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:45:22 PM
I'll tell you who's entitled, though. Those veterans. By law. I probably shouldn't have decided to pursue a career in the civil service during a tanking economy and in the immediate aftermath of two wars.
Not that a Canadian would know anything about two wars. Or, to an extent, a tanking economy. Free. Rider.
Don't you still have a criminal record? :unsure:
Yeah, that goes on my resume under "Experience." Wake up.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 01:56:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:45:22 PM
I'll tell you who's entitled, though. Those veterans. By law. I probably shouldn't have decided to pursue a career in the civil service during a tanking economy and in the immediate aftermath of two wars.
Not that a Canadian would know anything about two wars. Or, to an extent, a tanking economy. Free. Rider.
Don't you still have a criminal record? :unsure:
Yeah, that goes on my resume under "Experience." Wake up.
I've just been wondering if that could play an issue in applying for SSA and other government stuff.
So is this thing sort of like the younger version of the Tea Party with a more liberal slant? A group of people protesting something without really any knowledge of what they actually want.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 10:46:22 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 01:56:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:45:22 PM
I'll tell you who's entitled, though. Those veterans. By law. I probably shouldn't have decided to pursue a career in the civil service during a tanking economy and in the immediate aftermath of two wars.
Not that a Canadian would know anything about two wars. Or, to an extent, a tanking economy. Free. Rider.
Don't you still have a criminal record? :unsure:
Yeah, that goes on my resume under "Experience." Wake up.
I've just been wondering if that could play an issue in applying for SSA and other government stuff.
Is Ide entitled for wanting to still pursue a career with the government?
Or should he just go into a life of crime?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Is Ide entitled for wanting to still pursue a career with the government?
Or should he just go into a life of crime?
In the long term it turns ou theres very little diference :lol:
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Is Ide entitled for wanting to still pursue a career with the government?
Or should he just go into a life of crime?
In the long term it turns ou theres very little diference :lol:
:D
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 10:46:22 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 01:56:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 04:45:22 PM
I'll tell you who's entitled, though. Those veterans. By law. I probably shouldn't have decided to pursue a career in the civil service during a tanking economy and in the immediate aftermath of two wars.
Not that a Canadian would know anything about two wars. Or, to an extent, a tanking economy. Free. Rider.
Don't you still have a criminal record? :unsure:
Yeah, that goes on my resume under "Experience." Wake up.
I've just been wondering if that could play an issue in applying for SSA and other government stuff.
I guess you're right. It conceivably could. But I've not been explicitly told so, and they've not been shy about telling me when I'm simply un- or low-qualified (or that I'm not a veteran, thus not considered).
I think it'd be more of a problem in getting a security clearance job. I think I've only applied to one of those, some gig I can't remember at the FBI.
One thing to bear in mind is that my criminal convictions (with one minor exception) are all really old, and stem from even older incidents. I mean, the A + B is almost ten years old at this point.
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Is Ide entitled for wanting to still pursue a career with the government?
Or should he just go into a life of crime?
In the long term it turns ou theres very little diference :lol:
:mad:
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Is Ide entitled for wanting to still pursue a career with the government?
Or should he just go into a life of crime?
In the long term it turns ou theres very little diference :lol:
:mad:
you get by becaue you work for the government, not in the government.
Plus i can't remember what law you broke that i chided you for, or i'd have used that as an agrument :lol:.
These guys desperately need focus. Too many manifestos and lists of demands and whatnot. It's all over the place.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 05, 2011, 12:31:32 PM
These guys desperately need focus. Too many manifestos and lists of demands and whatnot. It's all over the place.
That is typically the problem with protests of this nature and now I hear a lot of other interests are going to be joining in to catch some of the media spotlight. At some point it is going to turn into something like the "protests" we had here in Vancouver before the Olympics where every protestor seemed to have their own agenda and they were all meeting together for the spectacle of it all.
The difference being that in the US right now there is palpable anger and fear over economic issues so who knows what might happen if all that emotion is harnessed by someone who does have a clear direction to point it.
It certainly would be more convenient if there was one specific complaint combined with a concrete policy proposal to fix it.
Instead we get things like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2Fwe-are-the-99-percent.jpg&hash=54734fb85608bcd452d8d9d362db72ed054c5c22)
... and many more variations. Some self-centred and silly, some heart breaking, some somewhere in between.
... but yeah, the stage certainly is ripe for someone to step in and provide direction. A bit of charisma and a couple of easily digestible proposed solutions or demands would help in doing that.
I expect it will take a bit, if it happens at all.
Obama?
It would be a miracle at this point if Obama could somehow associate himself with this. He's too establishment now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 05, 2011, 12:53:13 PM
It would be a miracle at this point if Obama could somehow associate himself with this. He's too establishment now.
As an outside observer that is the sense I get. "Yes We Can" isnt going to cut it.
Quote from: Jacob on October 05, 2011, 12:42:04 PM
It certainly would be more convenient if there was one specific complaint combined with a concrete policy proposal to fix it.
Instead we get things like this:
... and many more variations. Some self-centred and silly, some heart breaking, some somewhere in between.
You could say it's an encouraging sight to see so many begin to speak up - even if a little haphazardly or incoherently.
This tells me the status-quo is crumbling. When social mobility is hampered or prevented altogether, in a society that is based upon such mobility, that's when real problems begins.
G.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 05, 2011, 12:53:13 PM
It would be a miracle at this point if Obama could somehow associate himself with this. He's too establishment now.
He was establishment when he ran for president and managed to convince people otherwise. He can do it again if he tries.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Is Ide entitled for wanting to still pursue a career with the government?
Or should he just go into a life of crime?
I wasn't saying he was entitled but rather that the veterans might have a leg up on him as they helped to serve their country...not break its laws. -_-
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2011, 10:46:28 AM
So is this thing sort of like the younger version of the Tea Party with a more liberal slant? A group of people protesting something without really any knowledge of what they actually want.
It sure seems that way. Especially with all those remarks on the tumblr page (tumblr :x) and bits of news items like "we're creating our own sustainable community in the park."
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 01:04:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 05, 2011, 12:42:04 PM
It certainly would be more convenient if there was one specific complaint combined with a concrete policy proposal to fix it.
Instead we get things like this:
... and many more variations. Some self-centred and silly, some heart breaking, some somewhere in between.
You could say it's an encouraging sight to see so many begin to speak up - even if a little haphazardly or incoherently.
This tells me the status-quo is crumbling. When social mobility is hampered or prevented altogether, in a society that is based upon such mobility, that's when real problems begins.
G.
Yes, the system kept the deadbeats down.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 01:11:49 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Is Ide entitled for wanting to still pursue a career with the government?
Or should he just go into a life of crime?
I wasn't saying he was entitled but rather that the veterans might have a leg up on him as they helped to serve their country...not break its laws. -_-
Oliver North did both, and he's doing pretty well for himself now. Maybe that's something Ide should consider.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 05, 2011, 01:08:08 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 05, 2011, 12:53:13 PM
It would be a miracle at this point if Obama could somehow associate himself with this. He's too establishment now.
He was establishment when he ran for president and managed to convince people otherwise. He can do it again if he tries.
Doubtful. He's caved to the Republicans too many times and has very little achievement besides his Health Care stuff, and even that's at risk. Repealing DADT isn't nearly enough.
The Massachusetts Nurses Association is getting in on the Occupy Wall Street spin-off in Boston today...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 05, 2011, 01:32:00 PM
The Massachusetts Nurses Association is getting in on the Occupy Wall Street spin-off in Boston today...
Will they wear hot nurses' uniforms? :)
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 01:12:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2011, 10:46:28 AM
So is this thing sort of like the younger version of the Tea Party with a more liberal slant? A group of people protesting something without really any knowledge of what they actually want.
It sure seems that way. Especially with all those remarks on the tumblr page (tumblr :x) and bits of news items like "we're creating our own sustainable community in the park."
That was my favorite part. A sustainable community in a public park based on handouts. The 30s had Hoovervilles, will this be a Bushbamaville?
Obamadolf-Bushitlervilles
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 05, 2011, 01:32:00 PM
The Massachusetts Nurses Association is getting in on the Occupy Wall Street spin-off in Boston today...
I'm glad I'm not commuting to Boston anymore, to get stuck in any traffic or protests! Job moved me to the suburbs, close to home. :)
This may turn out to be longer lasting, just like the Tea Party. Good for them, or at least for some of their reasons for being there. It's very mixed, some of their issues are left winger stuff and others more centrist type. Our politicians do need the shaking up though, as do the powers that help control the decisions in Congress.
I decided to check out the 'Occupy Dayton' spin-off protest. Totally pathetic. Especially with Red Yellow Springs in the next county and 2 universities and 3 community colleges in the area to draw on.
I wish I had a Hummer to drive by them. Soak in my carbon hippies.
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 01:04:30 PM
You could say it's an encouraging sight to see so many
:huh:
The numbers are in the hundreds. This in a metropolitan area of 20 million people.
Quote from: Jacob on October 05, 2011, 12:42:04 PM
It certainly would be more convenient if there was one specific complaint combined with a concrete policy proposal to fix it.
Instead we get things like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2Fwe-are-the-99-percent.jpg&hash=54734fb85608bcd452d8d9d362db72ed054c5c22)
... and many more variations. Some self-centred and silly, some heart breaking, some somewhere in between.
Harrison Ford looks like shit these days.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 01:56:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 03, 2011, 01:31:47 PM
There's some heartbreaking stories in there.
Yeah. I've been hanging out on a few other hobby sites and the number of stories of hardship and poverty in the US are pretty disconcerting. A couple of bad bounces in the job market or with health can apparently leave people in a really bad way.
[Tea Bagger mode] Let them die! Ya! Ya! [/tea bagger mode]
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2011, 04:50:25 PM
Harrison Ford looks like shit these days.
You think he'd learn after the first time not to put all his eggs in one basket.
I saw some of the SF protesters and laughed. SF loves a protest.
Apparently there's one in Columbia. I'd get out my Bring Back Arrested Development sign, but it appears they finally caved. Time to increase the demands, and the pressure. I was pretty partial to Andy Richter Controls the Universe.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 07:26:21 PM
Apparently there's one in Columbia. I'd get out my Bring Back Arrested Development sign, but it appears they finally caved. Time to increase the demands, and the pressure. I was pretty partial to Andy Richter Controls the Universe.
Bring back
F Troop.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2011, 02:41:01 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 01:04:30 PM
You could say it's an encouraging sight to see so many
The numbers are in the hundreds. This in a metropolitan area of 20 million people.
Naturally a leash dog of the Establishment/Elite/Oligarchy *will* strive to minimize what's happening.
It's really fascinating to see how History repeats itself: an elite group, bloated by its own excesses, grabbing and grasping to maintain its privileges. With, of course, the same inevitable result: said elite is replaced by another group - with much loss of life and wealth. Whereas had they been just a little bit less greedy - they might have retained most of their position as part of the elite - and that at a minimum cost.
I feel sure the aristocrats in Versailles sneered down at the crowds who took the Bastille - with much the same mindset as you exhibit here today. Yet they were slaughtered in the tens of thousands, and exiled in the hundreds of thousands. ^_^
The maggots will believe the World is flat when it's proven under their nose that it's round. Such is human nature... *shakes head*
G.
Keep living the dream Grallon :D the day may indeed come where what you wish will come to pass, but it isn't today and it isn't under the current conditions.
Manhattan is a city of elites (and their wannabes -_-) - just because a few bits of trash came over from Brooklyn to create a sustainable society in a park isn't a reason to take them seriously. No more than protesters from Oakland lighting trashcans in SF in order to get some media coverage.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2011, 02:41:01 PM
:huh:
The numbers are in the hundreds.
Not today.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FzLZlgUITcLgVwLWjEmwP_Q--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNDI7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fap_webfeeds%2F475e904f635abe16fa0e6a7067008806.jpg&hash=3a22379a0a0b74738a66d87328530afdbf89fb44)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FXn8n.NmMVdHgFd7XAKd2wg--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNDk7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fafp.com%2FTRWas4305582.jpg&hash=baba9bf221bac35196ceb39f5d5f6fc9153508be)
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 08:15:00 PM
Keep living the dream Grallon :D the day may indeed come where what you wish will come to pass, but it isn't today and it isn't under the current conditions.
*shrug* who's dreaming?
Every single elite group in History that has resisted a change in paradigm has been either displaced or wiped out. I believe that time has come for the financial elite in the West. And since they are resisting change, a change brought by their own reckless greed I might add, they'll go the same way the other elite groups have gone: down!
G.
But exactly what is the elite suppose to budge on in this case? No matter the amount of protesting, I don't see free meds being given for all medical conditions nor a guarantee that people with a college education will get a job. While it might be convenient to smack down on big business for the difficulties in one's life, what use is their exclaiming that the housing market was a scam as I saw one protest sign read today?
How sustainable is a community in a public park subsisting off of handouts?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 05, 2011, 08:33:15 PM
How sustainable is a community in a public park subsisting off of handouts?
I think San Francisco has been managing that for years. So...very sustainable?
Anyway, all things considered I think this is a more scary protest
http://news.yahoo.com/greek-public-sector-workers-strike-against-cuts-090754109.html
Yes. Greeks running amoke, soiling the proud tradition of Pericles and Leonides. They need another Asiatic invasion to whip them into shape.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 08:37:29 PM
Anyway, all things considered I think this is a more scary protest
It's only a matter of time before what's happening in Greece happens in North America. Or do you think this is all disconnected from your reality?
G.
He does.
Yeah ironically I have more faith in my fellow man than Grallon.
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:41:10 PM
It's only a matter of time before what's happening in Greece happens in North America. Or do you think this is all disconnected from your reality?
No, it probably won't. North America has a society, rather than a series of tribes. A bad economy results in rough patches, but we survived the Depression.
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 08:37:29 PM
Anyway, all things considered I think this is a more scary protest
It's only a matter of time before what's happening in Greece happens in North America. Or do you think this is all disconnected from your reality?
G.
I wondering the same actually. Lots of discontent, anger and disillusionment out there right now. Bad economy for some years now, lack of jobs, discontent building over a lot of government and its failures, discontent over the financial sector's failings. I'm not hoping for huge and lasting protests, but I'm not going to say this is going to quiet down soon. Seems like possibly another tea party type concept in the making, different politics but some similarities with the discontent and anger over how things have been going.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 08:48:37 PM
Yeah ironically I have more faith in my fellow man than Grallon.
Grallon is bonkers.
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:25:21 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 08:15:00 PM
Keep living the dream Grallon :D the day may indeed come where what you wish will come to pass, but it isn't today and it isn't under the current conditions.
*shrug* who's dreaming?
Every single elite group in History that has resisted a change in paradigm has been either displaced or wiped out. I believe that time has come for the financial elite in the West. And since they are resisting change, a change brought by their own reckless greed I might add, they'll go the same way the other elite groups have gone: down!
G.
the problem is that even those who aren't elite have it to good to rock the boat. Do you see the millions of office works throwing off the shackles of oppression?
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 08:53:56 PM
I wondering the same actually. Lots of discontent, anger and disillusionment out there right now. Bad economy for some years now, lack of jobs, discontent building over a lot of government and its failures, discontent over the financial sector's failings. I'm not hoping for huge and lasting protests, but I'm not going to say this is going to quiet down soon. Seems like possibly another tea party type concept in the making, different politics but some similarities with the discontent and anger over how things have been going.
I know the Tea Party is awful and all, but are they throwing fire bombs?
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 09:04:55 PM
the problem is that even those who aren't elite have it to good to rock the boat. Do you see the millions of office works throwing off the shackles of oppression?
I think he discounts them next to the tens of millions of dead-end service workers.
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 09:04:55 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:25:21 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 08:15:00 PM
Keep living the dream Grallon :D the day may indeed come where what you wish will come to pass, but it isn't today and it isn't under the current conditions.
*shrug* who's dreaming?
Every single elite group in History that has resisted a change in paradigm has been either displaced or wiped out. I believe that time has come for the financial elite in the West. And since they are resisting change, a change brought by their own reckless greed I might add, they'll go the same way the other elite groups have gone: down!
G.
the problem is that even those who aren't elite have it to good to rock the boat. Do you see the millions of office works throwing off the shackles of oppression?
I'm very oppressed. My work sent me on an all expenses trip to California. That was the worst, I mean they expected me to use my off hours flying! :angry:
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 09:08:48 PM
I know the Tea Party is awful and all, but are they throwing fire bombs?
Didn't have to when they took over Congress.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 09:08:48 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 08:53:56 PM
I wondering the same actually. Lots of discontent, anger and disillusionment out there right now. Bad economy for some years now, lack of jobs, discontent building over a lot of government and its failures, discontent over the financial sector's failings. I'm not hoping for huge and lasting protests, but I'm not going to say this is going to quiet down soon. Seems like possibly another tea party type concept in the making, different politics but some similarities with the discontent and anger over how things have been going.
I know the Tea Party is awful and all, but are they throwing fire bombs?
No, they've been quite law abiding in their gatherings. And I wasn't blasting them for anything. Just drawing some comparisons to the reasons these new protesters are out there and some of the reasons the tea party formed. Both groups differ a lot I think, but I feel they both share in the disillusionment with what's going on in the country, politics, business, etc.
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 09:15:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 09:08:48 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 08:53:56 PM
I wondering the same actually. Lots of discontent, anger and disillusionment out there right now. Bad economy for some years now, lack of jobs, discontent building over a lot of government and its failures, discontent over the financial sector's failings. I'm not hoping for huge and lasting protests, but I'm not going to say this is going to quiet down soon. Seems like possibly another tea party type concept in the making, different politics but some similarities with the discontent and anger over how things have been going.
I know the Tea Party is awful and all, but are they throwing fire bombs?
No, they've been quite law abiding in their gatherings. And I wasn't blasting them for anything. Just drawing some comparisons to the reasons these new protesters are out there and some of the reasons the tea party formed. Both groups differ a lot I think, but I feel they both share in the disillusionment with what's going on in the country, politics, business, etc.
Okay, I was just curious as you quoted Grallon's post about Greek style protests coming to America.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 09:15:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2011, 09:08:48 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 08:53:56 PM
I wondering the same actually. Lots of discontent, anger and disillusionment out there right now. Bad economy for some years now, lack of jobs, discontent building over a lot of government and its failures, discontent over the financial sector's failings. I'm not hoping for huge and lasting protests, but I'm not going to say this is going to quiet down soon. Seems like possibly another tea party type concept in the making, different politics but some similarities with the discontent and anger over how things have been going.
I know the Tea Party is awful and all, but are they throwing fire bombs?
No, they've been quite law abiding in their gatherings. And I wasn't blasting them for anything. Just drawing some comparisons to the reasons these new protesters are out there and some of the reasons the tea party formed. Both groups differ a lot I think, but I feel they both share in the disillusionment with what's going on in the country, politics, business, etc.
Okay, I was just curious as you quoted Grallon's post about Greek style protests coming to America.
I don't expect to have Greek style discontent but I feel I should be open to the idea that we may see some pretty significant protests worsening as discontent grows. So I do wonder how far things may go if conditions don't improve over the next year or so.
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 09:27:56 PM
I don't expect to have Greek style discontent but I feel I should be open to the idea that we may see some pretty significant protests worsening as discontent grows. So I do wonder how far things may go if conditions don't improve over the next year or so.
The protests in Greece are over benefits that have been taken away. That hasnt happened in the US and isnt likely to if the Democrats win the next election. If the teabaggers take over then all bets are off.
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 09:04:55 PM
the problem is that even those who aren't elite have it to good to rock the boat. Do you see the millions of office works throwing off the shackles of oppression?
:blink: You don't hear them groan already?!
I am one such, beset with terrible, mindless - near sighted - obsessed with-short-term-profits management. I witness *daily* the fruits of my work diverted into countless layers of useless middlemen.
Allow me to enlighten you then.
I am one of a team of 18 servicing a specific site. Out of this group - 12 are managers - of one thing or another - and 6 are actual workers - or doers. In other words those who bring in the fucking *doe*. I am one of the six who provides the actual service the client pays for - and the other 12 'manages' us - and get paid substantially more than *we* are - for doing so. And when I say 'manage' - I mean useless reports - or metrics - on all aspects of what we do - whether it's demanded or not. But whether it's demanded or not you can bet your life on that it's billed - and that *we* - the 6 doers - never see a dime on it. It all goes to feed the 12 leeches above us.
So don't you dare come prattling on about the multitudes '
throwing off the shackles of oppression' with a sneering smile.
G.
Except you ain't done shit.
@ Grallon If you can do it so much better than they can then start your own business and run the terribly inefficient over managed competition into the ground. Or maybe you are exaggerating just a touch.
The doe? Isn't bringing that in - Brain's job?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 09:42:51 PM
@ Grallon If you can do it so much better than they can then start your own business and run the terribly inefficient over managed competition into the ground. Or maybe you are exaggerating just a touch.
If he was better at his job, you'd expect by his age that he'd be one of the managers.
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 09:40:29 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 09:04:55 PM
the problem is that even those who aren't elite have it to good to rock the boat. Do you see the millions of office works throwing off the shackles of oppression?
:blink: You don't hear them groan already?!
I am one such, beset with terrible, mindless - near sighted - obsessed with-short-term-profits management. I witness *daily* the fruits of my work diverted into countless layers of useless middlemen.
Allow me to enlighten you then.
I am one of a team of 18 servicing a specific site. Out of this group - 12 are managers - of one thing or another - and 6 are actual workers - or doers. In other words those who bring in the fucking *doe*. I am one of the six who provides the actual service the client pays for - and the other 12 'manages' us - and get paid substantially more than *we* are - for doing so. And when I say 'manage' - I mean useless reports - or metrics - on all aspects of what we do - whether it's demanded or not. But whether it's demanded or not you can bet your life on that it's billed - and that *we* - the 6 doers - never see a dime on it. It all goes to feed the 12 leeches above us.
So don't you dare come prattling on about the multitudes 'throwing off the shackles of oppression' with a sneering smile.
G.
No sneering intended. At my company i'm lower on the totem pole then you are at yours, at likely much less pay as well :lol: . My job is literally correcting the mistakes done by other who too are paid more then i am. So if you want to talk about less then useful managers i'm with you. That being said would you be willing to rise up and risk what you have? i know i wouldn't. in the system you seem to wish for what would be your role? would your job exist in your new world? in the short term it's very unlikely. Perhaps even in the long term. If things pass relatively smoothly would you be able to transition back into your role? Would you be willing to take that chance? would your 5 colleagues? We in the western world have it good. damn good. do others have it better? yes. But is the disparity so glaring for so many that there would be enough impetus for a revolution? i highly doubt it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 09:39:00 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 09:27:56 PM
I don't expect to have Greek style discontent but I feel I should be open to the idea that we may see some pretty significant protests worsening as discontent grows. So I do wonder how far things may go if conditions don't improve over the next year or so.
The protests in Greece are over benefits that have been taken away. That hasnt happened in the US and isnt likely to if the Democrats win the next election. If the teabaggers take over then all bets are off.
to be fair the greeks love to protest. they protested when times were good too.
http://youtu.be/xpOMlDVaXzc
Fuck the police.
Bruises aren't enough. We need a few bullets pumped into a few people. Then change can begin.
Quote from: Fireblade on October 05, 2011, 10:33:01 PM
http://youtu.be/xpOMlDVaXzc
Fuck the police.
Wow. I wish they did that to the Tea Party types. I guess these kids should pack heat.
This one is even more appalling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HejJvMtuSno&NR=1
Reason #287 why NYC is such an unlivable hellhole: NYPD is made up of meat-heads who view their police career as a continuation of their high school bullying career. The only police department that ever left a negative impression with me in personal interaction was NYPD, and that was quite a negative impression at that.
Protest scum get what they deserve.
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:09:32 PM=
Naturally a leash dog of the Establishment/Elite/Oligarchy *will* strive to minimize what's happening.
It's really fascinating to see how History repeats itself: an elite group, bloated by its own excesses, grabbing and grasping to maintain its privileges. With, of course, the same inevitable result: said elite is replaced by another group - with much loss of life and wealth. Whereas had they been just a little bit less greedy - they might have retained most of their position as part of the elite - and that at a minimum cost.
I feel sure the aristocrats in Versailles sneered down at the crowds who took the Bastille - with much the same mindset as you exhibit here today. Yet they were slaughtered in the tens of thousands, and exiled in the hundreds of thousands. ^_^
The maggots will believe the World is flat when it's proven under their nose that it's round. Such is human nature... *shakes head*
G.
Best thing you've ever posted.
Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2011, 08:41:21 AM
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:09:32 PM=
Naturally a leash dog of the Establishment/Elite/Oligarchy *will* strive to minimize what's happening.
It's really fascinating to see how History repeats itself: an elite group, bloated by its own excesses, grabbing and grasping to maintain its privileges. With, of course, the same inevitable result: said elite is replaced by another group - with much loss of life and wealth. Whereas had they been just a little bit less greedy - they might have retained most of their position as part of the elite - and that at a minimum cost.
I feel sure the aristocrats in Versailles sneered down at the crowds who took the Bastille - with much the same mindset as you exhibit here today. Yet they were slaughtered in the tens of thousands, and exiled in the hundreds of thousands. ^_^
The maggots will believe the World is flat when it's proven under their nose that it's round. Such is human nature... *shakes head*
G.
Best thing you've ever posted.
I'm not sure if you're trying to damn Grallon with faint praise, or if you really believe that drivel.
Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2011, 08:41:21 AM
Best thing you've ever posted.
I'm not holding my breath for the Terror to commence. :D
Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2011, 01:55:17 AM
This one is even more appalling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HejJvMtuSno&NR=1
Reason #287 why NYC is such an unlivable hellhole: NYPD is made up of meat-heads who view their police career as a continuation of their high school bullying career. The only police department that ever left a negative impression with me in personal interaction was NYPD, and that was quite a negative impression at that.
Why did they even mace those girls? They were already penned in behind a fence. :huh:
Here's an example fo what Grallon was talking about...FF to about the 50 second mark if necessary.
http://youtu.be/2PiXDTK_CBY
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:09:32 PM
I feel sure the aristocrats in Versailles sneered down at the crowds who took the Bastille
I doubt it - not unless they had a very strong telescope.
What is it about wannabe radicals and inability to grasp basic geography?
Quote from: Neil on October 05, 2011, 09:42:29 PM
Except you ain't done shit.
Exactly.
I may the establishment's leash dog, but over the past year, I burned over 200 hours of what otherwise would have been billable time to get the city to restore several million dollars worth of benefits to families with children. What exactly has grallon done to have any tangible impact on the problems in this world? Because whining about your bosses while meekly punching your time card, and daydreaming fantasies about violent paroxysms of revolution doesn't actually change anything; it just marks you as an ineffectual wannabe with some future risk of going postal.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 09:30:19 AM
I burned over 200 hours of what otherwise would have been billable time to get the city to restore several million dollars worth of benefits to families with children.
Tax write off?
:P I kidd. that's very noble :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 08:57:16 AM
I doubt it - not unless they had a very strong telescope.
What is it about wannabe radicals and inability to grasp basic geography?
Come on that was weak :P
G.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 09:30:19 AM
I may the establishment's leash dog, but over the past year, I burned over 200 hours of what otherwise would have been billable time to get the city to restore several million dollars worth of benefits to families with children. What exactly has Grallon done to have any tangible impact on the problems in this world? Because whining about your bosses while meekly punching your time card, and daydreaming fantasies about violent paroxysms of revolution doesn't actually change anything; it just marks you as an ineffectual wannabe with some future risk of going postal.
Now that's better.
As for what I do to better this world - nothing of course. It's not worth saving. People are scum - when will you all get that into your thick heads?
G.
Quote from: HVC on October 06, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
Tax write off?
Sadly the time is not tax deductible.
In NYC (and elsewhere around the country) the volume of cases that require attention vastly exceeds the resources of the existing legal assistance organizations, which have to rely on donations of time and resources from the private bar to fill even a small part of that gap.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 09:30:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 05, 2011, 09:42:29 PM
Except you ain't done shit.
Exactly.
I may the establishment's leash dog, but over the past year, I burned over 200 hours of what otherwise would have been billable time to get the city to restore several million dollars worth of benefits to families with children. What exactly has grallon done to have any tangible impact on the problems in this world? Because whining about your bosses while meekly punching your time card, and daydreaming fantasies about violent paroxysms of revolution doesn't actually change anything; it just marks you as an ineffectual wannabe with some future risk of going postal.
So you shuffle money around? That's Wall Street noble. Must feel good to actually make something.
Quote from: The Brain on October 06, 2011, 10:13:49 AM
So you shuffle money around? That's Wall Street noble. Must feel good to actually make something.
It may not be as creative as experimenting with DIY human-goat hybridization, but I do my best.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 10:17:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 06, 2011, 10:13:49 AM
So you shuffle money around? That's Wall Street noble. Must feel good to actually make something.
It may not be as creative as experimenting with DYI human-goat hybridization, but I do my best.
I am on the verge of a breakthrough.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 08:57:16 AM
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:09:32 PM
I feel sure the aristocrats in Versailles sneered down at the crowds who took the Bastille
I doubt it - not unless they had a very strong telescope.
What is it about wannabe radicals and inability to grasp basic geography?
:lol:
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 09:49:35 AM
As for what I do to better this world - nothing of course. It's not worth saving. People are scum - when will you all get that into your thick heads?
G.
If that's they case, why do you whine about people being sucky? What's the point?
Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2011, 08:47:34 AM
Why did they even mace those girls? They were already penned in behind a fence. :huh:
Because they were at a protest. Isn't that enough?
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 10:30:21 AM
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 09:49:35 AM
As for what I do to better this world - nothing of course. It's not worth saving. People are scum - when will you all get that into your thick heads?
G.
If that's they case, why do you whine about people being sucky? What's the point?
I think his low opinion of humanity has to do with who he spends most of his time with. If I was a child rapist, I'd have a low opinion of the rest of humanity as well.
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 10:30:21 AM
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 09:49:35 AM
As for what I do to better this world - nothing of course. It's not worth saving. People are scum - when will you all get that into your thick heads?
G.
If that's they case, why do you whine about people being sucky? What's the point?
It's a very French thing to do. Grallon makes a critical mistake in thinking that just because human life has no special meaning or value, that we it shouldn't have meaning for us.
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 09:49:35 AM
As for what I do to better this world - nothing of course.
Not quite true anymore - I've just been badgered into donating an amount on every paycheck for the starving children in Africa. :nelson:
Well I like the girl who did the badgering so I humored her. :blush:
-----
In any case let's get on with our usual rowing.
@ Garbon - I happen to be very appreciated where I work - and was offered promotions on 3 occasions - which I turned down because I can't be arsed to deal regularly with the incompetent managers I mentioned above. I enjoy what I do - but it deserves to be paid more which is the main beef I have with the job. 10 years ago - the same job I have now was paid 30k more than it is now... See what I meant?
G.
I like Quebec. None of that up-or-out bullshit. People can have their place.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 10:01:53 AM
Quote from: HVC on October 06, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
Tax write off?
Sadly the time is not tax deductible.
In NYC (and elsewhere around the country) the volume of cases that require attention vastly exceeds the resources of the existing legal assistance organizations, which have to rely on donations of time and resources from the private bar to fill even a small part of that gap.
I applaud you. The thing the Grallons of the world forget is the amount of work the "elites" to do without praise or acknowledgment. We all try to do our bit but nobody will ever know what we accomplished - except us.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:35:12 AM
I applaud you. The thing the Grallons of the world forget is the amount of work the "elites" to do without praise or acknowledgment. We all try to do our bit but nobody will ever know what we accomplished - except us.
Cry us a river while you're at it. :rolleyes:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 10:51:08 AM
@ Garbon - I happen to be very appreciated where I work - and was offered promotions on 3 occasions - which I turned down because I can't be arsed to deal regularly with the incompetent managers I mentioned above. I enjoy what I do - but it deserves to be paid more which is the main beef I have with the job. 10 years ago - the same job I have now was paid 30k more than it is now... See what I meant?
G.
So you turn down promotions and then complain about your lot?
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 11:40:14 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:35:12 AM
I applaud you. The thing the Grallons of the world forget is the amount of work the "elites" to do without praise or acknowledgment. We all try to do our bit but nobody will ever know what we accomplished - except us.
Cry us a river while you're at it. :rolleyes:
G.
Coming from a guy who grudgingly gives to charity. You are a good example of what is wrong with your generation. Feeling entitled and bitter and not willing to do a thing constructive about it.
I don't think anything about anyone else can be extrapolated from Grallon.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 11:48:59 AM
I don't think anything about anyone else can be extrapolated from Grallon.
You are probably correct.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 08:57:16 AM
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 08:09:32 PM
I feel sure the aristocrats in Versailles sneered down at the crowds who took the Bastille
I doubt it - not unless they had a very strong telescope.
What is it about wannabe radicals and inability to grasp basic geography?
I think chronology too. I may be wrong but I think the royal court moved back to Louvre (in response to popular demand) before they stormed the Bastille.
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2011, 11:53:48 AMI think chronology too. I may be wrong but I think the royal court moved back to Louvre (in response to popular demand) before they stormed the Bastille.
I think G's right. Fairly sure the Bastille fell before the fishwives dragged the court to Paris.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:46:22 AM
Coming from a guy who grudgingly gives to charity. You are a good example of what is wrong with your generation. Feeling entitled and bitter and not willing to do a thing constructive about it.
I'm saving my constructive energies for when the blood starts flowing. :contract:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 12:23:44 PMI'm saving my constructive energies for when the blood starts flowing. :contract:
Killing and tearing down the social order is, by definition, not constructive.
Quote from: Grallon on October 05, 2011, 09:40:29 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 09:04:55 PM
the problem is that even those who aren't elite have it to good to rock the boat. Do you see the millions of office works throwing off the shackles of oppression?
:blink: You don't hear them groan already?!
I am one such, beset with terrible, mindless - near sighted - obsessed with-short-term-profits management. I witness *daily* the fruits of my work diverted into countless layers of useless middlemen.
Allow me to enlighten you then.
I am one of a team of 18 servicing a specific site. Out of this group - 12 are managers - of one thing or another - and 6 are actual workers - or doers. In other words those who bring in the fucking *doe*. I am one of the six who provides the actual service the client pays for - and the other 12 'manages' us - and get paid substantially more than *we* are - for doing so. And when I say 'manage' - I mean useless reports - or metrics - on all aspects of what we do - whether it's demanded or not. But whether it's demanded or not you can bet your life on that it's billed - and that *we* - the 6 doers - never see a dime on it. It all goes to feed the 12 leeches above us.
So don't you dare come prattling on about the multitudes 'throwing off the shackles of oppression' with a sneering smile.
G.
If it is as you say then that sure sounds pretty messed up, bad management, waste of money - so much management for so few workers. Don't those managers have other tasks that do benefit the company financially? Do some of them work with customers, do billable work?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:46:22 AM
Coming from a guy who grudgingly gives to charity. You are a good example of what is wrong with your generation. Feeling entitled and bitter and not willing to do a thing constructive about it.
Isn't Grallon your generation?
Quote from: Habbaku on October 06, 2011, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:46:22 AM
Coming from a guy who grudgingly gives to charity. You are a good example of what is wrong with your generation. Feeling entitled and bitter and not willing to do a thing constructive about it.
Isn't Grallon your generation?
I dont think so. I thought he was closer to your age then mine. dont know for sure though. He sure acts like he belongs to yours. :P
I thought he was in his 40s.
Ok, closer to my generation and we have to take the blame.
My dad in a nutshell - He kinda likes Cain for some reason, and is just about ready to take leave to go participate in the NYC protests. :lol:
It would make perfect sense in his world.
Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2011, 08:51:46 AM
Here's an example fo what Grallon was talking about...FF to about the 50 second mark if necessary.
http://youtu.be/2PiXDTK_CBY
would have been more impressive if they actually stormed the building... pfft, disappointing.
Quote from: KRonn on October 06, 2011, 01:50:03 PM
If it is as you say then that sure sounds pretty messed up, bad management, waste of money - so much management for so few workers. Don't those managers have other tasks that do benefit the company financially? Do some of them work with customers, do billable work?
Most are project managers since projects are billed separately to the client and are more lucrative than standard operations. One mostly sits on meetings and takes notes then relay them to the others. Another does the same thing - they're the back up of each other. Then there's the 'delivery manager' who's responsible to deliver the services we provide - which far too often means that he disrupts normal operations by hoping and jumping whenever the client has a whim and flagging this or that as urgent. <_<
My closest colleague took the job of technical lead which I turned down and is now constantly prevented from concentrating on his job because the 'delivery manager' is constantly asking him to produce reports on what he's trying to do... :frusty:
Incidentally that is precisely why I turned it down - that and having to be on call.
We've been telling them we need more people in the field but they don't have a budget - yet they have a budget to pay all these useless mouths who hamper more than they help.
Anyhow. For having contacts with people in other organizations I know it's exactly the same elsewhere - wherever IT is outsourced in fact. As I said the salary attached to my current position has been devalued by 30k in the last 10 years - where do you think this money went? To pay for the superfluous layers of management, and increase the profit margin of the account of course - so that the managers can get *their* yearly bonuses while we are told there won't be any raises or bonuses... <_<
So what my previous interventions boil down to is this: greed runs rampant everywhere and it must be brought under control because it's unsustainable. This is what these people in New-York, in Spain, in Greece, etc are protesting against.
G.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 02:33:51 PM
Ok, closer to my generation and we have to take the blame.
I'm 44 - older than you I think.
G.
Grallon, Ok, I can understand that about your company. And it is just crazy. I'd have to think that such inefficiency would fall down, eventually, but I guess they've been doing things that way for years. Pretty bad. <_<
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 04:32:54 PM
So what my previous interventions boil down to is this: greed runs rampant everywhere and it must be brought under control because it's unsustainable. This is what these people in New-York, in Spain, in Greece, etc are protesting against.
G.
I don't think that's the case. The people in Greece are fighting to keep all of their perks while the people in New York are protesting that they don't get perks and other people do.
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 02:33:51 PM
Ok, closer to my generation and we have to take the blame.
I'm 44 - older than you I think.
G.
Oh the fagpression years. I have friends there. It's not pretty.
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 04:32:54 PM
So what my previous interventions boil down to is this: greed runs rampant everywhere and it must be brought under control because it's unsustainable. This is what these people in New-York, in Spain, in Greece, etc are protesting against.
G.
I don't think that's the case. The people in Greece are fighting to keep all of their perks while the people in New York are protesting that they don't get perks and other people do.
I think saying that about Greece is a gross oversimplification. Greece is not a rich country. It's a country that has been sold a "Western living" vision by a corrupt government propped up by the banks that lent it inordinate amounts of money (including, German and other EU banks). Now they are being told this lifestyle - which is still below that of the rich West - was an illusion and they have to buckle up - while they feel exploited by the "West".
The likes of Goldman Sachs or Lehman Brothers are much more to blame for this than a Greek taxpayer/voter.
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2011, 05:10:04 PM
Oh the fagpression years. I have friends there. It's not pretty.
You will get there too you know. ;) Still, since you've already budgeted yourself a 'boyfriend allowance' you should be spared the ugliest part. And since I do not have your means, I spared myself the same ugliest part by willingly putting an end to my romantic/sexual life. :P
G.
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2011, 05:12:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 04:32:54 PM
So what my previous interventions boil down to is this: greed runs rampant everywhere and it must be brought under control because it's unsustainable. This is what these people in New-York, in Spain, in Greece, etc are protesting against.
G.
I don't think that's the case. The people in Greece are fighting to keep all of their perks while the people in New York are protesting that they don't get perks and other people do.
I think saying that about Greece is a gross oversimplification. Greece is not a rich country. It's a country that has been sold a "Western living" vision by a corrupt government propped up by the banks that lent it inordinate amounts of money (including, German and other EU banks). Now they are being told this lifestyle - which is still below that of the rich West - was an illusion and they have to buckle up - while they feel exploited by the "West".
So again they want their perks. Now granted, they didn't know that they were perks but they are still perks.
But if you're doing that, you also make the NYC description more robust. Some of the individuals have substandard living, some have standard living but think some of the perks are entitled to them. Across the board most of them think that some parts of the society get crazy amounts of perks and it is causing them to have lower quality of living.
Of course, the point of my post was that Grallon was equating several situations which seem to stem from different issues.
Well, what can I say...
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 05:16:40 PM
You will get there too you know. ;)
Yes...
QuoteStill, since you've already budgeted yourself a 'boyfriend allowance' you should be spared the ugliest part.
And yes.
I am not sure that Grallon's lack of a young boyfriend fund is more ugly than Marti's use of such a fund.
Say, what kind of money are we talking about here?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
Say, what kind of money are we talking about here?
If I send you 5 dollars, will you put a video up of you eating a bag of Resse Cups?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 06, 2011, 05:43:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
Say, what kind of money are we talking about here?
If I send you 5 dollars, will you put a video up of you eating a bag of Resse Cups?
If I had a webcam, shit yeah. That's like pure profit. :D
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2011, 05:12:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2011, 04:32:54 PM
So what my previous interventions boil down to is this: greed runs rampant everywhere and it must be brought under control because it's unsustainable. This is what these people in New-York, in Spain, in Greece, etc are protesting against.
G.
I don't think that's the case. The people in Greece are fighting to keep all of their perks while the people in New York are protesting that they don't get perks and other people do.
I think saying that about Greece is a gross oversimplification. Greece is not a rich country. It's a country that has been sold a "Western living" vision by a corrupt government propped up by the banks that lent it inordinate amounts of money (including, German and other EU banks). Now they are being told this lifestyle - which is still below that of the rich West - was an illusion and they have to buckle up - while they feel exploited by the "West".
The likes of Goldman Sachs or Lehman Brothers are much more to blame for this than a Greek taxpayer/voter.
Um, let's not overlook that Greece LIED to get into the Euro club - and then kidded themselves about their obligations, etc.
I can feel sorry for individual Greeks, but I cannot feel sorry for Greece.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 06, 2011, 05:43:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
Say, what kind of money are we talking about here?
If I send you 5 dollars, will you put a video up of you eating a bag of Resse Cups?
If I had a webcam, shit yeah. That's like pure profit. :D
Factor in the cost of the Resse Cups.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
Say, what kind of money are we talking about here?
In this economy? $10,000 a year. :lol:
All I have to pay for is the abortions when I knock a mistress up.
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2011, 05:12:24 PM
I think saying that about Greece is a gross oversimplification. Greece is not a rich country. It's a country that has been sold a "Western living" vision by a corrupt government propped up by the banks that lent it inordinate amounts of money (including, German and other EU banks). Now they are being told this lifestyle - which is still below that of the rich West - was an illusion and they have to buckle up - while they feel exploited by the "West".
The likes of Goldman Sachs or Lehman Brothers are much more to blame for this than a Greek taxpayer/voter.
How exactly is Lehman to blame, other than by the fact of its collapsing?
The notion that banks are to blame because when Greece sovereign or private borrowers sought to place debt overseas the banks agreed to facilitate the placements strikes me as a bit odd.
If any banks are to be blamed at all I would think first on the list would be the Bundesbank and the European private banks that provided trade finance for the exports to Greece, thus allowing them to run unsustainable current account deficits.
But really this is a failure of policy at the governmental level. And top of the list are the Eurozone governments that agreed to admit Greece despite full knowledge there were not ready, but now want to run for the exits when the bill for that decision comes due.
Yep. Europe really screwed up by allowing nations into the club when they were not ready.
I understand the desire to enlarge Europe and be inclusive and all that, but they needed to really enforce the rules as well.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 06, 2011, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 06, 2011, 05:43:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
Say, what kind of money are we talking about here?
If I send you 5 dollars, will you put a video up of you eating a bag of Resse Cups?
If I had a webcam, shit yeah. That's like pure profit. :D
Factor in the cost of the Resse Cups.
It's what I would've bought anyway. :P And I could deduct them as a business expense.
You are so gonna be screwed when the diabetus hits. Actos is around 100 bucks a month. Not to mention such drugs as Symlin, which are just ridiculous.
QuoteThe classic symptoms of diabetes are polyuria (frequent urination), polydipsia (increased thirst), polyphagia (increased hunger), fatigue and weight loss.
Hrrrm. Nah, I think it was always this way.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 06:00:09 PM
Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back.
I haven't read the whole thread yet. Can I safely assume someone has already savaged this statement?
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 06, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
Yep. Europe really screwed up by allowing nations into the club when they were not ready.
I understand the desire to enlarge Europe and be inclusive and all that, but they needed to really enforce the rules as well.
That's an awfully one-sided view. I think a lot of people fail to realize that pretty much everybody was not following the rules. It was hard to force Greece to act responsibly when both France and Germany didn't. Not to mention, as I already said, having more countries in wasn't just a good deal for the new entrants but the incumbents too. So new countries weren't allowed in just to be "inclusive" - this offered more markets to expand into.
The EU is (was?) a good deal for everyone - noone was doing anyone any favours.
That seems to be the fatal problem with the EU. It has no real power to enforced it's rules. Enforcement is left up to the individual states, so if a country wants to cheat there's nothing to stop them. A government without the ability to coerce is not a government at all.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 05:02:26 AM
That seems to be the fatal problem with the EU. It has no real power to enforced it's rules. Enforcement is left up to the individual states, so if a country wants to cheat there's nothing to stop them. A government without the ability to coerce is not a government at all.
Uhm, that's not true. The EU has a whole lot of tools to enforce its rules and succesfully does so, frequently sueing countries to the European Court of Justice, fining them and forcing them to implement various regulations. The states are also capable of being sued by individuals harmed e.g. by the member states' failure to follow the rules. It's just that on budget/fiscal issues, there has been a political decision at the EU Commission level not to go after member states too much.
It's amazing how ignorant you Yanks can often be about the way the EU functions. You seem to think this is like some sort of UN.
Other than a possibility to arrest state officials and send in the national guard, it has pretty much the same powers as the US federal government has if a state passes laws that are, for example, in violation of the US constitution.
I'm glad they are about ready to leave private property and head to a city owned park. :)
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/08/2011-10-08_occupy_wall_street_protesters_ready_to_push_out_of_zuccotti_park_march_union_squ.html
QuoteThe growing but haphazard horde of Occupy Wall Street protesters is readying to bust out of its downtown digs - and test the NYPD's patience by squatting in a city park.
The masses clamoring for social change plan to march to Union Square at 3 p.m. Saturday - and organizers have been making noise about shifting the protest entirely to nearby Washington Square Park.
"Obviously, we've outgrown our current space; we've met our capacity," said organizer Matt Vrvilo, 20, of Portland, Ore. "It's critical to find more space. . . . We have to migrate some of our people to another location."
The protesters are now in their fourth weekend of roughing it at Zuccotti Park, a privately owned space near Ground Zero that is open to the public around the clock. If they move the bulk of their ranks to a city park, they would face mandatory curfews - and possible clashes with cops trying to enforce those laws.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said cops will accompany any protesters who gather anywhere outside of Zuccotti Park. And the commish was clear: Park laws will be enforced.
"I don't have a crystal ball," Kelly said yesterday when asked if protesters who violate park curfews will get collared.
"People will leave the park at the appropriate time," he said. "That's what I would anticipate happening."
An Occupy Wall Street spokesman challenged the NYPD and city officials with a bit of bravado. "We're nonviolent. We're not going to be intimidated:
"Bring it on," Chris Guerre, 27, of Newark, N.J., blustered. "Our lawyers are waiting like piranhas."
The back-and-forth came as the owner of Zuccotti Park said filth from the squatters has reached "unacceptable levels." Brookfield Office Properties said in a statement the park hasn't been cleaned or inspected since the protests started on Sept. 16.
"Because many of the protesters refuse to cooperate by adhering to the rules, the park has not been cleaned," the statement read. "As a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels."
The owners want the park clear so they can bust out the powerwashers to remove the accumulated scum from the politically conscious campers.
The festival-like atmosphere at Zuccotti Park continued yesterday, with a Sarah Palin impersonator, the Naked Cowboy and 200 ultra-orthodox Jews joining the fray. As night fell, some 150 reinforcements marched over the Brooklyn Bridge, bound for the encampment and chanting: "Don't occupy Haiti! Occupy Wall Street!"
Also, what a disgusting set of individuals.
Ultra Orthodox Jews on Yom Kippur? :huh:
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2011, 10:41:42 AM
Ultra Orthodox Jews on Yom Kippur? :huh:
Well presumably they were there Friday before night fell. Article doesn't suggest that they were in the group marching across the Brooklyn Bridge.
Don't occupy Haiti?
Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2011, 06:13:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 05:02:26 AM
That seems to be the fatal problem with the EU. It has no real power to enforced it's rules. Enforcement is left up to the individual states, so if a country wants to cheat there's nothing to stop them. A government without the ability to coerce is not a government at all.
Uhm, that's not true. The EU has a whole lot of tools to enforce its rules and succesfully does so, frequently sueing countries to the European Court of Justice, fining them and forcing them to implement various regulations. The states are also capable of being sued by individuals harmed e.g. by the member states' failure to follow the rules. It's just that on budget/fiscal issues, there has been a political decision at the EU Commission level not to go after member states too much.
It's amazing how ignorant you Yanks can often be about the way the EU functions. You seem to think this is like some sort of UN.
Other than a possibility to arrest state officials and send in the national guard, it has pretty much the same powers as the US federal government has if a state passes laws that are, for example, in violation of the US constitution.
Since you yourself said that everyone cheats, it's pretty obvious that the EU can't enforce it's own laws. If a state gets sued, but just doesn't pay or do anything then what? You sue them again? Send some angry letters? There is no mechanism for you to kick them out. Hell, since they will often be tried in a national court a country could simply always find that the state is not violation of EU law. I wouldn't compare the EU to the UN. The UN at least has some teeth. It can put a no fly zone on a country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:04:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 06:00:09 PM
Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back.
I haven't read the whole thread yet. Can I safely assume someone has already savaged this statement?
No. Take your shot. And by not paying back I don't mean not returning the loan principal.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2011, 01:49:23 PM
No. Take your shot. And by not paying back I don't mean not returning the loan principal.
How about the interest? And the warrant premiums?
If by not paying back then you didn't mean paying back any of those things then obviously I withdraw my criticism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 01:51:03 PM
How about the interest? And the warrant premiums?
If by not paying back then you didn't mean paying back any of those things then obviously I withdraw my criticism.
The government may have nominally made money on the loans they made, but they still provided a bailout. The reason is that if you lend someone a million dollars at 5% for a year, with 25% chance of not getting the money back, you may still wind up making a profit, but that doesn't mean that you didn't just gift a default premium to the guy you loaned to.
Of course, another big way they didn't pay back was to block the legislative efforts to make sure that this kind of lemon socialism wouldn't happen again. Yet another way they were gifted money was with the nearly interest-free loans that were provided by the Fed, after which the loan money was invested in interest-bearing government instruments.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2011, 02:01:10 PM
The government may have nominally made money on the loans they made, but they still provided a bailout. The reason is that if you lend someone a million dollars at 5% for a year, with 25% chance of not getting the money back, you may still wind up making a profit, but that doesn't mean that you didn't just gift a default premium to the guy you loaned to.
Your argument is sound, not sure your premise is. First, none of the TARP recipients that I'm aware of, and definitely none of the big name recipients, defaulted. Second, it was explicitly mentioned several times that TARP was an *involuntary* program--that healthy banks that felt they didn't need the money were required to borrow the money so as to avoid stygmatyizng the weaker banks.
QuoteOf course, another big way they didn't pay back was to block the legislative efforts to make sure that this kind of lemon socialism wouldn't happen again.
I return to my previous argument with Razzberry. The whole bundle of "consumer protection" regulations that were tossed into the Frank-Dodd bill had absolutely nothing to do with reducing the risks of future bank insolvency. Quite the opposite. Banks were told to increase capital. They increase capital by retaining earnings (or floating new issues and diluting existing shares). Decreasing bank profitability by limiting debit card fees or overdrafts or whatever does not help to increase earnings.
[/quote] Yet another way they were gifted money was with the nearly interest-free loans that were provided by the Fed, after which the loan money was invested in interest-bearing government instruments.
[/quote]
Whenever I hear this line it makes me think that people don't understand the nature of monetary policy. Loose monetary policy is not a gift targetted exclusively at the millionaires and billionaires who run evil Wall Street. If you want to argue that banks are getting free money from low interest rates then you also have to argue that people who are buying new cars at 3% or refinancing their homes at 4% are getting free money, and presumably they should be required to "pay it back" too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 02:59:37 PM
Your argument is sound, not sure your premise is. First, none of the TARP recipients that I'm aware of, and definitely none of the big name recipients, defaulted. Second, it was explicitly mentioned several times that TARP was an *involuntary* program--that healthy banks that felt they didn't need the money were required to borrow the money so as to avoid stygmatyizng the weaker banks.
So what if none of them defaulted? Like everything in modern finance, defaults aren't exactly independent events. In case of TARP, either no one would default, or damn near everyone would.
Quote
I return to my previous argument with Razzberry. The whole bundle of "consumer protection" regulations that were tossed into the Frank-Dodd bill had absolutely nothing to do with reducing the risks of future bank insolvency. Quite the opposite. Banks were told to increase capital. They increase capital by retaining earnings (or floating new issues and diluting existing shares). Decreasing bank profitability by limiting debit card fees or overdrafts or whatever does not help to increase earnings.
The real issues that made Wall Street a casino were not addressed, which means that next meltdown is inevitable, and it would once again lead to forced bailouts.
Quote
Whenever I hear this line it makes me think that people don't understand the nature of monetary policy. Loose monetary policy is not a gift targetted exclusively at the millionaires and billionaires who run evil Wall Street. If you want to argue that banks are getting free money from low interest rates then you also have to argue that people who are buying new cars at 3% or refinancing their homes at 4% are getting free money, and presumably they should be required to "pay it back" too.
Not exclusively, but extremely disproportionately. It's almost like the way Federal Reserve prints money is by paying Wall Street to run the press and distribute the product.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2011, 03:11:42 PM
So what if none of them defaulted? Like everything in modern finance, defaults aren't exactly independent events. In case of TARP, either no one would default, or damn near everyone would.
OK, I'd be interested to hear your arguments for the huge implicit risk premium that the Treasury granted on TARP loans.
QuoteThe real issues that made Wall Street a casino were not addressed, which means that next meltdown is inevitable, and it would once again lead to forced bailouts.
By my reading capital requirements were explicitly addressed. So were subsidiary hedge funds and proprietary trading, neither of which were actually factors in the crisis.
So exactly which causes of the crisis do you think were not addressed because of bank lobbying? I think there were exactly two principle causes of the crisis: crazy ass underpricing of subprime risk and crazy ass overexposure by AIG through subprime related CDS. Maybe three if you include Freddie and Fannie's crazy ass appetite for subprime related securities. What did legislators want to do that would have reduced those risks in the future *and* that were blocked by bank lobbying?
Quote
Not exclusively, but extremely disproportionately. It's almost like the way Federal Reserve prints money is by paying Wall Street to run the press and distribute the product.
How is it disproportionate?
To answer the only question of yours that was designed to elicit a response, I think that you miss the real cause of the crisis. The real cause is the derivatives trading, which is always a financial WMD waiting to go off.
AFAIK, regulations on derivatives trading have not been toughened in any meaingful way. The subprime thing was just a detonator, the actual subprime losses have been a small percentage of the total losses from the financial system crash.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2011, 03:47:09 PM
To answer the only question of yours that was designed to elicit a response, I think that you miss the real cause of the crisis. The real cause is the derivatives trading, which is always a financial WMD waiting to go off.
AFAIK, regulations on derivatives trading have not been toughened in any meaingful way. The subprime thing was just a detonator, the actual subprime losses have been a small percentage of the total losses from the financial system crash.
Sweet duck. :thumbsup:
I agree that derivaties played a large part (as I mentioned in regards to AIG). What I don't see is how Frank and Dodd were fighting tooth and nail to reduce the possibility of another AIG and were thwarted by bank lobbying.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 12:31:44 PM
Since you yourself said that everyone cheats, it's pretty obvious that the EU can't enforce it's own laws.
As I said the Commission took a political view not to enforce these particular rules. That does not mean it couldn't.
QuoteIf a state gets sued, but just doesn't pay or do anything then what?
The amounts of fines can be deducted from whatever money they get from the EU. Their assets can be frozen and the fine satisfied from their sale. In addition, all member states are obliged to have in their legal systems the means of enforcing such fines.
QuoteThere is no mechanism for you to kick them out.
There is. And before they are kicked out, their rights in the EU can be suspended as a punitive measure.
QuoteHell, since they will often be tried in a national court a country could simply always find that the state is not violation of EU law.
The Commission sues the states before the ECJ, not national courts. When private individuals sue the states, all EU countries have independent judiciary that cannot be influenced by the executive and very often finds against national governments. And in all such cases, the ECJ is the ultimate instance which can be presented with questions on the matter of law and national courts are bound by whatever ECJ tells them to do in a specific case. Again, these rules are on national books of member states, and failure to have such rules implemented or enforced can result in punitive measures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:50:53 PM
Sweet duck. :thumbsup:
I agree that derivaties played a large part (as I mentioned in regards to AIG). What I don't see is how Frank and Dodd were fighting tooth and nail to reduce the possibility of another AIG and were thwarted by bank lobbying.
You mentioned AIG exclusively, but AIG was just part of it, and far from the first domino to fall. Keep in mind that AIG didn't pop until Lehman popped, and before Lehman there was already a great deal of carnage.
As for the banks lobbying, obviously I'm not privvy to the details. No one is, except the bankers and the politicians. However, the financial reform bill that passed was not close to the bill that was originally proposed, and the story at the time was that the financial sector was actively lobbying to take the teeth away from it.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2011, 03:57:17 PM
You mentioned AIG exclusively, but AIG was just part of it, and far from the first domino to fall. Keep in mind that AIG didn't pop until Lehman popped, and before Lehman there was already a great deal of carnage.
As for the banks lobbying, obviously I'm not privvy to the details. No one is, except the bankers and the politicians. However, the financial reform bill that passed was not close to the bill that was originally proposed, and the story at the time was that the financial sector was actively lobbying to take the teeth away from it.
My understanding is that Lehman went belly up because they poured lots of money into commercial real estate loans. A loan is not a derivative.
There were several times when bank CEOs went public with their objections to some or all of the so-called consumer protection aspects of Frank-Dodd.
Or you could approach it from another angle: name a proposed reform that didn't make it into the final bill, and which in your mind would have reduced the likelihood of another crisis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 04:05:17 PM
My understanding is that Lehman went belly up because they poured lots of money into commercial real estate loans. A loan is not a derivative.
I thought these were GDRs? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2011, 04:06:58 PM
I thought these were GDRs? :huh:
Gross Deutchland Regiments? I don't know what you mean.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 04:07:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2011, 04:06:58 PM
I thought these were GDRs? :huh:
Gross Deutchland Regiments? I don't know what you mean.
Global Depository Receipts. Share-based derivatives.
In addition, they were also investing in mortgage-based derivatives, which were based on whole portfolios/bundles of mortgage loans, effectively making them inscrutable and impossible to assess, according to critics. The usual shorthand is that the big investment banks were investing in "mortgage loans" but that's an oversimplification - they were investing in this type of derivatives.
Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2011, 03:53:03 PM
There is no mechanism for you to kick them out.
What mechanism? I read a set of ideas on how this might work, but the conclusion was that there was no satisfactory answer. My reading of the EU laws seemed to indicate that it goes through National Court systems most of the time.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/enforcementofeulaw.htm
I will also point out a political unwillingness to enforce the law makes the law de facto unenforceable.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:16:10 PM
I will also point out a political unwillingness to enforce the law makes the law de facto unenforceable.
This is actually an important point, and far more important than any laws.
The problem is that the laws that the EU seems to want to enforce are the human rights laws. Ultimately, that means that the EU cannot be a force for the advancement of humanity. You can't advance the cause of humanity by advancing the cause of individual humans.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2011, 03:53:03 PM
There is no mechanism for you to kick them out.
What mechanism? I read a set of ideas on how this might work, but the conclusion was that there was no satisfactory answer. My reading of the EU laws seemed to indicate that it goes through National Court systems most of the time.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/enforcementofeulaw.htm
I will also point out a political unwillingness to enforce the law makes the law de facto unenforceable.
There is a difference when the EU Commission sues a country (then it always goes directly to the ECJ) and when a private actor sues the country for a failure to implement the EU law etc. In the latter case this goes to national courts first but the courts have been remarkably willing to enforce the law and award damages in such cases - and as I said, ultimately there is always a recourse to the ECJ in one capacity or another. The fact that the bulk goes through national courts just speaks about their willingness to enforce this law, imo.
Plus, all EU member states consider EU treaties and laws to take priority over national laws (bar constitution) and their constitutional courts frequently find some national law invalid because it is in violation of the EU law.
There is, technically, a possibility that some low-legal-culture state can fall into the hands of some authoritarian party that would manage to effectively take over the courts (think Kaczynskis in Poland). That has not happened so far, but if it did, the EU has quite effective means of bringing the country to heel (the most important being the ability to suspend the rights the country enjoys - including free movement of its people, free movement of its capitals, free establishment of its companies, free movement of its goods and last but not least, cutting off the gravy tap of EU regional aid and CAP).
As things are now, I'd wager almost every EU country could be brought to its knees if it was suddenly cut off from the benefits of the single market. Even the "net contributors" to the EU budget would find the vast export markets taken from them to be a huge hit to their national economies (even the seemingly isolationist UK has 2/3 of its international trade done with the EU - this would become much less profitable if its goods would no longer be able to enter these markets without tariffs or special certifications the EU removes between members).
How much money to countries get from the EU? Also what happens if a big country like France says, we don't want any Poles anymore. You know, like they did with the Gypsies last year.
These things you describe are not effective means of bringing anyone to heel since they hurt everyone involved nobody is likely to use them. Especially if the offender if a large important country. And please, show me the mechanism for kicking someone out.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 12:31:44 PM
Since you yourself said that everyone cheats, it's pretty obvious that the EU can't enforce it's own laws. If a state gets sued, but just doesn't pay or do anything then what? You sue them again? Send some angry letters? There is no mechanism for you to kick them out. Hell, since they will often be tried in a national court a country could simply always find that the state is not violation of EU law. I wouldn't compare the EU to the UN. The UN at least has some teeth. It can put a no fly zone on a country.
There are a few things here which are distinct that I think you're conflating.
First of all the Commission doesn't take states to national courts. Those cases and cases in disputes between member states are automatically heard at the European law. The national courts only hear cases from individuals and businesses and if it's relevant apply EU law. In that sense it's best to think of domestic courts as inferior EU courts.
Secondly the Commission choosing, for political reasons, not to enforce EU law is a world away from the EU not being able to enforce its laws. If the issue doesn't come before the court through an individual or the sort-of 'executive' then it's got nothing to enforce.
Thirdly I think the point about enforcement is a bit facile. EU countries accept rulings from the CJEU because they're countries with the rule of law. In the same way as the Supreme Court has enforced its rulings on the executive in the US - despite having no real powers - so the CJEU has established itself in all European systems. The court has over-ruled national governments (and those laws have been struck down) and have overturned decisions of the supreme and constitutional courts of member states. They've changed fundamental principles in some countries. To give an example under the British system our courts can't disapply a law passed by Parliament. They've been given that power by the CJEU in EU cases and have used it. It was unprecedented at the time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 08:08:39 AM
Thirdly I think the point about enforcement is a bit facile. EU countries accept rulings from the CJEU because they're countries with the rule of law. In the same way as the Supreme Court has enforced its rulings on the executive in the US - despite having no real powers - so the CJEU has established itself in all European systems. The court has over-ruled national governments (and those laws have been struck down) and have overturned decisions of the supreme and constitutional courts of member states. They've changed fundamental principles in some countries. To give an example under the British system our courts can't disapply a law passed by Parliament. They've been given that power by the CJEU in EU cases and have used it. It was unprecedented at the time.
There have been times when enforcing the edicts of Supreme Court in the US have been tricky since it needs the agreement of the Executive to do any enforcing. I imagine you have the same problem in Europe.
Did the EU ever do anything to France for the expulsion of the Roma. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-14/world/europe.france.roma_1_roma-deportation-france?_s=PM:WORLD
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 10:54:19 AMThere have been times when enforcing the edicts of Supreme Court in the US have been tricky since it needs the agreement of the Executive to do any enforcing. I imagine you have the same problem in Europe.
Different countries tend to enforce at different paces, but the progress, so far, has been in one direction.
QuoteDid the EU ever do anything to France for the expulsion of the Roma. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-14/world/europe.france.roma_1_roma-deportation-france?_s=PM:WORLD
Well the commissioner says she's speaking 'personally'.
I think the Commission did press the French with regards to transposing EU regulations on free movement of labour into French law. That's been done. That was the only ground on which the EU could really have intervened. So there's no case for the EU to make because the regulation's been implemented, individuals can now sue the French state under that law to see if it's been correctly applied in France.
I think also that this could come under justice and home affairs which are really not EU areas at all.
What do you mean by "Press"?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 11:22:04 AM
What do you mean by "Press"?
Put pressure on, threaten to sue, remind of their treaty duties.
So, angry letters. Marty said there was a way to kick out members, do you know what it is? Has the EU been able to punish a major European power in a way that immediately forced them to stop something they really wanted to do? By major European power I mean one the big boys like the UK, France, Italy, or Germany?
You should never write letters when you're angry.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 12:17:33 PM
So, angry letters. Marty said there was a way to kick out members, do you know what it is? Has the EU been able to punish a major European power in a way that immediately forced them to stop something they really wanted to do? By major European power I mean one the big boys like the UK, France, Italy, or Germany?
Why does the method matter? The European Commission's job is generally to make sure that EU member states apply EU law. Some countries do it automatically I think, some like France and the UK require French or British law to give it effect. The Commission, in the case you asked about, wasn't happy with French implementation of a directive, they got the French to change that. In 70% of cases the Commission gets the government to change policy through angry letters, it's only in that remaining third that they bring actions against member states.
The EU isn't generally in the business of stopping countries from doing things, they're passing their own laws and the main worry is getting them uniformally applied. Also their procedures aren't really immediate. The Commission has various stages of escalation before ultimately suing a country and ending up in the CJEU. I imagine it would take time in the US for a case to do with Utah law to reach the Supreme Court too. Having said that I know the Commission's won cases against the UK, France, Italy and Germany and in each case it's led to a change in domestic legislation and a fine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 12:29:01 PM
The EU isn't generally in the business of stopping countries from doing things,
Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 12:35:22 PM
Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.
Words need to have meanings, nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 12:39:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 12:35:22 PM
Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.
Words need to have meanings, nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, but they're trying to twist those meanings in order to advantage particular regions. That's not alright, and we don't tolerate it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 12:39:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 12:35:22 PM
Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.
Words need to have meanings, nothing wrong with that.
Same reason Neil cannot call himself an "American" despite his painful desire to do so.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2011, 12:44:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 12:39:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 12:35:22 PM
Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.
Words need to have meanings, nothing wrong with that.
Same reason Neil cannot call himself an "American" despite his painful desire to do so.
The same reason you can't call yourself a Westerner, you filthy Russian faggot fuck. Go fool around with your whore.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 12:41:59 PMYeah, but they're trying to twist those meanings in order to advantage particular regions. That's not alright, and we don't tolerate it.
Well food's tied to the land. What's key is often the way something's made though. But I can still buy 'Feta-style' white cheese in the supermarket that isn't from Lesbos but is produced in a broadly similar way, but I know when I buy Feta that that's exactly what I'm getting.
I'm entirely behind the EU on denominated areas.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 12:48:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 12:41:59 PMYeah, but they're trying to twist those meanings in order to advantage particular regions. That's not alright, and we don't tolerate it.
Well food's tied to the land. What's key is often the way something's made though. But I can still buy 'Feta-style' white cheese in the supermarket that isn't from Lesbos but is produced in a broadly similar way, but I know when I buy Feta that that's exactly what I'm getting.
I'm entirely behind the EU on denominated areas.
The idea that the location in which food is made is important is silly, and shouldn't be allowed. It isn't allowed here, and we're 100% in the right and the EU is 100% in the wrong. If you're a food snob, then you can source your food how you like, but it is wrong for the state to compel the manufacturers to help you in your attempt to enforce food snobbery. If people care enough, then manufacturers can use marketing to advance their product as coming from a particular area, but instead having the government create the myth that feta cheese from outside of some shithole in Greece isn't really feta is corrupt, wasteful and exactly the sort of thing I've come to expect from the EU.
You're behind the EU on this because you're such a Europhile that I can't think of a time where you didn't approve of something the EU did. Now, that's a bit of an ad-hom, but because you brought your opinion into it, I feel right in bringing your record into this.
So you are saying that sparkling wine produced in the US should be called "champagne"? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2011, 12:58:11 PM
So you are saying that sparkling wine produced in the US should be called "champagne"? :lol:
I'm saying it is champagne.
The idea that the state should make laws about this kind of word usage is ridiculous. But then the EU is immensely silly.
If you're a food snob then the problem is you can't source your food as you want. Someone in Dewlish could announce they're making feta and there'd be no way for consumers to know that what they're buying isn't Greek, isn't from a specific type of sheep, or made in a specific way: that effectively it's not 'feta'. Effectively these are brands inherited by different communities. They deserve protection because they help consumers make informed choices.
I've changed my opinion on the EU quite wildly over the past few years. I'm now more or less Eurosceptic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 01:03:23 PM
If you're a food snob then the problem is you can't source your food as you want. Someone in Dewlish could announce they're making feta and there'd be no way for consumers to know that what they're buying isn't Greek, isn't from a specific type of sheep, or made in a specific way: that effectively it's not 'feta'. Effectively these are brands inherited by different communities. They deserve protection because they help consumers make informed choices.
I've changed my opinion on the EU quite wildly over the past few years. I'm now more or less Eurosceptic.
Why would a food snob buy stuff that comes without enough information for snobbery? :wacko:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 01:03:23 PM
If you're a food snob then the problem is you can't source your food as you want. Someone in Dewlish could announce they're making feta and there'd be no way for consumers to know that what they're buying isn't Greek, isn't from a specific type of sheep, or made in a specific way: that effectively it's not 'feta'. Effectively these are brands inherited by different communities. They deserve protection because they help consumers make informed choices.
See, these aren't really problems though. Food snobs don't deserve the easy way out, and I don't really believe that this is related at all to consumer choice, or protection, or anything. This is a case where the EU is being abused by various lobbies to provide preferential status for their products. Food snobs do not deserve the protection of the state.
If it looks like feta, and it tastes like feta, it's feta, no matter the citizenship of the farmer or the subtype of sheep. That's the bottom line. They are not brands anymore than 'cola' is a brand, or 'cheddar'. Even if they were, they would be public domain every bit as much as those other products are.
There is a also another important aspect to many of the "apellationes controllees". Many of the food products use traditional methods that would be illegal under modern sanitary rules - that's why making an exception for some local community helps to maintain the tradition without undermining the entire food regulation system.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2011, 01:25:22 PM
There is a also another important aspect to many of the "apellationes controllees". Many of the food products use traditional methods that would be illegal under modern sanitary rules - that's why making an exception for some local community helps to maintain the tradition without undermining the entire food regulation system.
If the tradition would be illegal, why would you want to maintain it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 12:17:33 PM
So, angry letters. Marty said there was a way to kick out members, do you know what it is? Has the EU been able to punish a major European power in a way that immediately forced them to stop something they really wanted to do? By major European power I mean one the big boys like the UK, France, Italy, or Germany?
Why does the method matter? The European Commission's job is generally to make sure that EU member states apply EU law. Some countries do it automatically I think, some like France and the UK require French or British law to give it effect. The Commission, in the case you asked about, wasn't happy with French implementation of a directive, they got the French to change that. In 70% of cases the Commission gets the government to change policy through angry letters, it's only in that remaining third that they bring actions against member states.
The EU isn't generally in the business of stopping countries from doing things, they're passing their own laws and the main worry is getting them uniformally applied. Also their procedures aren't really immediate. The Commission has various stages of escalation before ultimately suing a country and ending up in the CJEU. I imagine it would take time in the US for a case to do with Utah law to reach the Supreme Court too. Having said that I know the Commission's won cases against the UK, France, Italy and Germany and in each case it's led to a change in domestic legislation and a fine.
Because angry letters and threats of sanctions will only work when a country is not really behind something. The economic threats fall completely flat when the wrong doer is economically stronger then the abused. If say Latvia feels it's being treated unfairly by Germany, what are they going to do? Is the rest of the EU really going to damage itself to punish Germany? I doubt it, and your statements about the EU refusal to enforce the rules and the wide spread cheating indicates that they don't.
I am looking at this from the US perspective where we have had a long history of States simply ignoring Washington (and in some cases the Executive branch ignoring the judicial branch). If left to themselves the states would not of integrated their schools. It took soldiers to force them to do it. If a European state wants to harass a minority, a minority hated by the general populace like the Roma, who is going to stop them?
Where is the mechanism for expulsion that Marty eluded to?
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 01:19:06 PMIf it looks like feta, and it tastes like feta, it's feta, no matter the citizenship of the farmer or the subtype of sheep. That's the bottom line. They are not brands anymore than 'cola' is a brand, or 'cheddar'. Even if they were, they would be public domain every bit as much as those other products are.
I disagree. I think 'feta-style' cheese is 'cola', 'feta' is 'coke' or 'pepsi'.
QuoteIf the tradition would be illegal, why would you want to maintain it?
There are more important things than modern obsessive food hygiene.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2011, 01:25:22 PM
There is a also another important aspect to many of the "apellationes controllees". Many of the food products use traditional methods that would be illegal under modern sanitary rules - that's why making an exception for some local community helps to maintain the tradition without undermining the entire food regulation system.
You used the same argument in reverse to rail against Kosher and Halal slaughter. That ancient traditions of food preparation should not given exceptions from the law. Which is it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 01:32:09 PM
I disagree. I think 'feta-style' cheese is 'cola', 'feta' is 'coke' or 'pepsi'.
No. 'feta-style' is 'cola-style', while 'feta' is 'cola'. 'Athenos' is 'Coke'.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 01:30:58 PM
Because angry letters and threats of sanctions will only work when a country is not really behind something. The economic threats fall completely flat when the wrong doer is economically stronger then the abused.
But the Commission and the CJEU aren't national. The Commission's goal is to advance the purposes of the EU, similarly the court doesn't really care about domestic situations. All the court's interested in is a uniform application of European law. As I say in 70% of cases the 'angry letters' work. I don't know of an example of a member state actively flouting EU law after the Court's ruled
QuoteIf say Latvia feels it's being treated unfairly by Germany, what are they going to do? Is the rest of the EU really going to damage itself to punish Germany? I doubt it, and your statements about the EU refusal to enforce the rules and the wide spread cheating indicates that they don't.
Then Latvia can sue Germany. Member states suing each other is relatively rare, generally they prefer the Commission to step in and try and work out a solution. But it does happen. We've sued the French many times.
QuoteI am looking at this from the US perspective where we have had a long history of States simply ignoring Washington (and in some cases the Executive branch ignoring the judicial branch). If left to themselves the states would not of integrated their schools. It took soldiers to force them to do it.
That's a difference. The EU was created to avoid soldiers marching across Europe.
QuoteIf a European state wants to harass a minority, a minority hated by the general populace like the Roma, who is going to stop them?
The EU requires that countries are democratic and broadly have respect for human rights. But beyond that the EU is about the four freedoms which are, I think, trade, capital, labour and services. In the French example the EU's issue with the expulsions was that it went against free movement of people. It's never come up that a country's fallen so far from the democratic or human rights aspect that the EU's needed to get involved. As all EU member states are members of the European Convention of Human Rights that would generally be addressed in that court which is totally separate from the EU.
QuoteWhere is the mechanism for expulsion that Marty eluded to?
I've no idea. Off the top of my head there could be something in Lisbon. I know that's the first treaty that outlines the procedure for a state to withdraw from the EU.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 12:59:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2011, 12:58:11 PM
So you are saying that sparkling wine produced in the US should be called "champagne"? :lol:
I'm saying it is champagne.
Indeed. It isn't as though people go out and say "I'd like a bottle of sparkling wine, please."
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 01:03:23 PM
If you're a food snob then the problem is you can't source your food as you want.
:huh:
1) Why should that be a priority of a state?
2) I think it is called the internet - you can do research to find out where your food is coming form. Sort of like those individuals who do research to make sure that their produce is locally grown.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 01:40:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 01:30:58 PM
Because angry letters and threats of sanctions will only work when a country is not really behind something. The economic threats fall completely flat when the wrong doer is economically stronger then the abused.
But the Commission and the CJEU aren't national. The Commission's goal is to advance the purposes of the EU, similarly the court doesn't really care about domestic situations. All the court's interested in is a uniform application of European law. As I say in 70% of cases the 'angry letters' work. I don't know of an example of a member state actively flouting EU law after the Court's ruled
QuoteIf say Latvia feels it's being treated unfairly by Germany, what are they going to do? Is the rest of the EU really going to damage itself to punish Germany? I doubt it, and your statements about the EU refusal to enforce the rules and the wide spread cheating indicates that they don't.
Then Latvia can sue Germany. Member states suing each other is relatively rare, generally they prefer the Commission to step in and try and work out a solution. But it does happen. We've sued the French many times.
QuoteI am looking at this from the US perspective where we have had a long history of States simply ignoring Washington (and in some cases the Executive branch ignoring the judicial branch). If left to themselves the states would not of integrated their schools. It took soldiers to force them to do it.
That's a difference. The EU was created to avoid soldiers marching across Europe.
QuoteIf a European state wants to harass a minority, a minority hated by the general populace like the Roma, who is going to stop them?
The EU requires that countries are democratic and broadly have respect for human rights. But beyond that the EU is about the four freedoms which are, I think, trade, capital, labour and services. In the French example the EU's issue with the expulsions was that it went against free movement of people. It's never come up that a country's fallen so far from the democratic or human rights aspect that the EU's needed to get involved. As all EU member states are members of the European Convention of Human Rights that would generally be addressed in that court which is totally separate from the EU.
QuoteWhere is the mechanism for expulsion that Marty eluded to?
I've no idea. Off the top of my head there could be something in Lisbon. I know that's the first treaty that outlines the procedure for a state to withdraw from the EU.
This all suggest to me that EU only attempts to enforce something when it won't really offend someone to much. To quote Marty:
QuoteAs I said the Commission took a political view not to enforce these particular rules. That does not mean it couldn't.
Perhaps I'm looking at this wrong. What is the EU suppose to be? I'm looking at it as if were a country. In a country people with weapons (be they rifles, billy clubs or just hand cuffs), enforce the law. You wouldn't have a criminal law enforced by lawsuits and boycotts. If someone broke into your home and stole your stereo you wouldn't sue them. The police would arrest them and put them on trial.
As I said, I may be looking at it wrong. The EU really isn't a country, (though some of it's advocates seem to want it eventually become one), What is it suppose to be.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 01:32:09 PM
QuoteIf the tradition would be illegal, why would you want to maintain it?
There are more important things than modern obsessive food hygiene.
OK Upton Sinclair.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 01:48:42 PM1) Why should that be a priority of a state?
The EU isn't a state. The vast majority of its purpose is to regulate the single market.
Quote2) I think it is called the internet - you can do research to find out where your food is coming form. Sort of like those individuals who do research to make sure that their produce is locally grown.
What's the harm in these regulations that simply define what certain things are? I don't see the objection to them. They aren't onerous on producers and they make the consumer's life easier.
Why should I have to do research to find out if a product is what it's describing itself to be?
QuoteAs I said, I may be looking at it wrong. The EU really isn't a country, (though some of it's advocates seem to want it eventually become one), What is it suppose to be.
Ultimately it's a single market and it's a union of member states. The vast majority of EU legislation is to do with the free movement of goods and people (they're still working on capital and services). You say they don't enforce things that don't matter they've got the French in the world's largest customs union that takes enforcement. Similarly they negotiate for all of the EU with the WTO and other countries. You can't get a free trade deal with the UK, only with the EU. That doesn't require enforcement but is a sign of its power.
In your example the one area of domestic law that's probably least touched by EU law is criminal law. A more accurate analogy would be if the Federal government set minimum environmental standards how would they enforce that on, say, Alabama?
QuoteThis all suggest to me that EU only attempts to enforce something when it won't really offend someone to much. To quote Marty:
I said earlier the Commission decided not to. It depends on your definition of important I suppose. I disagree with you in that I think the failure of the EU to enforce the stability pact (which was political) was one of will not ability. But I think that it points to the central problem Europe now has which is that the EU's framework was devised about 10 years ago, when things were good, and its institutional memory is to do with running a single market.
Right now the Eurozone and its needs are far beyond what the EU has been established to do or has any experience of doing. I think there's a tension and a difficulty because of that and the failure to resolve that is part of the problem with the Eurozone crisis.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 03:41:34 PM
The EU isn't a state. The vast majority of its purpose is to regulate the single market.
Member states pushed for these designations, no?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 03:41:34 PMWhat's the harm in these regulations that simply define what certain things are? I don't see the objection to them. They aren't onerous on producers and they make the consumer's life easier.
Why should I have to do research to find out if a product is what it's describing itself to be?
How do they make a consumer's life easier? Seems more like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Producer's can now get in trouble for labeling items what consumers actually call them.
Besides, there was already an easy alternative - products can list where they are made on their label. Like the cheddar I recently bought that says it was made in Vermont.
Ugh looks like the protesters are still basing themselves in the private park but making forays up to Washington Square park. They are now in my neighborhood. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 03:53:22 PMMember states pushed for these designations, no?
Well member states are ultimately behind all EU law, so yes. But it's not a state. It's about the regulations of the single market. These fit into that.
QuoteHow do they make a consumer's life easier? Seems more like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Producer's can now get in trouble for labeling items what consumers actually call them.
I know if I order Toulouse sausage, that's what I'll get. That makes my life very easy as compared to having to look up online where something's from, checking the ingredients and all the rest.
I don't think this is any more onerous than any other requirement for packaging. It's not that bureaucratic and supermarkets can (and do) still sell, say, white feta style cheese.
QuoteBesides, there was already an easy alternative - products can list where they are made on their label. Like the cheddar I recently bought that says it was made in Vermont.
It's not just geography. The regulations tend to cover how something's made too. So a Melton Mowbray porkpie has specific ingredients and must be handmade (a Melton Mowbray style pie doesn't). Lincolnshire sausages are another example. They have to be made in Lincolnshire, I think from a certain type of pig and they've got to be a certain % pork and the only ingredients allowed are pork, sage, salt and pepper. In that case the producers of the sausage in Lincolnshire have been pushing for EU recognition because supermarkets were producing 'Lincolnshire sausages' that had low meat content (lots of water to make them look nicer) and often other ingredients like parsley. The producers felt their brand was being tarnished by cheap knock-offs.
New York Times had a couple gushy op-eds about the protesters today.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 04:22:53 PM
Well member states are ultimately behind all EU law, so yes. But it's not a state. It's about the regulations of the single market. These fit into that.
It was never my intention to suggestion that the EU is a state. I should have been more precise as far as what role should states have in advocating for such things. Also, your first sentence - what a bureaucratic line. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 04:22:53 PM
I know if I order Toulouse sausage, that's what I'll get. That makes my life very easy as compared to having to look up online where something's from, checking the ingredients and all the rest.
What makes that so special in comparison to other food items that don't have proper place names? Just as easily a chocolate cake could be prepared in many different manners and locales. Why are special cases made for items advocated by special interest groups?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 04:22:53 PM
I don't think this is any more onerous than any other requirement for packaging. It's not that bureaucratic and supermarkets can (and do) still sell, say, white feta style cheese.
Except that it unfairly benefits certain producers because they are producing in particular locations - while others are disadvantaged because they do not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 04:22:53 PM
It's not just geography. The regulations tend to cover how something's made too. So a Melton Mowbray porkpie has specific ingredients and must be handmade (a Melton Mowbray style pie doesn't).
Again who's interests are being served as far as sanctify the means of production? And of course, that is something that could be on packaging if producers thought it was important (and consumers actually cared). I daresay that one could have a Melton Mowbray porkpie that was produced by machines despite the bureaucratic fiction. I'm also not sure how the legal battles that inevitably arise are in the best interests of EU consumers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 04:22:53 PMLincolnshire sausages are another example. They have to be made in Lincolnshire, I think from a certain type of pig and they've got to be a certain % pork and the only ingredients allowed are pork, sage, salt and pepper. In that case the producers of the sausage in Lincolnshire have been pushing for EU recognition because supermarkets were producing 'Lincolnshire sausages' that had low meat content (lots of water to make them look nicer) and often other ingredients like parsley. The producers felt their brand was being tarnished by cheap knock-offs.
Now some of that is understandable but has little to do with announcing that Lincolnshire sausage must be made in Lincolnshire. Over here we have similar concepts as well that if you have an insufficient amount of meat content you fall into categories like meat product - on the basis that consumers were being deceived as to what actually constituted the items (health and nutrition purposes).
That's a far cry from the legal fiction that only cheese prepared in an exact way in a precise location can be called Feta even though it differs only slightly (if at all) from similar cheeses produced in other regions. I very much doubt that Feta, as produced in Greece, has seen the same unchanging recipe/preparation since the renaissance era.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 04:49:41 PMWhat makes that so special in comparison to other food items that don't have proper place names? Just as easily a chocolate cake could be prepared in many different manners and locales. Why are special cases made for items advocated by special interest groups?
A chocolate cake is clearly different from a traditional local method of production or something tied to the land. Food is a huge part of regional heritage, and even a Sachertorte is something different from a 'chocolate cake'.
QuoteExcept that it unfairly benefits certain producers because they are producing in particular locations - while others are disadvantaged because they do not.
QuoteAgain who's interests are being served as far as sanctify the means of production? And of course, that is something that could be on packaging if producers thought it was important (and consumers actually cared). I daresay that one could have a Melton Mowbray porkpie that was produced by machines despite the bureaucratic fiction. I'm also not sure how the legal battles that inevitably arise are in the best interests of EU consumers.
If it's machine made then it's not a Melton Mowbray pie. The entire point is that this is a distinctive, unique way of making something. But I also wouldn't trust producers in terms of marketing. In the US I believe there's no definition of 'extra virgin' so the vast majority of olive oils describe themselves as 'extra virgin'. In Europe it means first press olives, there's a big taste difference. Similarly before the EU protection there was a reputation around Melton Mowbray, they were famous for their pies in this country and their brand was being damaged by cheap knock offs. I prefer the European system which seems less open to manipulation and marketing.
QuoteNow some of that is understandable but has little to do with announcing that Lincolnshire sausage must be made in Lincolnshire. Over here we have similar concepts as well that if you have an insufficient amount of meat content you fall into categories like meat product - on the basis that consumers were being deceived as to what actually constituted the items (health and nutrition purposes).
We've got those too. The Lincolnshire standards are higher - I think they've got to be 98% pork - the entire point is that their product is distinctive, unique and a part of the culture of the area it is different and should be protected. So there should be rules of what qualifies a Lincolnshire sausage or you end up ruining their brand and all Lincolnshire sausages degenerating to mediocrity.
QuoteThat's a far cry from the legal fiction that only cheese prepared in an exact way in a precise location can be called Feta even though it differs only slightly (if at all) from similar cheeses produced in other regions. I very much doubt that Feta, as produced in Greece, has seen the same unchanging recipe/preparation since the renaissance era.
Again feta has specific rules on what breeds are used for the milk and method of production. It is, like the Roquefort caves, certainly not unchanging but it is unchanging enough and distinctive enough to have a value which is like a brand name and should receive similar protection.
Yeah, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see those so much as brand names as class items that are suddenly being afforded the status of a protected brand. Artificially introducing authenticity to so many items.
I guess it works out. Sheilbh can live in Europe, where they have wacky naming laws, and we can live in North America, where the EU can't touch us.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 05:21:10 PM
Yeah, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see those so much as brand names as class items that are suddenly being afforded the status of a protected brand. Artificially introducing authenticity to so many items.
Fair. I don't think it's artificial for the most part I mean they've been making those pies in that way for a couple of hundred years and similarly with feta and roquefort - some products, interestingly, have decided against going for EU status. The best example I can think of of something similar in the US is possibly bourbon? From when I worked in a bar I seem to remember that it had to be made in a certain way, have certain qualities and that some states had additional regulations? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 05:26:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 05:21:10 PM
Yeah, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see those so much as brand names as class items that are suddenly being afforded the status of a protected brand. Artificially introducing authenticity to so many items.
Fair. I don't think it's artificial for the most part I mean they've been making those pies in that way for a couple of hundred years and similarly with feta and roquefort - some products, interestingly, have decided against going for EU status. The best example I can think of of something similar in the US is possibly bourbon? From when I worked in a bar I seem to remember that it had to be made in a certain way, have certain qualities and that some states had additional regulations? :mellow:
That wouldn't be the same thing though. If the US were to mandate that bourbon can only be made in Louisiana, and that bourbon made elsewhere must be referred to as 'bourbon-style liquor' then that would be the same. If it's not made properly, then it's not bourbon, but whiskey, so it's more similar to the EU passing a law that you can't say that cheddar cheese is actually mozzarella.
I sort of like the EU food naming laws.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 05:56:39 PM
I sort of like the EU food naming laws.
They sound like protectionism to me, but I don't really care that much.
They sound like a minor prong of the EU's war on speech. The U.S. doesn't even protect commercial speech all that well, but I suppose I shouldn't expect the EU to be even as good.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 05:56:39 PM
I sort of like the EU food naming laws.
Aren't you in Iowa? Any sort of agricultural protection probably puts a smile on your face.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 06:03:17 PM
They sound like protectionism to me, but I don't really care that much.
They help the dissemination of information. Not that much different from trademark infringement laws.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 06:20:30 PM
Aren't you in Iowa? Any sort of agricultural protection probably puts a smile on your face.
Be less of a retard Neil. Iowa exports feed corn and soybeans all around the world.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 06:26:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 06:03:17 PM
They sound like protectionism to me, but I don't really care that much.
They help the dissemination of information. Not that much different from trademark infringement laws.
Except it's nothing like that at all, since a trademark has to be owned by a discrete person or, in rare cases (like "superhero"*), persons. Afaik, it can't be owned by a diffuse group of people. And it would be bad practice to use a generic, merely descriptive mark like "champagne" or "feta."
And, really, even beyond that, where do you stop? Shall we go get a burrito-style wrapped bean product at the Taco-style Bell?
*Itself a bad example of a merely descriptive trademark, and one that could probably be handily successfully challenged.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 09, 2011, 06:37:22 PM
Except it's nothing like that at all, since a trademark has to be owned by a discrete person or, in rare cases (like "superhero"*), persons. Afaik, it can't be owned by a diffuse group of people. And it would be bad practice to use a generic, merely descriptive mark like "champagne" or "feta."
And, really, even beyond that, where do you stop? Shall we go get a burrito-style wrapped bean product at the Taco-style Bell?
*Itself a bad example of a merely descriptive trademark, and one that could probably be handily successfully challenged.
I agree that there still exists the possibility of, say, an unscrupulous sparkling wine producer in Champagne or an unscrupulous hard cheese producer in Parma free riding on the "brand's" name and turning out crap. Although I think institutions like DOC limit that possibility.
You stop at the point where a food doesn't have an association any more in the consumer's mind with a particular region. I've never heard of burritos from any particular region enjoying an enhanced reputation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 06:45:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 09, 2011, 06:37:22 PM
Except it's nothing like that at all, since a trademark has to be owned by a discrete person or, in rare cases (like "superhero"*), persons. Afaik, it can't be owned by a diffuse group of people. And it would be bad practice to use a generic, merely descriptive mark like "champagne" or "feta."
And, really, even beyond that, where do you stop? Shall we go get a burrito-style wrapped bean product at the Taco-style Bell?
*Itself a bad example of a merely descriptive trademark, and one that could probably be handily successfully challenged.
I agree that there still exists the possibility of, say, an unscrupulous sparkling wine producer in Champagne or an unscrupulous hard cheese producer in Parma free riding on the "brand's" name and turning out crap. Although I think institutions like DOC limit that possibility.
You stop at the point where a food doesn't have an association any more in the consumer's mind with a particular region. I've never heard of burritos from any particular region enjoying an enhanced reputation.
To be honest, before this thread, I had no idea feta was supposed to come from Greece exclusively. I thought it just meant "goat cheese" (although evidently modern production often uses cow's milk instead; it tastes goaty to me, but maybe that's just the brine), which can be made anywhere you have a goat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 06:45:17 PM
You stop at the point where a food doesn't have an association any more in the consumer's mind with a particular region. I've never heard of burritos from any particular region enjoying an enhanced reputation.
:blink:
I have. I've heard people talk about San Fransisco-style burritos (when not in SF or mentioning that I lived there) and I think it is pretty well established that Texas and California have preeminence in American style Mexican food. Should there be a ban on calling food items "Tex Mex" unless they have been made in Texas?
In fact...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_burrito
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 06:58:42 PM
:blink:
I have. I've heard people talk about San Fransisco-style burritos (when not in SF or mentioning that I lived there) and I think it is pretty well established that Texas and California have preeminence in American style Mexican food. Should there be a ban on calling food items "Tex Mex" unless they have been made in Texas?
OK, I take back the burrito. A burrito is a recipe, not the result of artisanal food production techniques.
So the cases of food labelling laws that I favor are those that cover food products where there is a body of producers who uphold quality standards among themselves. If Kobe beef farmers enforce the requirement that their cows be massaged at least once a week with beer, then some industrial ranch down the road shouldn't be allowed to call their beef Kobe. The farrmers down the road should feel free to start massaging their cows however they like, enforce their own standards, and start building up the brand of Shiku beef.
The arguments about soil, water, etc. aren't as convincing to me, but there again that should be a decision left up to the consumer. If you don't think the particular grass in the Parma region make a noticeable difference in the taste of cheese, or doesn't justify the price premium, you're free to buy your hard grated cheese (or in the US, your hard grated cheese food product) somewhere else. The EU is not requiring that all its residents put only cheese made in Parma on their pasta, it's passing on information.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 07:37:27 PM
So the cases of food labelling laws that I favor are those that cover food products where there is a body of producers who uphold quality standards among themselves. If Kobe beef farmers enforce the requirement that their cows be massaged at least once a week with beer, then some industrial ranch down the road shouldn't be allowed to call their beef Kobe. The farrmers down the road should feel free to start massaging their cows however they like, enforce their own standards, and start building up the brand of Shiku beef.
The arguments about soil, water, etc. aren't as convincing to me, but there again that should be a decision left up to the consumer. If you don't think the particular grass in the Parma region make a noticeable difference in the taste of cheese, or doesn't justify the price premium, you're free to buy your hard grated cheese (or in the US, your hard grated cheese food product) somewhere else. The EU is not requiring that all its residents put only cheese made in Parma on their pasta, it's passing on information.
Except that why are certain small enclaves given the ability to determine what will and will not fall under a particular name? Now that I know Parmigiano-Reggiano is one of these items - I think it even more ridiculous. That and its various "imitations" constitute one of the most popular cheeses.
What information is the EU passing on? Simply that and particular set of customs/locales have been designated as the official brand?
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 07:45:25 PM
Except that why are certain small enclaves given the ability to determine what will and will not fall under a particular name? Now that I know Parmigiano-Reggiano is one of these items - I think it even more ridiculous. That and its various "imitations" constitute one of the most popular cheeses.
What information is the EU passing on? Simply that and particular set of customs/locales have been designated as the official brand?
It's not any more ridiculous than allowing a limited number of shareholders to dictate to the world which computers can be labelled Macs or which carbonated beverages can be called Coca Cola.
The EU is passing on to the consumer is that the product he's buying is made in a certain location and maintains a certain quality standard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
It's not any more ridiculous than allowing a limited number of shareholders to dictate to the world which computers can be labelled Macs or which carbonated beverages can be called Coca Cola.
The EU is passing on to the consumer is that the product he's buying is made in a certain location and maintains a certain quality standard.
That's a corporation and their are set practices for establishing a trademark. If said disparate group of farmers wanted to form a brand, there was recourse for that. Why create a new process to give "rights" to a largely unconnected group?
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 07:52:55 PM
That's a corporation and their are set practices for establishing a trademark. If said disparate group of farmers wanted to form a brand, there was recourse for that. Why create a new process to give "rights" to a largely unconnected group?
Is this really you're only objection? If the wine producers of Champagne were to simply trademark Champagne you'd be perfectly happy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 08:04:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 07:52:55 PM
That's a corporation and their are set practices for establishing a trademark. If said disparate group of farmers wanted to form a brand, there was recourse for that. Why create a new process to give "rights" to a largely unconnected group?
Is this really you're only objection? If the wine producers of Champagne were to simply trademark Champagne you'd be perfectly happy?
Yeah - actually I think that would be okay. Then you'd be in the same situation where kleenex, coke and xerox are used as common nouns even though there is a branded product with that name. I don't think that many, if any, of these various products in Europe could manage that though. There are too many disparate interests for them to come together as one corporation that could get exclusivity rights and so it seems like that's why they had to go the route they did where they pushed for the EU define their product as the only true version of its class and everything else had to grab imitation names like italian hard cheese.
There's a procedure in the US called a certification mark where no one gets exclusivity...
Quote from: ulmont on October 09, 2011, 08:33:20 PM
There's a procedure in the US called a certification mark where no one gets exclusivity...
But certification marks don't discriminate by national or regional origin, do they?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2011, 05:17:00 PM
We've got those too. The Lincolnshire standards are higher - I think they've got to be 98% pork - the entire point is that their product is distinctive, unique and a part of the culture of the area it is different and should be protected. So there should be rules of what qualifies a Lincolnshire sausage or you end up ruining their brand and all Lincolnshire sausages degenerating to mediocrity.
Has it occurred to you that those recipes could be reproduced elsewhere?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 09, 2011, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 09, 2011, 08:33:20 PM
There's a procedure in the US called a certification mark where no one gets exclusivity...
But certification marks don't discriminate by national or regional origin, do they?
The COGNAC certification mark was recognized as a common-law certification mark by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 1998, and specifically for a "common law regional certification mark," so yeah.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 06:28:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 06:20:30 PM
Aren't you in Iowa? Any sort of agricultural protection probably puts a smile on your face.
Be less of a retard Neil. Iowa exports feed corn and soybeans all around the world.
But the real money is in the federal cash.
Lovely, one of the protesters created an art...piece that features a rotting pig head. She 'sprayed some stuff on it to keep the flies away but its definitely rotting'.
I agree with Sheilbh, Mart and Yi that restaurants shouldn't get to claim to serve "French" food or "Italian" food unless the food is actually prepared in those countries.
Quote from: ulmont on October 09, 2011, 10:06:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 09, 2011, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 09, 2011, 08:33:20 PM
There's a procedure in the US called a certification mark where no one gets exclusivity...
But certification marks don't discriminate by national or regional origin, do they?
The COGNAC certification mark was recognized as a common-law certification mark by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 1998, and specifically for a "common law regional certification mark," so yeah.
Huh. Well, fair enough. Lame.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2011, 11:51:17 PM
Lovely, one of the protesters created an art...piece that features a rotting pig head. She 'sprayed some stuff on it to keep the flies away but its definitely rotting'.
<_<
Ok, I think we've found some common ground. She may be summarily executed.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2011, 11:37:05 PM
But the real money is in the federal cash.
$15 billion nation wide. That's peanuts compared to total ag production.
About the EU naming laws or whatever they're called: it's not only about a certain list of ingredients and a specific method of preparation, it's also about a certain location where the food is grown.
Champagne grapes come from Champagne. You can grow Champagne grapes in a lot of places, but they won't have had their roots in the soil of Champagne. I can start producing something resembling Roquefort in my basement from canadian sheep, but they won't have grazed the hills of Aveyron.
It's the soil that matters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 07:37:27 PM
The arguments about soil, water, etc. aren't as convincing to me, but there again that should be a decision left up to the consumer.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:38:47 AM
About the EU naming laws or whatever they're called: it's not only about a certain list of ingredients and a specific method of preparation, it's also about a certain location where the food is grown.
Champagne grapes come from Champagne. You can grow Champagne grapes in a lot of places, but they won't have had their roots in the soil of Champagne. I can start producing something resembling Roquefort in my basement from canadian sheep, but they won't have grazed the hills of Aveyron.
It's the soil that matters.
I don't follow.
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2011, 08:32:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:38:47 AM
About the EU naming laws or whatever they're called: it's not only about a certain list of ingredients and a specific method of preparation, it's also about a certain location where the food is grown.
Champagne grapes come from Champagne. You can grow Champagne grapes in a lot of places, but they won't have had their roots in the soil of Champagne. I can start producing something resembling Roquefort in my basement from canadian sheep, but they won't have grazed the hills of Aveyron.
It's the soil that matters.
I don't follow.
"Terroir"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroir
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2011, 08:37:49 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2011, 08:32:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:38:47 AM
About the EU naming laws or whatever they're called: it's not only about a certain list of ingredients and a specific method of preparation, it's also about a certain location where the food is grown.
Champagne grapes come from Champagne. You can grow Champagne grapes in a lot of places, but they won't have had their roots in the soil of Champagne. I can start producing something resembling Roquefort in my basement from canadian sheep, but they won't have grazed the hills of Aveyron.
It's the soil that matters.
I don't follow.
"Terroir"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroir
:rolleyes: Thanks, Mr. Helpful.
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2011, 08:39:22 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2011, 08:37:49 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2011, 08:32:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:38:47 AM
About the EU naming laws or whatever they're called: it's not only about a certain list of ingredients and a specific method of preparation, it's also about a certain location where the food is grown.
Champagne grapes come from Champagne. You can grow Champagne grapes in a lot of places, but they won't have had their roots in the soil of Champagne. I can start producing something resembling Roquefort in my basement from canadian sheep, but they won't have grazed the hills of Aveyron.
It's the soil that matters.
I don't follow.
"Terroir"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroir
:rolleyes: Thanks, Mr. Helpful.
My head hurts.
Well, it probably does matter for certain types of wine. It sure as fuck doesn't matter which hills sheep eat their grass on.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:38:47 AM
About the EU naming laws or whatever they're called: it's not only about a certain list of ingredients and a specific method of preparation, it's also about a certain location where the food is grown.
Champagne grapes come from Champagne. You can grow Champagne grapes in a lot of places, but they won't have had their roots in the soil of Champagne. I can start producing something resembling Roquefort in my basement from canadian sheep, but they won't have grazed the hills of Aveyron.
It's the soil that matters.
Haha you dumb sucker.
Zoupa&Shelf: do you believe that Kobe beef tastes different because of how their fur was brushed and because the bulls got blowjobs from Japanese schoolgirls or whatever?
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2011, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:38:47 AM
It's the soil that matters.
:yeahright:
Small exception for Tokay, some part of it can come from Slovakia for historical reasons :D
Quote from: Gups on October 10, 2011, 09:02:24 AM
Well, it probably does matter for certain types of wine. It sure as fuck doesn't matter which hills sheep eat their grass on.
I think of all of them, I can see wine the best given how temperamental various grape varieties are.
It's not like you have a choice when you're eating Kobe beef.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 06:26:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 06:03:17 PM
They sound like protectionism to me, but I don't really care that much.
They help the dissemination of information. Not that much different from trademark infringement laws.
The rationale - prevention of customer confusion - is the same.
If I am looking for a Cognac because I have distinct ideas about the kind of spirit I want to drink, I shouldn't have to do an investigation to find out that the "cognac" I am drinking is really falsely branded Canadian Whiskey.
Russian liquors sold in US are amusing in that way. In English, it says "Armenian Brandy" or "Sparkling Wine". In Russian, it says "Armenian Cognac" or "Champagne".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2011, 11:48:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 06:26:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2011, 06:03:17 PM
They sound like protectionism to me, but I don't really care that much.
They help the dissemination of information. Not that much different from trademark infringement laws.
The rationale - prevention of customer confusion - is the same.
If I am looking for a Cognac because I have distinct ideas about the kind of spirit I want to drink, I shouldn't have to do an investigation to find out that the "cognac" I am drinking is really falsely branded Canadian Whiskey.
Don't most edible products tell where they are made?
Besides if the consumer ends up unable to tell the difference between the two, where's the harm, where's the foul?
That's a good point. If I am not able to free ride on the reputation of a trademark (which was built over "only" several years or decades) why should I be able to freeride on the reputation of a controlled geographical designation, which was built over generations or centuries?
@garbon: so where's the harm in me branding my drink "Coca Cola" if the consumer can't tell the difference in taste?
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
That's a good point. If I am not able to free ride on the reputation of a trademark (which was built over "only" several years or decades) why should I be able to freeride on the reputation of a controlled geographical designation, which was built over generations or centuries?
Why should Chipotle be able to free ride off the reputation of tasty burritos with their flavorless crap? Perhaps Chipotle should be called burrito-style food.
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 11:59:35 AM
@garbon: so where's the harm in me branding my drink "Coca Cola" if the consumer can't tell the difference in taste?
The name is legally owned via trademark and I don't think Coca Cola has ever been used to describe everything in its class (although I'm aware of the coke bit). On the other hand - champagne and feta have been and in many places continue to be used to describe everything in their particular class. It seems artificial to restrict those classes down to singular items that are produced by a certain group of individuals in a certain place, who aren't even engaged in a common enterprise.
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
That's a good point. If I am not able to free ride on the reputation of a trademark (which was built over "only" several years or decades) why should I be able to freeride on the reputation of a controlled geographical designation, which was built over generations or centuries?
For the same reason that The Odyssey cannot be copyrighted. Because very old intellectual property, including potent potable production techniques, belongs to the world.
Now, bear in mind I've never had any problem with requiring the name to meet certain conditions, just do not agree that geographical origin (which is internal protectionism) should be one of those conditions.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 11:58:21 AM
Don't most edible products tell where they are made?
Country of origin only, and then only on the back label
QuoteBesides if the consumer ends up unable to tell the difference between the two, where's the harm, where's the foul?
The foul could be the consumer is able to tell the difference and ends up with something other than what he wanted to buy.
Or that the consumer ends up thinking incorrectly that "cognac" is really cheap fire water.
Again these are the exact same rationales that apply to trademark generally.
For some reason you haven't really articulated you think these protections should only be available to those cooperative ventures of multiple persons called "corporations" and not to others.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
For some reason you haven't really articulated you think these protections should only be available to those cooperative ventures of multiple persons called "corporations" and not to others.
It seems illogical. Feta has been used for quite some time to describe food items that were not made in Greece. Seems a bit artificial to impose geographic and process (when something like these goats have to have eaten this particular form of grass) restrictions after the fact. And I think with a trademark behind a corporation, there is less of a sense that one is simply pandering to the interests of particular EU citizens over others.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 12:07:56 PM
For the same reason that The Odyssey cannot be copyrighted. Because very old intellectual property, including potent potable production techniques, belongs to the world.
Trademark and copyright are not the same concept nor do they have same rationales or application.
A "potable production technique" cannot be trademarked or protected from use of others by an AC-type scheme. Anyone can use the methode champenoise (except in the EU they have to call it methode traditionelle - which IMO is a bit much), whether they are from Champagne or anywhere else.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 12:18:19 PM
It seems illogical. Feta has been used for quite some time to describe food items that were not made in Greece.
Using the trademark analogy, that might be grounds for denying protected treatment, just as prior use of a mark by others may be grounds for rejecting a trademark app.
QuoteSeems a bit artificial to impose geographic and process restrictions after the fact.
:huh:
If anything the process is far more "natural" than trademark -- the restrictions are based on historical practices going back many years, all prior to the fact.
QuoteAnd I think with a trademark behind a corporation, there is less of a sense that one is simply pandering to the interests of particular EU citizens over others.
There is the sense of pandering to corporate interests over all other kinds of collective interests.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2011, 12:19:00 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 12:07:56 PM
For the same reason that The Odyssey cannot be copyrighted. Because very old intellectual property, including potent potable production techniques, belongs to the world.
Trademark and copyright are not the same concept nor do they have same rationales or application.
No, I know. But they're both IPs. Maybe it's a bad example, but I wanted to use something universally known. How about "heroin cannot now be trademarked"?
QuoteA "potable production technique" cannot be trademarked or protected from use of others by an AC-type scheme. Anyone can use the methode champenoise (except in the EU they have to call it methode traditionelle - which IMO is a bit much), whether they are from Champagne or anywhere else.
You probably know better than me, but I thought production techniques such as that could be patented (if they were novel, which they are not in this case), another form of IP. IP law: not my specialty at all. -_-
It's just the old protect inefficient industries thing so beloved of underperforming countries like France.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 12:24:21 PM
You probably know better than me, but I thought production techniques such as that could be patented (if they were novel, which they are not in this case), another form of IP. IP law: not my specialty at all. -_-
Certain kinds of production techniques may be patenable, but ones like the methode champenoise or continuous distillation, even if otherwise patentable, would suffer from the defect that there is prior art going back centuries - which is in the very nature of anything they might be covered by appellation protection.
Quote from: chipwich on October 10, 2011, 09:09:11 AM
Zoupa&Shelf: do you believe that Kobe beef tastes different because of how their fur was brushed and because the bulls got blowjobs from Japanese schoolgirls or whatever?
I've never had Kobe beef so I can't comment. Does a single malt protected Scotch taste different from Sainsbury's own brand whiskey? Yes. Similarly there's is a world of difference from a Melton Mowbray porkpie and a mass-produced one.
Of course the process of production has an impact on taste. It would be extraordinary if it didn't.
I personally find the terroir argument less convincing but I think it's part of a whole. I think it's about the continuity of that produce coming from that land, the cultural heritage (travel around any part of Italy, or France for an example - I'd even include English pubs' beer in some cases) and certain traditional techniques. Of those only the techniques of production can be replicated elsewhere - and even that's not possible in a case like Roquefort which must be matured in the Roquefort caves.
Quote
Panic of the Plutocrats
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America's direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called "economic royalists," not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced "mobs" and "the pitting of Americans against Americans." The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging "class warfare," while Herman Cain calls them "anti-American." My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don't deserve to have them.
Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to "take the jobs away from people working in this city," a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement's actual goals.
And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters "let their freak flags fly," and are "aligned with Lenin."
The way to understand all of this is to realize that it's part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler's invasion of Poland.
And then there's the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous dictum that "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society."
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you'd think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a "collectivist agenda," that she believes that "individualism is a chimera." And Rush Limbaugh called her "a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it."
What's going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street's Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They're not John Galt; they're not even Steve Jobs. They're people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they're still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.
This special treatment can't bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.
So who's really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America's oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.
Krugman used "oligarchs". :mad: That's a protected name, I came up with it first.
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2011, 01:14:02 PM
Krugman used "oligarchs". :mad: That's a protected name, I came up with it first.
:lol:
Krugman talks like he's not one of them. :lol:
Quote from: Gups on October 10, 2011, 09:02:24 AM
Well, it probably does matter for certain types of wine. It sure as fuck doesn't matter which hills sheep eat their grass on.
Sure it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulet_de_Bresse
and I quote:
QuoteFamous non-French fans include molecular gastronomist Heston Blumenthal, who pronounced the Bresse chicken a clear winner in terms of taste and texture during controlled research for his BBC series In Search Of Perfection.
Quote from: chipwich on October 10, 2011, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:38:47 AM
About the EU naming laws or whatever they're called: it's not only about a certain list of ingredients and a specific method of preparation, it's also about a certain location where the food is grown.
Champagne grapes come from Champagne. You can grow Champagne grapes in a lot of places, but they won't have had their roots in the soil of Champagne. I can start producing something resembling Roquefort in my basement from canadian sheep, but they won't have grazed the hills of Aveyron.
It's the soil that matters.
Haha you dumb sucker.
Haha go eat your Burger King, fatty.
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2011, 12:30:52 PM
It's just the old protect inefficient industries thing so beloved of underperforming countries like France.
The world would be a poorer, blander place without our food and techniques. I don't expect scandis to get it though. LOL WANT SUM POTATOES WITH HERRING???
:bleeding:
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 01:42:50 PM
Sure it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulet_de_Bresse
and I quote:
QuoteFamous non-French fans include molecular gastronomist Heston Blumenthal, who pronounced the Bresse chicken a clear winner in terms of taste and texture during controlled research for his BBC series In Search Of Perfection.
See? Foodie cunts who don't deserve the protection of government.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 01:47:47 PM
The world would be a poorer, blander place without our food and techniques.
Maybe that's true, but that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Noone is suggesting that French cooking be banned.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 10, 2011, 01:17:39 PM
Krugman talks like he's not one of them. :lol:
He's also acting as though the reaction thus far has been exceptional - also weren't people complaining just a week or ago or so that no one was talking about these 'important' protests?
I'm in favour of clear labelling, so that people know what they are buying before they get home and realise they have an inferior product on their hands. They don't always get it quite right, I'd be happy if foreign feta was called "German Feta" or whatever..........incidentally German and Danish feta are both greatly inferior to Greek Feta................but the general thrust of the EU policy is correct in this area.
I think there may also be mistake that the "authentic" version is necessarily the best.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 02:11:10 PM
I think there may also be mistake that the "authentic" version is necessarily the best.
The best in what?
QuoteIn October 2008 the Association of Lebanese Industrialists petitioned to the Lebanese ministry of Economy to request protected status from the European Commission for hummus as a uniquely Lebanese food, similar to the Protected Geographical Status rights held over regional food items by various European Union countries. Fadi Abboud (president of the Lebanese Industrialists Association), stated that "Israelis have usurped several Lebanese and oriental products". According to Abboud, Lebanon exported the first hummus dish in 1959. As a response, food critic Janna Gur wrote: "The success of certain brands of Israeli hummus abroad may have been what brought about Abboud's anger", leading him to claim that Israel has been "stealing" their country's national dishes, like hummus, falafel, tabbouleh and baba ghanouj. In response, Shooky Galili, an Israeli journalist specialising in food who writes a blog dedicated to hummus, said that "trying to make a copyright claim over hummus is like claiming for the rights to bread or wine. [...] Hummus is a centuries old Arab dish—nobody owns it, it belongs to the region." As of late 2009, the Lebanese Industrialists Association was still "preparing documents and proof" to support its claim.
ok?
Not related to your question. :hug:
oh :lol:
Well, my point was you can't legislate taste, but you can ensure proper labeling.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
oh :lol:
Well, my point was you can't legislate taste, but you can ensure proper labeling.
I don't think there is anything improper about my California champagne. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 02:48:54 PM
I don't think there is anything improper about my California champagne. :)
Nothing improper; it's just a contradiction in terms. ;)
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 11:59:35 AM
@garbon: so where's the harm in me branding my drink "Coca Cola" if the consumer can't tell the difference in taste?
The name is legally owned via trademark and I don't think Coca Cola has ever been used to describe everything in its class (although I'm aware of the coke bit). On the other hand - champagne and feta have been and in many places continue to be used to describe everything in their particular class. It seems artificial to restrict those classes down to singular items that are produced by a certain group of individuals in a certain place, who aren't even engaged in a common enterprise.
That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 11:59:35 AM
@garbon: so where's the harm in me branding my drink "Coca Cola" if the consumer can't tell the difference in taste?
The name is legally owned via trademark and I don't think Coca Cola has ever been used to describe everything in its class (although I'm aware of the coke bit). On the other hand - champagne and feta have been and in many places continue to be used to describe everything in their particular class. It seems artificial to restrict those classes down to singular items that are produced by a certain group of individuals in a certain place, who aren't even engaged in a common enterprise.
That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.
I'm not going to take lessons from you on what's an argument. Stop wasting my time.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 02:22:05 PM
QuoteIn October 2008 the Association of Lebanese Industrialists petitioned to the Lebanese ministry of Economy to request protected status from the European Commission for hummus as a uniquely Lebanese food, similar to the Protected Geographical Status rights held over regional food items by various European Union countries. Fadi Abboud (president of the Lebanese Industrialists Association), stated that "Israelis have usurped several Lebanese and oriental products". According to Abboud, Lebanon exported the first hummus dish in 1959. As a response, food critic Janna Gur wrote: "The success of certain brands of Israeli hummus abroad may have been what brought about Abboud's anger", leading him to claim that Israel has been "stealing" their country's national dishes, like hummus, falafel, tabbouleh and baba ghanouj. In response, Shooky Galili, an Israeli journalist specialising in food who writes a blog dedicated to hummus, said that "trying to make a copyright claim over hummus is like claiming for the rights to bread or wine. [...] Hummus is a centuries old Arab dish—nobody owns it, it belongs to the region." As of late 2009, the Lebanese Industrialists Association was still "preparing documents and proof" to support its claim.
The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine. Probably better.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:19:22 PM
The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine. Probably better.
Probably not better, no.
Probably identical.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 03:30:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:19:22 PM
The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine. Probably better.
Probably not better, no.
Long way to America from Lebanon. At the least it's cheaper.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 11:58:21 AM
Don't most edible products tell where they are made?
Country of origin only, and then only on the back label
Wines are an exception, though. Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.
And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2011, 03:48:32 PM
Wines are an exception, though. Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.
And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.
Yep. Even grocery stores separate out the country of origin.
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 03:16:03 PM
That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.
Trademarks and copyrights are awarded on the grounds that they were created by the owners (or whoever buys or inherits that mark) Eastern French winegrowers did not invent the idea of being from Champagne.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 03:34:03 PM
Probably identical.
Produce grown in different locations taste different. :)
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
oh :lol:
Well, my point was you can't legislate taste, but you can ensure proper labeling.
Yeah, but what the EU is doing isn't really proper labeling.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 06:07:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 03:34:03 PM
Probably identical.
Produce grown in different locations taste different. :)
So does produce grown in the same location.
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2011, 03:48:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 11:58:21 AM
Don't most edible products tell where they are made?
Country of origin only, and then only on the back label
Wines are an exception, though. Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.
And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.
I dont understand the Garbon argument of wanting names to be meaningless. Why make the consumer have to search a label to determine if they are drinking real champagne or some Californian sparkling wine pretending to be Champagne?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 03:30:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:19:22 PM
The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine. Probably better.
Probably not better, no.
Probably fewer bugs in it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2011, 08:15:41 PM
I dont understand the Garbon argument of wanting names to be meaningless. Why make the consumer have to search a label to determine if they are drinking real champagne or some Californian sparkling wine pretending to be Champagne?
Who are these people frantically searching about to see if what they are drinking is "real"? They sound likes jack asses.
I've never been in a restaurant and said I'd like a glass of x champagne and had the waiter say back "Oh, sir, that's a California sparkling wine. Are you sure that's okay?" Perhaps that's an earth shattering faux pas on my part but I'd wager its irrelevant in everyday speech.
Maybe because you lived in the land trying to do the faking. Here sparkling wines from California are called sparkling wine - not Champagne. Champagne is something different. It would be like calling Prosecco Champagne - they are different things although to the uneducated they might appear at first glance to all simply be "sparkling wine".
I wouldn't be mortified if someone called Prosecco champagne. After all, according to wikipedia, it has been growing in popularity as a cheap substitute for champagne. :lol:
That said I think it does work better for mimosas.
So CC is a foodie AND a wine snob.
I've never tried your yankee "champagnes", but I can tell you californian "Cabernet" doesn't taste like Cabernet. At all.
I've had swill that said Sangiovese on the label, and lo and behold, it was from Napa Valley.
Honestly, it's a disgrace to even call most of those new world cepages wine at all. :sleep:
Sugary grape juice with a tad of alcohol content, now that would be more accurate.
:lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2011, 12:30:52 PM
It's just the old protect inefficient industries thing so beloved of underperforming countries like France.
The world would be a poorer, blander place without our food and techniques. I don't expect scandis to get it though. LOL WANT SUM POTATOES WITH HERRING???
:bleeding:
I don't follow.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2011, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2011, 03:48:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 11:58:21 AM
Don't most edible products tell where they are made?
Country of origin only, and then only on the back label
Wines are an exception, though. Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.
And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.
I dont understand the Garbon argument of wanting names to be meaningless. Why make the consumer have to search a label to determine if they are drinking real champagne or some Californian sparkling wine pretending to be Champagne?
:secret: If you don't know the Champagne region brands you're not the type to give a fuck.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 01:42:50 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 10, 2011, 09:02:24 AM
Well, it probably does matter for certain types of wine. It sure as fuck doesn't matter which hills sheep eat their grass on.
Sure it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulet_de_Bresse
and I quote:
QuoteFamous non-French fans include molecular gastronomist Heston Blumenthal, who pronounced the Bresse chicken a clear winner in terms of taste and texture during controlled research for his BBC series In Search Of Perfection.
Assume you are being deliberately dishonest rather than just stupid.
Obviously different breeds of chicken taste different to each other. What does that have to do with the impact of where sheep eat grass on the taste of cheese made from their milk.
Hey gups, fuck you too!
Now you're the one being dishonest. Notwithstanding the fact that what the animal eats goes in the milk (physiology and all that), most AOC products have to be prepared in a certain unique location (those caves for the Roquefort for example).
In any case, what's the big fucking deal here. Call your cheap knock offs something else, that's all. Boycott all AOC products. I don't give a shit. Nobody's forcing you guys to buy our stuff.
Hey Zoups.
Sorry, in a bad mood this morning. I was out of order.
One thing that surprised me was milk. We usually buy milk that is produced in the nearby Forest of Bowland. Every now and then we run out and I pick up some generic milk from a nearby discount store. The difference is not noticeable in tea, but the Bowland milk has a far more complex taste than the stuff from Lidl, which is great when having breakfast cereal. One possibility is that the discount stuff, because it has to travel so much further, is more rigorously pasteurised; but, whatever, I now take some pains to try and not run out of the Bowland stuff.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 11:17:20 PM
I've never tried your yankee "champagnes", but I can tell you californian "Cabernet" doesn't taste like Cabernet. At all.
I've had swill that said Sangiovese on the label, and lo and behold, it was from Napa Valley.
Honestly, it's a disgrace to even call most of those new world cepages wine at all. :sleep:
Sugary grape juice with a tad of alcohol content, now that would be more accurate.
:thumbsup: :lol:
Champenois winemakers are very assertive about their Champagne.They conceded the use of "Crémant" to other regions though. If only to be used for wines of France and Luxembourg though originally from Champagne obviously.
As for that being a French thing only, one needs only to remind that Tokay d'Alsace is no more, it's Pinot Gris.
Is this another of the "Non-Americans and Minsky are more sophisticated than Non-Minsky Americans" threads? :D
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 11, 2011, 04:55:50 AM
Champenois winemakers are very assertive about their Champagne.They conceded the use of "Crémant" to other regions though. If only to be used for wines of France and Luxembourg though originally from Champagne obviously.
How magnanimous of them.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 11:17:20 PM
I've never tried your yankee "champagnes", but I can tell you californian "Cabernet" doesn't taste like Cabernet. At all.
I've had swill that said Sangiovese on the label, and lo and behold, it was from Napa Valley.
Honestly, it's a disgrace to even call most of those new world cepages wine at all. :sleep:
Sugary grape juice with a tad of alcohol content, now that would be more accurate.
Doesn't all reasonably priced wine taste like that? Maybe those fancy $10 a bottle wines taste different, but that's win snob territory.
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2011, 05:29:17 AM
Is this another of the "Non-Americans and Minsky are more sophisticated than Non-Minsky Americans" threads? :D
If you define sophistication as a bias toward French wines, than sure.
Everyone knows Hungarian wines are the best.
END OF STORY. THREAD CLOSED.
I can see this argument for some other commodities, maybe, but wines are almost always so clearly indicated as to origin that it seems fairly silly. In the wine shops I go to they categorize by different countries, and the labels themselves usually tell you where they are from within that country. Trying to preserve particular names for a product from a particular region when another region produces the same thing but at a different quality is unnecessarily confusing. I'm sure that the first location that produced wine would love to stop all other producers of fermented grape from calling their stuff wine for not being "authentic".
Quote from: frunk on October 11, 2011, 08:40:55 AM
I'm sure that the first location that produced wine would love to stop all other producers of fermented grape from calling their stuff wine for not being "authentic".
Maybe, although there's also the fact that the definition of what constitutes the wine (and the process) of a region has changed over time. :)
Is there anything more 'let them eat cake' than a thread about poverty protesting becomming a thread about wine snobbery?
'Let them appreciate fine authentic vintages'. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 08:58:48 AM
Is there anything more 'let them eat cake' than a thread about poverty protesting becomming a thread about wine snobbery?
'Let them appreciate fine authentic vintages'. :P
:lol: good point
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2011, 05:29:17 AM
Is this another of the "Non-Americans and Minsky are more sophisticated than Non-Minsky Americans" threads? :D
My cat is more sophisticated then you. Also smarter.
Quote from: frunk on October 11, 2011, 08:40:55 AM
I can see this argument for some other commodities, maybe, but wines are almost always so clearly indicated as to origin that it seems fairly silly. In the wine shops I go to they categorize by different countries, and the labels themselves usually tell you where they are from within that country. Trying to preserve particular names for a product from a particular region when another region produces the same thing but at a different quality is unnecessarily confusing.
There are two propositions here and they are contradictory to one another. Proposition 1 is that there is no problem for the consumer because wine labels clearly indicate origin; proposition 2 is that protecting names of origin - which is the very thing on the label that tells you provenance - is unecessary. Of course, without protecting the origin names, the usefulness of labels indicating origin is seriously undermined.
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2011, 03:53:26 AM
Hey Zoups.
Sorry, in a bad mood this morning. I was out of order.
Ca ira, mon ami. :hug:
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 08:08:36 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 11:17:20 PM
I've never tried your yankee "champagnes", but I can tell you californian "Cabernet" doesn't taste like Cabernet. At all.
I've had swill that said Sangiovese on the label, and lo and behold, it was from Napa Valley.
Honestly, it's a disgrace to even call most of those new world cepages wine at all. :sleep:
Sugary grape juice with a tad of alcohol content, now that would be more accurate.
Doesn't all reasonably priced wine taste like that? Maybe those fancy $10 a bottle wines taste different, but that's win snob territory.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmemedepot.com%2Fuploads%2F0%2F207_not_sure_if_serious.jpg&hash=f70dbbad1249b745055996043b135118a4b43abb)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 09:10:49 AM
Quote from: frunk on October 11, 2011, 08:40:55 AM
I can see this argument for some other commodities, maybe, but wines are almost always so clearly indicated as to origin that it seems fairly silly. In the wine shops I go to they categorize by different countries, and the labels themselves usually tell you where they are from within that country. Trying to preserve particular names for a product from a particular region when another region produces the same thing but at a different quality is unnecessarily confusing.
There are two propositions here and they are contradictory to one another. Proposition 1 is that there is no problem for the consumer because wine labels clearly indicate origin; proposition 2 is that protecting names of origin - which is the very thing on the label that tells you provenance - is unecessary. Of course, without protecting the origin names, the usefulness of labels indicating origin is seriously undermined.
The flaw is of course that there is no particular reason why geographical origin has to be indicated by the very name of the product.
A tee shirt made in China can still be called a tee shirt. It doesn't have to be called a "torso covering short-sleeved wearing apparel", just to let folks know it was made in China. That's what the little "Made in China" taggie is for.
To my mind, something like "Champagne" is a name that has, like Xerox, outgrown its intellectual-property-protected origin, to indicate the very name of a thing. It would protect consumers more to have, printed on the label, "From grapes grown in the Champagne region of France" or "from grapes grown in the Napa Valley, California" rather than calling the first product "Champagne" and the second product "Sparkling Wine".
Quote from: Zoupa on October 11, 2011, 09:29:46 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmemedepot.com%2Fuploads%2F0%2F207_not_sure_if_serious.jpg&hash=f70dbbad1249b745055996043b135118a4b43abb)
:huh: Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent. I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.
I don't know Malthus. It seems fair that if you accept that brand names and other IP should be legally protected then popularity of the word is jot a good argument against a well established brand.
I mean, there are places where the word "Coke" means "any soda water". I don't think that makes it reasonable for Coca Cola To lose the trademark, even if they could put "cola manufactured by Coca Cola" on the label. Same goes for Band Aid, Tylenol and other well known brands.
The California sparkling wine manufacturers want to call their product champagne to get a free ride on the prestige of the wines of the Champagne region. I don't think the fact that champagne wines have a longer pedigree and greater fame than many oth brands is an argument against protecting their trademark.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:48:02 AM
:huh: Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent. I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.
Red, white or blush? Most likely culprit bolded, BTW.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 11, 2011, 09:55:46 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:48:02 AM
:huh: Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent. I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.
Red, white or blush? Most likely culprit bolded, BTW.
Is there a big difference between different colors of wine?
Do me a favour and never buy wine again. :glare:
So.... how about them protesters?
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:57:21 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 11, 2011, 09:55:46 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:48:02 AM
:huh: Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent. I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.
Red, white or blush? Most likely culprit bolded, BTW.
Is there a big difference between different colors of wine?
YES.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:57:21 AM
Is there a big difference between different colors of wine?
Only if you don't mix them.
I do believe he was being facetious. Still. Stick to potato alcohol, DG.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 09:39:57 AM
The flaw is of course that there is no particular reason why geographical origin has to be indicated by the very name of the product.
One big particular reason is that this particular product has a long history of designated itself that way, and therefore deviating from that practice would result in customer confusion. Another reason is that geographic location does impact the product in discernible ways - i.e. there are real differences between Volnay and Pommard, and certainly differences as between them and Napa Pinot Noir. These things matter when it comes, e.g. to getting wine for a particular meal, or in finding something that matches the tastes of the person you are going to drink the bottle with. So refusing to protect the geographical designation does a real disservice to the customer, all in the name of allowing some producers to free ride on a famous name.
QuoteTo my mind, something like "Champagne" is a name that has, like Xerox, outgrown its intellectual-property-protected origin, to indicate the very name of a thing. It would protect consumers more to have, printed on the label, "From grapes grown in the Champagne region of France" or "from grapes grown in the Napa Valley, California" rather than calling the first product "Champagne" and the second product "Sparkling Wine".
This is a separate point - whether a particular name has become so associated with the general concept that it can't be entitled to protection anymore, just as with a trademark. But even if true, the situation only arose in the Americas precisely because for a long time, the governments here refused to protect origin designations, so in effect the argument is somewhat perverse - that because we blocked the Champenoise from taking reasonable steps to protect their designation in the past, they should now be prevented from ever taking those steps in the future.
The fact is that most of the reputable California producers like Schramsberg and Iron Horse eschew the "Champagne" label, and it hasn't hurt their market presence at all. I happen to think that there is a lot of good Cali sparklers being made, and there are some very good values, but the fact is that the style of these wines are quite different from Champagne due to very significant differences in climate. As a consumer, I appreciate clear labelling on the front that informs me of origin using terms that I am familiar with based on their long history of usage. I don't particularly care for seeing some novel bottle of "champagne" and have to search the fine print on the back label to figure out whether this is some new obscure champenoise grower I haven't heard of before or some sonoma-based operator playing games with names.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 11, 2011, 09:58:29 AM
So.... how about them protesters?
I'd run them down with cavalry.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2011, 09:53:24 AM
I don't know Malthus. It seems fair that if you accept that brand names and other IP should be legally protected then popularity of the word is jot a good argument against a well established brand.
I mean, there are places where the word "Coke" means "any soda water". I don't think that makes it reasonable for Coca Cola To lose the trademark, even if they could put "cola manufactured by Coca Cola" on the label. Same goes for Band Aid, Tylenol and other well known brands.
The California sparkling wine manufacturers want to call their product champagne to get a free ride on the prestige of the wines of the Champagne region. I don't think the fact that champagne wines have a longer pedigree and greater fame than many oth brands is an argument against protecting their trademark.
The problem is one of
losing distinctiveness or "genericization". That is why you are not sued when you reach for a "kleenex" while making a "xerox" copy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
Note that protecting geographical origin is done in the EU through some special statutory process.
QuoteSince 2003, the European Union has actively sought to restrict the use of geographical indications by third parties outside the EU by enforcing laws regarding "protected designation of origin".[13] Although a geographical indication for specialty food or drink may be generic, it is not a trademark because it does not serve to identify exclusively a specific commercial enterprise and therefore cannot constitute a genericized trademark.
The extension of protection for geographical indications is somewhat controversial because a geographical indication may have been registered as a trademark elsewhere. For example, if "Parma Ham" were part of a trademark registered in Canada by a Canadian manufacturer, ham manufacturers actually located in Parma, Italy might be unable to use this name in Canada. Bordeaux wines, cheeses such as Roquefort, Parmesan, and Feta, Pisco liquor, and Scotch whisky are examples of geographical indications.
In the 1990s, the Parma consortium successfully sued the Asda supermarket chain to prevent it using the description "Parma ham" on prosciutto produced in Parma but sliced outside the Parma region.[14]
In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.
I thought the kind of straw one used to drink wine makes the taste different - have you tried different kinds DG?
MB says silly straws work the best, and I tend to agree.
Quote from: PDH on October 11, 2011, 10:10:35 AM
I thought the kind of straw one used to drink wine makes the taste different - have you tried different kinds DG?
MB says silly straws work the best, and I tend to agree.
Or a used giant pixie stick with all the candy sucked out.
I prefer my wine fresh and alcohol-free. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 10:08:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 09:39:57 AM
The flaw is of course that there is no particular reason why geographical origin has to be indicated by the very name of the product.
One big particular reason is that this particular product has a long history of designated itself that way, and therefore deviating from that practice would result in customer confusion. Another reason is that geographic location does impact the product in discernible ways - i.e. there are real differences between Volnay and Pommard, and certainly differences as between them and Napa Pinot Noir. These things matter when it comes, e.g. to getting wine for a particular meal, or in finding something that matches the tastes of the person you are going to drink the bottle with. So refusing to protect the geographical designation does a real disservice to the customer, all in the name of allowing some producers to free ride on a famous name.
QuoteTo my mind, something like "Champagne" is a name that has, like Xerox, outgrown its intellectual-property-protected origin, to indicate the very name of a thing. It would protect consumers more to have, printed on the label, "From grapes grown in the Champagne region of France" or "from grapes grown in the Napa Valley, California" rather than calling the first product "Champagne" and the second product "Sparkling Wine".
This is a separate point - whether a particular name has become so associated with the general concept that it can't be entitled to protection anymore, just as with a trademark. But even if true, the situation only arose in the Americas precisely because for a long time, the governments here refused to protect origin designations, so in effect the argument is somewhat perverse - that because we blocked the Champenoise from taking reasonable steps to protect their designation in the past, they should now be prevented from ever taking those steps in the future.
The fact is that most of the reputable California producers like Schramsberg and Iron Horse eschew the "Champagne" label, and it hasn't hurt their market presence at all. I happen to think that there is a lot of good Cali sparklers being made, and there are some very good values, but the fact is that the style of these wines are quite different from Champagne due to very significant differences in climate. As a consumer, I appreciate clear labelling on the front that informs me of origin using terms that I am familiar with based on their long history of usage. I don't particularly care for seeing some novel bottle of "champagne" and have to search the fine print on the back label to figure out whether this is some new obscure champenoise grower I haven't heard of before or some sonoma-based operator playing games with names.
Clearly indicating the origin of the grape on the label actually gives the consumer *more* useful information than simply designating one product as "champagne" and another product as "sparkling wine". The latter merely tells the consumer the product was *not* grown in the champagne region of France, not where it *was* grown.
I find it hard to believe that the kind of person who really cares about the place their wine is grown is incapable of reading a label, and must rely on the very name of the product.
Sounds to me like tradition for tradition's sake.
Quote from: PDH on October 11, 2011, 10:10:35 AM
I thought the kind of straw one used to drink wine makes the taste different - have you tried different kinds DG?
MB says silly straws work the best, and I tend to agree.
You're supposed to drink it with a straw? :huh: I just pour it in my mug and drink it.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:10:15 AM
The problem is one of losing distinctiveness or "genericization". That is why you are not sued when you reach for a "kleenex" while making a "xerox" copy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
Note that protecting geographical origin is done in the EU through some special statutory process.
In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.
They're not asking for special treatment. The only difference is that their IP derives from geography and history rather than from the imagination of a marketing guy. In a conflict between the two, I'd rate geography and history higher.
Try wine in a Dixie cup. Gives off an air of sophistication.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:10:15 AM
In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.
One could just as easily say that holders of IP rights are getting "special rights" conveyed by statute. In each case, what we are dealing with here is policy-driven legislation.
Also, those 16oz red plastic (white on the inside) party cups work great for wine! They are deep enough that the straw doesn't fall out, and they hold enough liquid with room left over for the ice cubes!
Really, it is a win-win when you use those kinds of cups.
Ah, the red rape drug cup.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2011, 10:18:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:10:15 AM
The problem is one of losing distinctiveness or "genericization". That is why you are not sued when you reach for a "kleenex" while making a "xerox" copy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
Note that protecting geographical origin is done in the EU through some special statutory process.
In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.
They're not asking for special treatment. The only difference is that their IP derives from geography and history rather than from the imagination of a marketing guy. In a conflict between the two, I'd rate geography and history higher.
The point of having all forms of IP rights (except this form) is to protect
innovation - that much-disparaged "imagination of a marketing guy". Because innovation is something that our society wishes to foster and encourage.
That's why artists get copyright, inventors get patents, and horrible socially useless marketing hacks get trademarks. :D
In this case, you have IP being used specifically to protect vested interests without any reference to innovation. Not I think a good use of the legal remedy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 10:19:39 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:10:15 AM
In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.
One could just as easily say that holders of IP rights are getting "special rights" conveyed by statute. In each case, what we are dealing with here is policy-driven legislation.
Addressed in post above.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:17:22 AM
Clearly indicating the origin of the grape on the label actually gives the consumer *more* useful information than simply designating one product as "champagne" and another product as "sparkling wine".
I don't agree for a bunch of reasons (for example, many European wines are blends) but luckily, both options are available. If a producer wants inform the consumer of the dominant varietal - fine, label it that way. If a producer wants to inform the consumer of origin -- which under most European appelations actually conveys varietal information as well - they should be able to do that as well. What is being question here is the producer using a traditional designation of origin to brand a product that from some place totally different. That is not useful information, it is just misleading the customer.
QuoteThe point of having all forms of IP rights (except this form) is to protect innovation - that much-disparaged "imagination of a marketing guy". Because innovation is something that our society wishes to foster and encourage.
No - that is not true with respect to trademark.
Trademark exists not to promote innovation but primarily to prevent against customer confusion.
Quote from: PDH on October 11, 2011, 10:20:34 AM
Also, those 16oz red plastic (white on the inside) party cups work great for wine! They are deep enough that the straw doesn't fall out, and they hold enough liquid with room left over for the ice cubes!
Really, it is a win-win when you use those kinds of cups.
:yeahright: I think you're trolling now.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 10:25:36 AM
Quote from: PDH on October 11, 2011, 10:20:34 AM
Also, those 16oz red plastic (white on the inside) party cups work great for wine! They are deep enough that the straw doesn't fall out, and they hold enough liquid with room left over for the ice cubes!
Really, it is a win-win when you use those kinds of cups.
:yeahright: I think you're trolling now.
No, I just live in a college town!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 10:23:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:17:22 AM
Clearly indicating the origin of the grape on the label actually gives the consumer *more* useful information than simply designating one product as "champagne" and another product as "sparkling wine".
I don't agree for a bunch of reasons (for example, many European wines are blends) but luckily, both options are available. If a producer wants inform the consumer of the dominant varietal - fine, label it that way. If a producer wants to inform the consumer of origin -- which under most European appelations actually conveys varietal information as well - they should be able to do that as well. What is being question here is the producer using a traditional designation of origin to brand a product that from some place totally different. That is not useful information, it is just misleading the customer.
No it isn't. because the term in question has become genericized. The vast majority of people commonly call "sparking wine" "champagne" regardless of origin, so protecting the origin no longer makes any more sense than protecting "kleenex".
The problem with this "geographical origin" protection is that it makes no sense when terms of geographical origin have become common use for a product. What's next, prosecuting people for selling hamburgers that were not made in Hamburg, Germany? :D
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:27:29 AM
No it isn't. because the term in question has become genericized. The vast majority of people commonly call "sparking wine" "champagne" regardless of origin, so protecting the origin no longer makes any more sense than protecting "kleenex".
I think we are going in circles . . .
You could also use those mason jars. Toss out the nails or screws you store in them and pour away. It is like a night in Bordeaux.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 10:28:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:27:29 AM
No it isn't. because the term in question has become genericized. The vast majority of people commonly call "sparking wine" "champagne" regardless of origin, so protecting the origin no longer makes any more sense than protecting "kleenex".
I think we are going in circles . . .
The basic problem here is humpty-dumptism. As in, you can't artificially through legal process make a name "non-generic" once it has already become generic.
If one must have "geographical origin" IP, subject it to the same rules are regular old IP - that is, must show continued non-generic use. So, no protection for Hamburg, Germany for "hamburgers" and no protection for Champagne, France for "champagne".
Champagne is not a generic term for sparkling wines over here though :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 08:58:48 AM
Is there anything more 'let them eat cake' than a thread about poverty protesting becomming a thread about wine snobbery?
'Let them appreciate fine authentic vintages'. :P
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:32:08 AM
As in, you can't artificially through legal process make a name "non-generic" once it has already become generic.
Why not?
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2011, 10:43:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:32:08 AM
As in, you can't artificially through legal process make a name "non-generic" once it has already become generic.
Why not?
It reminds me of having an institution that determines what words are allowed in a language.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:27:29 AM
".
The problem with this "geographical origin" protection is that it makes no sense when terms of geographical origin have become common use for a product. What's next, prosecuting people for selling hamburgers that were not made in Hamburg, Germany? :D
The culling of Guernsey cattle not actually born on Guernsey. And the extermination of all Canaries that don't live in Spain and restricted use of Americium outside the US.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:48:02 AM
:huh: Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent. I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.
This is a troll? right?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2011, 10:43:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:32:08 AM
As in, you can't artificially through legal process make a name "non-generic" once it has already become generic.
Why not?
It reminds me of having an institution that determines what words are allowed in a language.
and your position reminds me of an institution charged with ensuring words lose their meaning...
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 11, 2011, 10:36:41 AM
Champagne is not a generic term for sparkling wines over here though :hmm:
Until Garbon suggested such a thing I didnt know Champagne was used a generic term either.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:48:02 AM
:huh: Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent. I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.
This is a troll? right?
He's a Russian. What do you want?
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:48:02 AM
:huh: Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent. I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.
I think the problem is the bottle. I've found bottles don't preserve the wine as well as boxes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 11:00:24 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 11, 2011, 10:36:41 AM
Champagne is not a generic term for sparkling wines over here though :hmm:
Until Garbon suggested such a thing I didnt know Champagne was used a generic term either.
It's a generic term in Russian. It's common to refer to Soviet champagne or Italian champagne.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 11:21:49 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 11:00:24 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 11, 2011, 10:36:41 AM
Champagne is not a generic term for sparkling wines over here though :hmm:
Until Garbon suggested such a thing I didnt know Champagne was used a generic term either.
It's a generic term in Russian. It's common to refer to Soviet champagne or Italian champagne.
You mean people in Russia really do call Prosecco Champagne? Well I think you have done a great service in undermining Garbon's argument.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2011, 11:01:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 09:48:02 AM
:huh: Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent. I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.
I think the problem is the bottle. I've found bottles don't preserve the wine as well as boxes.
I don't think boxed wine is much better. I tried Franzia wine, and it seems to go bad within seconds of opening.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:32:08 AM
The basic problem here is humpty-dumptism.
No, I mean I think we are going around in circles as in I already responded to that same point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 10:59:21 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2011, 10:43:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:32:08 AM
As in, you can't artificially through legal process make a name "non-generic" once it has already become generic.
Why not?
It reminds me of having an institution that determines what words are allowed in a language.
and your position reminds me of an institution charged with ensuring words lose their meaning...
Nah, I recognize that the meaning of words change over time. I'm not trying to ossify a particular historical moment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 11:28:48 AM
You mean people in Russia really do call Prosecco Champagne? Well I think you have done a great service in undermining Garbon's argument.
Not really sure what Russia has to do with my argument. At any rate, I can totally someone who doesn't know of prosecco calling it champagne.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champagne
Quote1: a white sparkling wine made in the old province of Champagne, France; also : a similar wine made elsewhere
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 11:29:50 AM
I don't think boxed wine is much better. I tried Franzia wine, and it seems to go bad within seconds of opening.
Indeed, even before.
So the protestors trashed the park they were staying at in NY?
Heard on CNN that the protesters plan to move uptown and protest in front of the residences of Jamie Dimon, Henry Paulsen, and Rupert Murdoch. They are going to protest their "hoarding of wealth."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:32:08 AM
The basic problem here is humpty-dumptism.
No, I mean I think we are going around in circles as in I already responded to that same point.
You mean here?
QuoteThis is a separate point - whether a particular name has become so associated with the general concept that it can't be entitled to protection anymore, just as with a trademark. But even if true, the situation only arose in the Americas precisely because for a long time, the governments here refused to protect origin designations, so in effect the argument is somewhat perverse - that because we blocked the Champenoise from taking reasonable steps to protect their designation in the past, they should now be prevented from ever taking those steps in the future.
I don't see this as a "perversity". Many legal innovations fail to have retrospective effect, and in any event, "champagne" has been a genericized term for a very long time.
Point here is that it may well be "fair" for some value of fairness to require (say) all hamburger vendors to cease, as of now, labelling hamburgers as hamburgers unless they actually come from Hamburg, but it is simply too late, as the word has already entered the language as a generic term - and thus does legislation have to bend to reality.
Same with "Bologna sausage" - should one be able to legally call baloney, baloney? ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 09:10:49 AM
There are two propositions here and they are contradictory to one another. Proposition 1 is that there is no problem for the consumer because wine labels clearly indicate origin; proposition 2 is that protecting names of origin - which is the very thing on the label that tells you provenance - is unecessary. Of course, without protecting the origin names, the usefulness of labels indicating origin is seriously undermined.
It's not contradictory. There is value in communicating to the consumer where a product is from. There is no compelling need such that there should be a regulatory issue for the name of the product to be the signifier of origin. This goal is achieved just as ably by other package labeling and advertising.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:22:48 AMIn this case, you have IP being used specifically to protect vested interests without any reference to innovation. Not I think a good use of the legal remedy.
I don't think it's protecting vested interests so much as tradition and heritage. In much the same way as it protects innovation rather than just the marketing guy.
But I agree with Minsky it seems to me the key is to help consumers.
Quote
Until Garbon suggested such a thing I didnt know Champagne was used a generic term either.
Neither did I. I know Champagne's different from, say, Cava or Prosecco but they're all sparkling wines.
QuotePoint here is that it may well be "fair" for some value of fairness to require (say) all hamburger vendors to cease, as of now, labelling hamburgers as hamburgers unless they actually come from Hamburg, but it is simply too late, as the word has already entered the language as a generic term - and thus does legislation have to bend to reality.
Also hamburger's the name of a product not a specific variation of a product - and there's more to it than geography. This analogy makes it sound like the EU only allows Parma ham to be called 'ham' which isn't the case. If there was a specific method of producing hamburgers from Hamburg then I'd be fine with restricting usage of Hamburg hamburgers :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 10:22:48 AMIn this case, you have IP being used specifically to protect vested interests without any reference to innovation. Not I think a good use of the legal remedy.
I don't think it's protecting vested interests so much as tradition and heritage. In much the same way as it protects innovation rather than just the marketing guy.
But I agree with Minsky it seems to me the key is to help consumers.
Quote
Until Garbon suggested such a thing I didnt know Champagne was used a generic term either.
Neither did I. I know Champagne's different from, say, Cava or Prosecco but they're all sparkling wines.
QuotePoint here is that it may well be "fair" for some value of fairness to require (say) all hamburger vendors to cease, as of now, labelling hamburgers as hamburgers unless they actually come from Hamburg, but it is simply too late, as the word has already entered the language as a generic term - and thus does legislation have to bend to reality.
Also hamburger's the name of a product not a specific variation of a product - and there's more to it than geography. This analogy makes it sound like the EU only allows Parma ham to be called 'ham' which isn't the case. If there was a specific method of producing hamburgers from Hamburg then I'd be fine with restricting usage of Hamburg hamburgers :P
Champagne is the name of a product, not simply a variation on a product, just as much as "hamburger" or "bologna".
One could easily call hamburger "ground beef" or baloney "sausage".
Point here is that it is silly to "protect consumers" by restricting the language legally in ways it has never been restricted before.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 12:45:28 PMChampagne is the name of a product, not simply a variation on a product, just as much as "hamburger" or "bologna".
Champagne's a white wine from the Champagne region, that ferments in bottle (unlike other sparkling wines, to the best of my knowledge) and is only from a list of permitted grapes. I don't think you could get much more specific. The name's been associated with that specific type of wine - and with the houses that produce it - for far longer than it's been a 'generic' product.
As far as I can see it's only a generic product for Russians, certain Canadians and some Americans.
Looks like they've taken over the Hart Senate office building in DC.
Is it time to: invest in canned goods and shotguns?
What is Prosseco?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 01:13:10 PM
What is Prosseco?
Sparkling white wine from Italy. It's drier than asti so is often used by cheap bars (like the ones I've worked in) as the champagne in Bellinis.
What's a Bellini? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 12:52:02 PM
Champagne's a white wine from the Champagne region, that ferments in bottle (unlike other sparkling wines, to the best of my knowledge)
Not entirely true - there are many non-Champagnes that use the methode champenoise (and there are many that do not).
But otherwise, I agree with the point.
QuoteAs far as I can see it's only a generic product for Russians, certain Canadians and some Americans.
The US example I think is illustrative. US wine labelling has always been carefully regulated; why then did the US authorities permit what seems like the misleading practice of calling a wine "Burgundy" that bears no resemblance to an actual burgundy, including the varietals used? For the same reason the Chinese for many reasons permitted rampant DVD piracy - to protect the interests of a weak domestic industry.
But fast forward several decaded to the point where the US wine industry has made many gains qualititatively and quantitatively, and those same rules start to look inconvenient. Now the US has names to protect - regional names like Napa and Sonoma, and even more specific designations (AVAs) like Howell Mountain or Russian River. So the US cut a deal with the EU to give greater protection to designations of geographic origin.
Russia has no quality wine industry to speak of, and Canada just has the niche icewines in southern Ontario, and so there is no incentive to extend reciprocal treatment. As a matter of national policy, this is sensible enough, but to try to concoct a position of principle out of that policy choice is another matter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 01:16:14 PM
What's a Bellini? :huh:
Something women drink at Macaroni Grill.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 01:16:14 PM
What's a Bellini? :huh:
Sparkling white wine and pureed fruit. In my experience the inevitable start of the abyss that is serving a hen party :bleeding: :weep:
Bellinis are delicious! :mmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 01:16:14 PM
What's a Bellini? :huh:
I quite like both Prosecco and belinis.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Russia has no quality wine industry to speak of, and Canada just has the niche icewines in southern Ontario, and so there is no incentive to extend reciprocal treatment. As a matter of national policy, this is sensible enough, but to try to concoct a position of principle out of that policy choice is another matter.
:yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 01:29:06 PM
Who goes to Macaroni Grill? :x
I'd rather have Stouffer's lasagna or homemade spaghetti.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 12:52:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 12:45:28 PMChampagne is the name of a product, not simply a variation on a product, just as much as "hamburger" or "bologna".
Champagne's a white wine from the Champagne region, that ferments in bottle (unlike other sparkling wines, to the best of my knowledge) and is only from a list of permitted grapes. I don't think you could get much more specific. The name's been associated with that specific type of wine - and with the houses that produce it - for far longer than it's been a 'generic' product.
As far as I can see it's only a generic product for Russians, certain Canadians and some Americans.
And baloney, or bolognia, has been made in the Bolognia region probably for longer than there has
been an America. ;)
Point is it is now, in this day and age, a genericized term in a goodly portion of the world ("only" North America and Russia? :lol:).
That's how "genericization" works - originally the term (say "kleenex") was unique; then it comes in to general usage to designate a
type of product rather than a
specific product.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 12:52:02 PM
Champagne's a white wine from the Champagne region, that ferments in bottle (unlike other sparkling wines, to the best of my knowledge)
Not entirely true - there are many non-Champagnes that use the methode champenoise (and there are many that do not).
But otherwise, I agree with the point.
QuoteAs far as I can see it's only a generic product for Russians, certain Canadians and some Americans.
The US example I think is illustrative. US wine labelling has always been carefully regulated; why then did the US authorities permit what seems like the misleading practice of calling a wine "Burgundy" that bears no resemblance to an actual burgundy, including the varietals used? For the same reason the Chinese for many reasons permitted rampant DVD piracy - to protect the interests of a weak domestic industry.
But fast forward several decaded to the point where the US wine industry has made many gains qualititatively and quantitatively, and those same rules start to look inconvenient. Now the US has names to protect - regional names like Napa and Sonoma, and even more specific designations (AVAs) like Howell Mountain or Russian River. So the US cut a deal with the EU to give greater protection to designations of geographic origin.
Russia has no quality wine industry to speak of, and Canada just has the niche icewines in southern Ontario, and so there is no incentive to extend reciprocal treatment. As a matter of national policy, this is sensible enough, but to try to concoct a position of principle out of that policy choice is another matter.
Is it worth pointing out that no-one would know what "Howell Mountain" is if used as a designation for a generic product, so it is not in the same position as "champagne"?
"Pass me some Howell mountain" just doesn't have the same meaning as "pass me some champagne".
The notion that the genericization of the term was the result of deliberate policy choice does not hold water.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 12:52:02 PM
As far as I can see it's only a generic product for Russians, certain Canadians and some Americans.
Dont count Neil as one of us. He is a self proclaimed ethnic Albertan. That tells you all you really have to know about him.
Malthus is just playing mental gymnastics. I would bet my house he would never confuse Champagne with Prosecco.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:20:49 PM
That's how "genericization" works - originally the term (say "kleenex") was unique; then it comes in to general usage to designate a type of product rather than a specific product.
Sure when it comes to general usage but last I checked facial tissue from companies other than Kleenex cannot sell their product labeled 'Kleenex' since it is a trademark violation. I mean does it really matter if the label on the bottle says 'sparking wine' instead of champagne? We all know what it is.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:20:49 PM
That's how "genericization" works - originally the term (say "kleenex") was unique; then it comes in to general usage to designate a type of product rather than a specific product.
Sure when it comes to general usage but last I checked facial tissue from companies other than Kleenex cannot sell their product labeled 'Kleenex' since it is a trademark violation. I mean does it really matter if the label on the bottle says 'sparking wine' instead of champagne? We all know what it is.
It's a competitive advantage for the seller if one class of growers can label it Champagne and the others can't.
Quote from: chipwich on October 11, 2011, 02:31:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:20:49 PM
That's how "genericization" works - originally the term (say "kleenex") was unique; then it comes in to general usage to designate a type of product rather than a specific product.
Sure when it comes to general usage but last I checked facial tissue from companies other than Kleenex cannot sell their product labeled 'Kleenex' since it is a trademark violation. I mean does it really matter if the label on the bottle says 'sparking wine' instead of champagne? We all know what it is.
It's a competitive advantage for the seller if one class of growers can label it Champagne and the others can't.
Its also an advantage to consumers who might otherwise be fooled into thinking that what they are buying is Champagne when it isnt.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:20:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 12:52:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 12:45:28 PMChampagne is the name of a product, not simply a variation on a product, just as much as "hamburger" or "bologna".
Champagne's a white wine from the Champagne region, that ferments in bottle (unlike other sparkling wines, to the best of my knowledge) and is only from a list of permitted grapes. I don't think you could get much more specific. The name's been associated with that specific type of wine - and with the houses that produce it - for far longer than it's been a 'generic' product.
As far as I can see it's only a generic product for Russians, certain Canadians and some Americans.
And baloney, or bolognia, has been made in the Bolognia region probably for longer than there has been an America. ;)
Point is it is now, in this day and age, a genericized term in a goodly portion of the world ("only" North America and Russia? :lol:).
That's how "genericization" works - originally the term (say "kleenex") was unique; then it comes in to general usage to designate a type of product rather than a specific product.
In Russia, bologna or what passes for bologna is called "Doctor's sausage". :contract:
Quote from: chipwich on October 11, 2011, 02:31:29 PM
It's a competitive advantage for the seller if one class of growers can label it Champagne and the others can't.
Well duh it is being done for the benefit of producers. But I have never noticed anybody care, at least over here, that the champagne we were drinking was labelled sparkling wine. We all know what Champagne looks like. Price and taste are generally the guideline.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
In Russia, bologna or what passes for bologna is called "Doctor's sausage". :contract:
I thought that was a form of "medical treatment" Doctors in Russia try to pass off for real medical treatment.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
In Russia, bologna or what passes for bologna is called "Doctor's sausage". :contract:
anyone else think Soylent green? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:20:49 PM
That's how "genericization" works - originally the term (say "kleenex") was unique; then it comes in to general usage to designate a type of product rather than a specific product.
Sure when it comes to general usage but last I checked facial tissue from companies other than Kleenex cannot sell their product labeled 'Kleenex' since it is a trademark violation. I mean does it really matter if the label on the bottle says 'sparking wine' instead of champagne? We all know what it is.
Depends on your jurisdiction. Kleenex has almost lost the battle for genericization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#List_of_former_trademarks_that_have_become_generic_terms
Once a term has become in common use, it loses its protected status - for example, "Yo-yo" toys (Still a Papa's Toy Co. Ltd. trademark name for a spinning toy in Canada, but declared generic in the U.S. in 1965), or "Linoleum" Floor covering (originally coined by Frederick Walton in 1864, and ruled as generic following a lawsuit for trademark infringement in 1878).
There is no question that "champagne" has this status; most dictionaries state something like "a wine produced in the Champagne region of France, or similar wines produced elsewhere".
On Kleenex:
http://www.duetsblog.com/2009/09/articles/kleenexa-not-wanting-to-blow-it-some-steps-to-avoid-trademark-genericide/
QuoteUnlike the kind of trademark abandonment that automatically results from the single act of non-use of a trademark coupled with no intention at that time to resume use of the trademark, the kind of trademark abandonment that is also known as genericide, in contrast, results from a gradual change in the meaning of a trademark or brand to an unprotectable generic term. A change that shifts the meaning -- understood by a majority of the relevant consuming public -- from identifying, distinguishing and indicating a single source for a particular product or service to a designation that connotes no single source at all, but instead, an entire product or service category with multiple unrelated sources.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 02:32:29 PM
Its also an advantage to consumers who might otherwise be fooled into thinking that what they are buying is Champagne when it isnt.
Who are these consumers that are so tricked? The most common person (at least here in America) is already going to use champagne interchangeably with sparking wine (I don't really think they will actually use sparking wine as a term...but that's neither here nor there)...and they are likely to know that French champagnes are held of special regard. Not really sure where'd they get lost as they don't really care that much about the difference - and may as some people I know - have less of an affinity for "real" Champagne.
Then you also have the connoisseurs and I'd be hard pressed to believe that said individuals would get tricked by Korbel if it started selling its product under the name champagne.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:20:49 PM
That's how "genericization" works - originally the term (say "kleenex") was unique; then it comes in to general usage to designate a type of product rather than a specific product.
Sure when it comes to general usage but last I checked facial tissue from companies other than Kleenex cannot sell their product labeled 'Kleenex' since it is a trademark violation. I mean does it really matter if the label on the bottle says 'sparking wine' instead of champagne? We all know what it is.
That's kinda of my point. No need to make regulations protecting the "authentic" version is no one cares. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 02:45:40 PM
Who are these consumers that are so tricked?
Probably the same ones who you say cant tell the difference between Champagne and Prosecco. Its a scammers dream - see I brought the discussion back on topic. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 02:45:40 PM
Who are these consumers that are so tricked?
Probably the same ones who you say cant tell the difference between Champagne and Prosecco. Its a scammers dream - see I brought the discussion back on topic. ;)
Now if you can get tattooed, dreadlocked protestors storming down Wall Street protesting the inequities of Champagne and Prosecco marketing in America, I'd be impressed. :D
"Well, we all had these different demands, but this was one we could all agree on - stop this oppression of the Champagne drinking public NOW!!!!!oneone"
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:20:49 PMAnd baloney, or bolognia, has been made in the Bolognia region probably for longer than there has been an America. ;)
The sausage which is made in Bologna and is known in North America is actually protected under EU law (I looked it up). It's made in a different way and the area of protection is large. It's called mortadella Bologna, which is a relatively specific name. Apparently because other regions have their own varieties like mortadella Amatrice and the rest.
QuotePoint is it is now, in this day and age, a genericized term in a goodly portion of the world ("only" North America and Russia? :lol:).
It's a market the size of the EU, if that, and the US does acknowledge wine naming controls.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
It's a market the size of the EU, if that, and the US does acknowledge wine naming controls.
Yes, unfortunately in the last decade we joined in on limiting champagne. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 02:45:40 PM
Who are these consumers that are so tricked?
Probably the same ones who you say cant tell the difference between Champagne and Prosecco. Its a scammers dream - see I brought the discussion back on topic. ;)
And how do they lose? They weren't going to be buying expensive "sparkling wines" anyway. ;)
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 02:59:01 PM
Yes, unfortunately in the last decade we joined in on limiting champagne. :(
Why is that unfortunate? What do you lose by not having the word Champagne on your bottle of Korbel?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 02:59:01 PM
Yes, unfortunately in the last decade we joined in on limiting champagne. :(
Why is that unfortunate? What do you lose by not having the word Champagne on your bottle of Korbel?
I have to put up with snobs who protest when I say I'm drinking champagne. -_-
Although I prefer Gloria Ferrer to Korbel. :secret:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
The sausage which is made in Bologna and is known in North America is actually protected under EU law (I looked it up). It's made in a different way and the area of protection is large. It's called mortadella Bologna, which is a relatively specific name. Apparently because other regions have their own varieties like mortadella Amatrice and the rest.
So, what's the significance of this? Are you arguing that people in NA should stop selling sausage named "Bologna"?
QuoteIt's a market the size of the EU, if that, and the US does acknowledge wine naming controls.
While this is true, it does not address the argument as to whether it is a good idea.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 01:14:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 01:13:10 PM
What is Prosseco?
Sparkling white wine from Italy. It's drier than asti so is often used by cheap bars (like the ones I've worked in) as the champagne in Bellinis.
I wouldn't diss prosecco. It makes for a nice drink that goes well with a meal.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 03:02:12 PM
While this is true, it does not address the argument as to whether it is a good idea.
I'm pretty sure that the current laws (& regulations) are the best laws that man can dream of. After all, if they were not, we would implement those better laws. :smarty:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 03:02:04 PM
I have to put up with snobs who protest when I say I'm drinking champagne. -_-
So stop calling it champagne and you won't have this problem.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:54:24 PM
Now if you can get tattooed, dreadlocked protestors storming down Wall Street protesting the inequities of Champagne and Prosecco marketing in America, I'd be impressed. :D
My time is short at the moment but I will see what I can do.
Quote from: HVC on October 11, 2011, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
In Russia, bologna or what passes for bologna is called "Doctor's sausage". :contract:
anyone else think Soylent green? :unsure:
I was thinking more of a sexual harrasment suit before the College of Physicians. :D
If champagne not produced in Champagne should be called "sparkling wine", then shouldn't BMWs not produced in Bavaria be called "douchemobiles"?
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2011, 03:02:42 PM
I wouldn't diss prosecco. It makes for a nice drink that goes well with a meal.
don't you put ice cubes in your wine? :D
Quote from: HVC on October 11, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2011, 03:02:42 PM
I wouldn't diss prosecco. It makes for a nice drink that goes well with a meal.
don't you put ice cubes in your wine? :D
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 03:02:12 PMSo, what's the significance of this? Are you arguing that people in NA should stop selling sausage named "Bologna"?
Not at all. But your 'generic' example is actually different in ingredients and method of production than what's sold in North America. I think that tends to happen when a product becomes a generic rather than a specific variation. Mortadella Bologna is a specific variation of a sort of sausage made in various parts of Italy. Bologna in NA is a mass-produced product. They're different things and it's good their names reflect that.
Having said that I think there's probably a few Italian-American foods in New York and the like that should be protected.
QuoteWhile this is true, it does not address the argument as to whether it is a good idea.
I've addressed that elsewhere and you disagree.
I'm just saying Russia and Alberta are the places that commonly refer to sparkling wines as champagne regardless of their provenance. They're outliers on this.
QuoteI wouldn't diss prosecco. It makes for a nice drink that goes well with a meal.
Prosecco's like brandy for me. It is a nice drink but the people who drink it in bars aren't.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 03:09:27 PM
Not at all. But your 'generic' example is actually different in ingredients and method of production than what's sold in North America. I think that tends to happen when a product becomes a generic rather than a specific variation. Mortadella Bologna is a specific variation of a sort of sausage made in various parts of Italy. Bologna in NA is a mass-produced product. They're different things and it's good their names reflect that.
So, using that as a template, the term "champagne" is the generic term and something more specific ought to be used to designate Champagne (made in that region of France).
QuoteI'm just saying Russia and Alberta are the places that commonly refer to sparkling wines as champagne regardless of their provenance. They're outliers on this.
...
Prosecco's like brandy for me. It is a nice drink but the people who drink it in bars aren't.
I like your approach. There is no legal principle that cannot be proved by an appeal to snobbery. :D
But seriously - as I said, it's in the dictionary.
Maybe I'll send a bottle of real champagne to the protesters courtesy of Languish.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
Maybe I'll send a bottle of real champagne to the protesters courtesy of Languish.
Just dont send them a bottle of prosecco and call it Champagne. It might cause a riot.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 03:15:33 PMSo, using that as a template, the term "champagne" is the generic term and something more specific ought to be used to designate Champagne (made in that region of France).
We disagreed on this area. I said sparkling wine's the generic.
QuoteI like your approach. There is no legal principle that cannot be proved by an appeal to snobbery. :D
It works for me :P
QuoteBut seriously - as I said, it's in the dictionary.
Dictionaries reflect usage. They're descriptive, that's all.
People use it in that way that doesn't mean that the makers and consumers of champagne should lose protection.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
Maybe I'll send a bottle of real champagne to the protesters courtesy of Languish.
Fuck that noise. Send it that copper in the white shirt who was swinging his baton like a banshee.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 03:19:21 PM
Dictionaries reflect usage. They're descriptive, that's all.
People use it in that way that doesn't mean that the makers and consumers of champagne should lose protection.
Yes it does - if the protection worked anything like trademarks. Common usage makes a mark generic, which destroys the protection.
The point here is that you cannot go around IP-protecting words that people already use in general speech to mean a whole class of things. It would be absurd.
you can have champagne, but stay away from port :ultra:
Also, the best part about fighting over champagne is that until better glass was discover "sparkling wine" was a huge fault that everyone was trying to avoid.
Hmm, if champagne isn't the generic then how do I know what champagne is? If they want to preserve their specificity it should be:
"CHAMPAGNE, a sparkling wine beverage"
Quote from: HVC on October 11, 2011, 03:28:08 PM
you can have champagne, but stay away from port :ultra:
:yes: Staying away from port is always a good idea.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 03:35:12 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 11, 2011, 03:28:08 PM
you can have champagne, but stay away from port :ultra:
:yes: Staying away from port is always a good idea.
Always turn to starboard! :pirate:
I'm drinking a glass of port as we speak. :bowler:
Quote from: HVC on October 11, 2011, 03:28:08 PM
Also, the best part about fighting over champagne is that until better glass was discover "sparkling wine" was a huge fault that everyone was trying to avoid.
Well that's what I'm saying. They are trying to protect the historical definition of a particular moment.
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2011, 03:37:51 PM
I'm drinking a glass of port as we speak. :bowler:
Exhibit A. :contract:
I wonder how port tastes after being watered down with icecubes?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 02:32:29 PM
Its also an advantage to consumers who might otherwise be fooled into thinking that what they are buying is Champagne when it isnt.
Who are these consumers that are so tricked? The most common person (at least here in America) is already going to use champagne interchangeably with sparking wine (I don't really think they will actually use sparking wine as a term...but that's neither here nor there)...and they are likely to know that French champagnes are held of special regard. Not really sure where'd they get lost as they don't really care that much about the difference - and may as some people I know - have less of an affinity for "real" Champagne.
Then you also have the connoisseurs and I'd be hard pressed to believe that said individuals would get tricked by Korbel if it started selling its product under the name champagne.
I've used the term sparkling wine to avoid this kind of conversation, which while fine enough for Languish, is entirely tedious in person.
Can we go back to talking about the revolution? :hmm:
Quote from: Josephus on October 11, 2011, 05:03:03 PM
Can we go back to talking about the revolution? :hmm:
Won't be televised, ergo this isn't the revolution.
Quote from: Josephus on October 11, 2011, 05:03:03 PM
Can we go back to talking about the revolution? :hmm:
I have noticed it's been a while since Seedy posted. :hmm:
EUOT occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about the best way to re-distribute rich peoples' money. Languish occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about commercial use of the word "champagne" and the relative merits of high-quality sparkling wines.
:D
Those of us who still can should go to EUOT and set them straight on what is important in life.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 05:14:48 PM
Those of us who still can should go to EUOT and set them straight on what is important in life.
Ugh. :x I'd rather not.
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between Languish and Paradox.
Of course if we did start talking about wine in a thread about Wall Street, we would be warned for going off topic and subsequently banned.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 05:14:48 PM
Those of us who still can should go to EUOT and set them straight on what is important in life.
Ugh. :x I'd rather not.
Actually you are correct, I quickly scanned that last page of posts and promptly left ie - MiM did not exaggerate.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
EUOT occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about the best way to re-distribute rich peoples' money. Languish occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about commercial use of the word "champagne" and the relative merits of high-quality sparkling wines.
:D
We have a one track mind.
There is something to the Paradox method of moderation. Forums like this wouldn't exist without it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
EUOT occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about the best way to re-distribute rich peoples' money. Languish occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about commercial use of the word "champagne" and the relative merits of high-quality sparkling wines.
:D
Are the forums still filled with Glenn Beck worshiping Tea Partiers? Because I would have expected that thread to degenerate into another discussion of the merits of "free banking" and the gold standard.
What the hell? Last time I was there it was full of whiny Europeans.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 02:20:49 PM
That's how "genericization" works - originally the term (say "kleenex") was unique; then it comes in to general usage to designate a type of product rather than a specific product.
It seems like this argument is where you've organized your final redoubt, but I would remind you again that making the argument presumes the parallel to trademark and thus in essence, gives up the game (protected designations of origin) while arguing one play ("champagne").
Don't know the Canadian practice on this but in the US genericization is actually more difficult to establish than you seem to think. For example, you mention Xerox, but Xerox in fact maintains a trademark in the US and while the matter has yet to be tested, many commentators believe the company would ultimately prevail - the same is true for Google ('googling") or even Band-Aid (hence the ads with "Band-Aid Brand"). A key part of the inquiry is what efforts the mark holder made to protect against genericization, which if applied via analogy to Champagne, would suggest a favorable outcome for the Champagne producers.
Quote from: HVC on October 11, 2011, 03:28:08 PM
you can have champagne, but stay away from port :ultra:
The Australians don't but at least they make pretty good knock-offs.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
EUOT occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about the best way to re-distribute rich peoples' money. Languish occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about commercial use of the word "champagne" and the relative merits of high-quality sparkling wines.
:D
We are the: 1% :(
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on October 11, 2011, 05:52:48 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
EUOT occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about the best way to re-distribute rich peoples' money. Languish occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about commercial use of the word "champagne" and the relative merits of high-quality sparkling wines.
:D
We are the: 1% :(
Yay!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisiswhyimjason.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fthisiswhyimjason.com%2F2009%2F11%2Ftop-drawer.jpg&hash=56cfe8a90d4989df2228434e7216f5c591198a53)
In honor of Americans acting badly, I bought this today. It says champagne and california! :o
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoderndaymoms.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fmoscato_pink_bubbly.png&hash=b5f4702ebe9b1aab1fb54de1fdfe4f2896f7c1f7)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 05:37:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
EUOT occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about the best way to re-distribute rich peoples' money. Languish occupy thread degenerates into flamewar about commercial use of the word "champagne" and the relative merits of high-quality sparkling wines.
:D
Are the forums still filled with Glenn Beck worshiping Tea Partiers? Because I would have expected that thread to degenerate into another discussion of the merits of "free banking" and the gold standard.
There's like half a dozen of them. Curiously two were Americans living in China.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
What the hell? Last time I was there it was full of whiny Europeans.
That changed after 2008, when Stonewall embraced Glenn Beck and chased off all the lefties and moderates.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
In honor of Americans acting badly, I bought this today. It says champagne and california! :o
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoderndaymoms.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fmoscato_pink_bubbly.png&hash=b5f4702ebe9b1aab1fb54de1fdfe4f2896f7c1f7)
Ugh, those Barefoot wines taste like swill to me.
And I'm the type who always buys and enjoys $10 wines.
Yeah, isn't that gas station wine?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 08:21:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
What the hell? Last time I was there it was full of whiny Europeans.
That changed after 2008, when Stonewall embraced Glenn Beck and chased off all the lefties and moderates.
What? Really? Didn't he use to be pretty left himself?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 08:22:28 PM
Ugh, those Barefoot wines taste like swill to me.
And I'm the type who always buys and enjoys $10 wines.
I didn't buy it for the taste. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 04:29:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 02:32:29 PM
Its also an advantage to consumers who might otherwise be fooled into thinking that what they are buying is Champagne when it isnt.
Who are these consumers that are so tricked? The most common person (at least here in America) is already going to use champagne interchangeably with sparking wine (I don't really think they will actually use sparking wine as a term...but that's neither here nor there)...and they are likely to know that French champagnes are held of special regard. Not really sure where'd they get lost as they don't really care that much about the difference - and may as some people I know - have less of an affinity for "real" Champagne.
Then you also have the connoisseurs and I'd be hard pressed to believe that said individuals would get tricked by Korbel if it started selling its product under the name champagne.
I've used the term sparkling wine to avoid this kind of conversation, which while fine enough for Languish, is entirely tedious in person.
Nothing livens up an evening like right-crossing the bitch-ass who tries to lecture you about the 'proper' use of 'champagne'.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:31:25 PM
What? Really? Didn't he use to be pretty left himself?
He campaigned for Ollie North.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2011, 08:39:39 PM
Nothing livens up an evening like right-crossing the bitch-ass who tries to lecture you about the 'proper' use of 'champagne'.
:lol:
I'd like to see you try... :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 09:04:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2011, 08:39:39 PM
Nothing livens up an evening like right-crossing the bitch-ass who tries to lecture you about the 'proper' use of 'champagne'.
:lol:
I'd like to see you try... :P
You're too fucking tall. I'd be lucky to hit you after I've been swilling champagne all evening.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2011, 08:39:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 04:29:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2011, 02:32:29 PM
Its also an advantage to consumers who might otherwise be fooled into thinking that what they are buying is Champagne when it isnt.
Who are these consumers that are so tricked? The most common person (at least here in America) is already going to use champagne interchangeably with sparking wine (I don't really think they will actually use sparking wine as a term...but that's neither here nor there)...and they are likely to know that French champagnes are held of special regard. Not really sure where'd they get lost as they don't really care that much about the difference - and may as some people I know - have less of an affinity for "real" Champagne.
Then you also have the connoisseurs and I'd be hard pressed to believe that said individuals would get tricked by Korbel if it started selling its product under the name champagne.
I've used the term sparkling wine to avoid this kind of conversation, which while fine enough for Languish, is entirely tedious in person.
Nothing livens up an evening like right-crossing the bitch-ass who tries to lecture you about the 'proper' use of 'champagne'.
True, but the Combine took away my propensity for violence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 03:09:27 PM
Prosecco's like brandy for me. It is a nice drink but the people who drink it in bars aren't.
What's wrong with brandy in bars? :( I like to order an E&J with a beer back.
I like brandy in jars.
There are some hilarious high-culture/low-culture intersections in my drinking experience. In Philadelphia bars at least, port was mainly consumed by poorer African-Americans. I once saw a guy come out of the state store with a fifth of Taylor port, pour it into a 7-11 Super Big Gulp full of ice, put the top on, and slurp his way down the street. :showoff: And sherry was just for the down-and-outers.
The average Penna. state store was also a wine aficionado's nightmare; the White Zinfandel section was easily the size of all the other wines combined. Actually between White Zin and the 7000 iterations of 8$/fifth vodka, there was barely any shelf space left.
That's way too much for cheap vodka. It's like $10 a half-gallon here.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 08:22:28 PM
Ugh, those Barefoot wines taste like swill to me.
And I'm the type who always buys and enjoys $10 wines.
I didn't buy it for the taste. :D
I should hope not -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:31:25 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 08:21:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
What the hell? Last time I was there it was full of whiny Europeans.
That changed after 2008, when Stonewall embraced Glenn Beck and chased off all the lefties and moderates.
What? Really? Didn't he use to be pretty left himself?
Not very left, but more than the average Republican. Don't know what happened - I was somewhat surprised myself when he supported Beck in some thread there last year or so.
I mean, you kind of have to go crazy to go Beck.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 11:37:34 PM
Not very left, but more than the average Republican. Don't know what happened - I was somewhat surprised myself when he supported Beck in some thread there last year or so.
Elaborate. Stonewall, pissed me off back in 2004 when supported the swift boat thing, which I felt was beneath him. He and Dark Knight were posting stuff about that left and right.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 03:02:04 PM
I have to put up with snobs who protest when I say I'm drinking champagne. -_-
Although I prefer Gloria Ferrer to Korbel. :secret:
Your GUB card is now officially revoked.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 08:57:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 03:02:04 PM
I have to put up with snobs who protest when I say I'm drinking champagne. -_-
Although I prefer Gloria Ferrer to Korbel. :secret:
Your GUB card is now officially revoked.
I've no idea what that is but from connotation it seems like something Mart would be, not me.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 12:02:17 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 11:37:34 PM
Not very left, but more than the average Republican. Don't know what happened - I was somewhat surprised myself when he supported Beck in some thread there last year or so.
Elaborate. Stonewall, pissed me off back in 2004 when supported the swift boat thing, which I felt was beneath him. He and Dark Knight were posting stuff about that left and right.
Well, he's more liberal towards the average criminal or defendant than the average Republican, since he was a public defender or something.
What about Beck did he support? That we should hoard food? That the world in controlled by a Jewish financier? That liberals are in fact Nazis?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
What about Beck did he support? That we should hoard food? That the world in controlled by a Jewish financier? That liberals are in fact Nazis?
The Norwegian kids massacred by Breivik were like Hitler Jugend?
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2011, 10:22:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
What about Beck did he support? That we should hoard food? That the world in controlled by a Jewish financier? That liberals are in fact Nazis?
The Norwegian kids massacred by Breivik were like Hitler Jugend?
There is so much crazy to choose from. Beck apparently ranted against some group called "The Tides Foundation", and the next thing you know some crazy went out there and tried shoot the place up.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 09:48:36 AM
I've no idea what that is but from connotation it seems like something Mart would be, not me.
Gay urban bourgeois
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 10:36:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 09:48:36 AM
I've no idea what that is but from connotation it seems like something Mart would be, not me.
Gay urban bourgeois
Yeah, I never made claim to that. Why would I?
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 10:36:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 09:48:36 AM
I've no idea what that is but from connotation it seems like something Mart would be, not me.
Gay urban bourgeois
Yeah, I never made claim to that. Why would I?
More like how could you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 10:59:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 10:36:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 09:48:36 AM
I've no idea what that is but from connotation it seems like something Mart would be, not me.
Gay urban bourgeois
Yeah, I never made claim to that. Why would I?
More like how could you.
Well...
gay : check
urban : check
bourgeois...
Quote1: of, relating to, or characteristic of the social middle class
2: marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
totally possible but again why would I?
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:05:32 AMtotally possible but again why would I?
In spite of your pretentions otherwise, you don't have enough class to be bourgeois.
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 11:10:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:05:32 AMtotally possible but again why would I?
In spite of your pretentions otherwise, you don't have enough class to be bourgeois.
I think I can tend towards mediocrity. :P
Although, perhaps the three of you have a positive view of the bourgeois.
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 11:10:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:05:32 AMtotally possible but again why would I?
In spite of your pretentions otherwise, you don't have enough class to be bourgeois.
:pinch:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
What about Beck did he support? That we should hoard food? That the world in controlled by a Jewish financier? That liberals are in fact Nazis?
Don't remember. Maybe the gold bug stuff, although most EUOT posters seem to support that.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2011, 10:22:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
What about Beck did he support? That we should hoard food? That the world in controlled by a Jewish financier? That liberals are in fact Nazis?
The Norwegian kids massacred by Breivik were like Hitler Jugend?
Weren't they?
Angry wine snobs are funny.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:24:21 AM
Although, perhaps the three of you have a positive view of the bourgeois.
Why would one have a negative view?
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 03:23:42 PM
The point here is that you cannot go around IP-protecting words that people already use in general speech to mean a whole class of things. It would be absurd.
:huh:
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 11:10:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:05:32 AMtotally possible but again why would I?
In spite of your pretentions otherwise, you don't have enough class to be bourgeois.
Since when do the bourgeois have class?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 12:11:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:24:21 AM
Although, perhaps the three of you have a positive view of the bourgeois.
Why would one have a negative view?
Quite. It would be petit.
Andy?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndgbaseball.org%2Fpictures%2Fbaseball_tips%2Ft_position_andy_pettitte_houston_astros.jpg&hash=c0a597d527f2024580731270dbb95bf60f588879)
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2011, 12:28:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 11:10:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:05:32 AMtotally possible but again why would I?
In spite of your pretentions otherwise, you don't have enough class to be bourgeois.
Since when do the bourgeois have class?
*shrugs*
Martinus is so very, very bourgeois. It would be a redeeming quality, except he takes it too far.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 02:26:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 02:06:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2011, 01:47:34 PM
Martinus tries to be very, very bourgeois.
fyp
Can you give me your definition?
Of someone trying to be bourgeois? This must be a troll.
No your definition of bourgeois. You seem to equate positive qualities to it - so I was wondering what your take is.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 02:27:23 PM
No your definition of bourgeois. You seem to equate positive qualities to it - so I was wondering what your take is.
My statement was that Marti tries to be bourgeois. If you agree with that statement then it makes not one bit whether I think that is a good or bad thing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 02:27:23 PM
No your definition of bourgeois. You seem to equate positive qualities to it - so I was wondering what your take is.
My statement was that Marti tries to be bourgeois. If you agree with that statement then it makes not one bit whether I think that is a good or bad thing.
You also asked me how I could make claims to be. Between those two instances, it sounded like you were saying it would be a step up for both of us.
Do you not have a definition?
Bourgeois virtues are sobriety, thrift, and the accumulation of wealth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 02:38:12 PM
Bourgeois virtues are sobriety, thrift, and the accumulation of wealth.
:punk:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 02:38:12 PM
Bourgeois virtues are sobriety, thrift, and the accumulation of wealth.
:blink:
Priggishness, vulgarity and social climbing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
Priggishness, vulgarity and social climbing.
Seems we use the word virture differently, you and I.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 02:38:12 PM
Bourgeois virtues are sobriety, thrift, and the accumulation of wealth.
:blink:
Priggishness, vulgarity and social climbing.
Those are their virtues? I would hate to see their list of faults.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 02:38:12 PM
Bourgeois virtues are sobriety, thrift, and the accumulation of wealth.
:blink:
Priggishness, vulgarity and social climbing.
Yeah, I don't see it being a positive term.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2011, 02:43:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 02:38:12 PM
Bourgeois virtues are sobriety, thrift, and the accumulation of wealth.
:blink:
Priggishness, vulgarity and social climbing.
Those are their virtues? I would hate to see their list of faults.
:D
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 02:31:26 PM
You also asked me how I could make claims to be. Between those two instances, it sounded like you were saying it would be a step up for both of us.
Do you not have a definition?
You could not claim to be for all the reasons JR has already mentioned. No value judgment - simply fact. That does not phase you because you deny you have any wish to be cultured enough to have such a designation. Marti on the other hand posts in such a way that indicates a craving for such recognition.
Its neither positive nor negative. It simply is.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2011, 02:43:06 PM
Those are their virtues? I would hate to see their list of faults.
Exactly :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 02:31:26 PM
You also asked me how I could make claims to be. Between those two instances, it sounded like you were saying it would be a step up for both of us.
Do you not have a definition?
You could not claim to be for all the reasons JR has already mentioned. No value judgment - simply fact. That does not phase you because you deny you have any wish to be cultured enough to have such a designation. Marti on the other hand posts in such a way that indicates a craving for such recognition.
Its neither positive nor negative. It simply is.
Okay - remind me never to ask you for a definition again. :blink:
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:24:21 AMAlthough, perhaps the three of you have a positive view of the bourgeois.
Not particularly. It is however kind of funny that you - otherwise blatant in your bourgeois affectations - apparently do not.
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 02:48:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:24:21 AMAlthough, perhaps the three of you have a positive view of the bourgeois.
Not particularly. It is however kind of funny that you - otherwise blatant in your bourgeois affectations - apparently do not.
Really? Why would anyone ever be positive about a negative label that they often play into? Usually it is hipsters who complain about hipsters.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 02:51:12 PMReally? Why would anyone ever be positive about a negative label that they often play into? Usually it is hipsters who complain about hipsters.
It's funny because in your eternal quest to project that you have attained your social aspirations (being above the lower classes) you are exactly embodying the negative qualities of the bourgeoisie (as per Sheilbh) without achieving any of that class's redeeming qualities.
That you reject the label is just another layer of irony, showing how apparently insecure you are in your affectations of class and taste.
I take back what I said about Jacob being nice the other day. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 03:06:13 PM
I take back what I said about Jacob being nice the other day. :lol:
I don't take back what I said about Jacob in response to that. :lol:
Sure, when he goes at it with me he is nice. When he eviscerates Garbon all of a sudden he isnt nice.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 02:51:12 PM
Usually it is hipsters who complain about hipsters.
Take that, Ed!
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 03:04:27 PM
It's funny because in your eternal quest to project that you have attained your social aspirations (being above the lower classes) you are exactly embodying the negative qualities of the bourgeoisie (as per Sheilbh) without achieving any of that class's redeeming qualities.
Do give me credit. Why would it be my aspiration to be above the lower class, considering that I was born in a comfortably middle class family? :huh:
And then to the rest of that - not really sure how you have a good vantage point on that. :)
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 03:04:27 PM
That you reject the label is just another layer of irony, showing how apparently insecure you are in your affectations of class and taste.
I don't think I rejected the label in my post - other than pointing out that people typically try to distance themselves from negative labels even if they embody those labels. Comprende?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 03:08:32 PM
Sure, when he goes at it with me he is nice. When he eviscerates Garbon all of a sudden he isnt nice.
I think he's going to try harder if he wants me to feel eviscerated.
It would've hurt my feelings. :console:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 03:16:15 PM
It would've hurt my feelings. :console:
You must have thin skin.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 03:08:32 PM
Sure, when he goes at it with me he is nice. When he eviscerates Garbon all of a sudden he isnt nice.
I think he's going to try harder if he wants me to feel eviscerated.
Its an objective not a subjective test and we the people of Languish find the test has been met.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 03:17:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 03:08:32 PM
Sure, when he goes at it with me he is nice. When he eviscerates Garbon all of a sudden he isnt nice.
I think he's going to try harder if he wants me to feel eviscerated.
Its an objective not a subjective test and we the people of Languish find the test has been met.
Okay. Have fun. :)
A slightly amusing counter-point to the 99% movement:
the "We are the 53%" (of Americans who actually pay income tax):
http://the53.tumblr.com/
Now counter-slogans rarely have the resonance of the original, and of course there are only 6 pictures posted, but I thought it was amusing.
People are starting to put up spoofs and troll pics on the actual 99% site too.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2011, 03:45:47 PM
A slightly amusing counter-point to the 99% movement:
the "We are the 53%" (of Americans who actually pay income tax):
http://the53.tumblr.com/
Now counter-slogans rarely have the resonance of the original, and of course there are only 6 pictures posted, but I thought it was amusing.
You know what's kind of hilarious? Even if that number's true, it doesn't exactly argue against leftism. (It also isn't 53% of the labor force. I guess they expect children to pay taxes. This is why we need camps. I'd call them "reeducation," but that assumes the American right was ever educated in the first place. Besides, that wouldn't exactly be truth in advertising.)
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 03:56:36 PM
Besides, that wouldn't exactly be truth in advertising.
So you are coming around to the proposition that California cannot say it produces Champagne.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 03:56:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2011, 03:45:47 PM
A slightly amusing counter-point to the 99% movement:
the "We are the 53%" (of Americans who actually pay income tax):
http://the53.tumblr.com/
Now counter-slogans rarely have the resonance of the original, and of course there are only 6 pictures posted, but I thought it was amusing.
You know what's kind of hilarious? Even if that number's true, it doesn't exactly argue against leftism. (It also isn't 53% of the labor force. I guess they expect children to pay taxes. This is why we need camps. I'd call them "reeducation," but that assumes the American right was ever educated in the first place. Besides, that wouldn't exactly be truth in advertising.)
It's actually 53% of households, so it doesn't include children (but does include retirees).
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 03:58:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 03:56:36 PM
Besides, that wouldn't exactly be truth in advertising.
So you are coming around to the proposition that California cannot say it produces Champagne.
:lol:
Heh, on a website where a thread started with a discussion of an anti-poverty demonstration and ended with a riff on the proper labelling of fine wines, I'm willing to bet that the majority of participants are members of the bourgeoisie. :D
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2011, 04:00:10 PM
It's actually 53% of households, so it doesn't include children (but does include retirees).
But does presumably also leave out double income households in which one of the spouses does not pay any income tax.
Quote from: Malthus on October 12, 2011, 04:09:47 PM
Heh, on a website where a thread started with a discussion of an anti-poverty demonstration and ended with a riff on the proper labelling of fine wines, I'm willing to bet that the majority of participants are members of the bourgeoisie. :D
:mad: Define your terms
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 04:20:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 12, 2011, 04:09:47 PM
Heh, on a website where a thread started with a discussion of an anti-poverty demonstration and ended with a riff on the proper labelling of fine wines, I'm willing to bet that the majority of participants are members of the bourgeoisie. :D
:mad: Define your terms
You're so silly. :P
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2011, 03:45:47 PM
A slightly amusing counter-point to the 99% movement:
the "We are the 53%" (of Americans who actually pay income tax):
http://the53.tumblr.com/
Now counter-slogans rarely have the resonance of the original, and of course there are only 6 pictures posted, but I thought it was amusing.
:)
I think the most correct description of garbon would be bourgeois who thinks he is la boheme.
That blue hair dye was probably bought with his parents' money.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
I think the most correct description of garbon would be bourgeois who thinks he is la boheme.
That blue hair dye was probably bought with his parents' money.
I don't think that's what I think about myself. :D
Actually the hair dye was out of my own cash as I'd already had a couple part time jobs before I first dyed my hair blue. But my mother was paying my food, schooling and lodging at that time. So mixed bag. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 04:38:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
I think the most correct description of garbon would be bourgeois who thinks he is la boheme.
That blue hair dye was probably bought with his parents' money.
I don't think that's what I think about myself. :D
Actually the hair dye was out of my own cash as I'd already had a couple part time jobs before I first dyed my hair blue.
Marti is the guy who wished he had dyed his hair when young but now that he is old he can only dream of being bourgeois.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 04:40:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 04:38:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
I think the most correct description of garbon would be bourgeois who thinks he is la boheme.
That blue hair dye was probably bought with his parents' money.
I don't think that's what I think about myself. :D
Actually the hair dye was out of my own cash as I'd already had a couple part time jobs before I first dyed my hair blue.
Marti is the guy who wished he had dyed his hair when young but now that he is old he can only dream of being bourgeois.
I don't know. I'm thinking in my 60s that I want to shave my head bald and then wear crazy, outlandish wigs.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 04:40:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 04:38:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
I think the most correct description of garbon would be bourgeois who thinks he is la boheme.
That blue hair dye was probably bought with his parents' money.
I don't think that's what I think about myself. :D
Actually the hair dye was out of my own cash as I'd already had a couple part time jobs before I first dyed my hair blue.
Marti is the guy who wished he had dyed his hair when young but now that he is old he can only dream of being bourgeois.
I don't know. I'm thinking in my 60s that I want to shave my head bald and then wear crazy, outlandish wigs.
Thats because, at your age, 60 seems a long way away.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 02:38:12 PM
Bourgeois virtues are sobriety, thrift, and the accumulation of wealth.
:blink:
Priggishness, vulgarity and social climbing.
See, but you come from a society that has made adopting the traits of the working class the end-all-be-all of good behavior. British attitudes on class warfare aren't particularily useful, as they're too self-destructive.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 04:45:08 PM
Thats because, at your age, 60 seems a long way away.
I think it is because I long for another time when I can be in control of my appearance. Vague notions of retirement in my 60s, although perhaps 70s make for a good pick.
Thank you though for always assuming the worst in me. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 05:01:08 PM
Thank you though for always assuming the worst in me. :)
I wasnt assuming the worst. Simply assuming that you would not be all that different when you are sixty from what you are now. If anything it was a great compliment. But if you wish to assume the worst that is your choice.
I found this extremely informative today:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
Any thoughts on this from you educated elites?
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
I found this extremely informative today:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
Any thoughts on this from you educated elites?
That's nice, but it still doesn't exactly tell us what they hope to accomplish.
Nothing is going to be accomplished, way too late for anything to ever happen with how bad the problem in this country has grown. Washington is already bought and spoken for decades ago. :tinfoil:
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
Any thoughts on this from you educated elites?
Wall street as a pretty good movie but pictures of Darryl Hanna instead of Michael Douglas would have made the piece more readable.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
I found this extremely informative today:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
Any thoughts on this from you educated elites?
The facts are what they are.
Things don't get controversial until people start saying what, if anything, should be done about those facts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:03:03 PMThe facts are what they are.
Things don't get controversial until people start saying what, if anything, should be done about those facts.
What do you think should be done, if anything, about them?
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 06:06:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:03:03 PMThe facts are what they are.
Things don't get controversial until people start saying what, if anything, should be done about those facts.
What do you think should be done, if anything, about them?
Yi probably likes the way things are.
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 06:06:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:03:03 PMThe facts are what they are.
Things don't get controversial until people start saying what, if anything, should be done about those facts.
What do you think should be done, if anything, about them?
Nerve Staple the Drones.
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 06:06:05 PM
What do you think should be done, if anything, about them?
I think corporate governance rules should be changed so that stock owners can have more influence on compensation.
I think income tax rates at all income levels should be raised to the Clinton era rates.
I think the home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated.
I think unemployment benefits that extend past 52 weeks should be capped.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:15:31 PM
I think corporate governance rules should be changed so that stock owners can have more influence on compensation.
I think income tax rates at all income levels should be raised to the Clinton era rates.
I think the home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated.
I think unemployment benefits that extend past 52 weeks should be capped.
I agree with number 1 but would expand it to allow shareholders to have more influence generally;
Points 2 and 3 bring you more in line with Canada which can only be a good thing.
What would you replace unemployment benefits with after 52 weeks? Here we replace it with welfare payments - is that what you have in mind?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2011, 06:31:20 PM
What would you replace unemployment benefits with after 52 weeks? Here we replace it with welfare payments - is that what you have in mind?
I'm not absolutely sure but I don't think we have anything that you could really call welfare any more in this country.
Normal, state-run, unemployment benefits run out after 52 weeks (I think). People are getting more now because of federal stimulus legislation. I think the maximum a person can get now is $685 a week. I think that should be dropped some so as not to disincentivize people.
While I think that dropping the unemployment benefits should be done as well, I don't think that having it maximized at 685$ is disincentivizing people. The stated unemployment rate is 9%, with real numbers closer to 20%.... I don't think the problem is that people are too lazy to get jobs, but more that there just are not enough jobs out there any more for everybody.
I dont see people like Jacob or Canuck settling for a job at dunkin donuts tomorrow if their high paying jobs disappear tomorrow. And even then, when mcdonalds offers 50,000 jobs and 1.1 million people apply for those positions....it isn't a lack of will or laziness.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:37:24 PM
I'm not absolutely sure but I don't think we have anything that you could really call welfare any more in this country.
Normal, state-run, unemployment benefits run out after 52 weeks (I think). People are getting more now because of federal stimulus legislation. I think the maximum a person can get now is $685 a week. I think that should be dropped some so as not to disincentivize people.
Uh that's $17/hr. Is that with kids and stuff?
Edit: Oh that's unemployment for people who made significantly more than that when they were employed I guess?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 12, 2011, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 12, 2011, 06:06:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:03:03 PMThe facts are what they are.
Things don't get controversial until people start saying what, if anything, should be done about those facts.
What do you think should be done, if anything, about them?
Nerve Staple the Drones.
They should be glad that they're not going into the tanks to become one with all the people.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 06:41:59 PM
Uh that's $17/hr. Is that with kids and stuff?
Edit: Oh that's unemployment for people who made significantly more than that when they were employed I guess?
I take back that number. I got that one from a 60 Minutes story about unemployed Silicon Valley startup types. Obviously varies by state, I just looked at the Iowa book and here it's capped at $459; you get about $10-20 extra per dependent.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 06:41:17 PM
I dont see people like Jacob or Canuck settling for a job at dunkin donuts tomorrow if their high paying jobs disappear tomorrow. And even then, when mcdonalds offers 50,000 jobs and 1.1 million people apply for those positions....it isn't a lack of will or laziness.
Are the high paying jobs really disappearing though?
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 06:41:17 PM
I dont see people like Jacob or Canuck settling for a job at dunkin donuts tomorrow if their high paying jobs disappear tomorrow.
Why not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:15:31 PM
I think corporate governance rules should be changed so that stock owners can have more influence on compensation.
I don't understand the point of this. There is an argument that shareholder votes are terrible because practically speaking they are up or down votes, and can not be regularly held. If shareholders reject a compensation package for a CEO of $20 million, what happens next? The board presents a package of $15 million that gets voted up or down? Are you going to have another shareholders meeting over $5 million?
That aside, the reality is that the bulk of shares as actually voted by shareholders in advisory votes do not seem to be so concerned with executive pay. All the evidence indicates that however much you want to empower shareholders: they simply approve the executive pay packages already in place. I don't think that this is a change that would have any practical effect.
Quote
I think income tax rates at all income levels should be raised to the Clinton era rates.
This may not be a bad idea, but it would:
a) make the income tax even less progressive than it already is, and
b) for the well off, only raise their rates marginal rates about 4.5%.
I would hardly change the trajectory of the country.
QuoteI think the home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated.
That isn't going to help the housing market.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 06:46:41 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 06:41:17 PM
I dont see people like Jacob or Canuck settling for a job at dunkin donuts tomorrow if their high paying jobs disappear tomorrow. And even then, when mcdonalds offers 50,000 jobs and 1.1 million people apply for those positions....it isn't a lack of will or laziness.
Are the high paying jobs really disappearing though?
Depends your field really, jobs like engineering are proliferating still, whereas a lot of other fields even out of university still leave a lot to be desired. Not to mention the rising costs of getting a degree is increasing year after year by double digit percentages in a lot of institutions. Pay cuts are still happening across the nation as well, though not in high profile jobs like banking, of course.
I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.
Fredo: I have no idea how to change corporate governance rules. Alls I know is the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people how much they can pay a person to run their company for them.
I'm a little dubious about your claim of regressivity. Do you mean to say that Bush made the US tax code more progressive than it was under Bubba???
I don't give a shit about the housing market. Let it find bottom.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 07:08:34 PM
I'm a little dubious about your claim of regressivity. Do you mean to say that Bush made the US tax code more progressive than it was under Bubba???
Actually I think that's true. It's lower overall with a higher percentage paid by upper earners.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:05:53 PM
I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.
Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 07:11:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:05:53 PM
I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.
Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?
A lot better then I could pay it making 0.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:12:56 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 07:11:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:05:53 PM
I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.
Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?
A lot better then I could pay it making 0.
Just saying, it's not necessarily a viable solution.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:05:53 PM
I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.
The problem is:
a. when 50 other people are applying to that same position.
b. when the manager has a choice between hiring teenagers who work for peanuts, or a laid-off middle-aged guy with a college degree and family of four. One is going to leave first chance he gets and demand more money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 07:08:34 PM
Fredo: I have no idea how to change corporate governance rules. Alls I know is the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people how much they can pay a person to run their company for them.
Then I think the status quo is going to persist. In this country I think there is a sufficient track record on advisory votes to say that the majority of shares (as opposed to shareowners) of public companies are generally okay with current pay packages.
QuoteI'm a little dubious about your claim of regressivity. Do you mean to say that Bush made the US tax code more progressive than it was under Bubba???
You know that if we are just talking the income tax that is true. Of course, a tax cut on the one major tax the rich pay while leaving payroll taxes (and state/local sales taxes and property taxes) untouched isn't especially left wing.
QuoteI don't give a shit about the housing market. Let it find bottom.
Simply taking away the tax deduction now would be a real kick in the arse to homeowners who have put the bulk of their wealth into homes valued with an assumption of a continued interest deduction. Especially now that the economy is strained in part due to the already depressed value of homes and a wave of foreclosures.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 12, 2011, 07:04:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:15:31 PM
Quote
I think income tax rates at all income levels should be raised to the Clinton era rates.
This may not be a bad idea, but it would:
a) make the income tax even less progressive than it already is, and
b) for the well off, only raise their rates marginal rates about 4.5%.
Neither of those are bad things. You could always return tax rates to what they were in the Eisenhower years, although that might suck up a lot of money that is used to inflate various bubbles.
QuoteQuoteI think the home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated.
That isn't going to help the housing market.
That's a good thing. The housing market isn't supposed to recover. That's why it was a bubble. All kinds of real estate assets were overvalued, so 'recovering' them back to their overvalued status would be economically destructive.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:12:56 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 07:11:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:05:53 PM
I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.
Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?
A lot better then I could pay it making 0.
Not really. If you miss you monthly needs by $1,000, it's not much different than missing by $2,000. Either way, you're still fucked until the bankruptcy clears, and you'll lose your house either way.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 12, 2011, 07:20:14 PM
Then I think the status quo is going to persist. In this country I think there is a sufficient track record on advisory votes to say that the majority of shares (as opposed to shareowners) of public companies are generally okay with current pay packages.
Then let the status quo persist. If shareholders are OK with CEO pay, it's not really anybody else's business.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2011, 01:34:29 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 12, 2011, 07:20:14 PM
Then I think the status quo is going to persist. In this country I think there is a sufficient track record on advisory votes to say that the majority of shares (as opposed to shareowners) of public companies are generally okay with current pay packages.
Then let the status quo persist. If shareholders are OK with CEO pay, it's not really anybody else's business.
I thought that argument has been debunked a thousand of times.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2011, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2011, 01:34:29 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 12, 2011, 07:20:14 PM
Then I think the status quo is going to persist. In this country I think there is a sufficient track record on advisory votes to say that the majority of shares (as opposed to shareowners) of public companies are generally okay with current pay packages.
Then let the status quo persist. If shareholders are OK with CEO pay, it's not really anybody else's business.
I thought that argument has been debunked a thousand of times.
Which argument?
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2011, 08:18:44 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:12:56 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2011, 07:11:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2011, 07:05:53 PM
I'd work at Dunkin if that were the only job at hand. Why not? There no shame in it.
Could you pay your mortgage, car payment, insurance, electricity, gas/water bill, food working 25-30 hours a week making 8$ an hour?
A lot better then I could pay it making 0.
Not really. If you miss you monthly needs by $1,000, it's not much different than missing by $2,000. Either way, you're still fucked until the bankruptcy clears, and you'll lose your house either way.
Quite. You would be much better off, spending those 25-30 hours a week looking for a job commensurate with your expenditure. Or spending the time cutting your expnditure ruthlessly e.g. moving house, selling your children etc
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2011, 04:28:15 AM
I thought that argument has been debunked a thousand of times.
Why are you addressing me when it's Fredo that made the point?
A problem with "wall street" post-crisis is basically the same problem as pre-crisis: the financial industry enjoins privatized gains and socialized losses and liabilities; its ability to free ride on explicit and implicit government guarantees combined with the various agency problems plaguing corporate governance and an economy that is reliant of speculative financing of investment to achieve growth all leads ineluctable to vast rewards being paid out to people for doing jobs of limited social utility and benefit.
The solution to that particular problem is either: (a) separate out the government underwritten parts of the financial system from those parts where the bankers bear the full brunt of risk, or (b) far more intrusive government regulation of the industry including direct regulation of pay scales. I suspect that politically, (b) is never going to be a possible option in the US. For (a) the problem is establishing the credibility of the government's pledge not to intervene, because if an officially unprotected entity is systemically important, the government will be hard pressed to sit on its hand and watch it go down. To make the (a) option credible would IMO mean, significant measures such as blocking the use of the corporate form and other limited liability entities to the unsubsidized groups, and putting in place limits on the size of such groups.
Of course even if all this is done, it would not solve the employment problem, or restore median incomes, or even significantly dent overall inequalities in the dsitribution of incomes. These problems and their solutions require far more than reforming Wall Street.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 12, 2011, 07:04:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2011, 06:15:31 PM
I think corporate governance rules should be changed so that stock owners can have more influence on compensation.
I don't understand the point of this. There is an argument that shareholder votes are terrible because practically speaking they are up or down votes, and can not be regularly held. If shareholders reject a compensation package for a CEO of $20 million, what happens next? The board presents a package of $15 million that gets voted up or down? Are you going to have another shareholders meeting over $5 million?
That aside, the reality is that the bulk of shares as actually voted by shareholders in advisory votes do not seem to be so concerned with executive pay. All the evidence indicates that however much you want to empower shareholders: they simply approve the executive pay packages already in place. I don't think that this is a change that would have any practical effect.
The vast majority of shareholders care about 1 of 2 things: "Do I get a regular dividend check?" and/or "Can I sell my shares at a profit?". Beyond that, they don't really give a damn about corporate policies, including how much the exectutives make. The shareholders already have the power to change how a company is run if they want to use it--they just don't want to use it for the most part. You don't need to "empower" shareholders if you want them to change corporate polices--you need to get them to care.
QuoteSimply taking away the tax deduction now would be a real kick in the arse to homeowners who have put the bulk of their wealth into homes valued with an assumption of a continued interest deduction. Especially now that the economy is strained in part due to the already depressed value of homes and a wave of foreclosures.
I don't think that very many people are going to default on their mortgages if the mortgage tax deduction was eliminated. (I'm not sure that you meant to imply that there would be, but I did infer it the way you worded your post.) I don't buy the notion that the value of homes is depressed (at least not nationwide, though it certainly is in certain localities)--I think that there's still a housing bubble to a great extent.
OTOH, while I feel that the mortgage tax deduction should be done away with, it's not a panacea--it really needs to be done as part of an (highly unlikely) overall income tax reform.
One way of fighting housing bubble while keeping the tax deduction in place is to do it the way it was done in Poland - you only qualify for the tax deduction if the price is below a certain level (on a per square metre basis). Not sure if it is a good solution, but that's one thing to consider.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2011, 10:33:06 AM
One way of fighting housing bubble while keeping the tax deduction in place is to do it the way it was done in Poland - you only qualify for the tax deduction if the price is below a certain level (on a per square metre basis). Not sure if it is a good solution, but that's one thing to consider.
That's not unreasonable, but what I'd like to see is a comprehensive income tax reform that basically did away with all deductions (which, as I said, is highly unlikely). I don't see the mortgage tax deduction as that big a deal, in-and-of itself. I don't know how much extra revenue would be raised if it were eliminated, but I suspect that it would be a extremely tiny sum in relation to the overall federal budget. It's also my belief that the impact of the deduction is hugely overrated by those who argue for its continued existance. Unless you expect to move frequently, or simply can't come up with the money for a downpayment, owning a home would still be better than renting for the vast majority of people.
It would slow down the flippers alot. Altho I guess the bubble burst kind of eliminated that.
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2011, 10:41:24 AM
I don't see the mortgage tax deduction as that big a deal, in-and-of itself. I don't know how much extra revenue would be raised if it were eliminated, but I suspect that it would be a extremely tiny sum in relation to the overall federal budget.
It would actually be an extremely sizable amount, to the order of a hundred billion or so.
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2011, 10:58:42 AM
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2011, 10:41:24 AM
I don't see the mortgage tax deduction as that big a deal, in-and-of itself. I don't know how much extra revenue would be raised if it were eliminated, but I suspect that it would be a extremely tiny sum in relation to the overall federal budget.
It would actually be an extremely sizable amount, to the order of a hundred billion or so.
Are you sure about that? It's a deduction, not a credit.
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2011, 12:46:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2011, 10:58:42 AM
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2011, 10:41:24 AM
I don't see the mortgage tax deduction as that big a deal, in-and-of itself. I don't know how much extra revenue would be raised if it were eliminated, but I suspect that it would be a extremely tiny sum in relation to the overall federal budget.
It would actually be an extremely sizable amount, to the order of a hundred billion or so.
Are you sure about that? It's a deduction, not a credit.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/20/eliminate-mortgage-interest-tax-deduction/
Is Tiffany's not sacrosanct? :weep:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/13/2011-10-13_wealthy_new_yorkers_join_protest_outisde_tiffanys_fifth_ave_store_over_end_of_ny.html
QuoteA pair of wealthy New Yorkers stood outside Tiffany's on Fifth Ave. Thursday and demanded to pay higher taxes.
The Manhattanites joined members of the 99 New York Coalition to protest Gov. Cuomo's plans to end the so-called "millionaires tax" on Dec. 31.
"New Yorkers who make over $1 million are fine with the taxes," said Bill Samuels, an entrepreneur businessman and one of the founders of the Council on Economic Priorities.
"Gov. Cuomo is on the wrong path.
"Most of us aren't for it, we'd rather have good schools. It's a total lack of leadership."
The Austerity Breakfast at Tiffany's attracted about 20 protesters and a small crowd of onlookers.
The group say Cuomo should extend the state-wide tax increase for top earners, which was implemented in 2009.
It saw taxes for those earning more than $200,000 a year rise from 6.85% to 8.97%. It expires at the end of the year.
"I believe as a wealthy individual, I can afford to pay a little more," said Sarah Stranahan, a working mother of three and board member of the Needmor Fund, which campaigns for social justice.
"We need to get through these hard times together.
"This tax will not hurt the wealthy - please extend the personal income tax."
Analysts say keeping the tax rates at their current levels, instead of reducing them, will generate $1 billion of revenue for the budget and $5 billion in the following fiscal year, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute.
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2011, 02:01:56 PM
Is Tiffany's not sacrosanct? :weep:
Your claim to non-bourgeois status is looking more and more questionable.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2011, 02:03:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2011, 02:01:56 PM
Is Tiffany's not sacrosanct? :weep:
Your claim to non-bourgeois status is looking more and more questionable.
Actually, I recall you revoking my membership card. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2011, 02:06:38 PM
Actually, I recall you revoking my membership card. :contract:
You are on probation but your resignation is not accepted.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576628981208827422.html
QuoteU.S. Incomes Seen Stagnant Through 2021
Americans' incomes have dropped since 2000 and they aren't expected to make up the lost ground before 2021, according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
From 2000 to 2010, median income in the U.S. declined 7% after adjusting for inflation, according to Census data. That marks the worst 10-year performance in records going back to 1967. On average, the economists expect inflation-adjusted incomes to rise over the next decade, but the 5% projected gain isn't enough to reach prerecession levels.
"Standards of living in the U.S. will continue to decline as we deleverage and emerging markets take over as the growth engine of the global economy," says Julia Coronado of BNP Paribas.
Though the majority of the 50 economists surveyed-not all of whom answer every question-say the current generation of college graduates will have a higher standard of living than their parents, a third of respondents think it will be lower. College graduates have generally fared better in the U.S., and they currently have a 4.2% unemployment rate compared to 9.1% for the entire work force. But a college degree hasn't been enough to ensure wage gains from 2000 through 2010. According to Census Bureau data, only advanced degree holders managed to record increases in earnings over that period.
The current generation of college graduates will only see a higher standard of living if "they get graduate degrees and are willing to give up a lot of free time," says Diane Swonk of Mesirow Financial. She says that while falling incomes may make up lost ground, the issue will be the distribution of those gains.
Incomes are being held down by persistently high unemployment and tepid economic growth, and the situation isn't expected to improve much in the foreseeable future. "What might be the locomotive?" asks Edward Leamer of UCLA Anderson Forecast. Typical drivers of economic recovery haven't been robust. Housing remains stuck at recessionary levels with home prices expected to be nearly flat next year while construction is stuck at recessionary levels. Manufacturing and consumer spending have improved over the course of the recovery but haven't been rising at levels that would lead to vigorous expansion. Meanwhile, growing global concerns could depress export markets.
Economic growth for 2011 is expected to be just 1.5%, accelerating to 2.3% next year and 2.7% for 2013. But that slow pace won't be enough to bring down the unemployment rate quickly. On average, the economists expect the economy to add just 1.5 million jobs over the next 12 months, barely enough to keep up with population growth. They forecast the jobless rate will be at 8.2% at the end of 2013, a decline of less than one percentage point over more than two years.
Those numbers could look even worse if the U.S. falls into a recession. The economists, on average, put nearly 1-in-3 odds of another downturn hitting the U.S. economy in the next 12 months.
WSJ? LOL
Man, I hope my income isn't the same in 2021 as today.
The idea of two lost decades for the USA is pretty sobering.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 13, 2011, 03:51:11 PM
Man, I hope my income isn't the same in 2021 as today.
No kidding :lol:
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2011, 04:02:41 PM
The idea of two lost decades for the USA is pretty sobering.
So what's the global outlook then? The US and EU looking at lost decades, China cruising towards a big bursting bubble. How's India and Brazil these days? What are the bright spots?
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2011, 04:50:40 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2011, 04:02:41 PM
The idea of two lost decades for the USA is pretty sobering.
So what's the global outlook then? The US and EU looking at lost decades, China cruising towards a big bursting bubble. How's India and Brazil these days? What are the bright spots?
A silver lining, eh? When the human population finally stabilizes at a little over a billion, there'll be more room for everybody.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 13, 2011, 03:51:11 PM
Man, I hope my income isn't the same in 2021 as today.
My income better be increased by 2012 when they are supposed to start paying my new salary! :angry:
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2011, 05:16:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 13, 2011, 03:51:11 PM
Man, I hope my income isn't the same in 2021 as today.
My income better be increased by 2012 when they are supposed to start paying my new salary! :angry:
You are the 99%.
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2011, 04:50:40 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2011, 04:02:41 PM
The idea of two lost decades for the USA is pretty sobering.
So what's the global outlook then? The US and EU looking at lost decades, China cruising towards a big bursting bubble. How's India and Brazil these days? What are the bright spots?
South Korea is doing well. :)
Hmm, maybe I should be going back there instead of Shanghai...
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2011, 04:50:40 PM
So what's the global outlook then? The US and EU looking at lost decades, China cruising towards a big bursting bubble. How's India and Brazil these days? What are the bright spots?
Medium term the BRICs, SEA and Turkey look good. So do some of the more mature markets such as Korea, Australia, Canada and Scandinavia.
Sweden is doing great. :)
Quote from: Zanza on October 14, 2011, 05:56:30 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2011, 04:50:40 PM
So what's the global outlook then? The US and EU looking at lost decades, China cruising towards a big bursting bubble. How's India and Brazil these days? What are the bright spots?
Medium term the BRICs, SEA and Turkey look good. So do some of the more mature markets such as Korea, Australia, Canada and Scandinavia.
China's the big question for Canada (and Australia). Economy's been driven by commodities. A large Chinese crash could have a devastating effect on commodity prices. Come to think of it - same issue for Russia as well.
Brazil / India seem to have fairly diverse economies, should continue to do well, as does Turkey.
Lech Walesa is flying to NYC to support the occupy wall street movement.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:00:34 PM
Lech Walesa is flying to NYC to support the occupy wall street movement.
I wonder if he'll be surprised when nobody knows or cares who the fuck he is?
Quote from: Neil on October 14, 2011, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:00:34 PM
Lech Walesa is flying to NYC to support the occupy wall street movement.
I wonder if he'll be surprised when nobody knows or cares who the fuck he is?
I think he is one of the great heroes of the 20th century, but unfortunately you are right on this. Nonviolent leaders like Gandhi, Mandela, and King get all the press for peacefully fighting imperialism and racism, but anticommunism is ignored.
I've never heard of that dude. Cool name, though.
Oh, he's the Solidarnosc guy.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:10:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 14, 2011, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:00:34 PM
Lech Walesa is flying to NYC to support the occupy wall street movement.
I wonder if he'll be surprised when nobody knows or cares who the fuck he is?
I think he is one of the great heroes of the 20th century, but unfortunately you are right on this. Nonviolent leaders like Gandhi, Mandela, and King get all the press for peacefully fighting imperialism and racism, but anticommunism is ignored.
Maybe he should have been on the right side of history.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:10:39 PM
I've never heard of that dude. Cool name, though.
Oh, he's the Solidarnosc guy.
:bleeding:
I guess it is okay, you are just too young.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:14:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:10:39 PM
I've never heard of that dude. Cool name, though.
Oh, he's the Solidarnosc guy.
:bleeding:
I guess it is okay, you are just too young.
I've heard of plenty of people you've never heard of, too, Alfred.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:17:53 PM
I've heard of plenty of people you've never heard of, too, Alfred.
It is just that I consider him one of the top heroic figures alive today.
My comment about your age was that you didn't live through the fall of communism, so he is just a polish historical figure to you.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:11:03 PM
Maybe he should have been on the right side of history.
He was on the right side of history.
Lech was a nice victory for Gustavus Adolphus.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:22:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:17:53 PM
I've heard of plenty of people you've never heard of, too, Alfred.
It is just that I consider him one of the top heroic figures alive today.
My comment about your age was that you didn't live through the fall of communism, so he is just a polish historical figure to you.
I technically lived through it, I guess. I was like seven. :P
But yeah, that's basically the case.
You know what else is a cool name? Jagiellon. Say it out loud. It's fun.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:26:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:22:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:17:53 PM
I've heard of plenty of people you've never heard of, too, Alfred.
It is just that I consider him one of the top heroic figures alive today.
My comment about your age was that you didn't live through the fall of communism, so he is just a polish historical figure to you.
I technically lived through it, I guess. I was like seven. :P
But yeah, that's basically the case.
You wrote insane journals all the time and went to the library?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:10:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 14, 2011, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:00:34 PM
Lech Walesa is flying to NYC to support the occupy wall street movement.
I wonder if he'll be surprised when nobody knows or cares who the fuck he is?
I think he is one of the great heroes of the 20th century, but unfortunately you are right on this. Nonviolent leaders like Gandhi, Mandela, and King get all the press for peacefully fighting imperialism and racism, but anticommunism is ignored.
Very true. I think it has to do with his peculiar situation. Many leftists were luke warm on fight the Soviets and many right winners don't want to give so much credit to a Union guy. That the type of person who is demonized by conservatives in this country dealt so grievous a blow to Communism is a bit of an embarrassment.
NERVE STAPLE THE DRONES.
These protests have become tedious.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2011, 04:31:37 PMVery true. I think it has to do with his peculiar situation. Many leftists were luke warm on fight the Soviets and many right winners don't want to give so much credit to a Union guy. That the type of person who is demonized by conservatives in this country dealt so grievous a blow to Communism is a bit of an embarrassment.
I don't think it's that political to be honest. I think his campaign wasn't televised and in English and there's not been a film about him yet. I imagine Mandela would only be known to a few people if he spent his time speaking Xhosa.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:14:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:10:39 PM
I've never heard of that dude. Cool name, though.
Oh, he's the Solidarnosc guy.
:bleeding:
I guess it is okay, you are just too young.
I'm younger than Ide and I know who he is. I saw him give a speech at the fall of the Berlin Wall commemoration in '09.
He was also in one of my high school history text books. :D
He has a bitchin' moustache.
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:14:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:10:39 PM
I've never heard of that dude. Cool name, though.
Oh, he's the Solidarnosc guy.
:bleeding:
I guess it is okay, you are just too young.
I'm younger than Ide and I know who he is.
I know a lot of people you don't too. :grr:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:14:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:10:39 PM
I've never heard of that dude. Cool name, though.
Oh, he's the Solidarnosc guy.
:bleeding:
I guess it is okay, you are just too young.
I'm younger than Ide and I know who he is.
I know a lot of people you don't too. :grr:
Guys whose biggest claim to fame is how many times they got fired and re-hired at McDonald's don't really count.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:10:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 14, 2011, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:00:34 PM
Lech Walesa is flying to NYC to support the occupy wall street movement.
I wonder if he'll be surprised when nobody knows or cares who the fuck he is?
I think he is one of the great heroes of the 20th century, but unfortunately you are right on this. Nonviolent leaders like Gandhi, Mandela, and King get all the press for peacefully fighting imperialism and racism, but anticommunism is ignored.
That's because Reagan single-handedly beat the Soviets and ended the Cold War.
Quote from: dps on October 14, 2011, 06:02:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:14:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 04:10:39 PM
I've never heard of that dude. Cool name, though.
Oh, he's the Solidarnosc guy.
:bleeding:
I guess it is okay, you are just too young.
I'm younger than Ide and I know who he is.
I know a lot of people you don't too. :grr:
Guys whose biggest claim to fame is how many times they got fired and re-hired at McDonald's don't really count.
Hey, MIM, you remember when you said there was no shame in working at a restaurant? Apparently there is and no one ever forgets.
I meant historical figures.
I'll never work in a restaurant ever again. Fuck that shit. Frisch's Big Boy can keep their dish washing positions.
I'll go back to repoing cars and smuggling smokes.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:10:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 14, 2011, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 04:00:34 PM
Lech Walesa is flying to NYC to support the occupy wall street movement.
I wonder if he'll be surprised when nobody knows or cares who the fuck he is?
I think he is one of the great heroes of the 20th century, but unfortunately you are right on this. Nonviolent leaders like Gandhi, Mandela, and King get all the press for peacefully fighting imperialism and racism, but anticommunism is ignored.
The Poles aren't very sympathetic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2011, 05:10:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2011, 04:31:37 PMVery true. I think it has to do with his peculiar situation. Many leftists were luke warm on fight the Soviets and many right winners don't want to give so much credit to a Union guy. That the type of person who is demonized by conservatives in this country dealt so grievous a blow to Communism is a bit of an embarrassment.
I don't think it's that political to be honest. I think his campaign wasn't televised and in English and there's not been a film about him yet. I imagine Mandela would only be known to a few people if he spent his time speaking Xhosa.
I'd would attribute it mostly to the fact that racism and the aftermath of imperialism still are important issues today, while resistance to communist authorities is not. It is also a difficult story to tell in clear good guy/bad guy terms, because by the time Walesa shows up on the scene, the really bad guys were in the past (which is of course why he was able to have success).
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2011, 07:48:39 PMI'd would attribute it mostly to the fact that racism and the aftermath of imperialism still are important issues today, while resistance to communist authorities is not. It is also a difficult story to tell in clear good guy/bad guy terms, because by the time Walesa shows up on the scene, the really bad guys were in the past (which is of course why he was able to have success).
Fair points. In addition I think Mandela certainly was a fight people in this country felt connected to. Whether through boycotting South African goods, pushing for the ban on sporting fixtures or the absurd like Paul Boateng's speech on winning election ('Brent South today, Soweto tomorrow!'). Similarly in the US with Martin Luther King. So in that terribly Western, self-involved way what happened here, or among white northern liberals became part of the story. In contrast, people in the West could only really look on at Solidarnosc, or Vaclav Havel's underground theatre, with a distant admiration and respect.
I think something similar's happening with the Arab revolutions and also with the Free Theatre of Minsk.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 07:22:49 PM
Hey, MIM, you remember when you said there was no shame in working at a restaurant? Apparently there is and no one ever forgets.
[/quote]
There isn't, but constantly getting fired from one is a different stroy.
Quote from: dps on October 14, 2011, 08:44:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 14, 2011, 07:22:49 PM
Hey, MIM, you remember when you said there was no shame in working at a restaurant? Apparently there is and no one ever forgets.
There isn't, but constantly getting fired from one is a different stroy.
[/quote]
Okay, maybe we're talking about someone
you know. I've never been fired from a job in my life. :wacko:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2011, 08:07:54 PM
I think something similar's happening with the Arab revolutions and also with the Free Theatre of Minsk.
I'd say with the arab revolutions that many people aren't convinced that they will actually result in something positive.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2011, 09:19:34 AMI'd say with the arab revolutions that many people aren't convinced that they will actually result in something positive.
Yeah that's a big worry but I've never met anyone who has anything but admiration for the activists of Tahrir Square, or the revolutionaries in Tunisia, Syria or Libya.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 15, 2011, 09:28:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2011, 09:19:34 AMI'd say with the arab revolutions that many people aren't convinced that they will actually result in something positive.
Yeah that's a big worry but I've never met anyone who has anything but admiration for the activists of Tahrir Square, or the revolutionaries in Tunisia, Syria or Libya.
You've met me.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150068/Chinese-Struggling-Less-Americans-Afford-Basics.aspx
QuoteWASHINGTON, D.C.-- Gallup surveys in China and the U.S. reveal Chinese are struggling less than Americans to put food on their tables. Six percent of Chinese in 2011 say there have been times in the past 12 months when they did not have enough money to buy food that they or their family needed, down significantly from 16% in 2008. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans saying they did not have money for food in the previous 12 months more than doubled from 9% in 2008 to 19% in 2011.
Eat everything on your plate! Don't you know there are starving kids in Detroit who would love to have that food?
Not enough money for food? Wow, the US is crazy poor.
To be fair, an average American needs a somewhat larger amount of food than an average Chinese.
I wouldn't use "need".
Quote from: Zoupa on October 15, 2011, 01:40:24 PM
I wouldn't use "need".
Need is close enough. A 200-pound American needs more food than a 100-pound Chinaman.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 15, 2011, 01:40:24 PM
I wouldn't use "need".
Yes, I need the Denny's Cheesy menu.
I need Reese's cups to live.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2011, 05:21:35 PM
I need Reese's cups to live.
In a couple of years you would need insulin shots to live.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2011, 05:21:35 PM
I need Reese's cups to live.
I've must have ate a dozen buckeyes today. nom nom nom
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2011, 02:08:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 15, 2011, 01:40:24 PM
I wouldn't use "need".
Yes, I need the Denny's Cheesy menu.
:x
Most of that food doesn't even look remotely appetizing - especially when you factor in the high quality you get at Denny's.
http://foodbeast.com/content/gallery/dennys-new-menu-lets-get-cheesy/
I know. Denny's is a last resort. After I've rummaged through my glovebox for 5 year old candy bars.
I prefer Waffle House myself.
I assume buckeyes aren't fellow Ohioans? Although it suggests a loophole for vegetarians; you can usually justify killing people on independent grounds.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2011, 05:21:35 PM
I need Reese's cups to live.
:mmm:
Especially if you toss them in the freezer for a bit.
You get the smaller ones, then put some chocolate chip cookie dough in mini-muffin tins. When they come out of the oven stick the reeses cups into the still hot cookie to make a cookie candy wrap.
I think that's a little gluttonous.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2011, 06:04:56 PM
I prefer Waffle House myself.
I assume buckeyes aren't fellow Ohioans? Although it suggests a loophole for vegetarians; you can usually justify killing people on independent grounds.
http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/buckeyes-i/detail.aspx :licklips:
The protestors went to Times Square. Just when I though Times Square couldn't get any worse...
Have we gone from Civil War hijacks to Reese's Peanut Butter Cup hijacks? :(
I'm a mimetic motherfucker.
Woot! As of last Wednesday, the city has spent 3.2 million in overtime for police to take care of the protesters.
I also like the Boston take on the 150k that's been spent there.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-10-15/news/30284035_1_overtime-costs-boston-police-protesters
Quote"I never thought about that," said Laurel Byrne-Macmillan, 31, a nurse from Gloucester, when asked about the cost. "But you know what? Democracy isn't free. ... We have the right as citizens to inconvenience some people to get our point across, and that is one of the gifts this country gives to us."
Byrne-Macmillan held a sign that said, "Bring our soldiers and our $ home. End the war." She said that compared with the federal government's spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "This is a drop in the bucket."
She also had a suggestion for helping to defray the overtime costs, "Why don't you take it out of the bonuses of those CEOs [who received bailout money]? "Ask them to donate a little money."
What would happen if the cops went home?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:06:25 AM
What would happen if the cops went home?
I'm not sure how cities would continue to function if protesters decided to hangout in the streets. Also, I think we'd rapidly decay into a third world situation. Who wants squatters everywhere? :x
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:06:25 AM
What would happen if the cops went home?
I'm not sure how cities would continue to function if protesters decided to hangout in the streets. Also, I think we'd rapidly decay into a third world situation. Who wants squatters everywhere? :x
Be the change you wish to see in the world. If you don't want armies of quasi-homeless people, either disperse them with force and kick us farther down the road to the civil war that is all but inevitable,* or enact policies which will ease the tensions and begin to heal our wounded nation.
*Hyperbole? Probably. I'm a little tired. -_-
Oh and then we have all the trespassing and property damage. Like the store owners near Zuccotti park who have installed bathroom locks after the were experiencing flooding from protesters bathing in their restrooms.
Sometimes being a self-sustaining community means taking things from neighboring communities.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:17:03 AM
Be the change you wish to see in the world. If you don't want armies of quasi-homeless people, either disperse them with force and kick us farther down the road to the civil war that is all but inevitable,* or enact policies which will ease the tensions and begin to heal our wounded nation.
*Hyperbole? Probably. I'm a little tired. -_-
:huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:21:35 AM
Sometimes being a self-sustaining community means taking things from neighboring communities.
I thought that the protest needs to gain sympathy in order to be effective. Not sure how that would gain them any sympathy.
Btw interesting article on NYC
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/16/2011-10-16_good_times_coming_back_to_the_city_tech_real_estate_education__tourism_lead_way_.html
QuoteThe national economy is still wobbly, but there's good news on the local front: New York City has regained many jobs lost in the recession, spawned new businesses and is attracting investment dollars in key areas.
A key driver has been New York's $31 billion tourism industry. The city expects up to 50 million tourists this year to book hotel rooms, swarm stores and fill restaurants.
"Tourism has become our new export industry," said Barbara Byrne Denham, chief economist at real estate investment services firm Eastern Consolidated.
There's also been dramatic growth in technology, real estate and educational services.
Since September 2009, New York has regained 100,000 jobs - some two-thirds of the 140,000 lost in the downturn. That's three times the national rate.
"Relative to other major American cities, the fundamentals in New York are pretty strong," said Seth Pinsky, president of the New York City Economic Development Corp.
Neji Ramaida is a case in point. The 32-year-old from Flushing, Queens, was barely making ends meet when he lost his catering job last year.
A city Workforce1 Career Center helped him find work as a concierge in a local hotel.
Then he landed a better job at Yotel, a high-tech, mid-priced hotel that opened in June near Times Square. Now, Ramaida fields calls from visitors as a member of the hotel's "pre arrivals crew" where workers earn $45,000 to $50,000 a year.
He's not alone. Yotel, the largest hotel to open in the city this year, has hired 232 workers, part of a city tourism hiring boom.
"I feel good," Ramaida said. "Things are falling into place."
There are still reasons to worry. Over the past few months, local job growth has slowed and the state controller says the financial sector could lose nearly 10,000 jobs by the end of next year.
Still, amid the doom and gloom, there are bright spots.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 06:22:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:17:03 AM
Be the change you wish to see in the world. If you don't want armies of quasi-homeless people, either disperse them with force and kick us farther down the road to the civil war that is all but inevitable,* or enact policies which will ease the tensions and begin to heal our wounded nation.
*Hyperbole? Probably. I'm a little tired. -_-
:huh:
I mean, I prefer the latter. But unless this country changes, it will only get worse and worse till people truly do not have anything to lose. And we will miss the days of peaceful protests which inconvenienced some commuters and flooded a bathroom.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 06:23:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:21:35 AM
Sometimes being a self-sustaining community means taking things from neighboring communities.
I thought that the protest needs to gain sympathy in order to be effective. Not sure how that would gain them any sympathy.
Come now. You wouldn't grant sympathy to the protesters if they all set themselves on fire in the middle of Times Square. You'd complain about how it blocked traffic or something.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:29:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 06:23:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:21:35 AM
Sometimes being a self-sustaining community means taking things from neighboring communities.
I thought that the protest needs to gain sympathy in order to be effective. Not sure how that would gain them any sympathy.
Come now. You wouldn't grant sympathy to the protesters if they all set themselves on fire in the middle of Times Square. You'd complain about how it blocked traffic or something.
Probably not - because I still have no idea on what they actually want. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:25:52 AM
I mean, I prefer the latter. But unless this country changes, it will only get worse and worse till people truly do not have anything to lose. And we will miss the days of peaceful protests which inconvenienced some commuters and flooded a bathroom.
Not buying it.
Winter is coming.
No, really, it's like in two months. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:42:06 AM
Winter is coming.
No, really, it's like in two months. :)
:yes:
Bloomberg has stated that he wonders what the campers will do then
Watched a video of cops arresting a woman for being a Citibank customer (not a protestor, just being at the bank). No way we should let them just go home. That $3.1 million is clearly being well spent, infiltrating protest groups and manhandling entirely innocent bystanders.
Oh no, cops that make mistakes - say it ain't so, counselor.
Smash the protesters apple products.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:21:35 AM
Sometimes being a self-sustaining community means taking things from neighboring communities.
:lol:
Ide is creeping into Crunchy territory. Which makes me sad.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2011, 10:22:19 AM
Ide is creeping into Crunchy territory. Which makes me sad.
:rolleyes: I'm the same as I've always ever been.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 16, 2011, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:21:35 AM
Sometimes being a self-sustaining community means taking things from neighboring communities.
:lol:
Yeah, I thought that was a good one. :P They have executed our emissaries, Batu Khan!
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:29:04 AM
Come now. You wouldn't grant sympathy to the protesters if they all set themselves on fire in the middle of Times Square. You'd complain about how it blocked traffic or something.
Why would we have sympathy for someone who set themselves on fire?
I don't get the idea that the protestors aren't being clear about what they want. People get what they're protesting against, right?
Sure. They want free stuff.
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?
Where is sask when you need him?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?
Where is sask when you need him?
Only that Special Victims Unit one.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?
Yes, on both counts.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2011, 12:42:43 PM
I don't get the idea that the protestors aren't being clear about what they want. People get what they're protesting against, right?
Like that vicky fascist thing. We are angry about something but have a hard time formulating exactly what that is.
Quote from: Cecil on October 16, 2011, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2011, 12:42:43 PM
I don't get the idea that the protestors aren't being clear about what they want. People get what they're protesting against, right?
Like that vicky fascist thing. We are angry about something but have a hard time formulating exactly what that is.
I get the idea that they are angry, but what they want done is a bit more vague. It's just like the Tea Party who were 'angry as Hell and not going to take it anymore', but beyond that it was pretty confused. Anyway I still don't like mobs. Liberal mobs, Conservative mobs, neutral disinterested mobs... any kind of mob.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?
You still realize that now? My only question would be how much of it is posturing and internet persona and how much a seriously held belief.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 10:34:18 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2011, 10:22:19 AM
Ide is creeping into Crunchy territory. Which makes me sad.
:rolleyes: I'm the same as I've always ever been.
You've gotten slightly worse.
Quote from: The Larch on October 16, 2011, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?
You still realize that now? My only question would be how much of it is posturing and internet persona and how much a seriously held belief.
I'm forming a Freikorps of veterans and rich folk.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2011, 01:23:42 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?
Where is sask when you need him?
Only that Special Victims Unit one.
SVU :wub:
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2011, 12:42:43 PM
I don't get the idea that the protestors aren't being clear about what they want. People get what they're protesting against, right?
Pulled a bunch of stuff. Best I can gather is general unhappiness with their lives/opportunities with a strong focus on how the financial system is screwing them over. What camping in a park has to do with that - I'm not sure. Of course per that nymag poll, you're looking at a lot of the protesters being 20-somethings. That does little to make them...sympathetic. :(
From the OWS site: (I did a little cropping of explanatory text on that demand list)
QuoteProposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! (User Submitted)
Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.
Demand one: Restoration of the living wage.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/occupy-dc-protester-says-movement-continues-to-grow-more-tents-going-up-in-mcpherson-square/2011/10/16/gIQAPey7oL_story.html
QuoteParticipants are demonstrating against corporate greed and economic inequality.
Legba Carrefour has been part of Occupy D.C. since it started on Oct. 1 and says more tents are going up in the downtown square every night. He says the appeal of the movement is that participants don't have specific demands. He says people see their own lives and their own desires among the participants.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/14/slogans-and-demands-wont-change-world
QuoteThe Occupy protesters have a plethora of complaints including how profit is private but financial losses are socialized, the existence of pollution, stagnating wages and home foreclosures among others.
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/
QuoteWe polled 100 protesters who are in it for the long haul.
How old are you?
Under 20: 10
20–29: 50
30-39: 15
40-49: 9
Over 50: 2
The country with the best government in the world is ...
"Canada. It's most like the U.S. but more the way I want."
"Denmark."
"I don't accept the premises of this question.
Explain how you would fix Wall Street.
"A maximum-wage law."
"President Elizabeth Warren."
"Burn it down."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/demetria-irwin/occupy-wall-street_b_1004448.html
QuoteI'm not quite clear on what defines success for these protesters. What makes one decide to de-camp? A particular bill? A particular election? Is there anything that could be done right now-ish that would take the protests down a notch or in a different direction? Most of my friends could say the same save for a few who literally stopped by the protest. I am glad that people feel passionate enough to take a physical and theoretical/philosophical stance against what they believe to be unjust, but so far I haven't been moved to join in myself, not in a physical way anyway.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/index.html
QuoteYes, there are a wide array of complaints, demands, and goals from the Wall Street protesters: the collapsing environment, labor standards, housing policy, government corruption, World Bank lending practices, unemployment, increasing wealth disparity and so on. Different people have been affected by different aspects of the same system -- and they believe they are symptoms of the same core problem.
Are they ready to articulate exactly what that problem is and how to address it? No, not yet. But neither are Congress or the president who, in thrall to corporate America and Wall Street, respectively, have consistently failed to engage in anything resembling a conversation as cogent as the many I witnessed as I strolled by Occupy Wall Street's many teach-ins this morning. There were young people teaching one another about, among other things, how the economy works, about the disconnection of investment banking from the economy of goods and services, the history of centralized interest-bearing currency, the creation and growth of the derivatives industry, and about the Obama administration deciding to settle with, rather than investigate and prosecute the investment banking industry for housing fraud.
Oh and then this:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2016514915_danny16.html
QuoteThere was an awkward moment last week in our local Wall Street protest that crystallized why this movement, like the Tea Party a year before, makes me squirm.
The Occupy Seattle folks issued a list of demands to the mayor, asking for tents and a free, 24-hour parking space. My first thought when I heard this was: Free parking? Is it too late for me to join Occupy Seattle?
But seriously: What's intriguing is what happened next. A few protesters objected, saying: Where do we get off making demands?
"This is not the way to garner more support from the general public," wrote a protester named Heather Joy on the Occupy Seattle website. "Really, it's embarrassing ... Why not supply our own needs, not ask or 'demand' that the gov't supply it for us — isn't that part of the problem?"
Why, yes, it is. I would go further than Heather Joy (who should be put in charge of Occupy Seattle immediately). Excessive demand-making is not just part of the problem in our politics. It is the problem.
I got a lot of blowback from readers last week for writing "I am not the 99 percent." I said protesters were right about the rise of corporate power. But wrong to suggest the solution to our economic and government problems is to tax or regulate only somebody else — the rich.
I picked the same nits with the Tea Party last year. Their boogeyman was big government and runaway deficits. But their demands — lower taxes, but don't you dare touch my Medicare or Social Security — not only made no mathematical sense but conveniently involved zero sacrifice on their parts.
Of course that platform triumphed at the polls. Buoyed, presumably, by at least a few of the 99 percent.
Many readers said I was too glib in dismissing the latest protests. And also too obsessed with math (I wrote that the proposed millionaires' tax, while fun to shout about through a bullhorn, would raise only $40 billion a year, such a small slice of our deficit that broader taxes on the 99 percent were inevitable).
"You miss the point entirely," wrote Bill Daugaard of Kirkland. "The 'we are the 99 percent' slogan is to decry the ever-growing concentration of wealth in the nation's oligarchy, and the obscene gap between it and the rest of the nation's citizens. The issues you raise are details."
Guilty! To me, math matters. The math says the hole's so deep it'll take all of us to climb out. The Occupy protests are in denial of that math, just as the Tea Party was.
But OK, forget the math. What should be done about the wealth in the nation's oligarchy? I agree corporations and the wealthy have too much power in politics, and also that both owe the nation more financial support in a time of crisis.
But it's not the government's business to regulate pay or somehow cap wealth. My income is stagnant or dropping, too. It's not government's job to fix that — we shouldn't be demanding that it try.
"You are making too much out of a simple slogan," wrote reader Kathy Harris. "Maybe the protesters should have said the 90 percenters instead of 99ers."
Now this gets to the nub of the matter. Who really needs help right now? We all rely on basics like roads and defense. But one reason we're in so deep is that everyone — the poor to the middle-class homeowner on up to supremely rich companies such as Microsoft — all keep making increasing demands on the public sphere.
Some truly need it — maybe it should be "we are the 25 percent"? The vast majority don't.
Take Obama's jobs bill, which was to be paid for with that millionaires' tax. More than half the money was to give the rest of us yet another tax cut. That's insane. I don't need that any more than I need a tent or free parking from the city.
So, to channel Heather Joy: When will there be a movement that makes offers instead of demands? That says: Here's how we can do it. Not: You do it, and by the way, what can I expect to get out of it?
I will say this: The Occupy movement has won one huge victory already. They've certainly changed the topic of conversation around here.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become.
Reactionary? I rather think not. Just because people don't go along with whatever nonsensical hippie bullshit is going on at any given moment doesn't make one a reactionary.
I'm fascist. Machinegun the hippies.
To be serious, I'd be a hell of a lot more sympathetic if they was protesting the shitty job congress and Barry was doing. Instead, we have fuckheads singing 'Fuck the USA' in Portland, fuckheads occupying private property in New York, and a bunch of faggot Mac users demanding free stuff.
Fuck 'em.
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2011, 02:57:07 PM
Just because people don't go along with whatever nonsensical hippie bullshit is going on at any given moment doesn't make one a reactionary.
Fair enough, but...
QuoteI'm fascist. Machinegun the hippies.
Could be considered reactionary.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?
Where is sask when you need him?
WHen it started Occupy Wall Street at least made a bit of sense. Something went wrong with the system and we have to fix it. Then it careened into crazyville very quickly.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 02:49:33 PM
Demand one: Restoration of the living wage.
No. Stop buying so much Apple shit and Starbucks, and you'll be able to afford necessary stuff.
Quote
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system.
Hmmm, maybe, but don't put the federal government in charge if you want it to have a chance of actually working.
Quote
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
See my point re: demand one.
Quote
Demand four: Free college education.
Lollercoasters.
Quote
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Let's revisit in like fifty years or so when we might have the tech to pursue this.
Quote
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Sounds good. Who's going to pay for that, though?
Quote
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
LOL! Let's get off fossil fuels, but decommision nuclear power plants? :huh: :rolleyes: Also, we have plenty of forests and wetlands. Try leaving the city and you'll see.
Quote
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Ok, sounds good and (more importantly) doesn't cost an insane amount of money like these other demands.
Quote
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
I'd prefer a Hippy Emigration Policy to this. :)
Quote
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Wait, you love the environment, but want to switch all voting back to paper ballots? Ok, now I see why you wanted to plant all those forests. :(
Quote
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.
Hilarious. Nein.
Quote
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Nope, I like having low interest loan access.
Quote
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
:hmm: Doesn't the NLRA already allow this?
So these guys are idiots then. It's official.
:x
http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-street-shows-muscle-raises-300k-223255806.html
QuoteThe Occupy Wall Street movement has close to $300,000, as well as storage space loaded with donated supplies in lower Manhattan.
QuoteThere are signs of confidence, but also signs of tension among the demonstrators at Zuccotti Park, the epicenter of the movement that began a month ago Monday. They have trouble agreeing on things like whether someone can bring in a sleeping bag, and show little sign of uniting on any policy issues. Some protesters eventually want the movement to rally around a goal, while others insist that isn't the point.
Quote"... Egos are clashing, but this is participatory democracy in a little park."
QuoteStrekal said the donated goods are being stored "for a long-term occupation."
"We are unstoppable! Another world is possible!" Kara Segal and other volunteers chanted in the building lobby as they arrived to help unpack and sort items, preparing them to be rolled out to the park.
While on the streets, moments of madness occasionally erupt in the protest crowd — accompanied by whiffs of marijuana, grungy clothing and disarray — order prevails at the storage site.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2011, 03:30:40 PM
I'm fascist. Machinegun the hippies.
Your avatar is making me hungry.
So really it doesn't stand for anything except that they are pissed at something. Their contempt for the Tea Party is all the more ironic for this.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 16, 2011, 06:04:50 PM
So really it doesn't stand for anything except that they are pissed at something. Their contempt for the Tea Party is all the more ironic for this.
I think we should build a giant cage in North Dakota and put all the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street people in it, and order them to fight to the death. I hope they do because it will be fun to watch, but if not then no biggie since they'll all just freeze to death come January. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on October 16, 2011, 05:28:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2011, 02:57:07 PM
Just because people don't go along with whatever nonsensical hippie bullshit is going on at any given moment doesn't make one a reactionary.
Fair enough, but...
QuoteI'm fascist. Machinegun the hippies.
Could be considered reactionary.
I'm 'zany'.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 06:02:27 PM
:x
...
And your... heaving objection lies where exactly?
G.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2011, 06:06:31 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 16, 2011, 06:04:50 PM
So really it doesn't stand for anything except that they are pissed at something. Their contempt for the Tea Party is all the more ironic for this.
I think we should build a giant cage in North Dakota and put all the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street people in it, and order them to fight to the death. I hope they do because it will be fun to watch, but if not then no biggie since they'll all just freeze to death come January. :)
You could just get a divorce, you know...
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2011, 07:45:26 PM
And your... heaving objection lies where exactly?
I would imagine that such a movement so totally lacking in ideas or substance can get such support.
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2011, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2011, 07:45:26 PM
And your... heaving objection lies where exactly?
I would imagine that such a movement so totally lacking in ideas or substance can get such support.
Yeah, I'm completely baffled...and saddened.
So, you a Herman Cain guy Garbon?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2011, 08:34:10 PM
So, you a Herman Cain guy Garbon?
No, I mean some individual members might be, but despite this protest stemming from the ideas of a couple Canadians, I don't think it is anti-America. :P
Infrastructure: The trillion dollars for infrastructure could be obtained from borrowing at the present low rates, Cal. I think we all agree (to take a page from Joan) that at the very least a Keynesian stimulus would be more useful than this prikhvatizatsia nonsense.
Negative income tax: I applaud them going one further and demanding what Milton Friedman concluded was the only way to liberate the labor market, and the best way to ensure a secure citizenry--not minimum wages, not welfare, but the right to life and dignity of every American. Thing is, I don't know why they guy has both this and "living wage" in that list. They're sort of the same thing, that is, a negative income tax is a way to arrive at a living wage. Unless you wanna be hypertechnical and say that NIT is not a "wage," but the other beauty of NIT is that it obivates the necessity/desirability for companies to provide living wages to employees entirely.
Debt cancellation: I agree that the a full jubilee is a bridge much too far. That's a little ridiculous. Making our $900bn in student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy would be a step in the right direction.
Free college: yeah, fuck that, and fuck free high school, free middle school, and free kindergarten. Let's become the nation of idiots we always wanted to be. P.S. free college does not mean "free college for all." But let's jump on board that conclusion train. (Actually, it might for these guys. But that's not what it says.)
Hydrocarbon weaning: this needs to be done, and government needs to take the lead, but radicalism in shifting to a energy regime is not going to do anyone any favors. Besides, we need nuclear power plants to enrich our plutonium and make our tritium. Duh. Hell, even if you want to be hippie peacenik about it, He-3 for aneutronic fusion testing comes from nuclear reactors.
Credit reporting outlawry: Yeah, no. That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 10:27:11 PM
Credit reporting outlawry: Yeah, no. That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.
I disagree. A credit report is a good way for an employer to spot a dishonest employee during the recruiting stage.
As for free college, well devaluing a college education even more than it already is won't help. How does society benefit by making people take an additional four years of high school before getting a shitty service job?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2011, 08:00:08 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2011, 06:06:31 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 16, 2011, 06:04:50 PM
So really it doesn't stand for anything except that they are pissed at something. Their contempt for the Tea Party is all the more ironic for this.
I think we should build a giant cage in North Dakota and put all the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street people in it, and order them to fight to the death. I hope they do because it will be fun to watch, but if not then no biggie since they'll all just freeze to death come January. :)
You could just get a divorce, you know...
I thought the same thing.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2011, 06:06:31 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 16, 2011, 06:04:50 PM
So really it doesn't stand for anything except that they are pissed at something. Their contempt for the Tea Party is all the more ironic for this.
I think we should build a giant cage in North Dakota and put all the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street people in it, and order them to fight to the death. I hope they do because it will be fun to watch, but if not then no biggie since they'll all just freeze to death come January. :)
North Dakota is a lovely state! :mad:
And already full of Tea Partiers, so he's got less work to do.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 08:26:46 PM
Yeah, I'm completely baffled...and saddened.
Replace a few names with domesticated animals, and the reports begin to sound amazingly like the first half of
Animal Farm.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 10:27:11 PMCredit reporting outlawry: Yeah, no. That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.
Why shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 10:27:11 PM
Free college: yeah, fuck that, and fuck free high school, free middle school, and free kindergarten. Let's become the nation of idiots we always wanted to be. P.S. free college does not mean "free college for all." But let's jump on board that conclusion train. (Actually, it might for these guys. But that's not what it says.)
I understand what you're saying, but what I'd rather see is in fact what's beginning to happen - colleges and universities in the US are starting to lose their privileged status as the sole folks who can dole out meaningful credentials. More and more there are certificates, licensures, stuff like the Mozilla OpenBadges project, etc. outside of the traditional college setting which are providing credentials showing mastery of a topic. I say fuck the tenure system, fuck the elitism of expensive schools.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2011, 02:02:43 PMI get the idea that they are angry, but what they want done is a bit more vague. It's just like the Tea Party who were 'angry as Hell and not going to take it anymore', but beyond that it was pretty confused. Anyway I still don't like mobs. Liberal mobs, Conservative mobs, neutral disinterested mobs... any kind of mob.
Mobs don't worry about which public toilets are accessible 24 hours and only use the toilets of businesses that put up pro-protest signs (both the case in London). They also don't get excited because a generous benefactor's arranged for a delivery of vegan food from Waitrose (again London).
I'm pretty supportive of them, I'll go down this afternoon. I always find the idea that protest movement's should be releasing coherent manifestos pretty weird. They're protesting - normally that means they're against something more than about to release an interesting list of policies. This is the diference between, say, the Tea Party and the Cato Institute.
Quote from: fahdiz on October 17, 2011, 01:36:42 AM
More and more there are certificates, licensures, stuff like the Mozilla OpenBadges project, etc. outside of the traditional college setting which are providing credentials showing mastery of a topic. I say fuck the tenure system, fuck the elitism of expensive schools.
Isn't this a debate about what universities are for? Are they technical colleges to give people credentials or are the research institutions that happen to give undergrads degrees?
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2011, 10:41:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 10:27:11 PM
Credit reporting outlawry: Yeah, no. That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.
I disagree. A credit report is a good way for an employer to spot a dishonest employee during the recruiting stage.
As for free college, well devaluing a college education even more than it already is won't help. How does society benefit by making people take an additional four years of high school before getting a shitty service job?
Well, part of that would need to be reducing college enrollment, and funnelling more people into voc schools.
On the other hand, simply formalizing the already nascent idea that college is nothing more than a higher high school is not necessarily a bad thing, in itself. Better education does have some value in and of itself. Enough to send everybody to two more years of school? I dunno. But at the very bottom of the service industry, the same argument against college applies to at least the junior and senior years of high school as well.
Quote from: fahdizWhy shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.
Because I am a statist with an increasingly terrible credit report. But I've actually been opposed to it since I'd first heard of the practice, years ago. Even criminal background checks make more sense than credit history checks. An employer is not a party to a contract between an employee and a third person.
Also, everyone always has a
motive to steal, so I don't see why that's important in the absence of a history of theft or dishonesty. (And defaulting on a loan is not theft or dishonesty per se, although some element of bad faith may be involved.*)
*Now, bad faith entry into a loan agreement is a different story--e.g., saying you make $150,000 a year when you make 15 and racking up $60k in credit card debt in Vegas--but
that's tortious and potentially criminal fraud. Totally different ballgame. Lying and stealing may reflect badly an employee. Being a rational economic actor and reneging on a promise made in changed circumstances, or being unable to fulfill a promise, does not.
Because of the information available to employers and the unregulated use of this information, we are rapidly becoming a society that affords no one a second chance--unless you're already wealthy, that is. Hell, we're rapidly becoming a society where no one is afforded a first.
The protest is very close to my work, just popped down there. It's opathetically small. More reople turn up for the average 5th division football match.
Doesn't deserve any of the publicity its getting. The protestsers just look like the usual bunch of dirty shoeless anrcho-attention whores.
They have managed to close down Paternoster Square though, so I can't get to my gym.
Quote from: fahdiz on October 17, 2011, 01:33:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 10:27:11 PMCredit reporting outlawry: Yeah, no. That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.
Why shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.
It's equality of arms. Most employees do not have financial means to carry out an extensive financial due diligence of the employer nor position strong enough to ask for such data (and I daresay, the employer's financial trouble can bear a much greater influence on the risk associated with the contract, than similar troubles of the employee).
Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2011, 07:06:04 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on October 17, 2011, 01:33:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 10:27:11 PMCredit reporting outlawry: Yeah, no. That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.
Why shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.
It's equality of arms. Most employees do not have financial means to carry out an extensive financial due diligence of the employer nor position strong enough to ask for such data (and I daresay, the employer's financial trouble can bear a much greater influence on the risk associated with the contract, than similar troubles of the employee).
Actually, yeah, that's no joke. Imagine Joe, who's near bankruptcy, who gets a job offer from Firm across the country, which is also near bankruptcy. Neither disclose this. Joe moves across the country. They both go bankrupt at the same time. Who's more likely to be fucked by whom there?
And as with a lot of things, I'm not necessarily advocating a hard and fast rule. A child molester should not be an elementary school teacher. A woman with a heart condition should not be an astronaut. A guy with recent assault convictions maybe shouldn't become a police officer (although clearly in this case you limit your recruiting pool of willing candidates :joke: ). If you can convince me a particular position requires a history of personal financial responsibility, I'm really all ears. But as a candidate screening technique? Unfair, and deeply unAmerican.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 07:35:19 AM
Actually, yeah, that's no joke. Imagine Joe, who's near bankruptcy, who gets a job offer from Firm across the country, which is also near bankruptcy. Neither disclose this. Joe moves across the country. They both go bankrupt at the same time. Who's more likely to be fucked by whom there?
Wait, I got this one. The correct answer is the hooker at the Pilot Truck Stop in Des Moines, right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:22:47 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on October 17, 2011, 01:36:42 AM
More and more there are certificates, licensures, stuff like the Mozilla OpenBadges project, etc. outside of the traditional college setting which are providing credentials showing mastery of a topic. I say fuck the tenure system, fuck the elitism of expensive schools.
Isn't this a debate about what universities are for? Are they technical colleges to give people credentials or are the research institutions that happen to give undergrads degrees?
Yeah, I'm not so sure that universities should be tasked with what fahdiz is looking for.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2011, 07:06:04 AM
Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.
No, YOUR argument is a classic slippery slope.
That said, being gay is a huge factor in dishonesty (as a gay's whole life is a lie), so I most assuredly would never knowingly employ one.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?
Where is sask when you need him?
It's been this way for years. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 03:13:57 AM
Because I am a statist with an increasingly terrible credit report. But I've actually been opposed to it since I'd first heard of the practice, years ago. Even criminal background checks make more sense than credit history checks. An employer is not a party to a contract between an employee and a third person.
Also, everyone always has a motive to steal, so I don't see why that's important in the absence of a history of theft or dishonesty. (And defaulting on a loan is not theft or dishonesty per se, although some element of bad faith may be involved.*)
*Now, bad faith entry into a loan agreement is a different story--e.g., saying you make $150,000 a year when you make 15 and racking up $60k in credit card debt in Vegas--but that's tortious and potentially criminal fraud. Totally different ballgame. Lying and stealing may reflect badly an employee. Being a rational economic actor and reneging on a promise made in changed circumstances, or being unable to fulfill a promise, does not.
Because of the information available to employers and the unregulated use of this information, we are rapidly becoming a society that affords no one a second chance--unless you're already wealthy, that is. Hell, we're rapidly becoming a society where no one is afforded a first.
How you handle your credit shows planning, responsibility, honesty and forethought, which are valuable traits to an employer.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2011, 07:06:04 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on October 17, 2011, 01:33:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 10:27:11 PMCredit reporting outlawry: Yeah, no. That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.
Why shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.
It's equality of arms. Most employees do not have financial means to carry out an extensive financial due diligence of the employer nor position strong enough to ask for such data (and I daresay, the employer's financial trouble can bear a much greater influence on the risk associated with the contract, than similar troubles of the employee).
Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.
:huh:
You do know of course that for any public company it is trivially easy to get detailed financial data on the company.
For private companies there are still bond ratings, BBB, general news reports...
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2011, 07:06:04 AM
Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.
No, YOUR argument is a classic slippery slope.
That said, being gay is a huge factor in dishonesty (as a gay's whole life is a lie), so I most assuredly would never knowingly employ one.
It's what my body tells me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:20:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2011, 02:02:43 PMI get the idea that they are angry, but what they want done is a bit more vague. It's just like the Tea Party who were 'angry as Hell and not going to take it anymore', but beyond that it was pretty confused. Anyway I still don't like mobs. Liberal mobs, Conservative mobs, neutral disinterested mobs... any kind of mob.
Mobs don't worry about which public toilets are accessible 24 hours and only use the toilets of businesses that put up pro-protest signs (both the case in London). They also don't get excited because a generous benefactor's arranged for a delivery of vegan food from Waitrose (again London).
I'm pretty supportive of them, I'll go down this afternoon. I always find the idea that protest movement's should be releasing coherent manifestos pretty weird. They're protesting - normally that means they're against something more than about to release an interesting list of policies. This is the diference between, say, the Tea Party and the Cato Institute.
ok, but if they are out to "change the world", shouldn't they have at least a remotely coherent common agenda? Or if that is not a requirement, why taking them seriously is?
Quote from: Tamas on October 17, 2011, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:20:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2011, 02:02:43 PMI get the idea that they are angry, but what they want done is a bit more vague. It's just like the Tea Party who were 'angry as Hell and not going to take it anymore', but beyond that it was pretty confused. Anyway I still don't like mobs. Liberal mobs, Conservative mobs, neutral disinterested mobs... any kind of mob.
Mobs don't worry about which public toilets are accessible 24 hours and only use the toilets of businesses that put up pro-protest signs (both the case in London). They also don't get excited because a generous benefactor's arranged for a delivery of vegan food from Waitrose (again London).
I'm pretty supportive of them, I'll go down this afternoon. I always find the idea that protest movement's should be releasing coherent manifestos pretty weird. They're protesting - normally that means they're against something more than about to release an interesting list of policies. This is the diference between, say, the Tea Party and the Cato Institute.
ok, but if they are out to "change the world", shouldn't they have at least a remotely coherent common agenda? Or if that is not a requirement, why taking them seriously is?
Because.
Mob + Protest + ? = World Embetterment
browse back, the vocal ones of them claim they are there to change, well, stuff
QuoteThe day I realized I do not live in a democracy, a free market or have a particularly noble profession came in 2005 at a company Christmas Party of the largest mortgage company in the country. The dinner was at Spago in Beverly Hills, CA – we had a 5 course dinner pumpkin soup with each guests initials scribed in garnishment, fresh ricotta gnocchi with ragout of sonoma lamb and one of the better filet mignons I've had to date. During a brief cocktail reception I ran into a senior vice president of Securities and after a few glasses of Macallan began to talk shop. The Fed had just completed it's 13th successive .25 point raise to Fed Funds days earlier. I asked him if they had ever modeled for a 10% correction in housing. The executive explained to me such a forecast was beyond the most bearish of projections he had heard and that I should be more realistic. I insisted "say in the event of another terrorist attack or risk unknown to the firm, perhaps." Without skipping a beat he interrupted " ...even if something like that... your 10%, say Case-Shiller numbers, the government would step in." I was waiting for the relief laughter that never came; he was serious. The moment stuck with me for the rest of the night like I had just seen a bad freeway accident. As I collected my guests and left through the stain-glass windowed doors out to the street on Canon Drive I heard a small group of protestors shouting outside. I hoped for a second as I approached that they had somehow had been inside and heard what I had moments ago, that they had some consciousness of the situation or were at least protesting the mortgage company incidentally on behalf of a unionized construction company.
No –a green haired, TV extra screamed in my face "Take veal off the menu! Shame on Spago!" and attempted to hand me a PETA flyer.
http://bachelortrade.com/2011/10/15/sunday-school-the-great-illusion/
Just because one thing is important doesn't mean something else is not. <_<
A growing split in society between "haves" and "have-nots", and a growing decrease in social mobility between these two groups, are real and substantial problems.
Unfortunately, they are problems without any really easy solution.
I used to think that an overall increase in socialist measures (I know folks in the US are sometimes allergic to the term "socialist", but whatever) would, in and of itself, be a solution. But it isn't as simple as that, as part of the problem is surely cultural - merely redistributing resources will not solve it, as creating new entitlements has the potential to exacerbate the cultural divide.
That being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:20:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2011, 02:02:43 PMI get the idea that they are angry, but what they want done is a bit more vague. It's just like the Tea Party who were 'angry as Hell and not going to take it anymore', but beyond that it was pretty confused. Anyway I still don't like mobs. Liberal mobs, Conservative mobs, neutral disinterested mobs... any kind of mob.
Mobs don't worry about which public toilets are accessible 24 hours and only use the toilets of businesses that put up pro-protest signs (both the case in London). They also don't get excited because a generous benefactor's arranged for a delivery of vegan food from Waitrose (again London).
I'm pretty supportive of them, I'll go down this afternoon. I always find the idea that protest movement's should be releasing coherent manifestos pretty weird. They're protesting - normally that means they're against something more than about to release an interesting list of policies. This is the diference between, say, the Tea Party and the Cato Institute.
I don't know what you are on about with the toilets. The Tea Party didn't have a coherent list of policies besides "take our country back!". The Tea Party caucus did, but many of those clashed with what what the polls conducted on the mob indicated. They didn't care because the Tea Party types all get their news from sources that were careful not to tell them what their elected representatives were actually doing.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 10:08:58 AM
A growing split in society between "haves" and "have-nots", and a growing decrease in social mobility between these two groups, are real and substantial problems.
Unfortunately, they are problems without any really easy solution.
I used to think that an overall increase in socialist measures (I know folks in the US are sometimes allergic to the term "socialist", but whatever) would, in and of itself, be a solution. But it isn't as simple as that, as part of the problem is surely cultural - merely redistributing resources will not solve it, as creating new entitlements has the potential to exacerbate the cultural divide.
That being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.
I sometimes get the impression that the main problem re. social mobility is that unskilled people has zero chance to progress since they compete with Chinese slaves now. And that (the working classes of the world moving toward a roughly equal standard of living) is not reversible in the short term I am afraid, sans a civil war in China.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 10:08:58 AM
A growing split in society between "haves" and "have-nots", and a growing decrease in social mobility between these two groups, are real and substantial problems.
Unfortunately, they are problems without any really easy solution.
I used to think that an overall increase in socialist measures (I know folks in the US are sometimes allergic to the term "socialist", but whatever) would, in and of itself, be a solution. But it isn't as simple as that, as part of the problem is surely cultural - merely redistributing resources will not solve it, as creating new entitlements has the potential to exacerbate the cultural divide.
That being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.
:yes: and :(
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 08:44:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2011, 07:06:04 AM
Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.
No, YOUR argument is a classic slippery slope.
That said, being gay is a huge factor in dishonesty (as a gay's whole life is a lie), so I most assuredly would never knowingly employ one.
It's what my body tells me.
Don't feel bad. I would never employ an anti-vaccine crazy either.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 10:08:58 AM
...
That being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.
These protesters may not have a common 'program' or a common 'agenda' but they share a sentiment: rage. They are like fuel lying about. What's needed is a match to ignite them. Knowing how our greedy elites operate - it won't be too long before their incompetence produces such a spark.
And then we shall see - won't we?
G.
Then we'll see a few hundred morons get locked up post-haste for trying violence against the state when they don't have popular support?
Quote from: Grallon on October 17, 2011, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 10:08:58 AM
...
That being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.
These protesters may not have a common 'program' or a common 'agenda' but they share a sentiment: rage. They are like fuel lying about. What's needed is a match to ignite them. Knowing how our greedy elites operate - it won't be too long before their incompetence produces such a spark.
And then we shall see - won't we?
G.
Naw, many of these protesters tend to have the easily-dismissed sort of rage that is impotent because it is omnidirectional.
An army of homeless, jobless people who used to be homeowners and wage-earners is one thing. An army of dreadlocked PETA activists, Freegan dumpster-divers and professional Anarchist panhandlers is another. The first creates genuine unease and concern, but the second inspires little but contempt. To the extent that the public associates these protests with the second group, the protests lose force.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 17, 2011, 11:28:39 AM
Then we'll see a few hundred morons get locked up post-haste for trying violence against the state when they don't have popular support?
Indeed. These people are utterly incapable of getting public support, because they're so callow.
Yeah.
A lot of people are anxious to have a repeat of the 60s, especially since they missed it. It may happen (altough it was much more of a cultural revolution than any other kind), but not now. Maybe if the economy tanks again like in 2008.
It would have to go back to being as good as it was in 2008 first...
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 10:08:58 AM
A growing split in society between "haves" and "have-nots", and a growing decrease in social mobility between these two groups, are real and substantial problems.
Unfortunately, they are problems without any really easy solution.
The solutions may not be easy, but that doesn't mean they aren't there nor that they shouldn't be attempted.
QuoteI used to think that an overall increase in socialist measures (I know folks in the US are sometimes allergic to the term "socialist", but whatever) would, in and of itself, be a solution. But it isn't as simple as that, as part of the problem is surely cultural - merely redistributing resources will not solve it, as creating new entitlements has the potential to exacerbate the cultural divide.
Really? What about the socialist measures and entitlements make you think they'll inherently cement the social divide?
The countries with the most social mobility and lowest differences in incomes also have some of the most thorough social programs. In Denmark, not only is post-secondary education free, for example, but you get money from the government when you're in university.
Not to limit ourselves to developed countries either, the Bolsa Familia program in Brazil - a socialist redistributive measure if there ever was one - is widely credited with lifting the living standards and productivity of millions.
So yeah, while badly implemented social programs can be counter productive, I'm not sure what you base the notion that social programs inherently entrench social divisions on.
QuoteThat being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.
It's comfortable for the "haves" to focus on the flaky pseudo-hippie lifestyle anti-establishment types that inevitably gather at these sort of things (just read this thread for evidence). This time around, however, it seems like they haven't managed to obscure the existence of the problem completely. Whether they end up doing so really depends on how much mass support they get from the hard-luck masses. Focusing on the "hippies" is a mistake, I think (except, of course, as a deliberate measure to minimize the situation and political impulse in question - much like some prefer(red) to focus on the flakiest tea party types in the hope that that would make them go away).
I mean, turn around is fair play and all, so if it was fair for lefties to mock the cringeworthy people at Tea Party events (demanding that the government stay out of medicare etc) then it's equally fair for right wingers to pick out the sillier of the Occupiers. Beyond the impact it may have on shifting the discourse it seems sort of pointless though, in the end the underlying issues remain and will have to be addressed one way or another.
To put this in perspective, in Vancouver lots of people will protest just about anything at the drop of a hat. Seems that is what happened in Sunday when a few thousand turned out on a beautiful day to march around, play drums and talk about their various pet projects.
This morning there appear to be less than one hundred that are more what what one might consider the usual suspects - the professional dreadlocked protestors.
Its a bit of a joke really given the fact that the economic circumstances in Canada - and particularly this part of Canada - are so dramatically different form those in the US.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 11:38:38 AM
Beyond the impact it may have on shifting the discourse it seems sort of pointless though, in the end the underlying issues remain and will have to be addressed one way or another.
In what way do you think discourse is going to be shifted by any of this in Canada. We have had much larger and meaningful protests. In this country this is more like a bad copycat.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 11:38:38 AM
It's comfortable for the "haves" to focus on the flaky pseudo-hippie lifestyle anti-establishment types that inevitably gather at these sort of things (just read this thread for evidence). This time around, however, it seems like they haven't managed to obscure the existence of the problem completely. Whether they end up doing so really depends on how much mass support they get from the hard-luck masses. Focusing on the "hippies" is a mistake, I think (except, of course, as a deliberate measure to minimize the situation and political impulse in question - much like some prefer(red) to focus on the flakiest tea party types in the hope that that would make them go away).
Well right it is just good strategy to attack your opponents as crazy people.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 11:38:38 AM
Really? What about the socialist measures and entitlements make you think they'll inherently cement the social divide?
The countries with the most social mobility and lowest differences in incomes also have some of the most thorough social programs. In Denmark, not only is post-secondary education free, for example, but you get money from the government when you're in university.
My guess would be:
Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2011, 11:47:45 AM
Well right it is just good strategy to attack your opponents as crazy people.
Its is also pretty easy to label extremism as crazy just as it is pretty easy to label both the occupy and tea party movements as crazy.
Quote from: Grallon on October 17, 2011, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 10:08:58 AM
...
That being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.
These protesters may not have a common 'program' or a common 'agenda' but they share a sentiment: rage. They are like fuel lying about. What's needed is a match to ignite them. Knowing how our greedy elites operate - it won't be too long before their incompetence produces such a spark.
And then we shall see - won't we?
G.
You wanna give a date or do you want to just blow smoke out your ass? Nothings going to happen.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 11:51:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2011, 11:47:45 AM
Well right it is just good strategy to attack your opponents as crazy people.
Its is also pretty easy to label extremism as crazy just as it is pretty easy to label both the occupy and tea party movements as crazy.
I also don't think it is out of bounds when you look at who really has been protesting in NYC. You aren't getting hordes of former productive workers that are now homeless - camping out. You're getting a lot of the fringe element and so I think people are right to point that out. It took a couple weeks of the protest going on before residents of NYC were even talking about this.
They look like just college kids to me. College kids are always protesting, something. Every time I went up to Columbia (where the State University is), someone was protesting something. Sweatshops, pollution, that there were sill some Jews alive somewhere (I mean pro-Palestinian protests), etc.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 11:38:38 AM
The solutions may not be easy, but that doesn't mean they aren't there nor that they shouldn't be attempted.
On that much, we agree.
Quote
Really? What about the socialist measures and entitlements make you think they'll inherently cement the social divide?
Much depends on how they are implemented. The history of governments using entitlements to enact social reform is not always a happy one. Merely handing out bread & circuses isn't going to do it, and more targeted reforms aimed at enacting worthy social goals - think the mortgage tax deduction in the US - have had a nasty history of unintended consequences.
QuoteThe countries with the most social mobility and lowest differences in incomes also have some of the most thorough social programs. In Denmark, not only is post-secondary education free, for example, but you get money from the government when you're in university.
Denmark is also small nation of remarkable social cohesion. A solution that will work in Denmark may not work so well in North America, home to a great diversity of social groups.
In general, the closer the social cohesion, the better pure socialism 'works' without driving wedges into the divide between social classes, ethnic and regional groupings.
A kibbutz is a purely socialist undertaking, but it is not necessarily a viable model for society as a whole, as it relies on a very high degree of social and ideological cohesion and uniformity to operate.
QuoteNot to limit ourselves to developed countries either, the Bolsa Familia program in Brazil - a socialist redistributive measure if there ever was one - is widely credited with lifting the living standards and productivity of millions.
So yeah, while badly implemented social programs can be counter productive, I'm not sure what you base the notion that social programs inherently entrench social divisions on.
Iknow nothing of that program.
"has the potential to" is not the same as "will inherently".
Quote
It's comfortable for the "haves" to focus on the flaky pseudo-hippie lifestyle anti-establishment types that inevitably gather at these sort of things (just read this thread for evidence). This time around, however, it seems like they haven't managed to obscure the existence of the problem completely. Whether they end up doing so really depends on how much mass support they get from the hard-luck masses. Focusing on the "hippies" is a mistake, I think (except, of course, as a deliberate measure to minimize the situation and political impulse in question - much like some prefer(red) to focus on the flakiest tea party types in the hope that that would make them go away).
I mean, turn around is fair play and all, so if it was fair for lefties to mock the cringeworthy people at Tea Party events (demanding that the government stay out of medicare etc) then it's equally fair for right wingers to pick out the sillier of the Occupiers. Beyond the impact it may have on shifting the discourse it seems sort of pointless though, in the end the underlying issues remain and will have to be addressed one way or another.
Point is that if the protests are by "flakes" it compromises their effectiveness. Agree/disagree?
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 01:30:42 PM
A kibbutz is a purely socialist undertaking
Here we go again.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 11:42:48 AMIn what way do you think discourse is going to be shifted by any of this in Canada. We have had much larger and meaningful protests. In this country this is more like a bad copycat.
I agree. What's going on in Canada - especially in Vancouver - is just the usual second hand effects of bigger events in the US. I think it would be a mistake to judge the US Occupiers by the Canadian demonstrations.
While there well may be some good arguments for Occupy Vancouver etc, the situation is pretty different from that in the US.
Yeah, you guys have a good country.
Quote from: Tamas on October 17, 2011, 09:19:17 AMok, but if they are out to "change the world", shouldn't they have at least a remotely coherent common agenda? Or if that is not a requirement, why taking them seriously is?
I don't think protests need a coherent agenda to change the world.
I don't think protests change policy necessarily. If you want to do that you're best hiring the gay lover of a cabinet minister or, failing that, a lobbyist.
Protests change the focus and terms of a debate. So the Tea Party are probably unhappy at the policies that have come in while they've been going but because of them the focus of the debate has been very much about the deficit, debt and spending. If these protests are successful then the debate will probably shift on that to unemployment and the banks which'll produce a different response.
Successful prrotests don't make anything happen. They change what's being talked about and how it's understood. I think that's true of the Tea Party, of the tent cities in Israel (incidentally these protests seem similar to that and los indignados rather than a case of the US exporting counter-culture) and even of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
QuoteA growing split in society between "haves" and "have-nots", and a growing decrease in social mobility between these two groups, are real and substantial problems.
Agreed. In addition I think for these guys it matters that the economy's stalled, at best. I graduated in 2009 and I don't think the prospects are any better for someone graduating now, I very much doubt they'll be much better in 2012. There's a real danger of a lost generation.
QuoteRedistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.
The countries with the most social mobility are Scandinavian or Antipodean. The Scandi's have huge welfare states, the Aussies and Kiwis have pretty small ones that are extremely targeted at the very poor. Both also have systems that tend to worry more about working age people than pensioners (unlike, say, the Med).
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:06:04 PM
I don't think protests need a coherent agenda to change the world.
I don't think protests change policy necessarily. If you want to do that you're best hiring the gay lover of a cabinet minister or, failing that, a lobbyist.
Protests change the focus and terms of a debate. So the Tea Party are probably unhappy at the policies that have come in while they've been going but because of them the focus of the debate has been very much about the deficit, debt and spending. If these protests are successful then the debate will probably shift on that to unemployment and the banks which'll produce a different response.
Successful prrotests don't make anything happen. They change what's being talked about and how it's understood. I think that's true of the Tea Party, of the tent cities in Israel (incidentally these protests seem similar to that and los indignados rather than a case of the US exporting counter-culture) and even of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
I quite disagree. Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate". I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:12:26 PMI quite disagree. Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate". I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.
Not at all. I think most coherent protests fail. All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.
On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way). As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities. Similarly I think it's the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements. The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.
I don't know if these guys'll succeed. I wish them well though.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 01:30:42 PMI know nothing of that program.
Check it out then. One of the key components that
extra redistributive payments are tied to encouraging socially positive behaviour. Your kids attend school regularly and get frequent check ups at government health clinics? You qualify for extra payments. It has apparently done wonders for school attendance and general health. I think there might be some nutrition components as well.
Quote"has the potential to" is not the same as "will inherently".
Of course, and that goes both ways. A badly designed and badly redistribution program runs the risk of being counter productive. A well designed one less so. If your conclusion from this is "so we should design our redistributive plans so they make things better, not worse" we're cool. If it's "since we might fuck it up, we shouldn't bother" we'll have to disagree.
QuotePoint is that if the protests are by "flakes" it compromises their effectiveness. Agree/disagree?
I think it's not that relevant, to be honest. The "flakes" will always be there. The question is if there happens to be enough non-flakes involved and if the issue has sufficient resonance in spite of the flakes.
Complaining that lifestyle protesters are lame is a distraction. It may be an effective distraction, if it's your goal to distract, but it doesn't make the the issues more or less real (though the number of non-lifestyle protesters may be a good indication of how much resonance the issue has).
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:12:26 PMI quite disagree. Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate". I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.
Not at all. I think most coherent protests fail. All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.
On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way). As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities. Similarly I think it's the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements. The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.
I don't know if these guys'll succeed. I wish them well though.
Most protests of any sort fail.
But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 11:49:01 AMMy guess would be:
Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.
I find it hard to fathom what you base that guess on....
I mean, redistributionist policies that give access to quality education, child care (so parents can work), and/ or provides proper health care and nutrition somehow put a brake on social mobility? Because if the poor have a harder time getting those things, they'll somehow be more likely to improve their status?
... unless you mean the absence of these things increases the chance of downward social mobility, but that's not usually what's being talked about.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:12:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:06:04 PM
I don't think protests need a coherent agenda to change the world.
I don't think protests change policy necessarily. If you want to do that you're best hiring the gay lover of a cabinet minister or, failing that, a lobbyist.
Protests change the focus and terms of a debate. So the Tea Party are probably unhappy at the policies that have come in while they've been going but because of them the focus of the debate has been very much about the deficit, debt and spending. If these protests are successful then the debate will probably shift on that to unemployment and the banks which'll produce a different response.
Successful prrotests don't make anything happen. They change what's being talked about and how it's understood. I think that's true of the Tea Party, of the tent cities in Israel (incidentally these protests seem similar to that and los indignados rather than a case of the US exporting counter-culture) and even of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
I quite disagree. Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate". I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.
He's thinking like a lawyer already. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:25:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:12:26 PMI quite disagree. Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate". I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.
Not at all. I think most coherent protests fail. All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.
On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way). As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities. Similarly I think it's the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements. The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.
I don't know if these guys'll succeed. I wish them well though.
Most protests of any sort fail.
But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.
Did the Arab Spring protests have a clear message? Is "I hate Mubarak" a clear message? I mean, I guess, but it says nothing about what comes after.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 02:28:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:25:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:12:26 PMI quite disagree. Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate". I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.
Not at all. I think most coherent protests fail. All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.
On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way). As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities. Similarly I think it's the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements. The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.
I don't know if these guys'll succeed. I wish them well though.
Most protests of any sort fail.
But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.
Did the Arab Spring protests have a clear message? Is "I hate Mubarak" a clear message? I mean, I guess, but it says nothing about what comes after.
"Mubarak out" is pretty damn clear.
And Egypt is precisely now having problems because the protests were unclear about what comes after.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:29:52 PM
And Egypt is precisely now having problems because the protests were unclear about what comes after.
I think it's inaccurate to suggest that the current Egyptian difficulties are down to bad communication management by the protestors.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:29:52 PM
And Egypt is precisely now having problems because the protests were unclear about what comes after.
I think it's inaccurate to suggest that the current Egyptian difficulties are down to bad communication management by the protestors.
If that was what you got out of my post then my post was not sufficiently clear.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 02:21:55 PM
Of course, and that goes both ways. A badly designed and badly redistribution program runs the risk of being counter productive. A well designed one less so. If your conclusion from this is "so we should design our redistributive plans so they make things better, not worse" we're cool. If it's "since we might fuck it up, we shouldn't bother" we'll have to disagree.
I think well-designed redistribution programs are part of the solution, but not the whole of the solution.
I dunno where you got the idea that my post amounted to 'problem too difficult, so don't try'.
Quote
I think it's not that relevant, to be honest. The "flakes" will always be there. The question is if there happens to be enough non-flakes involved and if the issue has sufficient resonance in spite of the flakes.
Complaining that lifestyle protesters are lame is a distraction. It may be an effective distraction, if it's your goal to distract, but it doesn't make the the issues more or less real (though the number of non-lifestyle protesters may be a good indication of how much resonance the issue has).
I'm saying that the relative purportion of lifestyle protesters cuts the effectiveness of the protest. If it's just a few who are attracted to any sort of protest, but the actual bulk of the protesters are more serious, then fair enough, focusing on the few guys in tats and dreadlocks going on about freeganism is lame. If the protests are largely composed of the dreadlocked types, the *protests* come off as lame, even when they are organized with clearly-articulated and reasonable goals. Much more so if their goals are generalized unhappiness with, well, the economy, capitalism and stuff.
It is silly to say, 'complaining about the flakes is just a distraction from the serious issues'. The whole point of a protest is to get attention, otherwise why do it? Of course protesters will be judged by their appearance, actions etc. If people say 'yeah, these guys look/sound/are reasonable', then the protest works. If they say 'these guys think protesting is recreational', it will not.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:29:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 02:28:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:25:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2011, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:12:26 PMI quite disagree. Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate". I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.
Not at all. I think most coherent protests fail. All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.
On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way). As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities. Similarly I think it's the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements. The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.
I don't know if these guys'll succeed. I wish them well though.
Most protests of any sort fail.
But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.
Did the Arab Spring protests have a clear message? Is "I hate Mubarak" a clear message? I mean, I guess, but it says nothing about what comes after.
"Mubarak out" is pretty damn clear.
And Egypt is precisely now having problems because the protests were unclear about what comes after.
That's what I'm saying. It's not up to some throng of punks to tell experts how to fix the economy. Their job, and I think they're doing it, is to express dissatisfaction with the economy as it is. I think that's enough.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 02:25:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 11:49:01 AMMy guess would be:
Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.
I find it hard to fathom what you base that guess on....
I mean, redistributionist policies that give access to quality education, child care (so parents can work), and/ or provides proper health care and nutrition somehow put a brake on social mobility? Because if the poor have a harder time getting those things, they'll somehow be more likely to improve their status?
... unless you mean the absence of these things increases the chance of downward social mobility, but that's not usually what's being talked about.
Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.
Your intrepid reporter gives you the latest from his walk past the protest area to go to get a brisket sandwich - a very good one so worth the risk to life and limb.
A strong odour mainly of pot can be smelled. This is day one. I hate to think how bad it is going to smell in a couple days. Most of the "protestors" appear to be well dressed in fairly expensive clothing (you know the look rich kids take on when they try to look poor...). My guess is university/college kids for the most part. The number of media present also appear to outnumber the protestors.
Down one block there is a group of 10 people drumming and chanting. There is a large group around them - I would say 2-3 times larger than the occupy group. They are in the middle of the intersection and so are blocking one of the main access routes of the city centre. These people appear to be protesting something about the Missing Women's inquiry going on nearby. There was no smell of pot there.
On the whole I take the second group a lot more seriously than the first.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.
"Those things" as you call them allow infidivuals the opportunity to raise their ceiling and with out them would always remain on the floor. That is the very nature of social mobility. Your concern as more to do with those who already have resources to lift their ceiling ever higher and has nothing to do with social mobility. You are confusing the two concepts. But that is part of the American Myth (I mean Dream) and so you can be excused.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 02:25:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 11:49:01 AMMy guess would be:
Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.
I find it hard to fathom what you base that guess on....
I mean, redistributionist policies that give access to quality education, child care (so parents can work), and/ or provides proper health care and nutrition somehow put a brake on social mobility? Because if the poor have a harder time getting those things, they'll somehow be more likely to improve their status?
... unless you mean the absence of these things increases the chance of downward social mobility, but that's not usually what's being talked about.
Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.
The counter-argument is that a certain basic level of health, education, security etc. is necessary for people to compete effectively - that is, you need a floor set at some basic point to allow for the competitive striving for mobility to effectively happen by the poorest (particularly, the poorest children). Otherwise, they are condemned to a life struggling simply for existence.
The larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist - what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 02:53:55 PM
The larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist - what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".
Agreed. Entitlements alone do not work and done improperly simply purpetuate the problem. The welfare trap is a good example of that. But public policy properly implemented can in theory at least reduce or avoid those traps.
@ Jacob, the kind of positive reinforcement social programs you mentioned have been tried but have been struck down as being discriminatory. The way it works is the program says if you do X you will get extra cash. Then someone who doesnt do X files a complaint saying they couldnt do X because of some limiting factor protected by human rights type legislation. If the tribunal/court decides in favour of the Plaintiff then the government has the choice of giving extra cash to everyone (because normally the category of alleged discrimination covers a large number of people) or simply remove the possibility of obtaining extra cash for everyone. Guess which option is normally chosen.
Like a negative income tax.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 02:25:11 PMMost protests of any sort fail.
But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.
I'd argue that the former is possibly dead in modern protests simply because most don't have leaders any more so they're less easily defined. Perhaps this role's now done by some protestors through new media and by the media themselves, looking for a story to thread the protests together. It's striking how out of date the trade union anti-cuts march looked, ending with a rally and speeches by the Labour Party leader and the heads of the big unions. That felt very dated. Is it possible to have a clear message when you've done away with the man on the stage making a speech?
I think the middle bit is and always will be done by politicians. It's Hilary Clinton's point about Martin Luther King and LBJ.
I think the last bit's what protests do and succesfful one's shift the ground on a political subject.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 02:53:55 PMfor people to compete effectively - that is, you need a floor set at some basic point to allow for the competitive striving for mobility to effectively happen by the poorest (particularly, the poorest children). Otherwise, they are condemned to a life struggling simply for existence.
The larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist - what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".
That's not a counter-argument, it's the flip side of the same coin. And you're right, of course. The trick is balancing it properly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.
"Those things" as you call them allow infidivuals the opportunity to raise their ceiling and with out them would always remain on the floor. That is the very nature of social mobility. Your concern as more to do with those who already have resources to lift their ceiling ever higher and has nothing to do with social mobility. You are confusing the two concepts. But that is part of the American Myth (I mean Dream) and so you can be excused.
And both are equally important. There is no confusion. There is no social mobility in an environment where taking a business risk will mean you lose everything if you fail and the government takes everything if you succeed. Just as there is very little if you have no access to education to acquire the skills you need to try the thing in the first place. Same coin.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 02:57:47 PMThe welfare trap is a good example of that.
The welfare trap is a convenient and much publicized example of that, with an existence that is much greater in rhetoric than in reality.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 03:21:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 02:57:47 PMThe welfare trap is a good example of that.
The welfare trap is a convenient and much publicized example of that, with an existence that is much greater in rhetoric than in reality.
I'm not so sure about that.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 03:21:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 02:57:47 PMThe welfare trap is a good example of that.
The welfare trap is a convenient and much publicized example of that, with an existence that is much greater in rhetoric than in reality.
Oh really? Consider a single mother on welfare trying to figure out whether it is better to stay on welfare or take a job which in the end, once transportation costs, day care and extra expenses are factored in will actually net her less income.
Where is the rhetoric in that?
Edit: then consider the improvement in her life if we created a system that did not penalize her for getting that job.
Is that also rhetoric?
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 02:38:45 PMI think well-designed redistribution programs are part of the solution, but not the whole of the solution.
Agreed.
QuoteI dunno where you got the idea that my post amounted to 'problem too difficult, so don't try'.
It didn't amount to it, but some of the wording and sentiment is also used as arguments (by people that aren't you) for "don't try" so I just wanted to be clear :)
QuoteI'm saying that the relative purportion of lifestyle protesters cuts the effectiveness of the protest. If it's just a few who are attracted to any sort of protest, but the actual bulk of the protesters are more serious, then fair enough, focusing on the few guys in tats and dreadlocks going on about freeganism is lame. If the protests are largely composed of the dreadlocked types, the *protests* come off as lame, even when they are organized with clearly-articulated and reasonable goals. Much more so if their goals are generalized unhappiness with, well, the economy, capitalism and stuff.
Agreed.
QuoteIt is silly to say, 'complaining about the flakes is just a distraction from the serious issues'. The whole point of a protest is to get attention, otherwise why do it? Of course protesters will be judged by their appearance, actions etc. If people say 'yeah, these guys look/sound/are reasonable', then the protest works. If they say 'these guys think protesting is recreational', it will not.
Agreed, except for the part I italicized. Right now there's a fierce battle of discourses going on, painting the protestors as filthy entitled layabout dreadlocked freeganist hippies on one hand and hardworking average people like all of us who are fed up with an increasingly broken system on the other.
Saying "don't come across like silly hippies" makes no difference. The people who are going to be silly hippies aren't going to stop because they're not listening to you, and they've got their own silly hippy agenda going anyhow. The regular people may listen, but they're not going to protest or not protest or be any more regular than they already are.
Silly hippies acting out and acting irresponsible is an important issue because they represent the battle over how these protests are framed and understood, and thus how much impact it has. There could be one silly hippy for every 10 000 protestors, and you'd still have Caliga and garbon and Ed Anger et. al. go on about silly unwashed hippie college kids who spend too much on Apple products.
The actual behaviour matters somewhat, as it pushes the debate, but not that much because the media mitigates it and frames it to fit their favoured narratives anyhow, which ever one it is.
I haven't heard from anyone who saw the protests that they saw lots of average hardworking people participating. I haven't seen them either in the stragglers that are all over the place now nor in portrayals in media photos. Perhaps I'm doing a bit of self-censoring and the media isn't helping - but I'm just not seeing it. And give me a break, if it was mainly or even 10,000 "regular" people to one "silly hippy" - my viewpoint would be different. That's not what I'm seeing or hearing though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.
I think real world data contradicts that. The societies with the best social mobility are more redistributive than the ones that aren't.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
Your intrepid reporter gives you the latest from his walk past the protest area to go to get a brisket sandwich - a very good one so worth the risk to life and limb.
Yeah, all the new food vendors have been a really positive change to Vancouver in the last little while.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 03:41:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.
I think real world data contradicts that. The societies with the best social mobility are more redistributive than the ones that aren't.
There tends to be a "chicken and egg" paradox on that though, isn't there?
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 03:42:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
Your intrepid reporter gives you the latest from his walk past the protest area to go to get a brisket sandwich - a very good one so worth the risk to life and limb.
Yeah, all the new food vendors have been a really positive change to Vancouver in the last little while.
Damn, envious. Toronto hasn't solved this particular problem - it allowed alternative food vending, then apparently created a bureaucrasy to regulate it so stifling that alternative vendors coundn't make any money. <_<
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 03:42:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
Your intrepid reporter gives you the latest from his walk past the protest area to go to get a brisket sandwich - a very good one so worth the risk to life and limb.
Yeah, all the new food vendors have been a really positive change to Vancouver in the last little while.
Unfortunately for this one the protestors have caused a significant drop in his business.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 02:53:55 PMThe larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist
Yeah, redistribution alone is not sufficient. There needs to reason to succeed as well. Personally I think that has much more to do with removing barriers to entry and success than punitive measures.
Quote- what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".
And here's the bogeyman.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 03:41:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.
I think real world data contradicts that. The societies with the best social mobility are more redistributive than the ones that aren't.
There is definitely correlation. As I said earlier, the ones with the best infrastructure, rule of law, etc. tend to be able to provide more redistribution without limiting growth as much. And do so. As they should.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 03:40:53 PM
I haven't heard from anyone who saw the protests that they saw lots of average hardworking people participating. I haven't seen them either in the stragglers that are all over the place now nor in portrayals in media photos. Perhaps I'm doing a bit of self-censoring and the media isn't helping - but I'm just not seeing it. And give me a break, if it was mainly or even 10,000 "regular" people to one "silly hippy" - my viewpoint would be different. That's not what I'm seeing or hearing though.
That said - Jacob, I'll let you know. Apparently the park near me is the next goal for the occupiers is the park a block from me. They can get a bigger effect there as they won't be allowed to stay there overnight so arrests will be higher.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 03:13:30 PMAnd both are equally important. There is no confusion. There is no social mobility in an environment where taking a business risk will mean you lose everything if you fail and the government takes everything if you succeed. Just as there is very little if you have no access to education to acquire the skills you need to try the thing in the first place. Same coin.
The US is much further away from your first scenario than from the second, it seems.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 03:44:54 PM
Damn, envious. Toronto hasn't solved this particular problem - it allowed alternative food vending, then apparently created a bureaucrasy to regulate it so stifling that alternative vendors coundn't make any money. <_<
It is pretty amazing actually. Within one block of me there is a guy who serves grilled free range chicken (on a charcoal grill done right there) on a freshly baked nan bread bun; a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork); and a fish sandwich place which serves fish caught from their own boat.
Its all fresh, locally produced and really really good.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 03:47:59 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2011, 03:13:30 PMAnd both are equally important. There is no confusion. There is no social mobility in an environment where taking a business risk will mean you lose everything if you fail and the government takes everything if you succeed. Just as there is very little if you have no access to education to acquire the skills you need to try the thing in the first place. Same coin.
The US is much further away from your first scenario than from the second, it seems.
Yes.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 03:46:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 02:53:55 PMThe larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist
Yeah, redistribution alone is not sufficient. There needs to reason to succeed as well. Personally I think that has much more to do with removing barriers to entry and success than punitive measures.
Quote- what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".
And here's the bogeyman.
Not a "bogeyman" so much as an observation. I imply no moral inferiority to being poor and supported by welfare.
Point here is that what is required to avoid the poverty trap is twofold:
(1) a cultural perspective that it is honourable to support oneself if one can, even if it is to your short-term disadvantage; and
(2) a realistic opportunity that, if one actually strives to support oneself, it will in fact *be* to your long-term advantage.
Naturally, these two are related. If working only gets you minimum-wage, without a realistic hope for better, and welfare is reasonably generous, eventually all but the hardest proponents of self-sufficiency are going to give it up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 03:44:54 PM
Damn, envious. Toronto hasn't solved this particular problem - it allowed alternative food vending, then apparently created a bureaucrasy to regulate it so stifling that alternative vendors coundn't make any money. <_<
It is pretty amazing actually. Within one block of me there is a guy who serves grilled free range chicken (on a charcoal grill done right there) on a freshly baked nan bread bun; a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork); and a fish sandwich place which serves fish caught from their own boat.
Its all fresh, locally produced and really really good.
You *want* me to hate you, don't you. :D
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 03:43:18 PMThere tends to be a "chicken and egg" paradox on that though, isn't there?
No, I don't think so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:45:11 PMUnfortunately for this one the protestors have caused a significant drop in his business.
:(
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:27:54 PM
Oh really? Consider a single mother on welfare trying to figure out whether it is better to stay on welfare or take a job which in the end, once transportation costs, day care and extra expenses are factored in will actually net her less income.
Where is the rhetoric in that?
It's right there :lol:
QuoteEdit: then consider the improvement in her life if we created a system that did not penalize her for getting that job.
Is that also rhetoric?
Yup.
Provide this rhetorical single mother on welfare with access to education so she can learn the skills to get a decent job and provide cheap and adequate child care while she's in school and working and voila! Your welfare trap has been fixed through providing additional entitlements.
I understand how welfare traps work. I'm not disputing that welfare traps can be created and do exist (and it's definitely more of an issue in some communities than others, especially where culture and economic climate coincide in unfortunate ways).
It's not the welfare that creates the trap, it's external factors. As you yourself point out in your edit, the absence would make the situation worse, not better.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 04:13:25 PM
the absence would make the situation worse, not better.
You assume some ideological bias which does not exist. I am not sure why that is. Did I anywhere state that it would be better to not have welfare? I dont think so. I merely observed that the welfare system can often end in a trap.
The solution is not ending welfare but ending the trap.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 03:53:05 PM
Not a "bogeyman" so much as an observation. I imply no moral inferiority to being poor and supported by welfare.
Point here is that what is required to avoid the poverty trap is twofold:
(1) a cultural perspective that it is honourable to support oneself if one can, even if it is to your short-term disadvantage; and
(2) a realistic opportunity that, if one actually strives to support oneself, it will in fact *be* to your long-term advantage.
Naturally, these two are related. If working only gets you minimum-wage, without a realistic hope for better, and welfare is reasonably generous, eventually all but the hardest proponents of self-sufficiency are going to give it up.
Can you point me at any welfare system in the developed world that actually works like that, doesn't recognize that it's a problem where it occurs and is trying to fix it?
Yeah, with certain marginalized groups there are people stuck in welfare traps due to significant clashes of cultures and social exclusion. Similarly, there are socially vulnerable people, the mentally ill for example, who may end up in some form of welfare trap, but again it's external factors at play.
Are there any welfare systems that trap significant number of people like you describe? I'd say that certainly the Canadian one doesn't, and neither does the Danish one.
Because I feel that the welfare trap gets a lot more play in rhetoric than it actually appears in the real world. And when it does appear in the real world, it's usually identified as a problem and a fix is attempted; and if the fix doesn't work it's due to larger social issues than simple economics.
EDIT: That said, as CC and you say, it's definitely worthwhile to be aware of the trap and avoid it. But the answer isn't to remove welfare (not that you're saying that).
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 04:17:10 PM
You assume some ideological bias which does not exist. I am not sure why that is. Did I anywhere state that it would be better to not have welfare? I dont think so. I merely observed that the welfare system can often end in a trap.
Not at all, I'm simply stating my preferred conclusion. I do not infer that you disagree with it. However, I'm sure someone on languish does, so I made sure to state it clearly for their benefit.
QuoteThe solution is not ending welfare but ending the trap.
Agreed :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 04:19:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 03:53:05 PM
Not a "bogeyman" so much as an observation. I imply no moral inferiority to being poor and supported by welfare.
Point here is that what is required to avoid the poverty trap is twofold:
(1) a cultural perspective that it is honourable to support oneself if one can, even if it is to your short-term disadvantage; and
(2) a realistic opportunity that, if one actually strives to support oneself, it will in fact *be* to your long-term advantage.
Naturally, these two are related. If working only gets you minimum-wage, without a realistic hope for better, and welfare is reasonably generous, eventually all but the hardest proponents of self-sufficiency are going to give it up.
Can you point me at any welfare system in the developed world that actually works like that, doesn't recognize that it's a problem where it occurs and is trying to fix it?
Yeah, with certain marginalized groups there are people stuck in welfare traps due to significant clashes of cultures and social exclusion. Similarly, there are socially vulnerable people, the mentally ill for example, who may end up in some form of welfare trap, but again it's external factors at play.
Are there any welfare systems that trap significant number of people like you describe? I'd say that certainly the Canadian one doesn't, and neither does the Danish one.
Because I feel that the welfare trap gets a lot more play in rhetoric than it actually appears in the real world. And when it does appear in the real world, it's usually identified as a problem and a fix is attempted; and if the fix doesn't work it's due to larger social issues than simple economics.
EDIT: That said, as CC and you say, it's definitely worthwhile to be aware of the trap and avoid it. But the answer isn't to remove welfare (not that you're saying that).
The problem isn't with welfare, it is with lack of realistic opportunities for advancement outside the control of welfare systems.
Welfare cannot create such opportunities.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 04:31:31 PM
Welfare cannot create such opportunities.
But a badly designed welfare system can remove opportunities.
Take the claw back provisions. It used to be in this province that if a welfare recipient earned any income they would lose their welfare benefits. This was clearly silly and resulted in large welfare rolls. The system is still far from perfect but at least allows for the possibility that people can gain some work experience and not lose their benefits entirely.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 04:13:25 PM
Provide this rhetorical single mother on welfare with access to education so she can learn the skills to get a decent job and provide cheap and adequate child care while she's in school and working and voila! Instead of being in a welfare trap she will be stuck with a crushing student loan burden she can't pay off while still not having a decent job
Fixed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork);
Interesting fact: All pork is organic.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 17, 2011, 05:00:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 04:13:25 PM
Provide this rhetorical single mother on welfare with access to education so she can learn the skills to get a decent job and provide cheap and adequate child care while she's in school and working and voila! Instead of being in a welfare trap she will be stuck with a crushing student loan burden she can't pay off while still not having a decent job
Fixed.
I think it'd be better not to crush her with student debt, but I guess opinions differ.
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork);
Interesting fact: All pork is organic.
Is this going to be another attempt to ignore normal usage of words - like calling all sparkling wines Champagne.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork);
Interesting fact: All pork is organic.
Is this going to be another attempt to ignore normal usage of words - like calling all sparkling wines Champagne.
It's all champagne, unless you hang with wine snobs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork);
Interesting fact: All pork is organic.
Is this going to be another attempt to ignore normal usage of words - like calling all sparkling wines Champagne.
I believe that was you in the champagne case.
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 09:26:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork);
Interesting fact: All pork is organic.
Is this going to be another attempt to ignore normal usage of words - like calling all sparkling wines Champagne.
It's all champagne, unless you hang with wine snobs.
Yeah, I knew this was another such attempt.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 09:26:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork);
Interesting fact: All pork is organic.
Is this going to be another attempt to ignore normal usage of words - like calling all sparkling wines Champagne.
I believe that was you in the champagne case.
Are you going to try to pretend not to have pretensions again?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork);
Interesting fact: All pork is organic.
Is this going to be another attempt to ignore normal usage of words - like calling all sparkling wines Champagne.
I have never eaten an inorganic pork chop. "Organic" is a meaningless buzzword.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 09:26:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork);
Interesting fact: All pork is organic.
Is this going to be another attempt to ignore normal usage of words - like calling all sparkling wines Champagne.
It's all champagne, unless you hang with wine snobs.
Yeah, I knew this was another such attempt.
You can try, but we all know the truth.
I would like some sparkling pork please.
Quote from: PDH on October 17, 2011, 09:34:59 PM
I would like some sparkling pork please.
CC will tell you that sparkling pork is any pork from outside of France.
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 09:31:26 PMYou can try, but we all know the truth.
Indeed we do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Are you going to try to pretend not to have pretensions again?
Are you going to dodge and weave again when I ask you for a definition?
Do you cook organic pork on a grill or on a frying pan?
Organic pork is cooked in the steamy self-satisfaction of the buyer.
Quote from: Warspite on October 18, 2011, 08:34:11 AM
Do you cook organic pork on a grill or on a frying pan?
I cook it over timber I cut down with my axe made out of stone.
Quote from: PDH on October 18, 2011, 08:40:52 AM
Organic pork is cooked in the steamy self-satisfaction of the buyer.
:lol:
Quote from: Warspite on October 18, 2011, 08:34:11 AM
Do you cook organic pork on a grill or on a frying pan?
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
We got a nice butcher not too far from where I live where the organic grass fed meat is less than what you pay for regular stuff at the super market :)
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
We got a nice butcher not too far from where I live where the organic grass fed meat is less than what you pay for regular stuff at the super market :)
Checked the local feral cat population lately? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 10:55:17 AMChecked the local feral cat population lately? :hmm:
These guys supply several high end restaurants. Their meat is really good quality. I'm confident that it's not cat. Alternately, if it is cat then we as a society have been missing out on not eating cat.
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
We got a nice butcher not too far from where I live where the organic grass fed meat is less than what you pay for regular stuff at the super market :)
Same. :cool: Butcher is also the farmer in my case.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2011, 08:51:53 PM
I think it'd be better not to crush her with student debt, but I guess opinions differ.
He was referring to how programs like that have worked here. Not that this is a great policy idea.
Quote from: Valmy on October 18, 2011, 11:13:29 AMHe was referring to how programs like that have worked here. Not that this is a great policy idea.
Thank you for pointing that out. Would you like some champagne with your organic pork?
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 18, 2011, 08:34:11 AM
Do you cook organic pork on a grill or on a frying pan?
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
Perhaps another difference between Toronto and Vancouver. organic grass fed non medicated meat is fairly plentiful and reasonably priced around here.
Quote from: Caliga on October 18, 2011, 11:11:02 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
We got a nice butcher not too far from where I live where the organic grass fed meat is less than what you pay for regular stuff at the super market :)
Same. :cool: Butcher is also the farmer in my case.
Nice!
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2011, 11:35:49 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 18, 2011, 11:11:02 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
We got a nice butcher not too far from where I live where the organic grass fed meat is less than what you pay for regular stuff at the super market :)
Same. :cool: Butcher is also the farmer in my case.
Nice!
You guys used to have someone like that in Vancouver - name of Picton, I believe.
I heard his homemade organic sausages were much cheaper than the crap you get in thge supermarket.
I encourage you to delete that.
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 12:55:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2011, 11:35:49 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 18, 2011, 11:11:02 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
We got a nice butcher not too far from where I live where the organic grass fed meat is less than what you pay for regular stuff at the super market :)
Same. :cool: Butcher is also the farmer in my case.
Nice!
You guys used to have someone like that in Vancouver - name of Picton, I believe.
I heard his homemade organic sausages were much cheaper than the crap you get in thge supermarket.
I am amused.
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 10:58:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 10:55:17 AMChecked the local feral cat population lately? :hmm:
These guys supply several high end restaurants. Their meat is really good quality. I'm confident that it's not cat. Alternately, if it is cat then we as a society have been missing out on not eating cat.
I'm not confident that my favorite Chinese restaurant doesn't serve cat. They have this reddish meat on a stick which I call in my typical uncreative way "Stick meat". I dunno what it is. Maybe it's organic. It's pretty tasty though.
I think my local Chinese restaurant served me up a case of food poisoning over the weekend, as cliched as it is to blame Chinese food for one's gastrointestinal woes. Unfortunately, I also suspect my strong/phobic constitution in keeping it down the first night gave me the exciting fever and dysentery-lite that followed. :glare: :glare:
Quote from: Caliga on October 18, 2011, 11:11:02 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
For the price they charge for organic meat, the damn pig should put on a chef's hat and cook *himself*. :P
We got a nice butcher not too far from where I live where the organic grass fed meat is less than what you pay for regular stuff at the super market :)
Same. :cool: Butcher is also the farmer in my case.
That must keep him busy to be a butcher, farmer, and operate the gas station. :P
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 18, 2011, 05:42:08 PM
I think my local Chinese restaurant served me up a case of food poisoning over the weekend, as cliched as it is to blame Chinese food for one's gastrointestinal woes. Unfortunately, I also suspect my strong/phobic constitution in keeping it down the first night gave me the exciting fever and dysentery-lite that followed. :glare: :glare:
Never had that problem from my favorite place. They are cheap and I like their food. It's like 5 something a pound for take out so you can a lot of food cheap. It's probably best not ask to many questions.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2011, 05:35:24 PM
I'm not confident that my favorite Chinese restaurant doesn't serve cat. They have this reddish meat on a stick which I call in my typical uncreative way "Stick meat". I dunno what it is. Maybe it's organic. It's pretty tasty though.
I had a floormate in college who was from Hong Kong and had tried all kinds of different meat we don't usually get to try here. Here are his ratings, to the best of my recollection:
Cat: :thumbsdown:
Dog: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Armadillo: :thumbsdown:
Anteater: :thumbsdown:
Snake: :thumbsup:
Pangolin: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Monkey: :thumbsup:
Scorpion: :thumbsdown: ("taste like nothing")
Spider: :thumbsdown: ("taste like nothing")
There's this homeless guy you see around Jeff City occasionally. He is always accompanied by his dog. However, each time it's a different dog. I think he's eating them. :ph34r:
Good for him... according to Wong Wei Fan (the aforementioned guy from college) dog is "delicious". I'm somewhat curious what dog tastes like in the same way that I'm curious what human tastes like (e.g. curious, but not so much that I'd ever dream of trying it), but I would love to try horse meat for some reason, and will definitely do so if I ever go back to Germany or Belgium or some other place where horse is eaten. I think Eschweiler is the city in Germany famous for its horse sauerbraten.
Sounds like it would be gamey.
:mad:
Dogs should not be eaten.
Quote from: Habsburg on October 18, 2011, 10:30:22 PM
:mad:
Dogs should not be eaten.
Well, they are animals. That makes them fair game.
When Lewis & Clark's expedition was hungry and lazy (or unsuccessful in hunting deer), they would buy dogs off the natives for food. It was actually one of their preferred meals. Though the natives thought it was amusing, and would ridicule them for it.
Exotic meats I have tried (not counting horse, frogs legs, hare, game birds etc):
Snake
Alligator
Oryx
Zebra
Ostrich
The last was the only one I would seek out again.
Quote from: Caliga on October 18, 2011, 08:39:17 PM
t I would love to try horse meat for some reason, and will definitely do so if I ever go back to Germany or Belgium or some other place where horse is eaten. I think Eschweiler is the city in Germany famous for its horse sauerbraten.
Horse is like very poor quality steak; not as rich-tasting and a bit stringier.
Kangaroo is pretty good, tender but not as red as steak.
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
Thank you for pointing that out. Would you like some champagne with your organic pork?
Yeah sorry I didn't notice this thread had gone in a completely insane direction. Are the protestors eating dogs or something?
Interesting that Obama likened the Occupy crew to the Tea Partiers. He didn't say it dismissively but I wonder how each group will feel.
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2011, 08:15:13 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
Thank you for pointing that out. Would you like some champagne with your organic pork?
Yeah sorry I didn't notice this thread had gone in a completely insane direction. Are the protestors eating dogs or something?
They are probably against that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2011, 11:35:08 AM
Perhaps another difference between Toronto and Vancouver. organic grass fed non medicated meat is fairly plentiful and reasonably priced around here.
You will never convince the ignoramuses that have gotten so used to fatty but flavorless beef from corn-fed hormone-juiced cows in pens that they don't know any better. It is a ridiculous situation driven by crazy farm policies that encourage massive over-production of corn, and so everything from breakfast foods to candy to animal feed to plastic bags to gasoline has to be crammed full of corn and corn by-products. North American tastes have become so dulled that when actually confronted by a quality piece of meat that has real texture and flavot, many people reject it because it doesn't accord with their expectation of something fatty and bland, and because it actually requires teeth to chew.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2011, 01:13:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2011, 11:35:08 AM
Perhaps another difference between Toronto and Vancouver. organic grass fed non medicated meat is fairly plentiful and reasonably priced around here.
You will never convince the ignoramuses that have gotten so used to fatty but flavorless beef from corn-fed hormone-juiced cows in pens that they don't know any better. It is a ridiculous situation driven by crazy farm policies that encourage massive over-production of corn, and so everything from breakfast foods to candy to animal feed to plastic bags to gasoline has to be crammed full of corn and corn by-products. North American tastes have become so dulled that when actually confronted by a quality piece of meat that has real texture and flavot, many people reject it because it doesn't accord with their expectation of something fatty and bland, and because it actually requires teeth to chew.
Huh? That ain't the issue. Pretty well everyone I know prefers the taste of "organic" meat, but it is, at least here in Ontario, more expensive - perhaps because of the policies favouring corn or whatever. The trade-off is cost versus quality.
What CC is saying is that in BC "organic" isn't much more expensive, and Jacob says it's
cheaper. Dunno how that works, but that's what they are saying.
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
Huh? That ain't the issue. Pretty well everyone I know prefers the taste of "organic" meat, but it is, at least here in Ontario, more expensive - perhaps because of the policies favouring corn or whatever. The trade-off is cost versus quality.
What CC is saying is that in BC "organic" isn't much more expensive, and Jacob says it's cheaper. Dunno how that works, but that's what they are saying.
Methinks JR had in mind Neil's comment that all meat is organic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 01:28:58 PM
Methinks JR had in mind Neil's comment that all meat is organic.
While it may be a silly choice of term, it has come to represent a standard, sort of like the Kosher system.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtml
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 01:28:58 PM
Methinks JR had in mind Neil's comment that all meat is organic.
While it may be a silly choice of term, it has come to represent a standard, sort of like the Kosher system.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtml
Yes, I undertand you are on the plain language side of the debate but this is a very good example of the harm such nonsense can cause. There is no way in hell a factory farmed piece of anything tastes as good or is as beneficial as its organic counterpart and yet people like Neil will insist there is really no difference - after all aren't they all organic?
To be fair, Neil lives in Alberta. I've known many a rancher out here. My brother in law has cattle (though he does it on the side, his day job is working as a push on a rig). I've never heard of meat from "corn-fed hormone-juiced cows in pens". When I drive through the countryside I see tons of cows standing around in fields. So when I go out and buy a piece of organic meat from the local farmers market, there really isn't much difference between it and what you get at the grocery store.
I could see there being a substantial difference in a place like NYC, but not in Alberta.
[Now that being said, there is a huge difference between locally grown produce, and something shipped from California or South America, which is the reason I go to the farmers market in the first place]
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 01:28:58 PM
Methinks JR had in mind Neil's comment that all meat is organic.
While it may be a silly choice of term, it has come to represent a standard, sort of like the Kosher system.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtml
Yes, I undertand you are on the plain language side of the debate but this is a very good example of the harm such nonsense can cause. There is no way in hell a factory farmed piece of anything tastes as good or is as beneficial as its organic counterpart and yet people like Neil will insist there is really no difference - after all aren't they all organic?
I'm sort of scratching my head here.
The problem seems to lie in the use, no doubt for marketing purposes, of a somewhat confusing moniker for what is in reality a quality control certification system.
If people are confused by the term, why is it the fault of those advocating "plain language", rather than (say) those advocating use of the confusing term?
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 01:25:13 PMWhat CC is saying is that in BC "organic" isn't much more expensive, and Jacob says it's cheaper. Dunno how that works, but that's what they are saying.
It's not cheaper everywhere. It's just that I know of this one butcher whose primary business is supplying high end restaurants. They're only open Fri-Sat for retail customers, but their prices are equal to or lower than what I'm paying for non-organic meat at IGA (a mid tier supermarket). Certainly, organic is much more expensive if I buy it at Whole Foods/ Urban Fare (up market supermarkets) or the quaint little organic themed stores you find. Similarly, if I buy the value packs at No Frills etc I can probably get some things cheaper than at the butcher in question (especially if I wait for a sale).
In general the rule is that organic and free range is more expensive than medicated and factory farmed, just like Ontario. But there are places where you can get a really good product for a really good price.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 01:38:00 PM
Yes, I undertand you are on the plain language side of the debate but this is a very good example of the harm such nonsense can cause. There is no way in hell a factory farmed piece of anything tastes as good or is as beneficial as its organic counterpart and yet people like Neil will insist there is really no difference - after all aren't they all organic?
I live in Alberta. I would have a hard time finding factory-farmed meat, so I don't have much to say about it. Move somewhere decent, you godless heathen, and maybe you can eat right too.
What I do have to say is that champagne from California is still champagne.
Does anyone know how much it costs to adopt a dog from the pound? Do they have a limit on the number of dogs you can adopt per day? I'm brainstorming a possible business venture. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2011, 02:17:21 PM
Does anyone know how much it costs to adopt a dog from the pound? Do they have a limit on the number of dogs you can adopt per day? I'm brainstorming a possible business venture. :hmm:
Hear at least you have to pay for shots when you take them out of the pound. It's like 100 bucks. Best bet it to kidnap peoples pets. You should team up with Mono on this. "Wacky Accent Guys Mystery Meat stand!"
The first time I had corn-fed beef was in Nova Scotia. My first thought was that someone had found a moose.
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:10:45 PM
What I do have to say is that champagne from California is still champagne.
Of course but it would probably make more sense to import champagne directly from France rather than trans-ship through California.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2011, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:10:45 PM
What I do have to say is that champagne from California is still champagne.
Of course but it would probably make more sense to import champagne directly from France rather than trans-ship through California.
That's a rather loose reading of his statement.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2011, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:10:45 PM
What I do have to say is that champagne from California is still champagne.
Of course but it would probably make more sense to import champagne directly from France rather than trans-ship through California.
Even if the grapes are produced in California and it is manufactured in California, it is still champagne. I'm taking the word back from you hate-mongers.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2011, 02:17:21 PM
Does anyone know how much it costs to adopt a dog from the pound? Do they have a limit on the number of dogs you can adopt per day? I'm brainstorming a possible business venture. :hmm:
Sadly there's not enough of us to keep you in business. :(
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:27:56 PMEven if the grapes are produced in California and it is manufactured in California, it is still champagne. I'm taking the word back from you hate-mongers.
You have some work to do, at least here in Canada. I have several bottles of sparkling wine in my fridge - from BC and Australia - and none of them say "Champagne" on them.
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:27:56 PM
Even if the grapes are produced in California and it is manufactured in California, it is still champagne. I'm taking the word back from you hate-mongers.
Who hates mongers? And why is the only way to thwart them to mislabel wine from California?
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2011, 02:30:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:27:56 PMEven if the grapes are produced in California and it is manufactured in California, it is still champagne. I'm taking the word back from you hate-mongers.
You have some work to do, at least here in Canada. I have several bottles of sparkling wine in my fridge - from BC and Australia - and none of them say "Champagne" on them.
More is the pity. We let the wine snobs win. :(
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2011, 02:30:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:27:56 PMEven if the grapes are produced in California and it is manufactured in California, it is still champagne. I'm taking the word back from you hate-mongers.
You have some work to do, at least here in Canada. I have several bottles of sparkling wine in my fridge - from BC and Australia - and none of them say "Champagne" on them.
I think I did post though that I recently bought a bottle of cheap california sparkling wine that said champagne on the label.
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2011, 02:30:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:27:56 PMEven if the grapes are produced in California and it is manufactured in California, it is still champagne. I'm taking the word back from you hate-mongers.
You have some work to do, at least here in Canada. I have several bottles of sparkling wine in my fridge - from BC and Australia - and none of them say "Champagne" on them.
That's alright. I'm willing to keep the fight up forever, especially since it doesn't come up very often.
It's not like I'll picket anything with a sign. I'm not protest-scum.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
More is the pity. We let the wine snobs win. :(
:yeah:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2011, 02:31:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:27:56 PM
Even if the grapes are produced in California and it is manufactured in California, it is still champagne. I'm taking the word back from you hate-mongers.
Who hates mongers? And why is the only way to thwart them to mislabel wine from California?
It's not mislabeling, because champagne is generic. Any sparkling white is also champagne.
Wine snobs hate mongers, because of his love for cider as opposed to wine.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2011, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:10:45 PM
What I do have to say is that champagne from California is still champagne.
Of course but it would probably make more sense to import champagne directly from France rather than trans-ship through California.
Meh, he is from Alberta. What you propose is against his economic interest.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2011, 02:36:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
More is the pity. We let the wine snobs win. :(
:yeah:
Well the protests do go on. In my house it gets called champagne - usually with extra emphasis on the "g". That is, when we don't call it "bubbly". :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2011, 02:30:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:27:56 PMEven if the grapes are produced in California and it is manufactured in California, it is still champagne. I'm taking the word back from you hate-mongers.
You have some work to do, at least here in Canada. I have several bottles of sparkling wine in my fridge - from BC and Australia - and none of them say "Champagne" on them.
More is the pity. We let the wine snobs win. :(
Truth in advertising is never a bad thing.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2011, 02:39:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2011, 02:36:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
More is the pity. We let the wine snobs win. :(
:yeah:
Well the protests do go on. In my house it gets called champagne - usually with extra emphasis on the "g". That is, when we don't call it "bubbly". :cool:
BB, you need to get out of Alberta asap.
I get the impression from this thread we going to toast the poverty protests with California champagne and a meal of organic, hormone-free dog. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 19, 2011, 02:21:32 PM
Hear at least you have to pay for shots when you take them out of the pound. It's like 100 bucks.
WTF, $100? Are they using .50 caliber depleted uranium bullets or something?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2011, 09:44:39 AM
A problem with "wall street" post-crisis is basically the same problem as pre-crisis: the financial industry enjoins privatized gains and socialized losses and liabilities; its ability to free ride on explicit and implicit government guarantees combined with the various agency problems plaguing corporate governance and an economy that is reliant of speculative financing of investment to achieve growth all leads ineluctable to vast rewards being paid out to people for doing jobs of limited social utility and benefit.
The solution to that particular problem is either: (a) separate out the government underwritten parts of the financial system from those parts where the bankers bear the full brunt of risk, or (b) far more intrusive government regulation of the industry including direct regulation of pay scales. I suspect that politically, (b) is never going to be a possible option in the US. For (a) the problem is establishing the credibility of the government's pledge not to intervene, because if an officially unprotected entity is systemically important, the government will be hard pressed to sit on its hand and watch it go down. To make the (a) option credible would IMO mean, significant measures such as blocking the use of the corporate form and other limited liability entities to the unsubsidized groups, and putting in place limits on the size of such groups.
I think you might be overstating the degree to which downside risk is socialized.
In the (various) Latin American sovereign debt crises everyone got a haircut. In the 08 crisis the only socialized loss that I'm aware of is AIG-underwritten CDS.
Snobbery and sophistication aren't the same thing.
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 02:44:49 PM
I get the impression from this thread we going to toast the poverty protests with California champagne and a meal of organic, hormone-free dog. :lol:
Maybe I should step onto the scene and do so. :D
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 02:44:49 PM
I get the impression from this thread we going to toast the poverty protests with California champagne and a meal of organic, hormone-free dog. :lol:
I was reading a discussion about the poverty protests on another board, and people were indeed speaking disparagingly about Champagne drinkers. I refrained from inquiring whether they were using the term to refer to all sparkling wines or only those from Champagne.
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 02:44:49 PM
I get the impression from this thread we going to toast the poverty protests with California champagne and a meal of organic, hormone-free dog. :lol:
Cheers! Languish moves in mysterious ways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2011, 02:46:16 PM
I think you might be overstating the degree to which downside risk is socialized.
In the (various) Latin American sovereign debt crises everyone got a haircut. In the 08 crisis the only socialized loss that I'm aware of is AIG-underwritten CDS.
The AIG CDS portfolio alone amounted to over $500 billion in potential net exposure. In the event of an AIG insolvency (a certainty without government action), that exposure would have translated into enormous hits to all the banks that did business with AIG. That's why the intervention took place.
In addition, there are a variety of other socialized losses or subsidies you aren't taking into consideration, including: trillions provided in the form of preferential funding and deposit rates from the Fed; the losses sustained by Freddie and Fannie (arising out of their transactions with the private sector); the government guarantee of bank bonds; the government guarantee and purchase of the Bear portfolio; the provision of TARP credit on preferential terms; the government's "free" conversion of Citi preference stock into common, etc. The government may not have sustained gross nominal dollar losses on these commitments (opportunity cost is another story . . .) but absent that massive intervention the private financial institutions would have, on a level not seen since the 1930s.
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2011, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 02:44:49 PM
I get the impression from this thread we going to toast the poverty protests with California champagne and a meal of organic, hormone-free dog. :lol:
I was reading a discussion about the poverty protests on another board, and people were indeed speaking disparagingly about Champagne drinkers. I refrained from inquiring whether they were using the term to refer to all sparkling wines or only those from Champagne.
I for one would like to know whether they disdain people who drink sparkling wine or whether they reserve a special place in hell for people who drink champagne.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2011, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 02:44:49 PM
I get the impression from this thread we going to toast the poverty protests with California champagne and a meal of organic, hormone-free dog. :lol:
I was reading a discussion about the poverty protests on another board, and people were indeed speaking disparagingly about Champagne drinkers. I refrained from inquiring whether they were using the term to refer to all sparkling wines or only those from Champagne.
I for one would like to know whether they disdain people who drink sparkling wine or whether they reserve a special place in hell for people who drink champagne.
I don't know, people who drink cheap champagnes like Baby Duck are already in a certain kind of hell on earth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2011, 03:13:29 PM
The AIG CDS portfolio alone amounted to over $500 billion in potential net exposure. In the event of an AIG insolvency (a certainty without government action), that exposure would have translated into enormous hits to all the banks that did business with AIG. That's why the intervention took place.
In addition, there are a variety of other socialized losses or subsidies you aren't taking into consideration, including: trillions provided in the form of preferential funding and deposit rates from the Fed; the losses sustained by Freddie and Fannie (arising out of their transactions with the private sector); the government guarantee of bank bonds; the government guarantee and purchase of the Bear portfolio; the provision of TARP credit on preferential terms; the government's "free" conversion of Citi preference stock into common, etc. The government may not have sustained gross nominal dollar losses on these commitments (opportunity cost is another story . . .) but absent that massive intervention the private financial institutions would have, on a level not seen since the 1930s.
I don't understand your use of the word potential to describe AIG counterparty risk. Presumably all the CDS they wrote has wound down by now?
I don't grant the Fed discount rate as a subsidy. You have to run a monetary policy somehow, and low Fed rates (collaterized by otherwise useless Treasury paper) pass through eventually to borrowers. Banks don't make any return by borrowing money (even at very low rates) then sitting on it.
Freddie and Fannie's function was to lower borrowing costs for home buyers, which they performed. A subsidy that passes through banks to consumers should not be considered a subsidy to banks.
I'll grant you that TARP was a subsidy for the weaker recipients of funds if you'll agree that it was forced on other banks against their will (not the usual definition of a subsidy).
Was unaware that the US insured Bear Stearn's liabilities.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2011, 03:31:58 PM
Was unaware that the US insured Bear Stearn's liabilities.
Sweet deal for JP Morgan.
As much as I hate to side with the wine snobs, I can't bring myself to call anything from outside of the Champagne region "champagne". Same as I wouldn't call a Chilean cabernet sauvignon a Bordeaux, wouldn't call Jack Daniels a bourbon & wouldn't call Bushmills a Scotch.
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2011, 03:56:30 PM
As much as I hate to side with the wine snobs, I can't bring myself to call anything from outside of the Champagne region "champagne". Same as I wouldn't call a Chilean cabernet sauvignon a Bordeaux, wouldn't call Jack Daniels a bourbon & wouldn't call Bushmills a Scotch.
But those are all terms that haven't become generic in their everyday useage. Champagne has.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2011, 03:29:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2011, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 02:44:49 PM
I get the impression from this thread we going to toast the poverty protests with California champagne and a meal of organic, hormone-free dog. :lol:
I was reading a discussion about the poverty protests on another board, and people were indeed speaking disparagingly about Champagne drinkers. I refrained from inquiring whether they were using the term to refer to all sparkling wines or only those from Champagne.
I for one would like to know whether they disdain people who drink sparkling wine or whether they reserve a special place in hell for people who drink champagne.
I don't know, people who drink cheap champagnes like Baby Duck are already in a certain kind of hell on earth.
When I was in college, I had a roommate whose thirst for Baby Duck was insatiable. Just fucking awful stuff, I don't know how he survived.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2011, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 19, 2011, 03:56:07 PM
Sweet deal for JP Morgan.
Depends how much they paid.
It was $2 per share then upped to $10.
I wonder how ugly it's going to get unwinding those CDOs.
QuoteCDO Holders at Risk: New Jersey Bankruptcy Court Declines to Dismiss CDO Issuer's Involuntary Chapter 11 Case
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, in In re Zais Investment Grade Ltd. VII,1 recently jolted the structured finance community by declining to dismiss an involuntary chapter 11 case commenced against a Cayman-based collateralized debt obligation ("CDO") issuer. The ruling, which is currently on appeal, broke new ground by permitting the debtor's senior noteholders to use chapter 11 as a means of avoiding express provisions in the indenture that otherwise required each tranche of senior noteholder debt to approve any liquidation of the issuer's assets by a supermajority vote. It is important that participants in the structured finance markets take account of the possible ramifications of the decision in evaluating their current CDO exposure and in structuring finance vehicles in the future.
Among the more notable determinations in Zais was that it is not per se improper for a senior noteholder to use involuntary bankruptcy as a means of avoiding restrictions in an indenture with regard to collateral disposition. This is significant because such restrictions are specifically designed to protect the interests of junior noteholders. It seems, however, that structured finance vehicles that were intended to be bankruptcy-remote are increasingly turning out not to be bankruptcy proof.19 Moreover, the impact of the court's ruling may also extend to debt issuances that do not involve special purpose entities. For example, holders of notes issued by a normal operating company may seek to file an involuntary petition against the debtor if they cannot garner the requisite supermajority support for modifying restrictions on collateral disposition imposed by the notes indenture.
http://www.shearman.com/files/Publicatio... (http://www.shearman.com/files/Publicatio...)
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2011, 03:29:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2011, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 19, 2011, 02:44:49 PM
I get the impression from this thread we going to toast the poverty protests with California champagne and a meal of organic, hormone-free dog. :lol:
I was reading a discussion about the poverty protests on another board, and people were indeed speaking disparagingly about Champagne drinkers. I refrained from inquiring whether they were using the term to refer to all sparkling wines or only those from Champagne.
I for one would like to know whether they disdain people who drink sparkling wine or whether they reserve a special place in hell for people who drink champagne.
I don't know, people who drink cheap champagnes like Baby Duck are already in a certain kind of hell on earth.
When I was in college, I had a roommate whose thirst for Baby Duck was insatiable. Just fucking awful stuff, I don't know how he survived.
In the fraternity, we would have a Christmas bottle exchange. Of course someone would give a bottle of Baby Duck champagne. :x
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2011, 04:12:49 PM
In the fraternity, we would have a Christmas bottle exchange. Of course someone would give a bottle of Baby Duck champagne. :x
You did go to the U of M.
Besides it was a frat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2011, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 19, 2011, 03:56:07 PM
Sweet deal for JP Morgan.
Depends how much they paid.
from NYTimes:
QuoteNEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase on Monday raised its offer to $10 a share for Bear Stearns, the beleaguered investment bank, in an effort to pacify angry shareholders.
The sweetened offer of about $1 billion, which was first reported Sunday night, is intended to win over stockholders who vowed to fight the original fire-sale deal, struck only a week ago at the behest of the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury Department.
Shares of Bear Stearns rose as high as $10.06 in electronic trading before the market opened; they closed at $5.96 last week. Bear Stearns rose 103 percent to $12.14 in late Monday trading, while JPMorgan was up 2 percent at $46.90. The overall market climbed sharply, with the Dow Jones industrial average rising 1.7 percent.
Under the new terms, JPMorgan would pay $10 a share in stock for Bear Stearns, up from its initial offer of $2 a share - a figure that represented one-fifteenth of the going market price for Bear Stearns. Each share of Bear Stearns common stock would be exchanged for 0.21753 shares of JPMorgan Chase stock, up from 0.05473 shares.
In addition, JPMorgan Chase will buy 95 million newly issued shares of Bear Stearns common stock, or 39.5 percent of the outstanding Bear Stearns common stock after giving effect to the issuance, at $10 a share.
In the statement, the banks said that the directors of both companies had approved the amended agreement and the purchase agreement. In addition, Bear Stearns's directors have indicated that they intend to vote their shares - worth almost 5 percent of Bear Stearns's shares after the dilution of issuing shares for JPMorgan - giving JPMorgan nearly 45 percent of the vote and a virtual guarantee that the deal will be approved by shareholders. The deal is expected to be completed by April 8.
The higher offer - the initial price was $236 million - comes after a tumultuous week on Wall Street and in Washington because of the near collapse of Bear Stearns and the hastily devised deal to save it.
While the initial agreement appeared to have defused the financial crisis of confidence that undid Bear Stearns, the initial terms of the deal - and the government's controversial role in reaching them - drew criticism from those who said the takeover amounted to a government bailout of Bear Stearns, a firm at the center of the mortgage meltdown.
As part of the original deal, the Fed guaranteed to take on $30 billion of Bear Stearns's most toxic assets. Under the revised deal, JPMorgan Chase will bear the first $1 billion of any losses associated with the Bear Stearns assets being financed and the Fed will finance the remaining $29 billion on a non-recourse basis to JPMorgan Chase.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in a statement Monday, confirmed its role in the arrangement.
It said that BlackRock Financial Management would manage the portfolio under guidelines established by the New York Fed that were designed to minimize disruption to financial markets and maximize recovery value
"We believe the amended terms are fair to all sides and reflect the value and risks of the Bear Stearns franchise," the chief executive of JPMorgan, James Dimon, said, "and bring more certainty for our respective shareholders, clients, and the marketplace. We look forward to a prompt closing and being able to operate as one company."
In the same statement, the chief executive of Bear Stearns, Alan Schwartz, said: "Our board of directors believes that the amended terms provide both significantly greater value to our shareholders, many of whom are Bear Stearns employees, and enhanced coverage and certainty for our customers, counterparties, and lenders."
"The substantial share issuance to JPMorgan Chase was a necessary condition to obtain the full set of amended terms, which in turn were essential to maintaining Bear Stearns' financial stability," Schwartz said.
While the rules of the New York Stock Exchange generally require shareholder approval before a company issues securities that are convertible into more than 20 percent of the outstanding shares, an exception is permitted in cases where a delay would jeopardize the viability of the company. Under a Delaware precedent, where the companies are incorporated, a company can sell up to 40 percent without shareholder approval.
The new deal could raise even more questions about the Fed's involvement in the negotiations. The central bank had directed JPMorgan to pay no more than $2 a share for Bear Stearns to assure that it would not appear that the Bear Stearns shareholders were being rescued, people involved in the negotiations said Sunday night.
A spokesman for the Federal Reserve would not comment on the central bank's involvement in the negotiations and denied that it had directed the original sale price.
In television interviews last week, the Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., who has been closely involved in the negotiations, sought to portray the agreement not as a rescue effort but as a way to provide stability for the entire financial markets.
"Let me say that the Bear Stearns situation has been very painful for the Bear Stearns shareholders," Paulson said on the NBC "Today" show. "So I don't think that they think that they've been bailed out here."
With the price increase, some critics could have more ammunition to complain that taxpayers are helping to bail out a Wall Street firm that should be responsible for its own risky behavior. That is one reason the Fed was hesitant to approve the transaction at $10 a share, people briefed on the talks said.
Inside Bear Stearns, the vitriol over the original bargain-basement price was palpable last week. Bear Stearns employees own more than a third of the firm's stock, and many longtime employees faced the prospect of losing all their savings. Last week, some were seen crying in the hallways of the firm's Midtown Manhattan headquarters.
One employee started a Web site to rally opposition to the deal. Some employees said they talked back to their new supervisors from JPMorgan, which commandeered desks and conference rooms after being given operational control of the firm last week.
The new price would still be a small fraction of what Bear Stearns was worth before its recent meltdown. Its shares were trading at about $67 two weeks ago and as high as $170 a year ago.
Some large shareholders have even considered voting down the deal to send the firm into bankruptcy protection, where they speculate they might get more than $2 a share from creditors.
The British billionaire financier Joe Lewis, the firm's largest shareholder, who had invested $1.26 billion in Bear Stearns over the last year at an average price of about $104, said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that he would seek to block the deal by taking "whatever action" necessary and would "encourage" the firm and "third parties to consider other strategic transactions."
He and James Cayne, the Bear Stearns chairman, were talking informally to friends and others about finding investors to mount a rival bid. Some shareholders could seek to file lawsuits to block the deal. JPMorgan and Bear Stearns were prompted to renegotiate after shareholders began threatening to block the deal and it emerged that several "mistakes" were included in the original, hastily written contract, according to people involved in the talks.
One sentence was "inadvertently included," according to a person briefed on the talks, which requires JPMorgan to guarantee Bear's trades even if shareholders voted down the deal.
When the error was discovered, Dimon, who was described by one participant as "apoplectic," began calling his lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz to seek a way to have the sentence modified, these people said. Finger pointing over the mistakes in the contracts began as bankers blamed the lawyers and vice versa.
As it began to look more possible late last week that the deal might be struck down, JPMorgan approached Bear Stearns in earnest on Friday about renegotiating the sale price to guarantee its completion and brought the Federal Reserve into the talks as well, people involved in the negotiations said.
Dimon became increasingly desperate in recent days. He offered certain employees cash and stock incentives to stay on and made calls to his rival chief executives on Wall Street - John Mack at Morgan Stanley and John Thain at Merrill Lynch, among them - pleading with them not to recruit Bear Stearns employees during the transition.
Dimon had became convinced that the deal was in jeopardy after spending much of last week taking angry calls from Bear Stearns's largest shareholders, including Lewis, these people said. Moreover, Dimon, who had indignantly told associates that he would "send Bear back into bankruptcy" if the deal was struck down, was persuaded by his advisers that he had less leverage than he thought, according to people briefed on the conversation. Such vindictive behavior, they told him, would turn into a legal and public relations nightmare.
Last week, in an impassioned speech to Bear Stearns employees seeking their support, Dimon said: "No one on Wall Street could have anticipated this. I feel terrible sometimes when people think we took advantage. I don't think we could possibly know what you all are feeling, but I hope that you give JPMorgan a chance."
Nerds....
http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-second-life.html
They should virtually machine gun them.
Quote from: citizen k on October 19, 2011, 04:16:51 PM
Last week, in an impassioned speech to Bear Stearns employees seeking their support, Dimon said: "No one on Wall Street could have anticipated this. I feel terrible sometimes when people think we took advantage."
:lol:
I don't know how he can say that with a straight face. Of course they anticipated this. They made it happen deliberately, and they knew that their scheme couldn't last forever.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2011, 03:31:58 PM
I don't understand your use of the word potential to describe AIG counterparty risk. Presumably all the CDS they wrote has wound down by now?
I don't think it has but that is besides the point -- the issue here is that absent the government eating this portfolio, the counterparties on these trades would have been left holding empty bags, and that probably would have triggered a cascade of failures.
QuoteI don't grant the Fed discount rate as a subsidy. You have to run a monetary policy somehow, and low Fed rates (collaterized by otherwise useless Treasury paper) pass through eventually to borrowers. Banks don't make any return by borrowing money (even at very low rates) then sitting on it.
The Fed has many roles, of which monetary policy is only one. Others are acting as bank regulator, holder of bank reserves and lender of last resort -- these are what I am referring to. There is nothing re running a monetary policy that requires a central bank to pay interests on reserves, particularly excess reserves, and indeed for many years the Fed didn't. That alone amounts to a straight transfer of billions of dollars from the government to the banks. As for lender of last resort, the canonical formulation of that task involves lending at penalty rates (eg Bagehot) and only on good collateral and the Fed did the opposite.
QuoteFreddie and Fannie's function was to lower borrowing costs for home buyers, which they performed. A subsidy that passes through banks to consumers should not be considered a subsidy to banks.
Whatever the intent of Freddie/Franny was, what they actually did was different. They didn't really lower total borrowing costs, because while they allowed home owners to borrow at lower rates, they also helped drive up housing prices. But what Franny and Freddie did do was provide a lucrative market for securitized housing debt, thus fueling the originate and distribute model that brought in a steady stream of origination fees to commercial banks and fat underwriting fees to the investment banks. The effect of Freddie/Franny was (and still is) to transfer default risk en masse from private institutions and their investors to the public fisc, while still allowing the private institutions the reap the benefits of originating, packaging, destributing, re-packing, re-distributing, etc, etc, those loans.
QuoteI'll grant you that TARP was a subsidy for the weaker recipients of funds if you'll agree that it was forced on other banks against their will (not the usual definition of a subsidy).
That banks that said they didn't want the money said that because of the fear that the market would view acceptance as a sign of weakness (and refusal as a sign of strength). It was basically a commons problem that the government solved by making all the systemically important banks take the money. What remains is true is that: (1) some institutions needed the money to survive, and (2) if the government had let those institutions fall, other dominoes would have been at grave risk.
QuoteWas unaware that the US insured Bear Stearn's liabilities.
It was the only way they could get JPM to do the deal.
So I'll admit this - I went to the same place where I'd ordered that medium well steak and ordered a medium rare one today. Without Psellus or Timmiesque behavior - I'll admit that it was way better once I got over the whole pink aspect. Not all chewy like it was before but instead juicy and succulent. :blush:
:)
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2011, 06:10:18 PM
So I'll admit this - I went to the same place where I'd ordered that medium well steak and ordered a medium rare one today. Without Psellus or Timmiesque behavior - I'll admit that it was way better once I got over the whole pink aspect. Not all chewy like it was before but instead juicy and succulent. :blush:
:cheers:
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:37:10 PM
Wine snobs hate mongers, because of his love for cider as opposed to wine.
That you think the wine snobs just shows you've never been exposed to the cider snobs :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2011, 06:57:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:37:10 PM
Wine snobs hate mongers, because of his love for cider as opposed to wine.
That you think the wine snobs just shows you've never been exposed to the cider snobs :bleeding:
Civilized places don't serve cider. :swiss:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 06:55:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2011, 06:10:18 PM
So I'll admit this - I went to the same place where I'd ordered that medium well steak and ordered a medium rare one today. Without Psellus or Timmiesque behavior - I'll admit that it was way better once I got over the whole pink aspect. Not all chewy like it was before but instead juicy and succulent. :blush:
:cheers:
:weep:
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2011, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 06:55:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2011, 06:10:18 PM
So I'll admit this - I went to the same place where I'd ordered that medium well steak and ordered a medium rare one today. Without Psellus or Timmiesque behavior - I'll admit that it was way better once I got over the whole pink aspect. Not all chewy like it was before but instead juicy and succulent. :blush:
:cheers:
:weep:
Dont worry Garbon, soon you will also be drinking real Champagne.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2011, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2011, 06:55:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2011, 06:10:18 PM
So I'll admit this - I went to the same place where I'd ordered that medium well steak and ordered a medium rare one today. Without Psellus or Timmiesque behavior - I'll admit that it was way better once I got over the whole pink aspect. Not all chewy like it was before but instead juicy and succulent. :blush:
:cheers:
:weep:
Dont worry Garbon, soon you will also be drinking real Champagne.
I've had "real" champagne but until I get my raise - I'm staying away. This weekend at the horse races, I've got us with 8 bottles of Korbel. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2011, 06:10:18 PM
So I'll admit this - I went to the same place where I'd ordered that medium well steak and ordered a medium rare one today. Without Psellus or Timmiesque behavior - I'll admit that it was way better once I got over the whole pink aspect. Not all chewy like it was before but instead juicy and succulent. :blush:
:hug:
The whole champagne-sparkling wine snobbery becomes funny in Hungarian.
You see, the way we call these sparkling wine is directly translated as... "sparkling"
So you end up with snobs basically saying "the only real sparkling wine is coming from champagne, the rest of them are just sparkling wine"
It's funny in English.
In German we distinguish between Champagne and Sekt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Sekt), the taxation of which funded the Imperial Navy.
Quote from: Syt on October 20, 2011, 02:19:03 AM
In German we distinguish between Champagne and Sekt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Sekt), the taxation of which funded the Imperial Navy.
Sekt a.k.a Girly wine.
But don't say that if zombie Admiral Tirpitz is in the room.
Quote from: Syt on October 20, 2011, 02:19:03 AM
In German we distinguish between Champagne and Sekt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Sekt), the taxation of which funded the Imperial Navy.
We no longer have an Imperial Navy, but the tax is still around. :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 20, 2011, 05:05:31 AM
But don't say that if zombie Admiral Tirpitz is in the room.
Don't worry, I doubt Herr Admiral went for the girlie stuff, specially since he could afford the real stuff.
I read that dude's book once.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2011, 06:57:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 19, 2011, 02:37:10 PM
Wine snobs hate mongers, because of his love for cider as opposed to wine.
That you think the wine snobs just shows you've never been exposed to the cider snobs :bleeding:
Just to throw fuel on the fire - in Canada there are no regulations dictating stuff like where "champagne" must be from, but there *are* regulations dictating the composition (but not origin) of "Champagne Cider". :lol:
See: reg. B.02.122 of the Food and Drugs regulations to the Food and Drugs Act ...
(the regs *do* have location of origin rules for "Scotch Wiskey" - reg. B.02.016 - but
not for "champagne". Because, obviously, "champagne" is a generalized term - see "champagne cider".)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 20, 2011, 04:47:59 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 20, 2011, 02:19:03 AM
In German we distinguish between Champagne and Sekt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Sekt), the taxation of which funded the Imperial Navy.
Sekt a.k.a as Girly wine.
as as?
Meh. Cheap champagne is pretty much indistinguishable from the better sparklers from other countries and good champagne is expensive enough that anyone buying it knows the difference (apart from Veuve lovers who have no taste buds whatsoever).
Anyway global warming will see the rise of English sparkling wine specifically in the south which has a similar soil to Champagne.
Quote from: Gups on October 20, 2011, 09:21:12 AM
Meh. Cheap champagne is pretty much indistinguishable from the better sparklers from other countries and good champagne is expensive enough that anyone buying it knows the difference (apart from Veuve lovers who have no taste buds whatsoever).
Anyway global warming will see the rise of English sparkling wine specifically in the south which has a similar soil to Champagne.
Champagne should've been the southern England. You guys really botched it in 15th century.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2011, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 20, 2011, 09:21:12 AM
Meh. Cheap champagne is pretty much indistinguishable from the better sparklers from other countries and good champagne is expensive enough that anyone buying it knows the difference (apart from Veuve lovers who have no taste buds whatsoever).
Anyway global warming will see the rise of English sparkling wine specifically in the south which has a similar soil to Champagne.
Champagne should've been the southern England. You guys really botched it in 15th century.
What's wrong with marrying into a clinically insane French family?
I went to the London site today. I like these protestors a lot. They don't have any of their 'general assemblies' or use the megaphone during St. Paul's services, or the five minutes after the hour (apparently the Cathedral's saying the Lord's Prayer at that point). When I went they were asking for volunteers to help move the tents to comply with fire safety regulations :lol:
They've also got a wall of posters and newspaper clippings and things about why people are protesting. As well as the standard anti-capitalist stuff you get the odd eccentric. Someone had written some nonsense about ley-lines and Cathedrals. As far as I can see he was there simply because St. Paul's is spiritual. But what made me like them was that someone had written an anti-vaccine poster. On that poster someone had written 'don't believe this. It's just bullshit'. That endears me to them a lot.
Plus there's a good atmosphere in the area.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 20, 2011, 05:56:36 PM
But what made me like them was that someone had written an anti-vaccine poster. On that poster someone had written 'don't believe this. It's just bullshit'. That endears me to them a lot.
Lets hope there are not enough vaccine free rider nutbars in one concentrated area to cause an outbreak.
You are weird Sheilbh.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2011, 08:28:42 PM
You are weird Sheilbh.
Sort of, but it's the romance of the situation that appeals to him. He doesn't see them as a bunch of filthy layabouts whining about the society that allows them to maintain an extremely comfortable lifestyle, but completely unwilling to make actual sacrifices. He sees them as being the heirs to 1848, the intellectuals and poets who took to the streets and risking it all to attempt to create a new, liberal Europe.
Despite being a liberal, I think I may have the heart of a conservative. I don't like radical change, or protests, or mobs and the like. Hell, I tend to order the same thing to eat every time I go out.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 20, 2011, 05:56:36 PM
I went to the London site today. I like these protestors a lot. They don't have any of their 'general assemblies' or use the megaphone during St. Paul's services, or the five minutes after the hour (apparently the Cathedral's saying the Lord's Prayer at that point). When I went they were asking for volunteers to help move the tents to comply with fire safety regulations :lol:
:bowler:
QuoteThey've also got a wall of posters and newspaper clippings and things about why people are protesting. As well as the standard anti-capitalist stuff you get the odd eccentric. Someone had written some nonsense about ley-lines and Cathedrals.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.topshelfcomix.com%2Fcatalog%2Fcovers%2Ffromhell_cover_lg.jpg&hash=2fee4e4d2708130696f64b56b95267769cdd3d10)
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 20, 2011, 05:56:36 PM
I went to the London site today. I like these protestors a lot. They don't have any of their 'general assemblies' or use the megaphone during St. Paul's services, or the five minutes after the hour (apparently the Cathedral's saying the Lord's Prayer at that point). When I went they were asking for volunteers to help move the tents to comply with fire safety regulations :lol:
They've also got a wall of posters and newspaper clippings and things about why people are protesting. As well as the standard anti-capitalist stuff you get the odd eccentric. Someone had written some nonsense about ley-lines and Cathedrals. As far as I can see he was there simply because St. Paul's is spiritual. But what made me like them was that someone had written an anti-vaccine poster. On that poster someone had written 'don't believe this. It's just bullshit'. That endears me to them a lot.
Plus there's a good atmosphere in the area.
Sounds like a well-run protest :thumbsup:
Too many protests have their message lost due to bad behaviour and self-indulgence. With the current crop of politicians the way they are I think we can expect many more protests, most will not be as benign as this group appears to be.
However, it appears that St. Paul's has been obliged to close, some elf'n-safety bs :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15406865
Time for the protestors to move on.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 10:29:47 AMTime for the protestors to move on.
Yep :(
QuoteDespite being a liberal, I think I may have the heart of a conservative. I don't like radical change, or protests, or mobs and the like. Hell, I tend to order the same thing to eat every time I go out.
Conservatism's a temperament as well as an ideology. If anything the two don't really go well together.
I don't get your hostility to protests though :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 12:00:03 PM
I don't get your hostility to protests though :mellow:
I share his hostility. There are just too many things in life (like working, spending time with family, sports, etc.) more worthwhile than protesting. Plus, protesters tend to be annoying, self-righteous, and often out of touch with the people they are trying to bring over to their way of thinking.
That's not to say that protesting is never worthwhile. It just isn't in this case & many others.
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2011, 12:13:20 PMI share his hostility. There are just too many things in life (like working, spending time with family, sports, etc.) more worthwhile than protesting. Plus, protesters tend to be annoying, self-righteous, and often out of touch with the people they are trying to bring over to their way of thinking.
That's not to say that protesting is never worthwhile. It just isn't in this case & many others.
Life'd be tedious if we just did what was worthwhile - though I agree with all of them. A protest march is, very often, just fun.
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2011, 12:13:20 PM
I share his hostility. There are just too many things in life (like working, spending time with family, sports, etc.) more worthwhile than protesting. Plus, protesters tend to be annoying, self-righteous, and often out of touch with the people they are trying to bring over to their way of thinking.
That's not to say that protesting is never worthwhile. It just isn't in this case & many others.
Putting some political cause above sports is not worthwhile? I mean so long as everything is peaceful I do not get the hostility.
And the media generally goes out of its way to make protestors seem as nutty as possible since, you know, it is more entertaining and they want to attract viewers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 12:18:58 PM
Life'd be tedious if we just did what was worthwhile - though I agree with all of them. A protest march is, very often, just fun.
Well the ones in the 60s certainly had a very fun element I am not sure the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street protests look like that much fun.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2011, 12:32:15 PMWell the ones in the 60s certainly had a very fun element I am not sure the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street protests look like that much fun.
The occupy London one had a very fun element and made me think of the 60s. Especially some French slogans that were on the posters.
Similarly with the Tea Party. I think they've got a real point they're trying to make, I think they dress up in 18th century costume because it's fun.
A good protest is like a gig, or festival. You're all there for roughly the same reason, there's a nice togetherness and often a good atmosphere. In my experience you get a similar sort of feeling at the end of it and you've done something to do with an issue you care about. It's better than the probably more worthwhile and effective letter-writing campaigns you have with Amnesty.
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2011, 12:13:20 PM
I share his hostility. There are just too many things in life (like working, spending time with family, sports, etc.) more worthwhile than protesting. Plus, protesters tend to be annoying, self-righteous, and often out of touch with the people they are trying to bring over to their way of thinking.
That's not to say that protesting is never worthwhile. It just isn't in this case & many others.
Do you share that hostility in regards to the tea party and similar protests with whom you find more ideological agreement? Or is this a blanket "protesters suck" kind of thing?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 12:00:03 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 10:29:47 AMTime for the protestors to move on.
Yep :(
QuoteDespite being a liberal, I think I may have the heart of a conservative. I don't like radical change, or protests, or mobs and the like. Hell, I tend to order the same thing to eat every time I go out.
Conservatism's a temperament as well as an ideology. If anything the two don't really go well together.
I don't get your hostility to protests though :mellow:
I see it as similar to the Tea Party thing. I didn't care for them either. Generally speaking, I don't like protests, but this may be a personal thing. I don't really care for large crowds in general.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 12:37:50 PM
A good protest is like a gig, or festival. You're all there for roughly the same reason, there's a nice togetherness and often a good atmosphere. In my experience you get a similar sort of feeling at the end of it and you've done something to do with an issue you care about. It's better than the probably more worthwhile and effective letter-writing campaigns you have with Amnesty.
I think the self-congratulatory/self-gratifying element is more than obvious to outsiders. ;)
I participate in a protest march once - we had a specific cause.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2011, 12:54:43 PM
I participate in a protest march once - we had a specific cause.
What was it? March to the other side of town?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2011, 12:55:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2011, 12:54:43 PM
I participate in a protest march once - we had a specific cause.
What was it? March to the other side of town?
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=1000.0
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 12:37:50 PM
Similarly with the Tea Party. I think they've got a real point they're trying to make,
What might that be?
I don't think one should be occupying private property or creating a mess in a public park because it's "fun". To address a grievance I can see even if I find most of them annoyingly self-entitled twats.
Here in Britain we have the Tory or Labour-lite party, the Labour or Tory-lite party and the Lib-dems who are some curious mix of both................all these parties routinely ignore public opinion........voting in those circumstances seems inadequate and insufficient; I'm not at all surprised that protests are starting to take place.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2011, 01:01:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2011, 12:55:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2011, 12:54:43 PM
I participate in a protest march once - we had a specific cause.
What was it? March to the other side of town?
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=1000.0
I'm sorry I forgot about your actions 3 years ago. How foolish of me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2011, 01:01:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 12:37:50 PM
Similarly with the Tea Party. I think they've got a real point they're trying to make,
What might that be?
They want someone else to bear the burden
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2011, 01:41:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2011, 01:01:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2011, 12:55:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2011, 12:54:43 PM
I participate in a protest march once - we had a specific cause.
What was it? March to the other side of town?
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=1000.0
I'm sorry I forgot about your actions 3 years ago. How foolish of me.
:huh:
I just thought it was easier to give you a link to it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 12:18:58 PM
A protest march is, very often, just fun.
Why don't they have fun in a way that doesn't horribly inconvenience their fellow citizens and result in large public expenditures?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2011, 01:01:51 PM
What might that be?
Focus on the debt. Government's a problem.
QuoteHere in Britain we have the Tory or Labour-lite party, the Labour or Tory-lite party and the Lib-dems who are some curious mix of both................all these parties routinely ignore public opinion........voting in those circumstances seems inadequate and insufficient; I'm not at all surprised that protests are starting to take place.
Yeah. I despair of the government and I had some hopes for them to begin with. At the same time I don't look at Miliband and think at least we've got a good leader in waiting. I just feel we're kind-of fucked and Godspeed to any protest about that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 07:46:46 PM
Yeah. I despair of the government and I had some hopes for them to begin with. At the same time I don't look at Miliband and think at least we've got a good leader in waiting. I just feel we're kind-of fucked and Godspeed to any protest about that.
So an end to democracy then?
Now that's a protest I could get behind! :)
What makes Miliband so bad?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2011, 07:50:29 PM
What makes Miliband so bad?
He's an overly-ambitious empty suit.
Miliband is ok, he is a bit like Raz but doesn't seem to be as intelligent :huh:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2011, 07:50:29 PM
What makes Miliband so bad?
Garbo's right. The extraordinary thing is that he was meant to be able to 'speak human', unlike David. I think the party mistook being able to speak to small Labour clubs with all of the peculiarities they contain for a human touch.
The other thing is he I think recognises that this is a time for someone to articulate a grand vision, but he's at best a policy wonk - every inch a career politician - so you've got someone talking Beveridge while discussing widget regulations. I think he's simply a narrow, little man leading the opposition and it makes me despair.
Not that the government are much better. I'm sick of every policy announcement being prefaced with 'the most revolutionary change since...'
Right now I yearn for the gravity and heft of Gordon :mellow:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 08:11:39 PM
Miliband is ok, he is a bit like Raz but doesn't seem to be as intelligent :huh:
I think if Labour wanted to go left they should have gone for Ed Balls. Instead they went for an option that, even during the leadership election, was about combining the political instincts of Balls with the charm of a Miliband. It's madness.
Edit: Not that I can think of many other Labour politicians who I think'd do better - I actually think Balls might be better. It's the same with the Tories and Lib Dems. All parties just seem devoid of any real substance at the top.
Whenever I see Ken Clarke I think he must be like some enormous wounded mastadon bellowing round the cabinet table.
I appreciate what you are saying about Brown btw. A disaster in many respects, but at least a man with some substance and ideology. If I was on the interview panel and we were appointing for the job of manager of the Cockermouth branch of a minor building society I might.........just might.......consider Miliband for the post.
That rabble competing for the republican nomination are no better btw............ye Gods!
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2011, 08:14:00 PM
Not that the government are much better. I'm sick of every policy announcement being prefaced with 'the most revolutionary change since...'
That's the weakness of a minority government at work. The spin doctors feel the need to sell everything to the extreme. We saw the same thing in Canada when the minority Conservatives were weak, although that wasn't very often. Our Tories governed like they had a majority for most of their minority years.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 08:20:08 PM
That rabble competing for the republican nomination are no better btw............ye Gods!
Looking at the leading candidates, I think of Miliband as being what Romney would be like if someone stole his charisma.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 08:20:08 PM
If I was on the interview panel and we were appointing for the job of manager of the Cockermouth branch . . .
Surely Balls would be the choice for that job as well.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 08:11:39 PM
Miliband is ok, he is a bit like Raz but doesn't seem to be as intelligent :huh:
Jesus, I feel really sorry for the poor bastard.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2011, 09:01:21 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 08:11:39 PM
Miliband is ok, he is a bit like Raz but doesn't seem to be as intelligent :huh:
Jesus, I feel really sorry for the poor bastard.
:D
I think he is probably quite a nice fellow btw, but future PM.....well, one hopes for a bit more.
Yes, unlike Balls.......who is an unprincipled bruiser...........I'd send him north of the border and hope for Scottish independence :mad:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 10:29:47 AM
However, it appears that St. Paul's has been obliged to close, some elf'n-safety bs :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15406865
Time for the protestors to move on.
Looks like the health and safety was really just an excuse (my guess is that it was the norm and actually just a killjoy with a clipboard, nothing to do with real worries about liability). See this rather long post by the New Statesman's legal blogger:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/10/health-safety-cathedral-camp
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 26, 2011, 06:50:04 PMkilljoy with a clipboard
AKA the people who run the world. :(
Like what happens in Oakland - the most recent protest ended with tear gas.
I'm not sure if it is because of Oakland's ethnic makeup but I saw one news source say that the revolution was televised in Oakland. <_<
Quote
Iraq war vet injured during Oakland protests
OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — The clash between Oakland police and Occupy Wall Street protesters left a Marine veteran who completed two Iraq tours in critical condition Wednesday after he was struck by a police projectile, a veterans' group said.
Scott Olsen, 24, suffered a fractured skull Tuesday as he marched with other protesters toward City Hall, said Dottie Guy, of the Iraq Veterans Against the War. The demonstrators had been making an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of a disbanded protesters' camp when they were met by police officers in riot gear.
Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.
It's not known exactly what type of object struck Olsen, currently a systems network administrator in Daly City, or whether he'll need surgery, Guy said.
"It's still too early to tell," Guy said. "We're hoping for the best."
Curt Olsen, a spokesman for Highland Hospital in Oakland, confirmed that the veteran was in critical condition but could not release any more information.
The clash Tuesday came as officials complained about what they described as deteriorating safety, sanitation and health issues at the dismantled camp.
Olsen, who completed his service last year, participated in the protest because he felt corporations and banks have too much influence on the government, Guy said.
A vigil for him is scheduled to be held Wednesday evening near the Oakland City Hall, she said. Multiple attempts to reach Oakland police Wednesday by The Associated Press were unsuccessful, but the department was scheduled to take part in a news conference at 4:30 p.m.
Meanwhile, Oakland demonstrators vowed on Wednesday to return to their protest site just hours after police — who were met as they moved in by pelted rocks, bottles and utensils — cleared hundreds of people from the streets with tear gas and bean bag rounds.
A Twitter feed used by Oakland's Occupy Wall Street movement called on protesters to return to downtown at 6 p.m. for another round, and some demonstrators vowed to return as soon as possible.
Max Alper, 31, a union organizer from Berkeley, gathered with a handful of other protesters Wednesday at the scene of Tuesday night's clash.
"As soon as these barricades are moved, hundreds of people are going to come back. These actions by police were wrong, but they're just going to strengthen the movement," Alper said.
Alper was arrested Tuesday morning when he went to witness the police raid on the Occupy Oakland encampment outside City Hall, he said. He said his arm was injured when baton-swinging police descended on him and other protesters.
Police estimated that there were roughly 1,000 demonstrators at the first clash following the march.
City officials say that two officers were injured. At least five protesters were arrested and several others injured in the evening clashes.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2F9P2emDBCczm3_EY79H_kRw--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjA7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fap_webfeeds%2F02feac2210d1a718fc0e6a706700d05a.jpg&hash=de6ae46441ca1bdf33e41fe2267dc694ea1df9ff)
Scott Olsen being carried away Tuesday night:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FDfkptKupPsWuKHZHOND7gA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjI7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2FReuters%2F2011-10-27T002157Z_01_LOA20_RTRIDSP_3_USA-WALLSTREET-PROTESTS-OAKLAND.jpg&hash=deac5fb3e7d3c64767662f17dbd9af22a9392ce9)
Quote
OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Police in riot gear clashed with anti-Wall Street protesters overnight, firing tear gas and beanbag rounds at hundreds of demonstrators in Oakland and forcibly evicting and arresting more than 50 others in Atlanta.
The moves come as business owners, residents and officials in cities where encampments have sprouted up since the movement began last month are increasingly complaining about crime, sanitation problems and disruptions to business.
The encampments were empty in both cities on Wednesday, as police stood guard nearby.
Overnight, the scenes in Oakland were chaotic, with officers firing tear gas and beanbag rounds over three hours as protesters tried to re-establish a tent camp outside city hall that they had been evicted from earlier Tuesday.
Officials complained about what they described as deteriorating safety, sanitation and health issues at the dismantled camp.
Acting Police Chief Howard Jordan told reporters at a late night news conference that authorities had no other choice, saying the protesters were throwing rocks and bottles at officers. City officials said two officers were injured.
"We had to deploy gas to stop the crowd," he said, according to a KCBS report.
Police have denied reports that they used flash bang canisters to help break up the crowds, saying the loud noises came from large firecrackers thrown at police by protesters.
The chemical haze from the tear gas hung in the air for hours, new blasts clouding the air before the previous fog could dissipate. The number of protesters diminished with each round of tear gas.
Police estimated that there were roughly 1,000 demonstrators at the first clash. Nearly 100 people were arrested, mostly on suspicion of misdemeanor unlawful assembly and illegal camping.
Among the protesters were young adults, some riding bicycles, protecting themselves from the noxious fumes with bandanas and scarves wrapped around their faces. Protesters were still resolved to continue.
"This movement is more than just the people versus the police," Mario Fernandez said. "It's about the people trying to have their rights to basic services." He added, "This crowd isn't going anywhere anytime soon."
In Atlanta, helicopters hovered and trained spotlights on the city's downtown as police in riot gear moved into a small city park just after midnight and arrested protesters who had been there in tents for about two weeks.
Before police marched in, protesters were warned a couple times around midnight to vacate the park or risk arrest. Inside the park, the warnings were drowned out by drumbeats and chants of "Our park!"
Organizers had instructed participants to be peaceful if arrests came, and most were.
Many gathered in the center of the park, locking arms, and sang "We Shall Overcome," until police led them out, one-by-one to waiting buses. Some were dragged out while others left on foot, handcuffed with plastic ties.
The police presence was "overkill," said state Sen. Vincent Fort, who was among those arrested after coming to the park in support of the protesters. He called the camp "the most peaceful place in Georgia."
"At the urging of the business community, he's moving people out," he said, referring to Mayor Kasim Reed. "Shame on him."
Police included SWAT teams in riot gear, dozens of officers on motorcycles and several on horseback. By about 1:30 a.m. Wednesday the park was mostly cleared of protesters.
Reed said he was upset over an advertised hip-hop concert that he said drew 600 people to the park over the weekend but didn't have a permit and didn't have security guards to work the crowd, calling it irresponsible.
Reed said he had serious security concerns that he said were heightened Tuesday when a man was seen in the park with an assault rifle. He said authorities could not determine whether the gun was loaded, and were unable to get additional information about it.
An Associated Press reporter talked to the man with the gun slung across his back earlier Tuesday as he walked in the park. He wouldn't give his name, but said he was an out-of-work accountant who doesn't agree with the protesters' views.
He said he was there, armed, because he wanted to protect the rights of people to protest.
There's no law that prevents him from carrying the gun in public, but police followed him for about 10 minutes before moving off.
Across the country, complaints about crime and sanitation have been increasing as protesters prepare to settle in for the winter.
The mayor of Providence, R.I., is threatening to go to court within days to evict demonstrators from a park.
Businesses and residents near New York's Zuccotti Park, the unofficial headquarters of the movement, are demanding something be done to discourage the hundreds of protesters from urinating in the street and making noise at all hours.
"A lot of tourists coming down from hotels are so disgusted and disappointed when they see this," said Stacey Tzortzatos, manager of a sandwich shop near Zuccotti Park. "I hope for the sake of the city the mayor does close this down."
She complained that the protesters who come in by the dozen to use her bathroom dislodged a sink and caused a flood, and that police barricades are preventing her normal lunch crowd from stopping by.
In Philadelphia, city officials have been waiting almost two weeks for Occupy Philly to respond to a letter containing a list of health and safety concerns. City Managing Director Richard Negrin said officials can't wait much longer to address hazards such as smoking in tightly packed tents, camp layouts that hinder emergency access, and exposure to human waste.
"Every day that they haven't addressed these public safety concerns simply increases the risk," he said Tuesday.
Stephen Campbell, a protester in Boston, said the troublemakers are the minority.
"We have a policy here: no drugs, no alcohol," he said. "Us occupiers really try to stick true to that. Other people who move in, who maybe have an alcohol problem or a drug problem, you know, we're not fully equipped to handle things like that."
In Minneapolis, Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson said some constituents who work downtown are getting a little tired of the piles of belongings cluttering the plaza, while others are worried about escalating costs.
The sheriff's department has already spent more than $200,000, most of that in overtime.
Oakland officials had initially been supportive of the protests, with Mayor Jean Quan saying that sometimes "democracy is messy."
But tensions reached a boiling point after a sexual assault, a severe beating and a fire were reported and paramedics were denied access to the camp, according to city officials. They also cited concerns about rats, fire hazards and public urination.
When police moved in, they were pelted with rocks, bottles and utensils from people in the camp's kitchen area, but no injuries were reported. Protesters were taken away in plastic handcuffs, most of them arrested on suspicion of illegal lodging.
Protesters disputed the city's claims about conditions at the camp.
Lauren Richardson, a college student from Oakland, said that volunteers collected garbage and recycling every six hours, that water was boiled before being used to wash dishes, and that rats had infested the park long before the camp went up.
"It was very neat. It was very organized," Richardson said.
In New York, the neighborhood board voted Tuesday night to pass a resolution that proposed off-site portable bathrooms funded by local donors, said Julie Menin, head of the board. The resolution also requested that loud noises, like the blast of air horns and group chanting, be limited to two hours during the day.
The park's owner, Brookfield Office Properties, tried to push the protesters out two weeks ago to clean it but backed off at the last minute after a public outcry.
Menin said the neighborhood does not believe the protesters should be kicked out. "We do not want the city to use force in any way," she said. "And we think it's possible to address quality-of-life issues."
Quote
Dozens Arrested in Arizona After Wall St. Protests
(AP) Authorities in Arizona arrested nearly 100 people after two separate protests in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The 53 arrests in Tucson and 46 in Phoenix on Saturday night came hours after peaceful protests against financial institutions as part of a series of such demonstrations across the country. Police said demonstrators in each city failed to leave parks at curfew.
Phoenix police said protesters marched from a downtown rally to a park that had a posted 10:30 p.m. closing time.
"As the park closing hour passed, many of the demonstrators refused to leave," said police spokesman Sgt. Trent Crump, adding that officers told the protesters "to leave or be subject to arrest."
Crump said "a large group remained and refused to leave the park," resulting in 46 arrests for criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
"Most of those arrested were passive in nature and no injuries were reported to either officers or demonstrators," he said.
In Tucson, about 100 miles south of Phoenix, police said 53 demonstrators were arrested after they remained in a park after the 10:30 p.m. closing time. An estimated 150 protesters were at the park at the time and they were told they would be arrested if they didn't leave, said Sgt. Matt Ronstadt, a Tucson police spokesman.
Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor addressed the remaining demonstrators after the closing time passed and officers began issuing criminal citations for remaining in a city park after-hours.
Ronstadt said no force was used during the citation process and all 53 were released pending a court appearance. The Tucson rally drew an estimated 500 people; about 1,000 people attended the Phoenix event.
Phoenix protester Davin Wright, 31, described the scene at the park as generally peaceful, but said police acted roughly during some initial arrests.
"Anyone who thought they were going to be crunching skulls — it's not going to happen," he said.
Groups have been turning out across the country to express anger over costly health care and rising unemployment, and to cast blame on corporate interests for the economic pain they say all but the wealthiest Americans have endured since the financial meltdown.
I liked my summary better. :blurgh: :D
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2011, 08:38:50 PM
I liked my summary better. :blurgh: :D
Like a phrase I've heard recently in regards to Steve Jobs and Apple's design philosophy, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Quote from: Caliga on October 18, 2011, 08:39:17 PM
Good for him... according to Wong Wei Fan (the aforementioned guy from college) dog is "delicious". I'm somewhat curious what dog tastes like in the same way that I'm curious what human tastes like (e.g. curious, but not so much that I'd ever dream of trying it), but I would love to try horse meat for some reason, and will definitely do so if I ever go back to Germany or Belgium or some other place where horse is eaten. I think Eschweiler is the city in Germany famous for its horse sauerbraten.
FYI, dog tastes like beef.
At least in the dog stew I had in Korea.
I've heard that if prepared differently in certain Chinese cuisines, it tastes better (and "very very delicious").
I also want to try horse meat.
Also, alpaca tastes like porkchop (strange but true).
Guinea pig is sweet, chewy and tangy, although some of that might have just been the seasoning.
EDIT: Also, dog is unlikely to be something you just throw in, like a dodgy Chinese retaurant might do. Too expensive and not very common. Squirrel and rat would be much more likely. Perhaps roadkill too when it's found as a bonus.
Horse meat can be really good. I had a wonderful slow cooked horsemeat dish in Northern Italy - long story as to how I ended up ordering it but I am glad I did.
Is it comparable to anything?
My guess is that it'd taste a little like steak, but maybe tougher.
Quote from: citizen k on October 26, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2011, 08:38:50 PM
I liked my summary better. :blurgh: :D
Like a phrase I've heard recently in regards to Steve Jobs and Apple's design philosophy, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Me. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 26, 2011, 06:50:04 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 21, 2011, 10:29:47 AM
However, it appears that St. Paul's has been obliged to close, some elf'n-safety bs :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15406865
Time for the protestors to move on.
Looks like the health and safety was really just an excuse (my guess is that it was the norm and actually just a killjoy with a clipboard, nothing to do with real worries about liability). See this rather long post by the New Statesman's legal blogger:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/10/health-safety-cathedral-camp
I struggle to read that sort of thing :(
These seem like well-behaved and reasonable protestors, so I would assume that "health and safety" is unlikely to be a major issue.
But, things are moving on and the Chancellor of St. Paul's is stepping down :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15472362
I would assume that he was not the target the protestors were aiming at, in fact he seems to have been a supporter and is having to resign because of the loss of all the tourist revenue that has ceased to roll in.
It is a parable of our times.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 26, 2011, 10:32:21 PM
Is it comparable to anything?
My guess is that it'd taste a little like steak, but maybe tougher.
Its like well marbled beef - quite rich tasting. It probably is more tough and that is probably why they prepared it in a slow cooker. But after it went though that process it was tender and delicious.
Quote from: citizen k on October 26, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
Like a phrase I've heard recently in regards to Steve Jobs and Apple's design philosophy, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
That's the way he viewed his customers too.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2011, 12:57:42 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 26, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
Like a phrase I've heard recently in regards to Steve Jobs and Apple's design philosophy, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
That's the way he viewed his customers too.
Yes, a successful combination of the rich and the ignorant.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 27, 2011, 02:12:25 AMI would assume that he was not the target the protestors were aiming at, in fact he seems to have been a supporter and is having to resign because of the loss of all the tourist revenue that has ceased to roll in.
It is a parable of our times.
I can see the reasoning behind his resignation which is rather sad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/27/giles-fraser-resignation-dale-farm
Edit: Good Lord, the CofE's ability to find doubt and division in all possible situations is just remarkable:
QuoteChurch of England split over St Paul's handling of Occupy London protest
Regrets and recriminations may lead church to ditch its antiquated ways as senior official agonise over predicament
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FAbout%2FGeneral%2F2011%2F10%2F27%2F1319750005432%2FBritains-Archbishop-of-Ca-007.jpg&hash=aaaf64e2d7b6210d534a8b359ddcd543e4239a83)
The good publicity generated by Rowan Williams in Zimbabwe has been negated. Photograph: Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi/AP
The Church of England, not for the first time, has been left ruing its handling of the protest outside St Paul's Cathedral, a situation in which it has been largely hapless. It did not ask for the protesters to pitch their tents next to one of its most important and symbolic buildings – or not semi-permanently anyway.
Yet the consequences of its agonised soul-searching have left it distinctly uncomfortable: trying to uphold free speech, bearing in mind the example of Christ's clearing out the money changers from the temple on the one hand, or accepting the advice of a health and safety official – who has now fallen sick with stress – on the other. Or "a total and complete shambles", as one senior church figure told the Guardian.
There was sympathy for the cathedral's predicament on the church's right wing and support from the left for the resigning canon Giles Fraser, but also near-universal criticism of the decision to shut the cathedral for the first time since the blitz, not all of it displaced to the responsibility of the demonstrators.
The church used to be more robust in its dealing with demonstrators outside its walls, as the collection of pikes and armour on the walls of the guardroom at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop of Canterbury's London residence, indicate, but it is centuries since it has had to get them down.
"It is very hard to take the temperature of the Church of England," said Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times. "In a poll last week we found 65% of church members believing it was right to welcome the protesters, but there are equally bound to be lots of churchgoers out in the country who think it is right to take a firm hand to them. I suspect whatever people think of the demonstrators though, most will think the church has taken an utterly wrong approach to dealing with the situation. It is such a shame: we have just had our best publicity for ages over Rowan Williams challenging Robert Mugabe to his face and now this comes up and clearly damages the church's reputation once again."
In an indication of the often highly politicised vituperation among some in the church following the long-running dispute over gay clergy – in which Fraser was on the liberal side – some evangelicals reacted with glee that he was resigning. Gavin Drake, the bishop of Lichfield's press officer, wrote on his blog: "Goodbye Giles Fraser, you won't be missed. Giles Fraser is a liberal when it comes to what he believes, but a complete bigot when it comes to the beliefs and views of others ... His appointment was wrong." He claimed his remarks were not personal.
Toby Young, the polemicist, broke off from running his west London free school to claim in the Telegraph that Fraser had single-handedly cost the cathedral hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost revenue. "Sod your colleagues, eh, Dr Fraser? The important thing is that you hold on to your reputation as a man of principle."
More liberal clergy rallied to his support and sympathisers set up a Save Giles Fraser Twitter feed. "The Church of England risks damaging its reputation for a generation. The church has not thought this through," the Rev George Pitcher, who was sacked in the summer as the archbishop of Canterbury's media adviser, told Premier Christian Radio.
Today's decision to reopen the cathedral to worshippers while the demonstrators are still outside seems to undermine the dean and chapter's decision to close the building a week ago for health and safety reasons. The decision was compounded by legal advice that the clergy should not speak to the demonstrators, which undermined the chances of a negotiated settlement.
When the dust settles, the church's authorities may have to review the traditional – and historic, dating back centuries – dean and chapter management structures for its great buildings, over which archbishops, and indeed diocesan bishops, have very little say. Making the church more savvy in its dealings with the outside world of protesters and insistent media demands may prove more difficult, particularly as it has just lost the services of one of its best communicators.
Having said that Rowan's stuff from Zimbabwe has been pretty good.
Apparently "We are the 99%" has become a huge marketing boon.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/132865403.html
QuoteWe find it interesting to see how many commentators, pro and con, suggest that the Occupy Wall Street movement lacks clear goals or focus. Spend a few hours talking to these folks, as we have, and you'll know that the movement's goals are pretty darn clear:
Goal 1: Put a human face on the tens of millions of average Americans from every social, political, and economic strata who have had to put on hold plans to have a job, form a family, own a home, and live a normal life as the result of the dysfunctional mess that the United States has become. Occupy Wall Street is a way to let people across the country know that they are not alone in their struggles.
Goal 2: Spotlight that the industrial-scale financial fraud at the core of the modern financial-services industry is a major source of this mess, and - because the entire political and legal system has been bought off - virtually nobody is being held to account. Just as we have the right to defend ourselves when we are being mugged, Americans have the right to defend ourselves from corporations that exploit our markets while moving jobs overseas or that evade taxes while using our roads, schools, and other public infrastructure.
Goal 3: Point out that no partisan "10 Point Plan" will solve the mess we're in. The profound changes that we need will require the hard, slow work of rebuilding popular consensus by engaging with ideas from every point in the political and social spectrum. Wall Street and big corporate interests love never-ending political paralysis precisely because it leaves them free to cold-bloodedly strip the country bare.
You can agree with Occupy Wall Street, or not. But for those who are having a hard time getting it, as Upton Sinclair observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Not sure how I feel about goals 1 and 2. Goal 3 makes sense although not sure of the usefulness of such a statement.
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2011, 12:30:38 PM
Not sure how I feel about goals 1 and 2. Goal 3 makes sense although not sure of the usefulness of such a statement.
Are you saying the US has not in fact become a dysfunctional mess? Or that the political establishment hasn't been bought lock, stock and barrel by money?
G.
Goal 1 - what does live a normal life mean?
Goal 2 - OK, go ahead and spotlight it. Provide some detail and how you want the problems you identify solved. Corporations are teh evil doesnt quite cut it.
Goal 3 - Good, build a consensus of what should be done. But you are going to have to do a better job at Goal number 2 before you can begin building a consensus.
I miss the good old fashioned protests.
Person with loud speaker - What do we want?
crowd - X
Person with loud speaker - When do we want it?
crowd - now.
Back then the crowd knew why they were there. Now its just a bunch of things are not going so well and damned if we know what to do about it.
The first two goals are metaphorical and the third concedes the point being argued against.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2011, 02:47:04 PM
Back then the crowd knew why they were there. Now its just a bunch of things are not going so well and damned if we know what to do about it.
Protests now mean the exact same thing they did since the 60's. Bored pretty girls trying to "make a change" and they guys who want to get into their pants :P
Quote from: HVC on October 31, 2011, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2011, 02:47:04 PM
Back then the crowd knew why they were there. Now its just a bunch of things are not going so well and damned if we know what to do about it.
Protests now mean the exact same thing they did since the 60's. Bored pretty girls trying to "make a change" and they guys who want to get into their pants :P
:D
I was going to say that but edited it out at the last moment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2011, 03:03:13 PM
The first two goals are metaphorical and the third concedes the point being argued against.
1. Yeah, I think people know that there are enormous numbers of people out of work/underemployed/under water on their mortgages.
2. Not a goal, just a polemic.
3. Not a goal, just an assertion without anything to support it, and no suggestion of action to be taken.
If this is the best definition of the goals of the movement, then I find it interesting that this author finds it interesting to see how many commentators, pro and con, suggest that the Occupy Wall Street movement lacks clear goals or focus.
Well the goals seem to be just to point things out. That's sort of a goal. A wishy-washy, pussy goal, but a goal of sorts. I suppose if they pass the hat around I bet they can accomplish all of this pointing things out with a billboard.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2011, 04:04:03 PM
Well the goals seem to be just to point things out. That's sort of a goal. A wishy-washy, pussy goal, but a goal of sorts. I suppose if they pass the hat around I bet they can accomplish all of this pointing things out with a billboard.
Good, then its time to pack up and go home.
The first goal is harmless but pointless, the second goal is looney tunes, the third is, as Joan said in other words, an admission of cluelessness.
Quote from: Grallon on October 31, 2011, 01:42:13 PM
Are you saying the US has not in fact become a dysfunctional mess? Or that the political establishment hasn't been bought lock, stock and barrel by money?
Good luck finding someplace that isn't.
Our Canadians appear to be living in some kind of Goddamned magical fairyland beyond the reach of the global economy. I guess it's oil, but it might be that they've found a way to harness Quebecois disenchantment, which is basically like zero point energy.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 06:25:24 PM
Our Canadians appear to be living in some kind of Goddamned magical fairyland beyond the reach of the global economy. I guess it's oil, but it might be that they've found a way to harness Quebecois disenchantment, which is basically like zero point energy.
Or, it could be that some (two?) of them are delusional, or that they are lying.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 06:25:24 PM
Our Canadians appear to be living in some kind of Goddamned magical fairyland beyond the reach of the global economy. I guess it's oil, but it might be that they've found a way to harness Quebecois disenchantment, which is basically like zero point energy.
Well, having laws and regulations helped us weather the storm. And oil. High commodity prices help Canada, and only the shitty parts of Canada have been hurt by the loss of manufacturing to the barbarian sectors of the world.
I was also hoping that you'd pick up on my implied slight to the Quebecois.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 27, 2011, 07:41:08 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 27, 2011, 02:12:25 AMI would assume that he was not the target the protestors were aiming at, in fact he seems to have been a supporter and is having to resign because of the loss of all the tourist revenue that has ceased to roll in.
It is a parable of our times.
I can see the reasoning behind his resignation which is rather sad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/27/giles-fraser-resignation-dale-farm
Edit: Good Lord, the CofE's ability to find doubt and division in all possible situations is just remarkable:
QuoteChurch of England split over St Paul's handling of Occupy London protest
Regrets and recriminations may lead church to ditch its antiquated ways as senior official agonise over predicament
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FAbout%2FGeneral%2F2011%2F10%2F27%2F1319750005432%2FBritains-Archbishop-of-Ca-007.jpg&hash=aaaf64e2d7b6210d534a8b359ddcd543e4239a83)
The good publicity generated by Rowan Williams in Zimbabwe has been negated. Photograph: Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi/AP
The Church of England, not for the first time, has been left ruing its handling of the protest outside St Paul's Cathedral, a situation in which it has been largely hapless. It did not ask for the protesters to pitch their tents next to one of its most important and symbolic buildings – or not semi-permanently anyway.
Yet the consequences of its agonised soul-searching have left it distinctly uncomfortable: trying to uphold free speech, bearing in mind the example of Christ's clearing out the money changers from the temple on the one hand, or accepting the advice of a health and safety official – who has now fallen sick with stress – on the other. Or "a total and complete shambles", as one senior church figure told the Guardian.
There was sympathy for the cathedral's predicament on the church's right wing and support from the left for the resigning canon Giles Fraser, but also near-universal criticism of the decision to shut the cathedral for the first time since the blitz, not all of it displaced to the responsibility of the demonstrators.
The church used to be more robust in its dealing with demonstrators outside its walls, as the collection of pikes and armour on the walls of the guardroom at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop of Canterbury's London residence, indicate, but it is centuries since it has had to get them down.
"It is very hard to take the temperature of the Church of England," said Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times. "In a poll last week we found 65% of church members believing it was right to welcome the protesters, but there are equally bound to be lots of churchgoers out in the country who think it is right to take a firm hand to them. I suspect whatever people think of the demonstrators though, most will think the church has taken an utterly wrong approach to dealing with the situation. It is such a shame: we have just had our best publicity for ages over Rowan Williams challenging Robert Mugabe to his face and now this comes up and clearly damages the church's reputation once again."
In an indication of the often highly politicised vituperation among some in the church following the long-running dispute over gay clergy – in which Fraser was on the liberal side – some evangelicals reacted with glee that he was resigning. Gavin Drake, the bishop of Lichfield's press officer, wrote on his blog: "Goodbye Giles Fraser, you won't be missed. Giles Fraser is a liberal when it comes to what he believes, but a complete bigot when it comes to the beliefs and views of others ... His appointment was wrong." He claimed his remarks were not personal.
Toby Young, the polemicist, broke off from running his west London free school to claim in the Telegraph that Fraser had single-handedly cost the cathedral hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost revenue. "Sod your colleagues, eh, Dr Fraser? The important thing is that you hold on to your reputation as a man of principle."
More liberal clergy rallied to his support and sympathisers set up a Save Giles Fraser Twitter feed. "The Church of England risks damaging its reputation for a generation. The church has not thought this through," the Rev George Pitcher, who was sacked in the summer as the archbishop of Canterbury's media adviser, told Premier Christian Radio.
Today's decision to reopen the cathedral to worshippers while the demonstrators are still outside seems to undermine the dean and chapter's decision to close the building a week ago for health and safety reasons. The decision was compounded by legal advice that the clergy should not speak to the demonstrators, which undermined the chances of a negotiated settlement.
When the dust settles, the church's authorities may have to review the traditional – and historic, dating back centuries – dean and chapter management structures for its great buildings, over which archbishops, and indeed diocesan bishops, have very little say. Making the church more savvy in its dealings with the outside world of protesters and insistent media demands may prove more difficult, particularly as it has just lost the services of one of its best communicators.
Having said that Rowan's stuff from Zimbabwe has been pretty good.
The fruits of heresy and schism. CofE can suck it. American Episcopal church, by its own fake numbers, has dipped below 2 million churchgoers.
The Archbishop of Canterbury used to be the Second Pope. Now, he is a useless cipher, like his church.
So did the Tsar. But he got thrown down a mine shaft. Canterbury got off easy.
QuoteOccupy London Protests Lead to Third St. Paul's Resignation
Posted By: Matthew West | Associate Editor, CNBC
CNBC.com
| 31 Oct 2011 | 11:28 AM ET
The standoff between Occupy London Stock Exchange protestors, the Corporation of London and St. Paul's Cathedral took another dramatic turn Monday afternoon as the Dean of St. Paul's, the Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, resigned over his handling of the protests.
The OccupyLSX protests have already led to the departure of the Canon Chancellor Giles Fraser from his position at the world-famous church.
Earlier on Monday lawyers acting for the cathedral and Corporation of London — the executive arm of the City of London — went to the High Court to begin proceedings against the anti-capitalist demonstrators who have been camped on the side of the cathedral for the last two weeks, amid growing fears police could use force to evict them.
The Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Richard Chartres, will now lead the cathedral's negotiations with the protestors.
In a statement posted on its website, St. Paul's stated the Dean had informed his colleagues of his intention to resign on Sunday night. As the appointment of the Dean of St. Paul's is a royal appointment, staff asked the Bishop of London, who delivered the sermon at the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in April, to assist them by providing an "independent voice on the ongoing situation at St. Paul's."
On Sunday, the Bishop visited the campsite and spoke to protestors holding a question-and-answer session with them in which he appeared to back the basic principles behind their protest. However, he failed to condemn the legal action being taken by the Corporation of London and the cathedral.
Instead the Bishop said: "I can see very clearly that getting the legal situation clear is a sensible precautionary measure. I do not subscribe to the idea that it will instantly lead to violence."
The Bishop has had "no part to date in discussions with protestors or decisions made by the Cathedral," according to the statement issued by the cathedrdal, and it is felt his input is now required.
The decision to take legal action against the protestors followed a meeting of the Corporation of London's, planning and transport committee, held on Friday morning, which was closed to the public after around 60 protestors arrived at the meeting to make representations.
Several protestors told CNBC.com that they were appalled at not being able to make representations to the committee and claimed that repeated efforts to engage in dialogue with the Corporation and the cathedral had been rebuffed.
Knowles said: "The past fortnight has been a testing time for the Chapter and for me personally. It has become increasingly clear to me that, as criticism of the cathedral has mounted in the press, media and in public opinion, my position as Dean of St. Paul's was becoming untenable.
"In order to give the opportunity for a fresh approach to the complex and vital questions facing St. Paul's, I have thought it best to stand down as Dean, to allow new leadership to be exercised. I do this with great sadness, but I now believe that I am no longer the right person to lead the Chapter of this great cathedral. "
"In recent days, since the arrival of the protesters' camp outside the cathedral, we have all been put under a great deal of strain and have faced what would appear to be some insurmountable issues," he added. " I hope and pray that under new leadership these issues might continue to be addressed and that there might be a swift and peaceful resolution."
The Bishop of London, expressed sadness over the Dean's resignation and said he hoped the Dean's accomplishments would not be overshadowed by recent events at the cathedral.
"The Chapter has now requested me to help them find a way forward. I have repeated over the past few weeks my own desire to shift the attention to the economic and moral challenges which our country, in common with so much of the rest of the world, is having to face. There are many diverse voices in the camp outside St. Paul's but among them, serious issues are being articulated which the Cathedral has always sought to address," he said.
"While St. Paul's is not on any particular political side — that is not its role — it does have an important part to play in providing a place for reasoned debate within a moral and spiritual context."
The Dean is the most senior member of the cathedral to resign and his resignation marks the third in the last week. On Thursday, Reverend Giles Fraser announced his resignation as Canon Chancellor in protest at the proposed legal action to evict the protestors and spoke of his fears such legal action could lead to violence. The following day, Reverend Fraser Dyer, curate of St. Peter De Beauvoir Town, London and a chaplain at the cathedral, resigned stating similar concerns.
URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45103959/
Meanwhile, on the 1% side ... :D
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/what-the-costumes-reveal.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=nocera&st=cse
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 06:25:24 PM
Our Canadians appear to be living in some kind of Goddamned magical fairyland beyond the reach of the global economy. I guess it's oil, but it might be that they've found a way to harness Quebecois disenchantment, which is basically like zero point energy.
It has a lot to do with oil but it also has a lot to do with the fact that our banks didnt engage in the MBS mess to the same degree as others (partly because we have a different regulatory scheme here and partly because of luck) and so we have not had to spend billions to bail them out. Quite the opposite. Our banks remained profitable tax paying entities. I know this is hard for people like Grumbler to understand but that is probably one of the reasons the US is in so much difficulty. Too many Grumbers who think they know what is going on - not enough JRs who do know what is going on.
Ok so now the occupy people are getting unbearable. They have set up a loud speaker and are taking turns giving silly speeches. The major of Vanouver, bless his socialist heart, gave the occupy movement free access to electricity. So now I get to put up with amplified nonsense. Great, just great.
I am the 99% that want this charade to end.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 03:21:15 PM
Ok so now the occupy people are getting unbearable. They have set up a loud speaker and are taking turns giving silly speeches. The major of Vanouver, bless his socialist heart, gave the occupy movement free access to electricity. So now I get to put up with amplified nonsense. Great, just great.
I am the 99% that want this charade to end.
Really once you have the government providing you with stuff to aid your protest you have already won.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 03:21:15 PM
Ok so now the occupy people are getting unbearable. They have set up a loud speaker and are taking turns giving silly speeches. The major of Vanouver, bless his socialist heart, gave the occupy movement free access to electricity. So now I get to put up with amplified nonsense. Great, just great.
I am the 99% that want this charade to end.
:lol: I don't think 99% of people have offices right next to the occupiers, so I think you're overestimating popular support for your position.
That said, if I had to put up with listening to their ranting while trying to work I'd get pretty irate pretty quickly too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 03:21:15 PM
Ok so now the occupy people are getting unbearable. They have set up a loud speaker and are taking turns giving silly speeches. The major of Vanouver, bless his socialist heart, gave the occupy movement free access to electricity. So now I get to put up with amplified nonsense. Great, just great.
I am the 99% that want this charade to end.
Time to form a militia and beat them with tire irons.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 03:23:15 PM
Really once you have the government providing you with stuff to aid your protest you have already won.
I suppose. They have been given electricity and porto potties from day one. We have a left wing enviornmentalist poster boy as mayor. Which further makes this kind of protest in Vancouver silly. If they wanted to confront the 1% they would set up camp near where I live across the bridge on the North Shore. Preferably in West Vancouver - that police department would have no difficulty arresting them...
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2011, 03:24:43 PM
:lol: I don't think 99% of people have offices right next to the occupiers, so I think you're overestimating popular support for your position.
If they can misuse 99% so can I.
But one thing that made me smirk is one guy just said, "we need to stay relevant - we need to make some noise."
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 03:26:50 PM
Time to form a militia and beat them with tire irons.
Worse in their minds, let's find them jobs.
I can't speak for the rest of you, but here in Seatle there are hardly ever more than 90 of the 99% any given weeknight when I walk past Westlake Center. We must be able to come up with 90 jobs?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 03:33:36 PM
But one thing that made me smirk is one guy just said, "we need to stay relevant - we need to make some noise."
Yeah, they've said that hear as well. Perhaps that's at the heart of the Occupy Oakland and their moves to shutdown downtown Oakland and the seaport tomorrow.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 03:32:03 PM
I suppose. They have been given electricity and porto potties from day one. We have a left wing enviornmentalist poster boy as mayor. Which further makes this kind of protest in Vancouver silly.
Yes that was what I was getting at. They need to go occupy someplace in rightwing Alberta or something.
I'd like to occupy Cote De Pablo's panties.
Well they ran out of things to say. Now they are playing some god awful music over the loadspeaker. Stand up for your rights! We need to stay relevent! What the hell am I going to say next! can only last so long.
At least they aren't playing Indigo Girls or Barenaked Ladies. I hope.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 03:45:56 PM
At least they aren't playing Indigo Girls or Barenaked Ladies. I hope.
I am pretty sure this group would consider them part of the evil corporate agenda.
Smashmouth is in the crowd.
You think the protestors lack a clear message? Meet the CofE :lol:
QuoteSt Paul's and Corporation of London halt legal action against Occupy camp
Cathedral announces U-turn and initiative to 'reconnect financial with the ethical' – but corporation qualifies its move as a 'pause'
Activists campaigning against financial inequality and banking excesses look set to remain camped outside St Paul's cathedral well into next year after both the church and the Corporation of London, which jointly own the land the protesters have occupied for more than two weeks, said they were halting moves to evict them.
While the corporation said it had merely "pressed the pause button" on its legal bid, St Paul's delighted the Occupy London movement with a statement that explicitly lined up the might of one of the Anglican congregation's most celebrated institutions behind their call for greater social justice.
"The alarm bells are ringing all over the world. St Paul's has now heard that call," said the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, who was called in to help the cathedral change course after its dean, the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, resigned on Monday following heavy criticism of the decision to close St Paul's for a week and cut off all contact with the protest camp.
In a statement that drew repeated cheers as protesters read it aloud at their daily assembly, Chartres said the doors of St Paul's were now instead "most emphatically open to engage with matters concerning not only those encamped around the cathedral but millions of others in this country and around the globe".
The statement also announced plans for a new group, headed by Ken Costa, a former top investment banker, with the aim of "reconnecting the financial with the ethical". This will also involve Giles Fraser, the canon chancellor at St Paul's, who stepped down last week over concerns that the cathedral's support for eviction could see it complicit in eventual violence.
A spokesman for St Paul's said the governing chapter had decided to cease legal action and instead engage with activists within the camp of 200 or so tents, which was set up on the western edge of the cathedral 18 days ago. The Rt Rev Michael Colclough said legal advice had dictated that contact should be cut as long as court action remained a possibility, which was "frustrating" for the cathedral.
He and other officials met camp representatives on Monday evening and agreed that the two sides should instead work together. "I believe we had a very useful beginning to what must be an ongoing dialogue," he said. "This is not a PR stunt, it is a breakthrough in Christian dialogue."
While the cathedral chapter had sympathy for the activists' broad message, they hoped to be "a bridge-builder" between the camp and the City, rather than an ally, Colclough said: "We have not jumped sides. I would say that we would not want to be 'on' sides ... When it comes to their basic message of social justice, I would say that we were there before them."
The Corporation of London had been expected to serve legal papers on the camp on Tuesday morning, giving activists 48 hours to pack up their tents or face court action. But the cathedral's U-turn left them in a near-impossible position given that the protest site is part-owned by St Paul's, and that even a joint action was expected to last several months.
Following the cathedral's announcement, Stuart Fraser, the corporation's policy head, said it had briefly suspended its own legal plans to allow "time for reflection". He added: "We're hoping to use a pause – probably of days not weeks – to work out a measured solution."
What the solution will entail will most likely come down to detailed talks between the camp and cathedral chapter. The activists, who make all decisions by consensus at mass meetings, have already voted to stay at the site until after Christmas. However, they say they are open to possibly reducing the size of the camp and are already discussing ways to limit their impact on the cathedral during upcoming peak periods such as Remembrance Sunday, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Either way, activists were exultant after a day of high drama.
"It's a big victory for us. The mood in the camp is very happy," said one member of the camp, Spyro van Leemnen. "I think the church just realised that they stand for many of the same values we do. From day one we've said we want dialogue with them.
"The Corporation of London was the bigger surprise. We don't know whether they also changed their mind or just thought they couldn't go ahead with their legal action without St Paul's – either way, everyone is glad this bit of drama is over. Hopefully we can now start to focus on the main issue, which is social and economic inequality and the problems of the finance system."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ltyihtPBx41qc7c66o1_500.jpg&hash=2c4e44e4d7efc866d3d57154e27888775610dfa5)
:P
:lol:
I've formed a new group:
Occupy a Suite in the Hotel Imperial.
Our goal is a complete renovation of the property.
In down time I can stroll through the Kunsthistorichesmuseum and take in The Way to Calvary.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 04:04:24 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ltyihtPBx41qc7c66o1_500.jpg&hash=2c4e44e4d7efc866d3d57154e27888775610dfa5)
:P
:lol:
I need to watch that show some time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 11:00:06 AM
Our banks remained profitable tax paying entities. I know this is hard for people like Grumbler to understand but that is probably one of the reasons the US is in so much difficulty. Too many Grumbers who think they know what is going on - not enough JRs who do know what is going on.
:lol: Get grallon in for the dogpile, ContraryCunt. It will look better when you have him join the random grumbler-bashing. From you it just looks like sour grapes that you got your ass handed to you by me twice in one day.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 03:32:03 PM
I suppose. They have been given electricity and porto potties from day one. We have a left wing enviornmentalist poster boy as mayor. Which further makes this kind of protest in Vancouver silly.
Yes that was what I was getting at. They need to go occupy someplace in rightwing Alberta or something.
Not going to happen. It's starting to get cold here, and so the tiny group of malcontents is giving up.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2011, 05:44:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 11:00:06 AM
Our banks remained profitable tax paying entities. I know this is hard for people like Grumbler to understand but that is probably one of the reasons the US is in so much difficulty. Too many Grumbers who think they know what is going on - not enough JRs who do know what is going on.
:lol: Get grallon in for the dogpile, ContraryCunt. It will look better when you have him join the random grumbler-bashing. From you it just looks like sour grapes that you got your ass handed to you by me twice in one day.
Wow, he really got you riled. :lol:
:lol: Love the classic reactionary moves on display:
Attempt to discredit the protestors for not being authentic representatives of the working class, even though the interests of the working class should be fought at every juncture unless they can be co-opted into right-wing politics;
Assert the incoherence of the protestors' claims, while the status quo, especially in finance, is outrageously incoherent and deliberately incomprehensible;
Launch personal attacks on the supposed lifestyles or backgrounds of the protestors, without a shred of credible evidence (even when that evidence wouldn't bear on any relevant issue);
Or just make frivolous ripostes and word play about "occupying" in the "let them eat cake" vein;
Or, finally, just attack the notion of protest itself as stupid and impractical, and deny the entire genealogy of modern history, which is essentially the history of protest.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 02, 2011, 01:41:06 AM
:lol: Love the classic reactionary moves on display:
...
Mihali lad you're not surprised by any of this are you? The establishment will do anything to protect its privileges. When the killings start the game will really be on. I can't wait! ^_^
G.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 08:05:48 PM
Wow, he really got you riled. :lol:
No need to get your panties in such a twist! :lol:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 02, 2011, 01:41:06 AM
...the entire genealogy of modern history, which is essentially the history of protest.
That's an overstatement.
Besides, you're up to the same old nonsense that the anti-capitalist left has consistently engaged in: No matter how small and irrelevant, any display of public discontent means that the revolution is coming.
Quote from: Grallon on November 02, 2011, 06:54:26 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 02, 2011, 01:41:06 AM
:lol: Love the classic reactionary moves on display:
...
Mihali lad you're not surprised by any of this are you? The establishment will do anything to protect its privileges. When the killings start the game will really be on. I can't wait! ^_^
G.
You gonna give us a time frame? This year, next year, what?
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 07:24:40 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 02, 2011, 01:41:06 AM
...the entire genealogy of modern history, which is essentially the history of protest.
That's an overstatement.
Besides, you're up to the same old nonsense that the anti-capitalist left has consistently engaged in: No matter how small and irrelevant, any display of public discontent means that the revolution is coming.
Yeah on both counts.
http://news.yahoo.com/oakland-prepares-occupy-movement-epicenter-074025064.html
QuoteOakland hopes to become the epicenter of Occupy Wall Street movement Wednesday as local organizers, labor unions and advocacy groups called for marches, pickets outside banks, school shutdowns and an attempt to close the nation's fifth-busiest port.
Occupy Oakland participants, elected officials and business leaders expressed optimism that the widely anticipated "general strike" would be a peaceful and even unifying event for a city that last week became a rallying point after police used tear gas to clear an encampment outside City Hall and then clashed with protesters in the street.
"We are expecting the marches and demonstrations to remain peaceful, and the police department's and the city's role is to facilitate that process," city spokesman Karen Boyd said. "We have done that many times in the past. We've seen many, many instances of peaceful protests, peaceful expressions."
Along with protesting financial institutions that many within the broader Occupy Wall Street movement blame for high unemployment and the foreclosure crisis, supporters of the Oakland events are convening around grievances such as local school closures, waning union benefits and cuts to social services.
Demonstrators in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia said they planned to hold solidarity actions Wednesday.
The day's events in Oakland are expected to begin at 9 a.m., when the first of three rallies scheduled by strike organizers is supposed to kick off downtown. The activities are expected to culminate with a march to the Port of Oakland, where local protesters said the goal would be to stop work there in time for the 7 p.m. evening shift.
Organizers say they want to halt "the flow of capital" at the port, a major point of entry for Chinese exports to the U.S.
Union members could recognize the Occupy demonstration as a picket line and refuse to cross it on Wednesday night, said Stan Woods, a spokesman for the longshoremen's union in Oakland.
Other demonstrators, some affiliated with established community groups, said they planned to target banks that do not close for the day, convene a dancing flash mob, sponsor music and street parties, march with elderly residents and people with disabilities to the California state office building, hold youth teach-ins and takeover foreclosed homes and vacant city buildings.
Because of the activities' free-flowing and therefore unpredictable nature, city leaders said they had no idea how many people would take part or how much a disruption they could pose to residents' and workers' daily routines. Boyd said the government "will be open for business as usual" and was encouraging businesses to do the same.
But the president of the police officers' union said he was worried officers were being scapegoated by Mayor Jean Quan and "set to fail" if Wednesday's actions got unruly. "We're going to be seen as the establishment, and it's not fair to the police, it's not fair to anyone," Oakland Police Officer's Association President Sgt. Dom Arotzarena told The Associated Press.
On Oct. 25, police acting at the request of the city's administrator, who reports to the mayor, were asked to clear the protesters' campsite during an early morning raid. A confrontation with marchers protesting the raid followed that night, and an Iraq War veteran suffered a fractured skull and brain injury when officers moved in with tear gas, flash grenades and beanbag projectiles.
Quan allowed protesters to reclaim the plaza outside City Hall the next day. At least six dozen tents and a kitchen buzzing with donated food have been erected on the spot since then, while the crackdown has galvanized anti-Wall Street events elsewhere and made politicians in other cities think again about interfering with their local encampments.
Occupy LA, a monthlong 475-tent encampment around Los Angeles City Hall, is planning a 5:30 p.m. march and rally through downtown LA's financial district to express solidarity with the Oakland general strike and to protest police brutality.
"It was obvious to the entire world that the acts perpetrated against Oakland occupation were acts of police brutality," said Julia Wallace, spokeswoman for the Committee to End Police Brutality at Occupy LA.
In San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday passed a resolution calling on Mayor Ed Lee to allow the Occupy Wall Street protesters to remain in a tent city near the historic ferry terminal, an area frequented by commuters and tourists.
"We need to have a government that is truly accountable to the 99 percent, so I wholeheartedly support the movement," said Supervisor John Avalos, who drafted the nonbinding resolution that also calls on city police to avoid clashes with the protesters.
Quan said in a statement Tuesday that she was working with interim Police Chief Howard Jordan to ensure that the protesters issues remain "front and center" on Wednesday.
"The pro-99 percent activists — whose cause I support — will have the freedom to get their message across without the conflict that marred last week's events," Quan said.
Unions representing city government workers, Oakland's public school teachers, community college instructors, and University of California, Berkeley teaching assistants all have endorsed the daylong work stoppage and encouraged their members to participate.
"It's sort of a realization that a lot of people are having that we've all been fighting our own issues, but really, it's all related, it's all the same issue," Oakland Education Association Secretary Steve Neat said.
The Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce released an open letter to the mayor Tuesday in which President Joseph Haraburda expressed concern for "the mothers and children, and even grandmothers, who plan to come to Oakland to conduct their regular business" and for business owners who "must face a day of uncertainty" if they do not close for the strike.
"We want to be clear, should Wednesday's planned protests go awry, someone will need to be held accountable," Haraburda said.
Manhattan is too tame for its own "good"?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 02, 2011, 01:41:06 AM
:lol: Love the classic reactionary moves on display:
Attempt to discredit the protestors for not being authentic representatives of the working class, even though the interests of the working class should be fought at every juncture unless they can be co-opted into right-wing politics;
Assert the incoherence of the protestors' claims, while the status quo, especially in finance, is outrageously incoherent and deliberately incomprehensible;
Launch personal attacks on the supposed lifestyles or backgrounds of the protestors, without a shred of credible evidence (even when that evidence wouldn't bear on any relevant issue);
Or just make frivolous ripostes and word play about "occupying" in the "let them eat cake" vein;
Or, finally, just attack the notion of protest itself as stupid and impractical, and deny the entire genealogy of modern history, which is essentially the history of protest.
It is really down to a science. They did the same thing to the Tea Party protests. This is the gameplan no matter how justified or non-justified a public protest is.
I do sorta like the insistance that the protest have a solution to all the problems which is a pretty tall order when the most brilliant and educated minds on the planet cannot even agree on one.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 09:44:14 AM
It is really down to a science. They did the same thing to the Tea Party protests. This is the gameplan no matter how justified or non-justified a public protest is.
I do sorta like the insistance that the protest have a solution to all the problems which is a pretty tall order when the most brilliant and educated minds on the planet cannot even agree on one.
The problem is that a reaction of "we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore" really isn't that useful, informative or significant - whether from the right or the left.
It isn't like there is any obvious thing anyone could do to make things better.
Protests work when there is an actual injustice being protested against - like Martin Luther King protesting against segregation. You can make the protesters happy by removing the injustice of segregation, so the issues are reasonably clear-cut. How exactly can you make the tea partiers or occupiers happy? Not screw up the economy or environment? Well, that would be a good idea, but to put it mildly opinions differ as to how to go about doing that.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
The problem is that a reaction of "we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore" really isn't that useful, informative or significant - whether from the right or the left.
It isn't like there is any obvious thing anyone could do to make things better.
Protests work when there is an actual injustice being protested against - like Martin Luther King protesting against segregation. You can make the protesters happy by removing the injustice of segregation, so the issues are reasonably clear-cut. How exactly can you make the tea partiers or occupiers happy? Not screw up the economy or environment? Well, that would be a good idea, but to put it mildly opinions differ as to how to go about doing that.
I guess I have to disagree emphatically. Certainly a protest that does have a specific agenda is much more useful, by several degrees of magnitude. But a protest bringing attention to serious problems are absolutely needed as well. The elites can sometimes get pretty isolated in their ivory towers, it never hurts to shake them up a bit. Know that the plebs are restless.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:06:06 AM
I guess I have to disagree emphatically. Certainly a protest that does have a specific agenda is much more useful, by several degrees of magnitude. But a protest bringing attention to serious problems are absolutely needed as well. The elites can sometimes get pretty isolated in their ivory towers, it never hurts to shake them up a bit. Know that the plebs are restless.
I disagree. Below the cyclic fluctuations of the market, the basic structural problems here are three-fold:
1. The increasing division of 1st world societies into haves and have-nots;
2. The thrust from below of nations wishing to obtain 1st world status for themselves, like China and India; and
3. Problems with the environment, over-use of resources, etc. (we just passed the 7 billion mark)
Problem is that these issues are inter-related in various ways: for example, adressing the desire of China and India to obtain first world status is gonna make the environmental issues worse - and there is little we can do about that. The fact that many are feeling the pinch from a down-turn just scratches the surface of the hard issues facing us, and simple acknowledgement of the fact that many are unhappy isn't really all that helpful. Chances are many more are going to be unhappy in the future, as there is no choice that can possibly make everyone happy.
To give but an example: make the 99%ers happy by decreasing social inequity would require an increase in socialist measures, which in turn would require an increase in government power, which is absolutely certain to drive the Tea Partiers nuts with rage. Make the Tea Partiers happy by increasing protectionism and you piss off China and India (as well as screwing the economy further). Increase productivity for everyone, and you degrade the environment. An so on and so forth.
So, who to make hapopy? Those who protest the loudest?
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 10:23:25 AM
So, who to make hapopy? Those who protest the loudest?
The reaction to every protest does not need to be simply to cave. The point is to add urgency to solving societies problems. Recognizing it is not simply the interest group who lobbies the most that needs attention but also the protest that protests the loudest.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 07:55:02 AM
You gonna give us a time frame? This year, next year, what?
grallon is too clever to become the Harold Camping of languish. The rapture is always just around the corner.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:26:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 10:23:25 AM
So, who to make hapopy? Those who protest the loudest?
The reaction to every protest does not need to be simply to cave. The point is to add urgency to solving societies problems. Recognizing it is not simply the interest group who lobbies the most that needs attention but also the protest that protests the loudest.
Hence back to the first point: as lobbying, mass protest of the "occupy" sort is not particularly
effective, because as you yourself note, it is easy to dismiss as incoherent, the work of professional dumpster-divers, etc. etc. - basically, the "reactionary reasons".
You may say that this is unfair and that these are voices that need hearing, but life has no obligation to be fair. In the competition of ideas, the inarticulate are at a disadvantage.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 10:34:19 AM
Hence back to the first point: as lobbying, mass protest of the "occupy" sort is not particularly effective, because as you yourself note, it is easy to dismiss as incoherent, the work of professional dumpster-divers, etc. etc. - basically, the "reactionary reasons".
Heh. I think the past few years have shown that, contrary to what I would have thought, it is pretty effective.
QuoteYou may say that this is unfair and that these are voices that need hearing, but life has no obligation to be fair. In the competition of ideas, the inarticulate are at a disadvantage.
I have no idea what you are babbling about. When have I said anything about fairness? I am just reflecting on what has been going on and the results I have been seeing.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:38:25 AM
Heh. I think the past few years have shown that, contrary to what I would have thought, it is pretty effective.
Really? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?
Quote
I have no idea what you are babbling about. When have I said anything about fairness? I am just reflecting on what has been going on and the results I have been seeing.
The "you may say" phrase is intended as a rhetorical response (hence the "you may say" rather than "you have said"). I do not mean to state you have actually said it.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 10:43:45 AMReally? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?
I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.
Funny, I
thought they did that by grass-roots vote organizing and in effect infiltrating the Republican party.
Now I learn that they did that by protesting in the streets and getting "the man" to heed them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 10:43:45 AMReally? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?
I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.
Yeah, but not by incoherent babbling in giant mobs at random locations.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2011, 05:44:05 PM
It will look better when you have him join the random grumbler-bashing.
There was nothing random in my bashing. :hug:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.
Not for the better.
We're not talking about abortion anymore at least. There's that silver lining.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 01:58:04 PM
Not for the better.
Disagree. The deficit is an issue now. Before it wasn't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 01:58:04 PM
Not for the better.
Disagree. The deficit is an issue now. Before it wasn't.
Similarly, "corporate greed" and "irresponsible regulations" are issues now too; at least for the moment.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2011, 02:38:33 PM
We're not talking about abortion anymore at least. There's that silver lining.
Boy, isn't that the fucking truth?
I've been talking about aborting the Tea Party for the past six months. Dibs on the skull scissors.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 10:53:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 10:43:45 AMReally? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?
I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.
Yeah, but not by incoherent babbling in giant mobs at random locations.
Actually, that's exactly what it was.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 10:53:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 10:43:45 AMReally? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?
I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.
Yeah, but not by incoherent babbling in giant mobs at random locations.
Actually, that's exactly what it was.
Yes, if you define a voting place as a "random location".
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 03:13:51 PM
Actually, that's exactly what it was.
It's actually only a portion of what it was. The random mobs were able to mobilize voters and affect a real change. That change may or may not have been beneficial overall, but there was a much more concrete outcome than what we've seen out of OWS so far.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 03:36:37 PM
Yes, if you define a voting place as a "random location".
There hasn't been an election since this new movement came along. Before the 2010 election there were lots of incoherent rambling in rallies across the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:38:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 03:36:37 PM
Yes, if you define a voting place as a "random location".
There hasn't been an election since this new movement came along. Before the 2010 election there were lots of incoherent rambling in rallies across the US.
What the Tea Party engages in is basically the process of politics as usual - rallies to mobilize support, getting sympathetic candidates nominated, etc.
In contrast, the whole point of demonstrations and "occupations" is that they are an
alternative to politics as usual - an attempt to get the message out by way of direct action.
The reason the latter is less successful and influentual than the former is simple, and amply demonstrated by the contrast between the two movements: both are, to be blunt, portrayed as crazies by their opponents; but this doesn't matter nearly as much, where what you wish to do is exercise power through the political process - if you have enough like-minded "crazies" to vote your way.
It matters a lot where you are attempting to directly influence a hostile audience (in this case, allegedly "the man" or "ivory tower elites"). If the "man" or "elites" can successfully characterize your protest as the work of some dumpster-diving, tattooed professional anarchists, beggars and crazies, you have lost.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 04:53:35 PMWhat the Tea Party engages in is basically the process of politics as usual - rallies to mobilize support, getting sympathetic candidates nominated, etc.
I think that's what they ended up doing but as Yo says they moved the debate onto the deficit way before they engaged with/co-opted/were co-opted by the GOP.
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 07:24:40 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 02, 2011, 01:41:06 AM
...the entire genealogy of modern history, which is essentially the history of protest.
That's an overstatement.
Besides, you're up to the same old nonsense that the anti-capitalist left has consistently engaged in: No matter how small and irrelevant, any display of public discontent means that the revolution is coming.
Remember- communism is just over the horizon. The horizon is the apparent boundary where earth and sky meet, which recedes at the rate that you approach it.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 02:51:06 PM
Similarly, "corporate greed" and "irresponsible regulations" are issues now too; at least for the moment.
Those have been "issues" since the financial crisis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 05:48:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 02:51:06 PM
Similarly, "corporate greed" and "irresponsible regulations" are issues now too; at least for the moment.
Those have been "issues" since the financial crisis.
I saw an statistic, apparently from some place called Nexus that tracks such things, that said the use (in the media, US I presume) of the phrase "corporate greed" had grown by over 8000% since the Occupy Wall Street movement kicked off.
Corporate greed.
I'm doing my part.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 05:54:33 PM
I saw an statistic, apparently from some place called Nexus that tracks such things, that said the use (in the media, US I presume) of the phrase "corporate greed" had grown by over 8000% since the Occupy Wall Street movement kicked off.
8000% compared to when? The day before the movement kicked off?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 05:57:52 PM8000% compared to when? The day before the movement kicked off?
I'm guessing it was looking at longer periods... maybe a month or so?
"corporate greed" is a meaningless catch phrase. It is the best possible symbol for this protest.
Here we go:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=corporate+greed
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:01:32 PM
"corporate greed" is a meaningless catch phrase. It is the best possible symbol for this protest.
Out of curiosity, how would the protesters have to comport themselves for you to think their actions meaningful and their message worthy of respect even if you disagreed with it?
BTW, we drank the bottle of wine you guys gave us at the housewarming party. Very tasty :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 06:06:09 PM
Out of curiosity, how would the protesters have to comport themselves for you to think their actions meaningful and their message worthy of respect even if you disagreed with it?
BTW, we drank the bottle of wine you guys gave us at the housewarming party. Very tasty :cheers:
First they would have to have a message.
Glad you liked the wine.
It wasn't called champagne was it? Cause if it wasn't from France that would be wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
I read an editorial in the University of Iowa student newspaper arguing that Bank of America's decision to reverse itself on debit card fees was due to Occupyers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2011, 06:14:48 PM
It wasn't called champagne was it? Cause if it wasn't from France that would be wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
+1 :yes:
And not just anywhere in France.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:01:32 PM
"corporate greed" is a meaningless catch phrase.
I'm not certain it's meaningless. You might for instance take a look at the notion of using bailout money for executive bonuses at a critical time in the economy and say "hmm, to my peepers, that looks a bit like corporate greed".
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2011, 06:14:48 PM
It wasn't called champagne was it? Cause if it wasn't from France that would be wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
There is no such thing as Champagne that is not from France and so not only would it be wrong it would also be impossible.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 06:18:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:01:32 PM
"corporate greed" is a meaningless catch phrase.
I'm not certain it's meaningless. You might for instance take a look at the notion of using bailout money for executive bonuses at a critical time in the economy and say "hmm, to my peepers, that looks a bit like corporate greed".
Then the chant should be "Executive Greed!" or "Better Corporate Governance!" or "Power to the Shareholders". But that comes awfully close to suggesting a specific problem and an actual solution...
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:09:48 PMFirst they would have to have a message.
"The system is fucked and regular folks are getting shafted" isn't a message?
QuoteGlad you liked the wine.
Me too :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:22:49 PM
Then the chant should be "Executive Greed!" or "Better Corporate Governance!" or "Power to the Shareholders". But that comes awfully close to suggesting a specific problem and an actual solution...
I'm not suggesting it's the best chant. I'm suggesting it's not of necessity meaningless.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 06:30:45 PM
"The system is fucked and regular folks are getting shafted" isn't a message?
It's as much of a message as shouting "I'm unhappy" is a message.
To answer your previous question, the bare minimum for a reasonable protest IMO is one that advocates for or against a specific *policy.* Get out of Iraq, don't raise tuition, decrease taxes--at least these tell you what the protesters want you to do.
Of course that leaves aside the issue that most protests are simplistic and infantile, but at least that's a start.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 06:36:17 PM
It's as much of a message as shouting "I'm unhappy" is a message.
To answer your previous question, the bare minimum for a reasonable protest IMO is one that advocates for or against a specific *policy.* Get out of Iraq, don't raise tuition, decrease taxes--at least these tell you what the protesters want you to do.
Of course that leaves aside the issue that most protests are simplistic and infantile, but at least that's a start.
What if there are multiple issues compounding the problem, though?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 06:40:44 PM
What if there are multiple issues compounding the problem, though?
Then you write an editorial or a book. You don't chant a hundred slogans one after another while waiving a hundred different placards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 06:44:40 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 06:40:44 PM
What if there are multiple issues compounding the problem, though?
Then you write an editorial or a book. You don't chant a hundred slogans one after another while waiving a hundred different placards.
You could have said this during the Tea Party rallies.
http://hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com/
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 06:45:48 PM
You could have said this during the Tea Party rallies.
I must have missed the four week thread on Tea Party rallies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 06:36:17 PMIt's as much of a message as shouting "I'm unhappy" is a message.
I dunno. In a place where the government is by the people, for the people I think the fact that significant number of people are unhappy is an important message.
QuoteTo answer your previous question, the bare minimum for a reasonable protest IMO is one that advocates for or against a specific *policy.* Get out of Iraq, don't raise tuition, decrease taxes--at least these tell you what the protesters want you to do.
You genuinely don't have any notions what would make the protesters less unhappy?
QuoteOf course that leaves aside the issue that most protests are simplistic and infantile, but at least that's a start.
We can get back to that in a bit, if you'd like.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
http://hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com/
I would call them all hot...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 06:47:27 PMI must have missed the four week thread on Tea Party rallies.
You don't recall languish discussion of tea party rallies? Or where the threads just too short to qualify?
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:09:48 PMFirst they would have to have a message.
"The system is fucked and regular folks are getting shafted" isn't a message?
What system is fucked? What regular folks are getting shafted?
The US system. People in the US? The Canadian system which is heavily subsidizing the education of most of the people I see outside my window? How exactly are they getting shafted?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
http://hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com/
I note that some of them were taken by 'David Shankbone'. That guy has taken thousands of pictures for Wikipedia/WMC. He's provided the celebrity photo for literally hundreds of celebrity pages on there. He really has a thing for photographing porn stars.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2011, 06:51:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
http://hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com/
I would call them all hot...
Some of them should stay inside.
The last one looks like a Tranny. Also some have those arm tatoos. :yucky: When will people stop doing that?
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 06:48:55 PM
You genuinely don't have any notions what would make the protesters less unhappy?
I have many notions about what would make the protesters less unhappy, at least temporarily. The feeling of power. Having created some change. If Congress were to pass a law that the maximum salary for anyone working at any financial institution was $50,000 they would be jumping for joy. If Congress passed a law that all debts owed to anyone were null and void they would be estatic.
Then when the repercussions come home to roost they can blame someone else. That's the nature of populism. Simple solutions with no consequences.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 07:01:26 PM
I have many notions about what would make the protesters less unhappy, at least temporarily. The feeling of power. Having created some change. If Congress were to pass a law that the maximum salary for anyone working at any financial institution was $50,000 they would be jumping for joy. If Congress passed a law that all debts owed to anyone were null and void they would be estatic.
If Congress passed either of those laws many Congressmen would mysteriously pass away in unfortunate accidents within a couple of months. :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 07:01:26 PM
If Congress passed a law that all debts owed to anyone were null and void they would be estatic.
Squee.
I've wondered what kind of default rate it would take to break the system, in a "choke the rivers with our dead" sort of way.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/livenow?id=8416255
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 07:00:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2011, 06:51:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
http://hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com/
I would call them all hot...
Some of them should stay inside.
The last one looks like a Tranny. Also some have those arm tatoos. :yucky: When will people stop doing that?
Young people astound me with their stupidity. They come in for interviews and it looks like the Latin Kings tagged them. And they whine about nobody wanting to hire them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:51:57 PMWhat system is fucked? What regular folks are getting shafted?
The US system. People in the US? The Canadian system which is heavily subsidizing the education of most of the people I see outside my window? How exactly are they getting shafted?
I take that to mean that you think that there is a message then, even if you don't get all the particulars and would like more detail.
As for the Vancouver occupiers, I think the message that "the system is fucked" is much less salient than it is in the US. Our employment rate is a bit better, we don't have huge sectors of middle class people gutted by the property bust, our banks didn't get bailed out with taxpayer money, we have health care security for the whole population, there is less food insecurity, I believe student loans burdens are lower and so on; so like you I think taking action through the established political processes is more effective and appropriate than protests.
Still, if enough people agree with the occupiers that "the system is fucked", and they express that agreement publicly, then we may so more action on those issues as the established political processes kick into gear. Whether that happens in Canada, or the US, remains to be seen. I think there's some evidence that the terms of the debate has shifted a bit in the US in response to the occupiers, but it's early to tell yet. I haven't seen much evidence for a shift of the debate in Canada, but it may yet come or it may fizzle out. In both cases, time will tell.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2011, 07:05:55 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/livenow?id=8416255
It looks like those people are blocking the streets and thereby disrupting commerce. It's kind of hard for companies to make the money they need to hire people if they're not able to deliver their products to paying customers and/or receiving the supplies needed to manufacture products. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2011, 07:08:21 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2011, 07:05:55 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/livenow?id=8416255
It looks like those people are blocking the streets and thereby disrupting commerce. It's kind of hard for companies to make the money they need to hire people if they're not able to deliver their products to paying customers and/or receiving the supplies needed to manufacture products. :)
Live ammo is the cure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 07:01:26 PMI have many notions about what would make the protesters less unhappy, at least temporarily. The feeling of power. Having created some change. If Congress were to pass a law that the maximum salary for anyone working at any financial institution was $50,000 they would be jumping for joy. If Congress passed a law that all debts owed to anyone were null and void they would be estatic.
Hopefully something more reasonable could take the edge of the populism. I don't know, maybe better health care coverage and better corporate and financial governance rules that remove the moral hazard of "too big too fail" banks making investments where if they succeed, they reap the benefits, but if they fail the government picks up the tab. Perhaps trying to address the huge student debt load out there and the apparently ever increasing cost of tuition. There might be some solutions that aren't straight up "eat the rich." It does seem that most attempts to lessen income inequality and address corporate/ financial governance immediately gets debated in terms of "class warfare" though, so maybe it's not possible to find a functional middle ground that addresses some of these concerns.
QuoteThen when the repercussions come home to roost they can blame someone else. That's the nature of populism. Simple solutions with no consequences.
Well yeah, that's the problem with letting the situation deteriorate to the point where populist solutions dominate the discourse. That goes in both left and right directions, of course.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 07:17:30 PM
Hopefully something more reasonable could take the edge of the populism.
Or we could just wait until they max out daddy's Visa and go home.
I opposed to all efforts to placate populism. It's like paying off hijackers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 01:53:45 PM
There was nothing random in my bashing. :hug:
You mean you picked that particular strawman for a reason? :hmm:
Still sounds like sore-loserdom to me. :cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 07:20:29 PMOr we could just wait until they max out daddy's Visa and go home.
Well, if this is just bored kids living of dad's money then it'll go away soon enough. For my part, I've been led to understand that there are some not insignificant economic hardship going on in the US at the moment, for not small parts of the population. If this occupation movement is an expression of that hardship and of more general popular discontent, then the occupiers may not be going home anytime soon.
QuoteI opposed to all efforts to placate populism. It's like paying off hijackers.
So the US shouldn't address the deficit since that issue was put on the agenda by the populist Tea Party movement?
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 06:48:55 PM
You genuinely don't have any notions what would make the protesters less unhappy?
I don't believe even they know what specific policies would make them less unhappy.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 07:24:46 PM
So the US shouldn't address the deficit since that issue was put on the agenda by the populist Tea Party movement?
:huh: You genuinely believe that issue of the US deficit was put on the agenda by the Tea party movement?
Wow.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 07:24:46 PM
So the US shouldn't address the deficit since that issue was put on the agenda by the populist Tea Party movement?
He he. Good one. I will amend my position.
All the things you mentioned are plausible issues. Now we let the process run its course. We propose solutions to problems. We openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals. We test slogans in the fire of logic and fact. We attempt to convince others. We vote people into office we hope will further our agenda.
What we don't do is barge into private property and pout when The Man doesn't instantly solve all our problems.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:30:24 PM
:huh: You genuinely believe that issue of the US deficit was put on the agenda by the Tea party movement?
Wow.
That was Yi's claim, as per this exchange:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 01:58:04 PMNot for the better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 02:44:50 PMDisagree. The deficit is an issue now. Before it wasn't.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:26:21 PMI don't believe even they know what specific policies would make them less unhappy.
Maybe politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy can think of something? It could be worth a shot.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 07:35:27 PMHe he. Good one. I will amend my position.
:cheers:
QuoteAll the things you mentioned are plausible issues. Now we let the process run its course. We propose solutions to problems. We openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals. We test slogans in the fire of logic and fact. We attempt to convince others. We vote people into office we hope will further our agenda.
What we don't do is barge into private property and pout when The Man doesn't instantly solve all our problems.
I think the feeling is (and certainly it's the justification for populism and protests in general) that sometimes the establishment finds it inconvenient to do anything at all about the issues at hand.
I agree that
we propose solutions to problems. We openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals. We test slogans in the fire of logic and fact. I think the protests are the starting point for that - they're outlining the problem in broad strokes. They're inviting proposals for solutions; some are even proposing some (many of them harebrained, some perhaps not). As more proposals emerge, we continue to debate pros and cons and, as you so eloquently say,
test slogans in the fire of logic and fact.As that goes on, and that takes time,
we attempt to convince others. We vote people into office we hope will further our agenda.
So the reason
we barge in to private property and pout is to kick start that process, because we feel it's been rather anemic up until now.
Like Sheilbh said, and you more or less said about the Tea Party, it's about setting the agenda and calling attention to the problem; the solutions aren't really clear at this point, but perhaps some of the problems are.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:51:57 PM
What system is fucked? What regular folks are getting shafted?
I happen to believe, or hold dear, that a system in which inequalities are ever more important is fucked - especially so when people who get shafted become convinced that this is the "way of things", and that an ever growing segment of the upper middle class close rank and now say that there is nothing wrong with this. In that regard, Canada might be slightly better than the US, but is not the equalizing bubble of social democracy you seem to believe it is.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 07:38:36 PM
That was Yi's claim, as per this exchange:
Didn't see that. Sorry. Carry on.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 01:58:04 PM
Not for the better.
Disagree. The deficit is an issue now. Before it wasn't.
I disagree that it wasn't an issue.
Where the TP has had an impact (with help from Grover N. and co) is to make it into an issue that is politically incapable of rational resolution.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 07:40:06 PM
Maybe politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy can think of something? It could be worth a shot.
I think that we should let the politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy work on solving the many social and economic problems that face the country as a whole. Abandoning the work that would help millions to try to mind-read and then address the concerns of the thousands would be an abrogation of their true responsibilities, IMO. It is not always the squeaky wheel that justly commands the attentions of politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2011, 07:20:29 PMI opposed to all efforts to placate populism. It's like paying off hijackers.
Populism and protests are different things.
As it is populists are just part of the political system, no better or worse than elites. I think it's important to strike a balance between the two. Europe's crisis is, to some extent, the product of an entirely elite driven process.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 08:00:03 PMI think that we should let the politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy work on solving the many social and economic problems that face the country as a whole. Abandoning the work that would help millions to try to mind-read and then address the concerns of the thousands would be an abrogation of their true responsibilities, IMO. It is not always the squeaky wheel that justly commands the attentions of politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy.
It may be that solving the many social and economic problems that face the country as whole will also address the concerns of the protesters.
I suppose it all comes down to what the protesters represent.
If, as I believe they see themselves, they actually represent the concerns of the millions then the contradiction you suggest doesn't exist. If the political class can begin to effectively address the social and economic issues that face the nation as a whole, then they will have satisfied the protester's (somewhat incoherently expressed) demands.
On the other hand if, as seems to be the dominant perception on languish, they are primarily feckless dilettantes representing no one but themselves, with demands that are incoherent and self-indulgent, then it would be a misdirection of resources to try to address them (if there even is a way to do so).
So what does it mean? Is it mostly petulant acting out? Or is it an expression of built up tension boiling over because the political class have failed to grapple with significant social and economical problems for too long? Is it possible to be both at the same time?
Whatever the truth of who they are, I think how they're perceived is going to have significant influence on what happens next. If you think there are significant social and economical problems to be addressed as a priority, then it's probably in your interest that the protests are seen as an expression of those (even if it's not particularly accurate); on the other hand, if you think there aren't really any issues, or if you think they exist but don't think they require any kind of particular action, then your interests are probably best served by the protests being dismissed and marginalized as much as possible whatever the truth.
Personally, I tend towards interpreting the protests as being an expression of real issues in the US even if some number of the protesters may be obnoxious twats. I'm less sure about the Canadian protests, as the situation is different up here, but maybe there are bigger problems than I'm used to thinking.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ltm1r4m88j1r4urrdo1_500.jpg&hash=be6716b62a687dc89d3aa26205b397267d834917)
I like this one :D
The "corporations are people!!1" misunderstanding is one of things I like the least about the OWS movement and associated leftism.
Oh, you just mean you'd have sex with her? Sure. Me too.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 10:20:59 PM
It may be that solving the many social and economic problems that face the country as whole will also address the concerns of the protesters.
Agree that the protests are redundant. It is my belief that, for the vast majority of them, the movement is about the protestors' boredom and not the "cause." The reason I believe that is that there seems to be no "cause." Just a vague feeling that things aren't going any better now than they have been for the last four years, despite the expenditure of vast sums of money.
QuoteIf, as I believe they see themselves, they actually represent the concerns of the millions then the contradiction you suggest doesn't exist. If the political class can begin to effectively address the social and economic issues that face the nation as a whole, then they will have satisfied the protester's (somewhat incoherently expressed) demands.
If, as I suspect, these protests are simply the result of boredom by people who would (like those less bored but not bored enough to join an inchoate "protest" movement) otherwise be at work if wok were to be found, then the protests don't actually communicate anything not already apparent from election results and poll results.
QuoteSo what does it mean? Is it mostly petulant acting out? Or is it an expression of built up tension boiling over because the political class have failed to grapple with significant social and economical problems for too long? Is it possible to be both at the same time?
I have always maintained that it is both; these are people who are suffering no more nor less than their peers, but they think they shouldn't be the ones suffering. At the same time, they have been sold a bill of goods about a "political class" that is acting against their interests, so they think that, if they just protest loudly enough and incoherently enough, they can defeat Them who are holding the country back from paradise.
QuoteWhatever the truth of who they are, I think how they're perceived is going to have significant influence on what happens next. If you think there are significant social and economical problems to be addressed as a priority, then it's probably in your interest that the protests are seen as an expression of those (even if it's not particularly accurate); on the other hand, if you think there aren't really any issues, or if you think they exist but don't think they require any kind of particular action, then your interests are probably best served by the protests being dismissed and marginalized as much as possible whatever the truth.
Disagree. I don't think that the choice is between siding with the protestors are believing that there are no pressing social and economic problems to be addressed. In fact, I have scarcely been the only person here that has been arguing that there are pressing social and economic problems to be addressed since long before this protest movement started.
QuotePersonally, I tend towards interpreting the protests as being an expression of real issues in the US even if some number of the protesters may be obnoxious twats. I'm less sure about the Canadian protests, as the situation is different up here, but maybe there are bigger problems than I'm used to thinking.
I don't know anyone who doesn't interpret the protests as being an expression of real issues in the US. I think the issue is whether the protestors are actually attempting to accomplish something, following which they will disperse, or whether they are essentially just amusing themselves by engaging in a protest rather than sitting around talking about being unemployed. Unemployment is an issue either way.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 07:47:02 PM
So the reason we barge in to private property and pout is to kick start that process, because we feel it's been rather anemic up until now.
What makes you think they want to kick start any process?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:03:12 PM
Populism and protests are different things.
As it is populists are just part of the political system, no better or worse than elites. I think it's important to strike a balance between the two.
Much worse. Populists think there are simple, pain-free solutions to complex problems.
QuoteEurope's crisis is, to some extent, the product of an entirely elite driven process.
Could not disagree more vehemently. Buying off voters with overpaid public sector jobs and unaffordable pensions is the quintessence of populism.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
The "corporations are people!!1" misunderstanding is one of things I like the least about the OWS movement and associated leftism.
Oh, you just mean you'd have sex with her? Sure. Me too.
That's the thing I like least about our current Supreme Court as well. :yes: And no, I wouldn't have sex with anyone on there, and I'm not even wondering about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2011, 07:03:51 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:03:12 PM
Populism and protests are different things.
As it is populists are just part of the political system, no better or worse than elites. I think it's important to strike a balance between the two.
Much worse. Populists think there are simple, pain-free solutions to complex problems.
QuoteEurope's crisis is, to some extent, the product of an entirely elite driven process.
Could not disagree more vehemently. Buying off voters with overpaid public sector jobs and unaffordable pensions is the quintessence of populism.
I don't think that's the definition of "Populist". What about Buying off voters with tax deductions?
I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?
The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.
So very french. :x
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?
The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.
At the end of the day, you end up with more cash in your pocket. And tax deductions
are very popular. The similarities to bribing the electorate are very similar. Whether you give money as hand outs or simply take less money the end result is the same. An empty treasury and an entitled electorate.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?
The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.
The left's assumptions usually stem from a utilitarian/Rawlsian ethical framework -- the protesters are angry about society moving away from their perceived optimal utility calculus. OTOH, the right's ethics are usually underpinned by metaphysics or are otherwise somewhat... ad-hoc.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 03, 2011, 08:57:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?
The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.
The left's assumptions usually stem from a utilitarian/Rawlsian ethical framework -- the protesters are angry about society moving away from their perceived optimal utility calculus. OTOH, the right's ethics are usually underpinned by metaphysics or are otherwise somewhat... ad-hoc.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?
I am unclear. The right clearly sees tax breaks as a great way to subsidize and incentivize activity so the right clearly sees it as being the same thing to some extent does it not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2011, 07:03:51 AMMuch worse. Populists think there are simple, pain-free solutions to complex problems.
I suppose a definition of populism would be useful here.
My theory is that populists are basically anti-elite and anti-establishment. They're driven by 'elite' dominated political process. To an extent I think their politics, to the extent they have actual policy ideas at all, are driven in reaction to the perceived elite.
My example would be the Fed, which is almost the definition of an elite institution. It's had huge influence over the past few years and a far more public role than it's used to or, I think, comfortable with. Given that things are still tough and there's no sense of real popular control over it I think we've seen the rise of a populist anti-Fed position on the right and left (no longer just Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul working together) that maybe falls short of either extreme but is against rational, elite politics.
I'm not so sure about the OWS case because I think more time's needed to work that out. But I read a poll of OWSers which found their number one issue was the perceived integration of business, particularly the finance sector, and politics. As with the Fed this has always existed. People at the top business and government will and should communicate, they'll both have knowledge that's advantageous in designing regulation or the like. But what looked normal and acceptable a few years ago (like the Fed) can now look more like corruption and collusion - especially in the context of politics and executive remuneration carrying on as normal, even in bad year's for nationalised financial institutions.
I personally think the Fed isn't bad and has done pretty well in this crisis. Similarly I don't think there is the massive corruption or moral failings in the finance sector or politics. But if I speak to almost anyone else I realise I'm an outlier and there is still a huge amount of genuine anger out there (and it's not a left-right thing, my brother's a UKIP voting Cornish sailor who will breath fire on the subject of bankers) and it'll get taken advantage of by populists of all stripes to attach their policy views to the public's anger. It's not enough for there to be reforms or change to address people's anger but it needs to look like it's being addressed or, so long as the economy's stalling, it'll just increase. Populism's the thin-end of the revolutionary wedge and should be taken, not for something to sneer at (just look how that riles people) but as a warning that evolutionary change is needed or needs to be seen.
QuoteCould not disagree more vehemently. Buying off voters with overpaid public sector jobs and unaffordable pensions is the quintessence of populism.
That explains budget deficits - even then scantly and with bias and I think it covers Greece and Ireland alone, at best. But that doesn't explain the ECB's bizarrely inadequate response to the Eurozone's economic problems in general. In addition I think Paul Krugman's right that this was an elite that created a monetary union without considering that things could go wrong, or explaining that to the people of Europe. Now we're seeing how far they'll go to save that monetary union - having inadequately prepared voters for what could be necessary. The problem is at no point did the elite of Europe explain that it effectively made a prosperous Dusseldorfer liable for a lazy Cretan tax assessor. Similarly they never explained it would ultimately require swingeing budget cuts and tax rises, if things go bad, to be imposed by an outsider effectively.
What makes the Eurozone crisis so difficult is that due to the absolute failure to countenance things going tits up, all the people of Europe, North and Southern Europeans alike, are being asked to do things they never expected and were never told would be part of the deal to keep everything going. The danger to the Euro is the point when Greece decides they can't cut any more or the Finland stops being willing to pay for Greek profligacy.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?
If it's already part of revenue or proposed to be part of revenue how is it not effectively the same?
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?
The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.
I think it's more complex than just "all wealth is everybody's, let's redistribute" vs "all wealth belongs to whoever generates it".
I mean, when people are complaining about "Wall St. greed" they're also up in arms about the moral hazard of using tax money to bail out high risk investments the banks made, and the banks paying big bonuses to those self-same bankers.
As such you could argue that the disconnect is between people who think everyone's tax money should be given to corporations to line the pockets of executives (the right) and those who think it should be spent on the good of the populace as a whole (the left). Not that that is a more complex analysis than what you suggested :)
If I was to suggest one overarching theme to the the social and economic problems that face the US presently, it is that regulation in a number of key areas - finance, health and education - has changed the systems such that tax money primarily goes towards generating private profit rather than provide for the needs of the populace; and furthermore, that huge amounts of personal debt has been generated for large swathes of the population to fuel the profit of the financial, health and education sectors. It's less about putting more or less money into the systems (though that might help things) than it is about making sure that the money in the systems actually serve the public good rather than simply generating profits for particular shareholders.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 10:11:17 AM
As such you could argue that the disconnect is between people who think everyone's tax money should be given to corporations to line the pockets of executives (the right) and those who think it should be spent on the good of the populace as a whole (the left).
Actually I recall a LOT of right-wingers being upset about the bailout.
Jacob: Well put.
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2011, 10:38:11 AM
Jacob: Well put.
Oh yes, I am sure if you asked the typical tea party advocate, they would say "Oh yeah, I totally think that the government should tax us and give the money to giant corporations!"
The fundamental position of the right is that the government should not take money from anyone without a really, REALLY good reason. And even if we accept that some is necessary, it should be as little as possible.
What the government does with that money afterwards is a secondary issue, but giving it to anyone else (rather than spending it on things that only the government can do) is a bad idea.
So no, that is not "well put", it was pretty horrifically badly put - it is a caricature of the opponents position that even Jacob knew had no resemblance to what "the right" actually thinks.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 10:11:17 AM
I mean, when people are complaining about "Wall St. greed" they're also up in arms about the moral hazard of using tax money to bail out high risk investments the banks made, and the banks paying big bonuses to those self-same bankers.
If that is the case, it is really unfortunate.
I don't know of anyone on either side that were happy about the bank bailouts or salaries of bank execs.
To the extent that there is something going on that really is concerning, it is that wealth continues to be concentrated into a smaller percentage of society, rather than being spread out throughout the financial and social strata.
This is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.
Frankly, I am not even convinced that this problem is a result of tax rates. The rich are getting richer while the not rich stay stagnant not because the rich are not taxed enough, but because the economic system concentrates created wealth. I don't know how to fix that. Given serious deficits, the fact that it is happening means I am pretty supportive of the idea that raising taxes on those same wealthy is pretty reasonable - but it is not, IMO, any kind of solution to either the problem of wealth concentration (because that will keep happening unless tax rates on the wealthy become high enough that will likely result in serious damage in our system), nor is it a solution to the problem of the deficit, since even if we confiscate the wealth of this super rich, it still won't make any long term impact on the deficit without serious cuts in spending.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 07:07:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2011, 06:51:57 PMWhat system is fucked? What regular folks are getting shafted?
The US system. People in the US? The Canadian system which is heavily subsidizing the education of most of the people I see outside my window? How exactly are they getting shafted?
I take that to mean that you think that there is a message then
No I meant to suggest that the message is so vacuous that anything and everything might be read into it which effectively means it is meaningless.
At the end of the day the Occupy movement may be more damaging than the Teabaggers to much needed reform in the US since it marginalizes any cause they might touch. At least here the occupy movement wont do much damage since the occupy movement has yet to touch any issues.
I dont't think anything can be more damaging to reform in the U.S. than the Teabaggers.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 10:53:06 AM
To the extent that there is something going on that really is concerning, it is that wealth continues to be concentrated into a smaller percentage of society, rather than being spread out throughout the financial and social strata.
This is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.
Frankly, I am not even convinced that this problem is a result of tax rates. The rich are getting richer while the not rich stay stagnant not because the rich are not taxed enough, but because the economic system concentrates created wealth. I don't know how to fix that. Given serious deficits, the fact that it is happening means I am pretty supportive of the idea that raising taxes on those same wealthy is pretty reasonable - but it is not, IMO, any kind of solution to either the problem of wealth concentration (because that will keep happening unless tax rates on the wealthy become high enough that will likely result in serious damage in our system), nor is it a solution to the problem of the deficit, since even if we confiscate the wealth of this super rich, it still won't make any long term impact on the deficit without serious cuts in spending.
This is my favorite post in this thread.
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2011, 11:06:41 AM
I dont't think anything can be more damaging to reform in the U.S. than the Teabaggers.
My assumption is that there are people working hard within the US political system to make the needed reforms. I have no idea how the occupy movement helps them with that. All I see it doing is galvanizing support on the right to keep "those loonies" as far from any political power was possible. That is the downside of a protest with no clear message or objective.
A small example of what can occur is the Vancouver mayoral election. Prior to the occupiers taking up residence the incumbent lefty major was going to win in a landslide. Most middle to right voters didnt much care about the election and his support on the left was solid.
All that has now changed. The occupy movement has become THE main election issue and as a result there is some risk the major will lose.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 10:53:06 AMThis is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.
I share this analysis, but for everything that can be labelled a "structural flaw", there requires something which must serve as a catalyst, or revealer of the problem, and which must serve either as a way to simplify the issue, or spark action. For instance, T. H. Breen argued, convincingly, IMO, that few people understood the deeper issues of the American Revolution, but they could readily subscribe to slogans and practices of buying English goods and making homespun, which in turn served as educational tools.
To a large extent, I think this is what "Occupy Wall Street" is about: the crisis, and bailouts, are serving as revealers of a disquiet. People feel there is a problem, and feel that answers and solutions are confiscated from them. They are being told they lack the capacity to understand the issues - and I am sure many of us are in this situation. The question I have is whether "government by experts" is really what our systems should be about - the reactionary rhetoric being trotted out again is awfully similar to 19th century government by people of means.
There is a difference between a revealer and a show for the cameras is there not? As I look out over the occupy movment here in Vancouver there are many more tents then there are people now. The numbers only grow when union members come down to bolster the numbers for show for the media.
As I said much earlier on, if this was a protest in Canada, by more than the usual suspects I would agree with you. But it is not.
I dont know about the situation in the US.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 03, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 10:53:06 AMThis is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.
I share this analysis, but for everything that can be labelled a "structural flaw", there requires something which must serve as a catalyst, or revealer of the problem, and which must serve either as a way to simplify the issue, or spark action. For instance, T. H. Breen argued, convincingly, IMO, that few people understood the deeper issues of the American Revolution, but they could readily subscribe to slogans and practices of buying English goods and making homespun, which in turn served as educational tools.
To a large extent, I think this is what "Occupy Wall Street" is about: the crisis, and bailouts, are serving as revealers of a disquiet. People feel there is a problem, and feel that answers and solutions are confiscated from them. They are being told they lack the capacity to understand the issues - and I am sure many of us are in this situation. The question I have is whether "government by experts" is really what our systems should be about - the reactionary rhetoric being trotted out again is awfully similar to 19th century government by people of means.
Agreed. I think the protesters are kind of silly, but if you look at them more as an indicator than anything else, I think they provide information.
I just don't know that their continued protesting provides any MORE information. They don't have a solution, after all. And now it is (IMO) largely being co-opted by the more traditional left, who are going to start bleating about how teachers need more pensions and job security, or how all our problems are the creation of the evil rich people, etc.
I do think that it takes a pretty screwed up reality to get to the point that something like this happens in the US and Canada. To that extent, the protests provide some marginal utility.
I like your analogy about the American Revolution.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2011, 11:29:46 AM
There is a difference between a revealer and a show for the cameras is there not? As I look out over the occupy movment here in Vancouver there are many more tents then there are people now. The numbers only grow when union members come down to bolster the numbers for show for the media.
As I said much earlier on, if this was a protest in Canada, by more than the usual suspects I would agree with you. But it is not.
I dont know about the situation in the US.
I do not get what the Canadian protestors are protesting about at all frankly. As I said if the Mayor is giving you aid then what exactly are you protesting?
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 11:37:20 AM
Agreed. I think the protesters are kind of silly, but if you look at them more as an indicator than anything else, I think they provide information.
Yeah that is what I was trying to get at earlier.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
The "corporations are people!!1" misunderstanding is one of things I like the least about the OWS movement and associated leftism.
In this case, the misunderstanding may lie more with the present Supreme Court, and less with the OWS crowd.
Being a sports guy, here is my attempt an analogy.
The problem with wealth concentration and the "solution" of high taxation to combat it is pretty much a bad idea.
If in football (American football) lets imagine there was no penalty of offensive pass interference. So then people realize that passing is really easy, so everyone starts throwing the ball all the time. This is a problem because it makes the game less interesting.
Now, we could "solve" this problem by simply stating that anytime someone completes a pass, they lose 25% of the yardage they gain from the pass. We are going to "tax" passing yardage. This should then incent people to run the ball some, since that is not taxed.
But does this really solve the basic problem? Not at all - in fact, if passing is so great, it won't even change anything, since passing for 75% is probably still better than running for 100%. And if you increase the "tax" high enough to stop passing, you screw up the game even more, since passing becomes pointless, or you end up with other perverse results.
The problem is that your system has resulted in a lack of balance between the offense and the defense, and the solution is to restore that balance where the problem exists, not try to cover it up with a "tax".
I see "tax those rich bastards!" as a band-aid, and a rather bad band aid to the problem. The problem is that we want our economic systems to distribute increases in wealth across the spectrum. In an ideal American systems, as GDP increases, the wealth from that increase should be distributed to everyone, while the incentive to keep increasing that GDP remains so everyone gets better off over time. That isn't happening now - it seems like the increase in wealth is all going to the wealthy.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 10:53:06 AMIf that is the case, it is really unfortunate.
I don't know of anyone on either side that were happy about the bank bailouts or salaries of bank execs.
To the extent that there is something going on that really is concerning, it is that wealth continues to be concentrated into a smaller percentage of society, rather than being spread out throughout the financial and social strata.
This is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.
Frankly, I am not even convinced that this problem is a result of tax rates. The rich are getting richer while the not rich stay stagnant not because the rich are not taxed enough, but because the economic system concentrates created wealth. I don't know how to fix that. Given serious deficits, the fact that it is happening means I am pretty supportive of the idea that raising taxes on those same wealthy is pretty reasonable - but it is not, IMO, any kind of solution to either the problem of wealth concentration (because that will keep happening unless tax rates on the wealthy become high enough that will likely result in serious damage in our system), nor is it a solution to the problem of the deficit, since even if we confiscate the wealth of this super rich, it still won't make any long term impact on the deficit without serious cuts in spending.
I agree with this pretty much completely.
I think that the OWS protests are pretty much on an expression of the problem you just outlined. Yes, some of them will demand higher taxes or even less sensible easy-sounding solutions (in part because people who're convinced that easy sounding "fixes" are the answer will attach themselves to any kind of even vaguely aligned popular movement); but at the core I think OWS is people saying responding to the problem you've outlined and saying "don't put off dealing with this, start fixing shit NOW."
I think the moment is still pretty open. If someone can come up with a credible sounding plan to start fixing stuff, the OWS movement demands might start coalescing behind that. I still think that direction is up for grabs, which is one of the reasons the proponents of various pet-peeve quick-fixes are working so hard at it; this is their chance to get people behind them. Hopefully, something more sensible will emerge.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 11:47:19 AM
Being a sports guy, here is my attempt an analogy.
The problem with wealth concentration and the "solution" of high taxation to combat it is pretty much a bad idea.
If in football (American football) lets imagine there was no penalty of offensive pass interference. So then people realize that passing is really easy, so everyone starts throwing the ball all the time. This is a problem because it makes the game less interesting.
Now, we could "solve" this problem by simply stating that anytime someone completes a pass, they lose 25% of the yardage they gain from the pass. We are going to "tax" passing yardage. This should then incent people to run the ball some, since that is not taxed.
But does this really solve the basic problem? Not at all - in fact, if passing is so great, it won't even change anything, since passing for 75% is probably still better than running for 100%. And if you increase the "tax" high enough to stop passing, you screw up the game even more, since passing becomes pointless, or you end up with other perverse results.
The problem is that your system has resulted in a lack of balance between the offense and the defense, and the solution is to restore that balance where the problem exists, not try to cover it up with a "tax".
I see "tax those rich bastards!" as a band-aid, and a rather bad band aid to the problem. The problem is that we want our economic systems to distribute increases in wealth across the spectrum. In an ideal American systems, as GDP increases, the wealth from that increase should be distributed to everyone, while the incentive to keep increasing that GDP remains so everyone gets better off over time. That isn't happening now - it seems like the increase in wealth is all going to the wealthy.
Berkut, I agree with your basic premise that taxation for taxations sake is a pretty dumb idea, but that analogy is Marti-esque in how forced and tortured it is.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 03, 2011, 10:36:29 AMActually I recall a LOT of right-wingers being upset about the bailout.
If only this apparent consensus could lead to constructive solutions to the structural problems that face the country, that would go a long way.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 03, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 10:53:06 AMThis is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.
I share this analysis, but for everything that can be labelled a "structural flaw", there requires something which must serve as a catalyst, or revealer of the problem, and which must serve either as a way to simplify the issue, or spark action. For instance, T. H. Breen argued, convincingly, IMO, that few people understood the deeper issues of the American Revolution, but they could readily subscribe to slogans and practices of buying English goods and making homespun, which in turn served as educational tools.
To a large extent, I think this is what "Occupy Wall Street" is about: the crisis, and bailouts, are serving as revealers of a disquiet. People feel there is a problem, and feel that answers and solutions are confiscated from them. They are being told they lack the capacity to understand the issues - and I am sure many of us are in this situation. The question I have is whether "government by experts" is really what our systems should be about - the reactionary rhetoric being trotted out again is awfully similar to 19th century government by people of means.
The problem here is not that the "reactionaries" here are reposing trust in "government by the experts". No-one has expressed any sentiment that the "experts" actually know of any solutions to the problems we face.
Indeed, it would be sort of sweet and endearing if someone was to naively repose such trust in the 'experts' to solve these issues! :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2011, 10:06:48 AM
But that doesn't explain the ECB's bizarrely inadequate response to the Eurozone's economic problems in general.
WAD
QuoteIn addition I think Paul Krugman's right that this was an elite that created a monetary union without considering that things could go wrong, or explaining that to the people of Europe.
I think that lets "the people" off too easy. The "elite" made it pretty clear that monetary union was a stepping stone to further economic integration. The people embraced what they variously saw as the benefits of a single currency but then balked when it came time to approve further measures that were needed to make it work over the long haul.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 11:50:15 AM
If only this apparent consensus could lead to constructive solutions to the structural problems that face the country, that would go a long way.
Well, you and I both know that just recognizing a common problem doesn't mean that anyone's going to agree on the solution.
Increasing taxes on the rich in the US should really just serve one purpose which is to cut the deficit. Increasing the top marginal rate won't really do much to cut inequality and the sort of rates required for it to have that effect really are the sort that would cause serious economic damage. I've said before I find the American left's glee at raising taxes on the rich rather distasteful.
Having said that I don't see how you can address the problem in a globalised world.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 11:50:15 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 03, 2011, 10:36:29 AMActually I recall a LOT of right-wingers being upset about the bailout.
If only this apparent consensus could lead to constructive solutions to the structural problems that face the country, that would go a long way.
The way you guys make it sound, the teabaggers and OWS are essentially all about the exact same thing and should join forces.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 03, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
I share this analysis, but for everything that can be labelled a "structural flaw", there requires something which must serve as a catalyst, or revealer of the problem, and which must serve either as a way to simplify the issue, or spark action. For instance, T. H. Breen argued, convincingly, IMO, that few people understood the deeper issues of the American Revolution, but they could readily subscribe to slogans and practices of buying English goods and making homespun, which in turn served as educational tools.
But others did understand the deeper issues, and assumed leadership positions that were actively or passively endorsed by those whose participation was more emotive. Without that, the revolution would have been an abject failure, just a Boston Massacre-type uprising writ large (like the later Whiskey Rebellion).
Where is the Washington, the Adams, the Jefferson, the Franklin, etc. etc. of the OWS movement (or the tea party for that matter)? I don't see 'em.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I see there as being 3 really big structural issues:
1. Increasing divide within 1st world nations between "haves" and "have-nots";
2. Increasing pressure from former 3rd world nations to become 1st world nations; and
3. Environmental degredation/overpopulation.
As I said, these three issues are interrelated. The press from the 3rd world/globilization is putting the squeeze on the middle class in the 1st world, who in many cases find it hard to compete, fueling the divide into haves & have-nots; the tremendous economic growth in places like China and India is screwing the environment even worse that it already was; and curbing economic growth is likely to create more unhappy, joblesss people everywhere.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 10:44:09 AM
Oh yes, I am sure if you asked the typical tea party advocate, they would say "Oh yeah, I totally think that the government should tax us and give the money to giant corporations!"
The fundamental position of the right is that the government should not take money from anyone without a really, REALLY good reason. And even if we accept that some is necessary, it should be as little as possible.
What the government does with that money afterwards is a secondary issue, but giving it to anyone else (rather than spending it on things that only the government can do) is a bad idea.
So no, that is not "well put", it was pretty horrifically badly put - it is a caricature of the opponents position that even Jacob knew had no resemblance to what "the right" actually thinks.
I don't think the popular right wants that either; I think that that characterization of the popular right's goals is about as accurate as your earlier characterization of the popular left's.
While the amount of money taken from private individuals for the state to allocate is a significant difference between the right and the left, I don't think that difference is that important to the current set of problems except insofar as it serves to obscure the real problem.
The issue is not so much whether there should be more or less tax money provided to the public in any of the given systems (health care, finance/ mortgages/ pensions, education) but the fact that deregulation and mis-regulation has created systems where public money provided for the public good (be it health care, support for homeowners or or education) tend to go into the pockets of shareholders rather than actually providing those public goods.
The issue is not so much how much water to put into the irrigation system, as much as it is that it seems that significant parts of the system leads the water away from the dry fields altogether.
I think we actually see the problem in pretty similar terms, Berkut.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2011, 11:52:13 AM
I think that lets "the people" off too easy. The "elite" made it pretty clear that monetary union was a stepping stone to further economic integration. The people embraced what they variously saw as the benefits of a single currency but then balked when it came time to approve further measures that were needed to make it work over the long haul.
Further economic integration's different from the steps that have been required by this crisis such as the budget session or the austerity program or fiscal transfers in some Eurozone countries.
I don't think it was ever made clear to Germans that they could end up being on the hook for Greek debt. In fact I think various politicians went out of their way to declare that there would never be any sort of fiscal transfer union, or a move towards Eurobonds. Similarly my understanding is that many Southern European nations pushed through some reforms to have sufficiently converged for Euro entry but they also said it would stabilise their currency (compared with Lira, Drachma, Escudo) and that would help protect their way of life.
I think that both of these could be seen as based on a rosy future for the Euro and meant that the people of the different Eurozone countries were never prepared for the potential downside. But I also don't think the elites ever tried to take the steps necessary for the Euro to work in the long-term. I can't think of any major attempted steps by a PM, President or Central Banker prior to this crisis.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2011, 11:57:39 AM
The way you guys make it sound, the teabaggers and OWS are essentially all about the exact same thing and should join forces.
No, no - they aren't about the exact same thing at all. There are some overlaps, though, to be sure. Both recognize there is a problem with our economy. Both definitely think "the little guy" is getting screwed. Where they place the blame, though, is radically different. That makes the solutions proposed radically different, too.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 11:37:20 AMAgreed. I think the protesters are kind of silly, but if you look at them more as an indicator than anything else, I think they provide information.
I just don't know that their continued protesting provides any MORE information. They don't have a solution, after all. And now it is (IMO) largely being co-opted by the more traditional left, who are going to start bleating about how teachers need more pensions and job security, or how all our problems are the creation of the evil rich people, etc.
I do think that it takes a pretty screwed up reality to get to the point that something like this happens in the US and Canada. To that extent, the protests provide some marginal utility.
I like your analogy about the American Revolution.
I agree with you here Berkut. If this turns into "more money for the teachers' pension fund" or whatever, then it will have been completely highjacked and will likely fizzle out (teachers' pension funds may in fact be screwed and deserve more money - or not - but it's not a cause for the nation).
The optimist would hope that this apparent common ground between the popular left and right could actually be harnessed and turned into constructive solutions. It seems perhaps unlikely given the state of the two political parties, and given that both left and right have rhetoric that is antithetical to their opposites in spite of apparently significant shared grounds.
I mean, if everyone can agree that doctors should not perform unnecessary surgeries or demand hundreds of thousands of dollars in what's essentially bribes to refer patients to hospitals; and that executives should not be paid big bonuses out of tax payer money when their companies are destabilizing the economy; might it not be possible to focus on fixing that rather than worrying about whether it's a socialist or laissez-faire solution that does the trick?
... or is that too technocratic and pragmatic?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 03, 2011, 11:54:37 AMWell, you and I both know that just recognizing a common problem doesn't mean that anyone's going to agree on the solution.
Of course, but recognizing the common problem is at least a first step.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 03, 2011, 12:08:41 PM
No, no - they aren't about the exact same thing at all. There are some overlaps, though, to be sure. Both recognize there is a problem with our economy. Both definitely think "the little guy" is getting screwed. Where they place the blame, though, is radically different. That makes the solutions proposed radically different, too.
Well generally they both place the blame on the elites. They just blame different elites.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2011, 11:57:39 AMThe way you guys make it sound, the teabaggers and OWS are essentially all about the exact same thing and should join forces.
In many ways I think they are, and should.
Of course, the discontent with the structural problems is understood through different cultural filters. With the addition of different views orthogonal to this issue there's plenty of both superficial and substantive issues to clash over it seems.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 12:13:20 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 03, 2011, 11:54:37 AMWell, you and I both know that just recognizing a common problem doesn't mean that anyone's going to agree on the solution.
Of course, but recognizing the common problem is at least a first step.
Ok so I ask again. What is this common problem that vexes people across the world - since Sheilbh asserts this is a function of globalization. You speak of common ground between the right and left but the example you use is uniquely American. As JR said, where are the leaders of this movement that can take whatever you might think unifies all these protest movments and turn themselves into something coherent.
So far the occupiers have taken pride in the fact they are leaderless. I think this is because there is no coherence to what they are saying and it is a convenient dodge to say that is because no one speaks for them.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 12:15:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2011, 11:57:39 AMThe way you guys make it sound, the teabaggers and OWS are essentially all about the exact same thing and should join forces.
In many ways I think they are, and should.
Of course, the discontent with the structural problems is understood through different cultural filters. With the addition of different views orthogonal to this issue there's plenty of both superficial and substantive issues to clash over it seems.
How does a teabagger who wants lower taxes and lower spending anything like the occupier who wants wealth redistribution?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2011, 12:18:02 PMSo far the occupiers have taken pride in the fact they are leaderless. I think this is because there is no coherence to what they are saying and it is a convenient dodge to say that is because no one speaks for them.
I think the Tea Party have been largely leaderless too. There's a suspicion of 'leaders' in these movements and I think in wider society. The perception is that it was our leaders who got us into this mess. I think it would be peculiar for two very anti-elite and anti-establishment movements to have leaders.
But this is a trend. The Arab revolutions have, for the most part, lacked leaders. Los indignados haven't had leaders, neither have the tent cities in Israel. I watch the anti-cuts march in this country, organised by the unions with union banners and a stage at the end from which the Labour Party Leader addresses the crowd and it just looks deeply anachronistic.
QuoteHow does a teabagger who wants lower taxes and lower spending anything like the occupier who wants wealth redistribution?
A poll of the OWS found their biggest gripes were special interests in politics, partisanship and unemployment. I think you'd probably get something similar in the early days of the Tea Party. They both stem from a sense of deep dysfunction in the way your politics and economy's working. The occupiers have gone global because I think the Tea Party was too peculiarly American. I'm not sure what a group of Brits dressed in 18th century costume would be supporting...:mellow:
Sadly that poll also asked what the OWSers wanted to achieve. The largest answer was to influence the Democrats as the Tea Party have influenced the GOP, which doesn't seem to address partisanship at all. On the other hand a significant plurality wanted to break the two party system - which is, again, something I think many early Tea Partiers could get behind.
Their analysis from that starting point will be difference but I think they're both motivated by the same problems.
Edit:
QuoteWhat is this common problem that vexes people across the world - since Sheilbh asserts this is a function of globalization.
I don't think that's the case. We've all got similar problems is all.
My comment on globalisation was just that I don't see how we can address the way wealth is distributed or the nature of growth in an easy way in a globalised world. What's to stop the banks and executives relocating to Geneva or Hong Kong if they don't like the situation in the UK or US? In the UK the banks have threatened to do this quite regularly over bonuses.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2011, 12:19:12 PM
How does a teabagger who wants lower taxes and lower spending anything like the occupier who wants wealth redistribution?
Haven't we been over this dozens of times in this thread?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2011, 12:18:02 PM
What is this common problem that vexes people across the world - since Sheilbh asserts this is a function of globalization.
Well I think it has something to do with the pressure to keep wages low to keep competitive on a global level. But again that is most evidently an American issue. Not sure how that impacts your Vancouverites with...whatever it is they are upset about.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2011, 11:42:51 AM
I do not get what the Canadian protestors are protesting about at all frankly.
I don't think they do either. But I think it's wrong to think that a protest needs a
specific cause. It's a pretty vague, general protest. Basically something to the tune of, "The current system sucks and we don't think the powers-that-be know how to fix it, mostly because they're in bed with the biggest harm-doers."
Other than that, there's no real consensus, from what I could see, about what they're doing and what exactly they hope to accomplish. But sometimes it's only about getting attention.
Both teabaggers and OWS are popular/populist movements, in that they perceive an actual, legitimate grievance but either are unable to offer a solution or offer unrealistic solutions. In that they are both a lot like medieval peasant revolts. They were unlikely to develop into anything bigger/gamechanging.
It is in the enlightened self-interest of the elites to try to find a solution and address the grievance however because if they don't, eventually someone nasty will harness this popular anger and then they will be sorry.
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2011, 12:29:42 PM
I don't think they do either. But I think it's wrong to think that a protest needs a specific cause. It's a pretty vague, general protest. Basically something to the tune of, "The current system sucks and we don't think the powers-that-be know how to fix it, mostly because they're in bed with the biggest harm-doers."
Other than that, there's no real consensus, from what I could see, about what they're doing and what exactly they hope to accomplish. But sometimes it's only about getting attention.
Does the current system in Canada suck?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
I don't think it was ever made clear to Germans that they could end up being on the hook for Greek debt.
That is/was a choice, not an inevitable result of monetary union.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 12:29:53 PM
It is in the enlightened self-interest of the elites to try to find a solution and address the grievance however because if they don't, eventually someone nasty will harness this popular anger and then they will be sorry.
Agreed.
I would bet that if you got the 1% together in a room and polled them about what they thought ought to be a systemic/cultural functional model, they would agree that wealth should be more evenly distributed.
Now, that doesn't mean that any of them as individuals would support their particular means of concentrating wealth be changed, because surely the problem is elsewhere, but I bet that in general the set of the super rich (especially those who got their by their own efforts rather than inheritance) are pretty smart people who fully understand that as a society their group continually getting more and more of the share of wealth is probably not a good thing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2011, 11:58:08 AM
But others did understand the deeper issues, and assumed leadership positions that were actively or passively endorsed by those whose participation was more emotive. Without that, the revolution would have been an abject failure, just a Boston Massacre-type uprising writ large (like the later Whiskey Rebellion).
Indeed, but: a) they were elites who had a stake in refashioning polities in their image, and played the partisan politics game until they felt they could no longer benefit from them. I don't see anyone stepping to the plate today, which might have somehting to do with b)
b) they lived at a time of over-investment of the political, where problems were thought to be solvable by political action, and therefore participated heavily. We live in a time where political action has been declawed and neutered, when we have been told the political must bend knee before economics and forces beyond everyone's control. And yet, "bankers" and "financial elite" seem either to control something, or to benefit immensely from the set-up. To continue the metaphor of early-modern politics, our economic experts today are the equivalent of the members of the Paris Parliament: they are part and parcel of the system: they are well-versed in the esoterics of the practices of law and politics, could tell you what's what in the theoretical underpinnings of the monarchy, grew immensely rich from it, and and yet seen as utterly meaningless for what the problems are increasingly seen to be, because such problems are increasingly seen to stem from political, moral or ethical issues.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2011, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
The "corporations are people!!1" misunderstanding is one of things I like the least about the OWS movement and associated leftism.
In this case, the misunderstanding may lie more with the present Supreme Court, and less with the OWS crowd.
I dunno. If it's down to Citizens United, I thought it was rightly decided. Maybe there are other problems with corporate personhood of which I'm unaware, which is certainly possible, but as far as that case went, the decision seemed unavoidable, as much as I might abhor the speech actually in question.
In any event, reasonable minds can certainly differ, but most of the people I've discussed the matter with speak nonsense, sometimes asserting that's it only a Matter of Time!!!111oneoneuneодин before juridical personhood leads to corporations being able to vote or run for office and dumb shit like that (but applying the Thirteenth Amendment might be tricky). As far as that sign goes, corporations get "executed" all the time, even without trial...
Edit:
QuoteWarning - while you were typing 10 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Damn. Did the revolution start and nobody tell me?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2011, 12:18:02 PMOk so I ask again. What is this common problem that vexes people across the world -
I don't know. I'm only speaking of the US.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:44:31 PM
As far as that sign goes, corporations get "executed" all the time, even without trial...
That's what I find so funny about it.
Criminal trial, anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 12:37:52 PM
Now, that doesn't mean that any of them as individuals would support their particular means of concentrating wealth be changed, because surely the problem is elsewhere, but I bet that in general the set of the super rich (especially those who got their by their own efforts rather than inheritance) are pretty smart people who fully understand that as a society their group continually getting more and more of the share of wealth is probably not a good thing.
I read an interesting article - I'll try and dig it out - about the super-rich. One of the points that came across was that many of the people who really did achieve their wealth under their own steam, like Lloyd Blankfein, are a bit less sympathetic to that sort of argument. Because they've earned that wealth I think they don't understand why they shouldn't get more from it - they've achieved this. Similarly because they've achieved it why haven't other people achieved the same? Which is all pretty understandable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2011, 12:55:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 12:37:52 PM
Now, that doesn't mean that any of them as individuals would support their particular means of concentrating wealth be changed, because surely the problem is elsewhere, but I bet that in general the set of the super rich (especially those who got their by their own efforts rather than inheritance) are pretty smart people who fully understand that as a society their group continually getting more and more of the share of wealth is probably not a good thing.
I read an interesting article - I'll try and dig it out - about the super-rich. One of the points that came across was that many of the people who really did achieve their wealth under their own steam, like Lloyd Blankfein, are a bit less sympathetic to that sort of argument. Because they've earned that wealth I think they don't understand why they shouldn't get more from it - they've achieved this. Similarly because they've achieved it why haven't other people achieved the same? Which is all pretty understandable.
Right, that is what I meant by "the problem is elsewhere".
I bet though, that if you ask them if systematically it should work out that the rich continually get a greater and greater proportion of the overall wealth, they would say "Well, no, that isn't really sustainable, is it?". Because of course it is not.
Sure, in *their* particular example, THEY should get more and more money, because THEY in particular are working hard for it and it is theirs!
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 01:27:29 PM
Right, that is what I meant by "the problem is elsewhere".
I bet though, that if you ask them if systematically it should work out that the rich continually get a greater and greater proportion of the overall wealth, they would say "Well, no, that isn't really sustainable, is it?". Because of course it is not.
Sure, in *their* particular example, THEY should get more and more money, because THEY in particular are working hard for it and it is theirs!
In their case it is an example of the poor getting richer.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 01:27:29 PM
Sure, in *their* particular example, THEY should get more and more money, because THEY in particular are working hard for it and it is theirs!
As someone once sang:
Money get back
I'm alright Jack keep your hands off my stack.Money it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshitI'm in the hi-fidelity first class travelling set
And I think I need a Lear jet
Money it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pieMoney so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 01:27:29 PMSure, in *their* particular example, THEY should get more and more money, because THEY in particular are working hard for it and it is theirs!
:lol:
It seems to be one of the eternal principles of human life, right there.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 02:27:27 PM
:lol:
It seems to be one of the eternal principles of human life, right there.
Everyone needs to do x. Everyone, that is, except me.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:44:31 PM
I dunno. If it's down to Citizens United, I thought it was rightly decided. Maybe there are other problems with corporate personhood of which I'm unaware, which is certainly possible, but as far as that case went, the decision seemed unavoidable, as much as I might abhor the speech actually in question.
The problem lies in the fact that corporate personhood is a legal fiction justified (and only justifiable) on the grounds of convenience and expediency. But failure to limit application of the fiction to its logical purposes (commercial activity - eg the ability to enter into and enforce contracts, to be free from expropriation without due process, etc.l), results in incoherence, because it is self evident that a corporation, which is a paper entity that is purely a creature of state law, which enjoys potential immortality and limited liability, is different in critical respects from living, breathing natural human beings. The danger here is not the fantastic horribles you invoke later in you post, but what Citizens United itself portends -- a racheting back of long-accepted regulatory practices. Does corporate level taxation violate equal protection to the extent such taxation is imposed differently than on natural persons? Similarly, are franchise taxes constitutional - aren't they now unequal capitation taxes? Do corporations have "personal" second amendment rights post-Heller? If they have full First Amendment rights, aren't lots of SEC regs relating to what they can and can't say unconstitutional?
My deal with Citizens United is that I find it difficult to limit the political speech of one type of organization, which I may find undesirable, and logically square that with political speech I do find desirable by other types of organization (e.g., unions, non-profits), unless the profit motive alone is enough to remove them from that set. And you'd probably expect that I wouldn't care, but I'm generally pretty absolutist on expression issues (with some narrow caveats).
So I am very sympathetic to arguments which suggest this is the case, and occasionally wonder if I'm not overcompensating for my biases (as you might expect, I don't like very much corporate political speech), but I'm also sympathetic to the idea that corporations--as associations of people for whom First Amendment protections do and must apply--should have the ability to make their collective voice heard on issues which affect them.
You know, until such time as they are nationalized as part of the First Five Year Plan. :P
As for the "rights creep" issue, it's something to be guarded against surely, but I don't believe Citizens United really represents a first step toward such travesties. (And just to note, SEC regulations may abridge speech, but generally speech of a commercial nature, so that must be, or at least can be, analyzed differently than the political speech in Citizens United. At least, I expect they do. Maybe they don't. I'll fully concede you know way more about SEC rules than I do. ;) My understanding is that their principal purposes involve compulsory speech in the form of filings with the agency--and there is no real 1stAmdt. argument here so far as I know, unless you're widening your gyre to include mandatory disclosures of all types, including personal income tax; and to provide orderly and fair voting, particularly proxy solicitations and the like.)
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 12:01:11 PM
The issue is not so much whether there should be more or less tax money provided to the public in any of the given systems (health care, finance/ mortgages/ pensions, education) but the fact that deregulation and mis-regulation has created systems where public money provided for the public good (be it health care, support for homeowners or or education) tend to go into the pockets of shareholders rather than actually providing those public goods.
The issue is not so much how much water to put into the irrigation system, as much as it is that it seems that significant parts of the system leads the water away from the dry fields altogether.
Did you intend this as a description of the common ground between left and right populists in the US? Because I don't think it is at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2011, 05:24:34 PMDid you intend this as a description of the common ground between left and right populists in the US? Because I don't think it is at all.
I think it's a description of some of the problems that both the populist right and left is responding to.
What do you think the common ground is, if at all?
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 05:26:36 PM
What do you think the common ground is, if at all?
Not much if anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2011, 05:30:24 PMNot much if anything.
What about disaffection with the bail-outs, as others have posited in this thread?
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2011, 05:37:01 PM
What about disaffection with the bail-outs, as others have posited in this thread?
Only superficially. I doubt most OWS types have a problem with the GM or Chrysler bailout, or a Greek or Portuguese bailout. They've fixed on banks as the root of all evil and bailouts is just more fuel for the fire. Whereas Teabaggers don't have anything against banks or people getting rich (my impression), they just don't like bailouts.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 05:12:58 PM
So I am very sympathetic to arguments which suggest this is the case, and occasionally wonder if I'm not overcompensating for my biases (as you might expect, I don't like very much corporate political speech), but I'm also sympathetic to the idea that corporations--as associations of people for whom First Amendment protections do and must apply--should have the ability to make their collective voice heard on issues which affect them.
But what does it mean to say that? To what extent is it meaningful to say that an articial entity has speech rights above and beyond the rights of those human beings who act on behalf on the entity? A piece of paper in a Delaware clerk's office or a headquarters building can't have speech rights.
At first principles, a corporation is just a complex web of contracts and agreements embedded in a construct of state statute. The corporate name - Acme, Inc. - is just a convenient shorthand to use to denote that complex rather than have to describe it in detail every time one wants to reference it. The origin of corporate legal status is the convenience of being able to deem certain property as being held by the complex as a whole rather than any particular specific person or persons associated with it, and to render that convenience effective, the human agents of the corporation have to be given the power to enforce those rights on behalf of the complex- to sue and be sued on contracts, etc. Thus it is convenient for certain purposes to treat corporations "as if" they are persons, but that personhood is obviously artificial, limited, and distinct from the personhood of natural persons.
Since a corporation literally does not speak and cannot communicate other through its human agents, it is logically incoherent to talk about the corporation itself having speech rights. Rather what is at issue is something different - whether as a matter of law, corporations should be granted some degree of immunity from governmental regulation or sanction, or priviate liability, for certain speech acts conducted by its human agents. The answer, obviously, is yes - because without that immunity, the speech rights of the human beings that speak in relation to the entity would be compromised. But what is at issue here is the speech rights of natural persons, not the rights of the artificial entity. This is just a very basic categorical misconception.
QuoteDeveloper with shotgun scared off Oakland rioters
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/03/BACM1LQ5FU.DTL&tsp=1
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michalak.org%2Ffh%2Fevildead%2FAsh_Shotgun2.jpg&hash=918f4dc4b0f5e53425dc84e62b04cabe3e335d72)
:)
All right, you primitive screwheads...
Quote from: fahdiz on November 04, 2011, 11:55:46 AM
All right, you primitive screwheads...
I know what I'm watching tonight.
Quote from: Minsky MomentBut what does it mean to say that? To what extent is it meaningful to say that an articial entity has speech rights above and beyond the rights of those human beings who act on behalf on the entity? A piece of paper in a Delaware clerk's office or a headquarters building can't have speech rights.
Of course a corporation is a fiction, but so to the same degree is any other voluntary association. Any association will speak through its agents. Why should a corporation be treated differently than a non-profit or union--or political party--in this regard? (In other regards, that do not or only minimally impact speech rights, they of course can be treated differently.)
The corporate form's function as a creature of statute is not in dispute, but that status was not invented to provide to associations the privilege of limited liability and to regulate those associations' commercial interchange, not their social and political interchange.
And for what it's worth, a tremendous amount of political speech emanates from corporations in the form of cinema, literature, comics, news organizations, etc, and form a vital part of American discourse (and industry). The idea that corporations have no right to political speech poses a severe threat to the arts. Citizens United involved a movie that was reportedly little more than a long, probably very boring attack ad, but in no way do I want government to decide what constitutes "acceptable" political filmmaking. Kennedy was right when he wrote that this was an impossible and improper distinction to make.
In that regard, I see no logical incoherence here. An association of people is still people, and it is those people who speak through a corporation's agents, not a filing with the Delaware secretary of state. If those views are severely distorted through the corporate form, that's an issue of corporate governance; and to some degree any associational statement will distort or even contradict the views of some or many of its individual members, by necessity.
P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic. :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 12:09:44 PM
P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic. :hug:
That's why I talk with myself so regularly. :)
Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2011, 12:29:37 PM
That's why I talk with myself so regularly. :)
Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... :hmm:
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 12:09:44 PM
Of course a corporation is a fiction, but so to the same degree is any other voluntary association. Any association will speak through its agents. Why should a corporation be treated differently than a non-profit or union--or political party--in this regard? (In other regards, that do not or only minimally impact speech rights, they of course can be treated differently.)
It shouldn't - the same analysis applies.
QuoteAnd for what it's worth, a tremendous amount of political speech emanates from corporations in the form of cinema, literature, comics, news organizations, etc, and form a vital part of American discourse (and industry). The idea that corporations have no right to political speech poses a severe threat to the arts. Citizens United involved a movie that was reportedly little more than a long, probably very boring attack ad, but in no way do I want government to decide what constitutes "acceptable" political filmmaking. Kennedy was right when he wrote that this was an impossible and improper distinction to make.
The speech does not emanate from the corporation, it emanates from its agents. So the only relevant question that needs to be asked is the extent to which a corporation can be sanctioned for those speech acts. And the relevant inquiry in answering that question is whether and to what extent such regulation would infringe upon the speech rights of the human agents.
So, for example, the "malice" standard for libel as relates to public figures can be invoked by a newspaper corporation if a lawsuit is brought against the corporation. This is not because the corporation itself has "personal" free speech rights. It is because the communicative rights of the reporter, the publisher and the readers of the publication would be compromised if the corporation were not given standing to invoke those individual rights as if it were its own. Put that way, the appropriate analysis is what legal defenses should be available to the corporation to protect the individual rights of those associated with it in some way.
With respect to a newspaper, effective communication in our times requires that publishers be able to deploy numerous reporters, investigators, bureaus, equipment etc and thus the ability to conduct those activities in corporate form bears a direct relationship with the ability to generate certain kinds of protected speech activity. But that is not true of cash contributions to political candidates. That is something that can be effectively carried out individually, and the ability to make contributions on a corporate basis does not in any discernible way enhance the nature or quality of that communication, or compromise the ability of affiliated individuals to make that communication, unless the true objective is quid quo pro bribery, which is not protected speech.
The next question then is how to handle a more nuanced fact pattern, like the attack edutainment infomercial at issue in Citizens United, but that just involves the same kind of line drawing that courts engage in all the time with respect to non-corporate speech cases.
So where would you stand on advertising JR?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2011, 12:41:56 PM
So where would you stand on advertising JR?
'
Commerical speech merits some protection and since it involves commercial activity, and commercial activity in the modern era often requires the use of an artificial entity to conduct efficiently, it is appropriate for the courts to give corporations legal standing to invoke those rights on behalf of its agents, stakeholders, and customers.
The Occupy Spokane group has decided not to occupy downtown Spokane overnight. There's too few of them and they get scared. :D
The Fire Chief has ordered that all the unused tents be taken down and the place get cleaned up a bit. The Occupiers say they dont recognize the order but it looks like they are complying anyway. As I said earlier it sure looked like there were more tents than people and it seems the Fire Cheif has deemed that a hazard.
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2011, 12:29:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 12:09:44 PM
P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic. :hug:
That's why I talk with myself so regularly. :)
Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... :hmm:
Nope, my Mother always told me "people who talk to themselves are either rich or crazy and you ain't rich!"
You on the other hand are rich.
Quote from: citizen k on November 04, 2011, 01:05:06 PM
The Occupy Spokane group has decided not to occupy downtown Spokane overnight. There's too few of them and they get scared. :D
They don't call it Spocompton for nothing.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2011, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2011, 12:29:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 12:09:44 PM
P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic. :hug:
That's why I talk with myself so regularly. :)
Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... :hmm:
Nope, my Mother always told me "people who talk to themselves are either rich or crazy and you ain't rich!"
You on the other hand are rich.
You're labouring under a misconception as to what 'rich' means.
Speaking of
Citizens United, ten dem senators have introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal it. Good luck with that! :lol:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/11/02/udall-goes-nuclear-proposes-amendment-to-wipe-out-citizens-united/?mod=google_news_blog
QuoteUdall: Amend the Constitution, Wipe Out Citizens United
By Sam Favate
In the history of the United States, more than 11,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed, and only 27 have passed.
With those odds in mind, we bring you this story from HuffPo on a proposed constitutional amendment by Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.) that would blow up the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United.
The ruling last year unleashed a flood of campaign contributions from corporations and super PACs, which can spend as much money as they want and do so nearly anonymously.
The proposal put forth by Udall would add language to the Constitution that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. Click here for more on the proposal in The New Mexican.
The proposed amendment would also reverse the 1976 decision Buckley v Valeo, which held that spending money is a form of speech in elections.
At a press conference yesterday, Udall said "Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks," and called Citizens United "a threat to our democracy," according to The New Mexican.
Groups such as MoveToAmend.org have been organizing since the Citizens United decision to reverse the ruling. In a statement today, the group points out that Boulder, Colorado, became the second city in the nation last night to pass a ballot measure calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end "corporate personhood." In April, Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin, passed similar measures.
Last year, the Disclose Act, which would have prohibited foreign influence in elections and stopped government contractors from making expenditures on elections, passed the House of Representatives, but was blocked from coming up for a Senate vote by Republicans.
At the time, President Obama said blocking the measure was an example of "politics at its worst," and added that the Supreme Court "overturned decades of law and precedent" with the Citizens United ruling. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky) said last year that the measure was a "partisan campaign bill," and took the focus away from jobs.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement in the wake of the Disclose Act, saying it "clearly violates the Constitution, as well as basic principles of fairness and equity," and called on the Senate to dismiss the measure.
Udall's proposal has nine co-sponsors in the Senate.
LB reached out to Sen. McConnell's office for comment, but a spokesperson wasn't immediately available for comment.
Here's a British millionionaire, now living in the USA, telling us what he thinks. It sounds really cool cause he's got a british accent.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150358729275737
Facebook?
No hipster douchery allowed on Languish.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:29:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2011, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2011, 12:29:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 12:09:44 PM
P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic. :hug:
That's why I talk with myself so regularly. :)
Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... :hmm:
Nope, my Mother always told me "people who talk to themselves are either rich or crazy and you ain't rich!"
You on the other hand are rich.
You're labouring under a misconception as to what 'rich' means.
Yup. I ain't rich, not even close ... :lol:
Traders at the Chicago Board of Trade building have dumped thousands of McDonald's employment applications out the windows onto the crowd at Occupy Chicago. :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2011, 02:43:54 PM
Traders at the Chicago Board of Trade building have dumped thousands of McDonald's employment applications out the windows onto the crowd at Occupy Chicago. :lol:
Yeesh. They may or may not have a point, but that's an awfully good way to get lynched.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2011, 02:43:54 PM
Traders at the Chicago Board of Trade building have dumped thousands of McDonald's employment applications out the windows onto the crowd at Occupy Chicago. :lol:
Pretty dick move on their part, and one that can easily misfire from the PR perspective.
They're also the ones who put "we are the 1%" in the windows, so I think being a dick is no longer a worry on their part.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2011, 02:48:27 PM
They're also the ones who put "we are the 1%" in the windows, so I think being a dick is no longer a worry on their part.
Attitude among Chicagoans has no percentage boundary!
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:49:38 PM
Facebook?
No hipster douchery allowed on Languish.
Sorry...I know. But it's the only place I found it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2011, 02:48:27 PM
They're also the ones who put "we are the 1%" in the windows, so I think being a dick is no longer a worry on their part.
If I were someone who got rich through rent-seeking activities that made the society as a whole poorer, I would not be employing the Marie Antoinette strategy in dealing with the protesters. I would instead opt to lie low, rather than test the resolve of the Tea Party useful idiots that have so far protected you politically.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:49:38 PM
Facebook?
No hipster douchery allowed on Languish.
You disapprove of Facebook?
Facebook is completely retarded.
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 03:12:57 PM
Facebook is completely retarded.
Facebook isnt retarded, retards use facebook.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2011, 01:33:16 PM
Here's a British millionionaire, now living in the USA, telling us what he thinks. It sounds really cool cause he's got a british accent.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150358729275737
Matt Peterson shut up and sing :)
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 03:04:11 PM
If I were someone who got rich through rent-seeking activities that made the society as a whole poorer, I would not be employing the Marie Antoinette strategy in dealing with the protesters. I would instead opt to lie low, rather than test the resolve of the Tea Party useful idiots that have so far protected you politically.
It's actually kind of an insult to McDonald's, too, when you think about it.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 04, 2011, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 03:04:11 PM
If I were someone who got rich through rent-seeking activities that made the society as a whole poorer, I would not be employing the Marie Antoinette strategy in dealing with the protesters. I would instead opt to lie low, rather than test the resolve of the Tea Party useful idiots that have so far protected you politically.
It's actually kind of an insult to McDonald's, too, when you think about it.
If I were MCD I wouldn't want to be associated with guys being jerks. So there's that too.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 04, 2011, 03:36:50 PM
It's actually kind of an insult to McDonald's, too, when you think about it.
Obviously. When you tell people to work in McDonald's as an insult, you are kind of denigrating all the people who work in McDonald's right now.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 04, 2011, 03:36:50 PM
It's actually kind of an insult to McDonald's, too, when you think about it.
Obviously. When you tell people to work in McDonald's as an insult, you are kind of denigrating all the people who work in McDonald's right now.
Well they do make crap burgers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fweb05%2F2011%2F11%2F3%2F10%2Fenhanced-buzz-16721-1320330346-8.jpg&hash=5e6a46c37a5cc6194794f3e48a8d6bc50f9810ee)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2011, 03:39:43 PM
If I were MCD I wouldn't want to be associated with guys being jerks. So there's that too.
McDonald's exec: "Ha ha, those traders told those guys to go out and get shitty, low-paying, menial, tedious jobs over at...hey. Wait a minute. Sad trombone."
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
Obviously. When you tell people to work in McDonald's as an insult, you are kind of denigrating all the people who work in McDonald's right now.
As MBM indicated, I don't think "avoid sounding like a dick" is high on the to-do list for the application-droppers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2011, 03:23:03 PMFacebook isnt retarded, retards use facebook.
Maybe, but the future of the internet, online commerce and communication is being determined by the battle between Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google.
I will let you know if I need online commerce and then you can help me pick which one to get.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2011, 03:23:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 03:12:57 PM
Facebook is completely retarded.
Facebook isnt retarded, retards use facebook.
like any other form of communication it is what you make of it.
PS you're old :P
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 04, 2011, 03:36:50 PM
It's actually kind of an insult to McDonald's, too, when you think about it.
Obviously. When you tell people to work in McDonald's as an insult, you are kind of denigrating all the people who work in McDonald's right now.
Well they do make crap burgers.
The angus burgers they introduced a couple of years ago are pretty good.
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2011, 03:05:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:49:38 PM
Facebook?
No hipster douchery allowed on Languish.
You disapprove of Facebook?
I was never really that into it, but since it became a trendy marketing behemoth I avoid it at all costs. It was pretty easy to fade out of it, since the only people who really were into it were my wife's family and people I knew from the old country.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2011, 04:21:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 04, 2011, 03:36:50 PM
It's actually kind of an insult to McDonald's, too, when you think about it.
Obviously. When you tell people to work in McDonald's as an insult, you are kind of denigrating all the people who work in McDonald's right now.
Well they do make crap burgers.
The angus burgers they introduced a couple of years ago are pretty good.
The Languish food fags are vectoring in on your position.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 04:39:47 PM
and people I knew from the old country.
Southern Alberta?
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2011, 04:05:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2011, 03:23:03 PMFacebook isnt retarded, retards use facebook.
Maybe, but the future of the internet, online commerce and communication is being determined by the battle between Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google.
And that's why the phone will never be replaced by their assorted services: They're all predicated on being as terrible and intrusive as possible, and sending you as many ads as they possibly can in order to maximize their revenue stream.
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2011, 04:12:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2011, 03:23:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 03:12:57 PM
Facebook is completely retarded.
Facebook isnt retarded, retards use facebook.
like any other form of communication it is what you make of it.
PS you're old :P
Nah, I'm his age or older. He just doesn't get it. For a guy who chats on a forum made up of anime-loving war gamers, he sure talks the talk. :D
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2011, 04:12:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2011, 03:23:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 03:12:57 PM
Facebook is completely retarded.
Facebook isnt retarded, retards use facebook.
like any other form of communication it is what you make of it.
PS you're old :P
Nah, I'm his age or older. He just doesn't get it. For a guy who chats on a forum made up of anime-loving war gamers, he sure talks the talk. :D
And all this time I have been cutting you slack because I thought you were young.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2011, 04:12:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2011, 03:23:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 03:12:57 PM
Facebook is completely retarded.
Facebook isnt retarded, retards use facebook.
like any other form of communication it is what you make of it.
PS you're old :P
Nah, I'm his age or older. He just doesn't get it. For a guy who chats on a forum made up of anime-loving war gamers, he sure talks the talk. :D
ya, but you're european. you guys stay cooler longer :P
Now that i buttered you up, how about that neices number ;) :D
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 04:48:45 PMAnd that's why the phone will never be replaced by their assorted services: They're all predicated on being as terrible and intrusive as possible, and sending you as many ads as they possibly can in order to maximize their revenue stream.
There's not that much revenue in online ads, I don't think. Obviously a few companies might do okay, but ads are not really a driver of the evolution or most businesses. The value of intrusion is not the ads, but that the data can be used for analytics used to drive business and development strategies; people will pay money for that. Ultimately, however, it still comes down to delivering product and services.
As for the phone never being replaced - that's already underway; that's what android and iPhones are doing.
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2011, 04:12:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2011, 03:23:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 03:12:57 PM
Facebook is completely retarded.
Facebook isnt retarded, retards use facebook.
like any other form of communication it is what you make of it.
PS you're old :P
Nah, I'm his age or older. He just doesn't get it. For a guy who chats on a forum made up of anime-loving war gamers, he sure talks the talk. :D
ya, but you're european. you guys stay cooler longer :P
Now that i buttered you up, how about that neices number ;) :D
Nice try... ;)
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2011, 05:51:43 PM
There's not that much revenue in online ads, I don't think.
:yeahright: Advertising is where most of Google's and Facebook's revenue comes from.
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html (http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/facebook-revenue-will-reach-4-27-billion-emarketer-says-1-.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/facebook-revenue-will-reach-4-27-billion-emarketer-says-1-.html)
Advertising revenue is the driver of big data.
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2011, 05:51:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 04:48:45 PMAnd that's why the phone will never be replaced by their assorted services: They're all predicated on being as terrible and intrusive as possible, and sending you as many ads as they possibly can in order to maximize their revenue stream.
There's not that much revenue in online ads, I don't think. Obviously a few companies might do okay, but ads are not really a driver of the evolution or most businesses. The value of intrusion is not the ads, but that the data can be used for analytics used to drive business and development strategies; people will pay money for that. Ultimately, however, it still comes down to delivering product and services.
And really, that's even worse. The ads were bad enough, but wholesale spying in the name of marketing makes me want to puke.
QuoteAs for the phone never being replaced - that's already underway; that's what android and iPhones are doing.
They're still phones, and phones still rule communications.
From today's Globe and Mail
QuoteLaurel O'Gorman is one of the faces of Occupy Toronto. She believes the capitalist system has robbed her of her future. At 28, she's studying for a master's degree in sociology at Laurentian University in Sudbury. She's also the single mother of two children. "I'm here because I don't know what kind of job I could possibly find that would allow me to pay rent, take care of these two children and pay back $600 each month in loans," she said.
Ms. O'Gorman is in a fix. But I can't help wondering whether she, and not the greedy Wall Street bankers, is the author of her own misfortune. Just what kind of jobs did she imagine are on offer for freshly minted sociology graduates? Did she bother to ask? Did it occur to her that it might be a good idea to figure out how to support her children before she had them?
She's typical in her bitter disappointment. Here's Boston resident Sarvenaz Asasy, 33, who has a master's degree in international human rights, along with $60,000 in student loans. She dreamed of doing work to help the poor get food and education. But now she can't find a job in her field. She blames the government. "They're cutting all the grants, and they're bailing out the banks. I don't get it."
Then there's John, who's pursuing a degree in environmental law. He wants to work at a non-profit. After he graduated from university, he struggled to find work. "I had to go a full year between college and law school without a job. I lived at home with my parents to make ends meet." He thinks a law degree will help, but these days, I'm not so sure.
These people make up the Occupier generation. They aspire to join the virtueocracy – the class of people who expect to find self-fulfillment (and a comfortable living) in non-profit or government work, by saving the planet, rescuing the poor and regulating the rest of us. They are what the social critic Christopher Lasch called the "new class" of "therapeutic cops in the new bureaucracy."
The trouble is, this social model no longer works. As blogger Kenneth Anderson writes, "The machine by which universities train young people to become minor regulators and then delivered them into white-collar positions on the basis of credentials in history, political science, literature, ethnic and women's studies – with or without the benefit of law school – has broken down. The supply is uninterrupted, but the demand has dried up."
It's not the greedy Wall Street bankers who destroyed these people's hopes. It's the virtueocracy itself. It's the people who constructed a benefit-heavy entitlement system whose costs can no longer be sustained. It's the politicians and union leaders who made reckless pension promises that are now bankrupting cities and states. It's the socially progressive policy-makers in the U.S. who declared that everyone, even those with no visible means of support, should be able to own a home with no money down, courtesy of their government. In Canada, it's the social progressives who assure us we can keep on consuming all the health care we want, even as the costs squeeze out other public goods.
The Occupiers are right when they say our system of wealth redistribution is broken. But they're wrong about what broke it. The richest 1 per cent are not exactly starving out the working poor. (In the U.S., half all income sent to Washington is redistributed to the elderly, sick and disabled, or to those who serve them, and nearly half the country lives in a household that's getting some sort of government benefit.) The problem is, our system redistributes the wealth from young to old, and from middle-class workers in the private sector to inefficient and expensive unions in the public sector.
Among the biggest beneficiaries of this redistribution is the higher-education industry. In Canada, we subsidize it directly. In the U.S., it's subsidized by a vast system of student loans, which have allowed colleges to jack up tuition to sky-high levels. U.S. student debt has hit the trillion-dollar mark. Both systems crank out too many sociologists and too few mechanical engineers. These days, even law-school graduates are having trouble finding work. That's because the supply has increased far faster than the demand.
The voices of Occupy Wall Street, argues Mr. Anderson and others, are the voices of the downwardly mobile who are acutely aware of their threatened social status and need someone to blame. These are people who weren't interested in just any white-collar work. They wanted to do transformational, world-saving work – which would presumably be underwritten by taxing the rich. They now face the worst job market in a generation. But their predicament is at least in part of their own making. And none of the solutions they propose will address their problem.
Ms. O'Gorman, the graduate student in sociology, didn't bring her kids to the Occupy demonstration in Toronto because she was worried about security. Still, she hoped they would absorb the message. "I'm trying to teach them equity and critical thinking from a young age," she said. If she'd only applied a bit more critical thinking to herself, she might be able to pay the rent.
Writer's piling an awful lot of generalites on to 3 data points.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2011, 10:44:04 AM
Writer's piling an awful lot of generalites on to 3 data points.
:huh: They were carefully selected.
Quote from: Maximus on November 04, 2011, 07:36:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2011, 05:51:43 PM
There's not that much revenue in online ads, I don't think.
:yeahright: Advertising is where most of Google's and Facebook's revenue comes from.
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html (http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/facebook-revenue-will-reach-4-27-billion-emarketer-says-1-.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/facebook-revenue-will-reach-4-27-billion-emarketer-says-1-.html)
Advertising revenue is the driver of big data.
Huh. Well I stand corrected. I thought facebook credits and analytics made up a bigger proportion than that.
It makes so much sense: the 1% is made up of elderly civil service employees!
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2011, 07:53:57 PM
It makes so much sense: the 1% is made up of elderly civil service employees!
I don't think that is what the article is saying. Of course, it is always good to keep in mind that it is hardly the case that all of the 99% is suffering.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2011, 07:53:57 PM
It makes so much sense: the 1% is made up of elderly civil service employees!
Whenever CC interjects in this thread I keep being reminded of those people who claim that it's the poor folks' fault if they are poor.
So XIXth century! That's what it must be to be a 'conservative'!3
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
Whenever CC interjects in this thread I keep being reminded of those people who claim that it's the poor folks' fault if they are poor.
Who's fault is it that Sarvanez Asasy can't find a job in international human rights that pays enough for $60,000 in debt?
The "educational" institution that took his, or more accurately society's, money.
The fraud is generally considered worse than the defrauded, however foolish the latter might be; except on the right, where they are celebrated as entrepreneurs.
Additionally:
QuoteIt's the virtueocracy itself. It's the people who constructed a benefit-heavy entitlement system whose costs can no longer be sustained.
My understanding is that this is incorrect: a choice was made not to sustain it, in exchange for the short term benefits of a minimal tax burden. That didn't work out very well.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2011, 07:53:57 PM
It makes so much sense: the 1% is made up of elderly civil service employees!
Whenever CC interjects in this thread I keep being reminded of those people who claim that it's the poor folks' fault if they are poor.
So XIXth century! That's what it must be to be a 'conservative'!3
G.
:wub: :worthy:
Yi, do you see similarities with the Occupy guys and the Tea Party movement?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2011, 11:26:19 PM
The "educational" institution that took his, or more accurately society's, money.
The fraud is generally considered worse than the defrauded, however foolish the latter might be; except on the right, where they are celebrated as entrepreneurs.
Why is it the institution's fault that she doesn't have the ability to leverage her degree into a high paying job? Did her university guarantee her a good paying job in these times where college degrees are more like a price to compete? Did they suggest it would be a good financial investment to get a masters in international human rights?
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2011, 02:41:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2011, 11:26:19 PM
The "educational" institution that took his, or more accurately society's, money.
The fraud is generally considered worse than the defrauded, however foolish the latter might be; except on the right, where they are celebrated as entrepreneurs.
Why is it the institution's fault that she doesn't have the ability to leverage her degree into a high paying job? Did her university guarantee her a good paying job in these times where college degrees are more like a price to compete? Did they suggest it would be a good financial investment to get a masters in international human rights?
Did they accurately represent that it was a poor investment, indeed a terrible investment?
I'll compromise on mutual fault if it makes you happy, but exploiting foolishness and naivete is hardly exemplary behavior, and a desire to help people--if perhaps pursued in the dumbest way possible--is rather preferable to an indifference to harming individuals and society as a whole in order to make a profit.
The really crushing thing about educational investments--and naturally I've been thinking about that a lot--is that they're inalienable. A house is still worth something, can be sold, if at a severe loss. A degree cannot be sold, cannot be returned. And of course the debt cannot even be discharged.
Do you think it's a desirable or even tenable situation, the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt owed on basically bad, near-zero-worth investments? Do you think it's merely the inevitable operation of a free market? If so, why so callous, old friend? A price to compete? That's the kind of society you want, where ambition, often noble ambition, is exploited for gain and rewarded with permanent destitution? Where enormous resources are misallocated and the value of education diminished and destroyed by a monstrous hybrid of communism and capitalism worse than either?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 06, 2011, 03:02:18 AM
Did they accurately represent that it was a poor investment, indeed a terrible investment?
I'll compromise on mutual fault if it makes you happy, but exploiting foolishness and naivete is hardly exemplary behavior, and a desire to help people--if perhaps pursued in the dumbest way possible--is rather preferable to an indifference to harming individuals and society as a whole in order to make a profit.
It could be break even given a high status school and the right pitch of it to potential employers. That said, why so cynical chum? It is certainly the case that universities offer courses/degrees that are valuable for the sake of education and perhaps the life of an academic. Why do you want universities to simply be degree mills where they churn out individuals who will be guaranteed great jobs?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 06, 2011, 03:02:18 AMThe really crushing thing about educational investments--and naturally I've been thinking about that a lot--is that they're inalienable. A house is still worth something, can be sold, if at a severe loss. A degree cannot be sold, cannot be returned. And of course the debt cannot even be discharged.
I'm not sure this is here nor there - unless the suggestion is that individuals and their parents are too stupid to make rational decisions for themselves.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 06, 2011, 03:02:18 AMDo you think it's a desirable or even tenable situation, the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt owed on basically bad, near-zero-worth investments?
I'm not sure why the only value in a university degree is its supposed potential to make one wonderfully employable.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 06, 2011, 03:02:18 AMDo you think it's merely the inevitable operation of a free market? If so, why so callous, old friend? A price to compete? That's the kind of society you want, where ambition, often noble ambition, is exploited for gain and rewarded with permanent destitution? Where enormous resources are misallocated and the value of education diminished and destroyed by a monstrous hybrid of communism and capitalism worse than either?
I'm not really sure what to say here as I'm not coming from a place where every university operates like DeVry. I don't think universities are vocational skills where one simply receives training on how to command a job that will net them easily more than they paid in for schooling.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2011, 07:53:57 PM
It makes so much sense: the 1% is made up of elderly civil service employees!
Whenever CC interjects in this thread I keep being reminded of those people who claim that it's the poor folks' fault if they are poor.
So XIXth century! That's what it must be to be a 'conservative'!3
G.
You also have to remind yourself that I have always argued against that. My take on the occupy Vancouver site is it is mainly a bunch of upper middle class kids being the faux poor for political theatre.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2011, 11:26:19 PM
The fraud is generally considered worse than the defrauded, however foolish the latter might be; except on the right, where they are celebrated as entrepreneurs.
For a fraud to have occured there had to be a promise by the university that someone with a degree in international human rights would end up with a high paying job. Do you have any knowledge that any such promise was ever made?
Quote
My understanding is that this is incorrect: a choice was made not to sustain it, in exchange for the short term benefits of a minimal tax burden. That didn't work out very well.
The alternative has worked out oh so well in the EU.
On Thursday there was a near death at the occupy Vancouver site. Yesterday someone did die. Now even the major is saying the site should shut down.
QuoteThe death of a woman at the Occupy Vancouver camp means the site has become so unsafe that it must be shut down as soon as possible, says Vancouver's mayor.
Gregor Robertson said Saturday night he's instructed city officials and the chiefs of the fire and police departments to look at how that can be done safely and peacefully.
The 20-year-old woman was found unresponsive in a tent at the site in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery on Saturday afternoon, two days after a man suffered a non-fatal overdose at the encampment.
"There is a serious problem here and we want to address it urgently," Mr. Robertson said.
The woman's death is tragic and is also upsetting for him because he has a 20-year-old daughter, he said.
Occupy Vancouver supporters tried to drown him out as he spoke to reporters, with one woman shouting that at least his daughter has a home.
"I think the protest on the really important issues that many of us are passionate about is being undermined by a tent camp and the issues around the right to camp on public space, which is really unfortunate," Mr. Robertson said.
"And now we have a critical incident that demonstrates there's life safety at risk here."
Mr. Robertson said the city is considering a number of options that include a possible injunction to end the encampment.
Const. Jana McGuinness of the Vancouver Police Department said neither the cause of the woman's death nor her identity are being released as police try to contact her family.
Several people at the protest site said the woman died of a drug overdose and heckled Robertson to provide more funding for addiction services and the homeless.
He told them the city has an outreach worker for the homeless and anyone at the site who doesn't have a home can be accommodated.
Const. McGuinness said police are facing a challenging situation as officials work to try and end the Occupy Vancouver camp.
"Officer safety and the safety of the protesters is paramount as well," she said, adding discussions in the coming days will involve people at the camp.
"We're hoping for co-operation should that time come," she said. "We want it to go smoothly. We don't want to see anybody be hurt."
Last week, the fire department ordered tents to be spaced further apart and for tarps to be removed so they could be accessed in case of an emergency.
But some campers said the orders were merely suggestions and that they didn't have to follow them.
The Occupy Vancouver site has become a major issue in the lead up to this month's civic election as Mr. Robertson vies to keep his job amid pressure by his rival to end the occupation at the art gallery.
Lauren Gill, who is running as an independent candidate in the election and is also an organizer at the camp, said the woman apparently died of a drug overdose.
The incident highlights the need for more addiction services because drugs are such a big issue in the city, said Ms. Gill, who said she's seen far too many overdose deaths as an outreach worker in mental health and addiction services.
"I think it's an issue that's all over our city and this is why we need Insite," she said of the supervised injection site in the Downtown Eastside where people shoot up their own drugs under medical supervision.
"We just lost a member of our community," she said. "It's a really strong community down here and we're going to do whatever we can to support each other."
Ms. Gill said she does not want to turn the death into a political issue and is hoping other candidates don't do that either.
The woman was found dead by a friend at about 4:30 p.m., just before a band called DOA started playing a scheduled gig at the camp.
On Saturday, tensions seem to be growing at the site. One television camera operator was shoved to the ground and some protesters began hassling reporters.
Someone not doing drugs, or at least not being a burden on society if they do decide to do them would be better than more services.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 06, 2011, 11:08:32 AM
Someone not doing drugs, or at least not being a burden on society if they do decide to do them would be better than more services.
It's Vancouver. The whole place is a failed state that is getting colonized by peoples with superior morality.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 01:43:08 AM
Yi, do you see similarities with the Occupy guys and the Tea Party movement?
Public demonstrations.
Ide: how would you feel about changes to the student loan program so that only people in easily marketable majors qualify? Leave the international human rights, gender studies, and black studies for rich kids.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2011, 11:42:46 AM
Ide: how would you feel about changes to the student loan program so that only people in easily marketable majors qualify? Leave the international human rights, gender studies, and black studies for rich kids.
Perhaps a matrix system that looks at university tier and degree to determine your overall employability after graduation.
Barnes and Nobles needs those art majors to work the registers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 06, 2011, 12:38:40 PM
Barnes and Nobles needs those art majors to work the registers.
I thought they were kaput.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2011, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 06, 2011, 12:38:40 PM
Barnes and Nobles needs those art majors to work the registers.
I thought they were kaput.
You are thinking of Borders.
Or he's just being a year or two ahead of his time.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2011, 12:45:19 PM
Or he's just being a year or two ahead of his time.
The kids who studied puppetry in college are doomed. :cry:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2011, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2011, 11:26:19 PM
The fraud is generally considered worse than the defrauded, however foolish the latter might be; except on the right, where they are celebrated as entrepreneurs.
For a fraud to have occured there had to be a promise by the university that someone with a degree in international human rights would end up with a high paying job. Do you have any knowledge that any such promise was ever made?
I was not speaking legally. But, on that front, we'll see how the class action against Cooley, NYLS and others pans out. I'm not sanguine about the prospects.
Quote
The alternative has worked out oh so well in the EU.
The EU's problem is geographical overstretch. It's comparing apples to a oranges, some of which are diseased. The American war against taxes was not a good idea.
Quote from: Admiral YiIde: how would you feel about changes to the student loan program so that only people in easily marketable majors qualify? Leave the international human rights, gender studies, and black studies for rich kids.
Well, as I see it, it's not about whether such degrees should be offered at all, but rather that they are offered in numbers that outstrip the demand for graduates of those programs. Schools need to be less concerned with whether a primary market exists for the degree, and more concerned with the secondary markets for degrees.
So, maybe?
The other problem is the collapse of the public sector coinciding with contraction of the private sector, leading to significant competition even for jobs that involve being shot for a living (I was reading an article yesterday about how even the armed forces have waiting lists). There is certainly enough for sociologists, administrators, and lawyers (:goodboy:) to
do, just not a government willing to take on the responsibility of paying for it.
Ultimately, I may be tilting at windmills here. Garbs might be right. College degrees may simply be the new H.S.D.s and graduate level education the new associate's, just the basic foundation you need to even engage in the economy. And perhaps the clock cannot be turned back. If that's the case, only radically progressive solutions remain.
Quote from: Garbonunless the suggestion is that individuals and their parents are too stupid to make rational decisions for themselves
Of course they are.
QuoteWhy do you want universities to simply be degree mills where they churn out individuals who will be guaranteed great jobs?
Because at the price, that's what they need to be.
But you do make me pause. I agree that a liberal arts education can be important for personal self-improvement. I don't think I'd want to strip gen ed classes out of the cirriculum. At the same time, it's not like anyone needs a history degree to be educated in history, or an art degree to be educated in art. Is a history degree an investment or a glorified hobby? At (let's say) $30,000, it's an expensive hobby.
There is enormous demand for graduates of the liberal arts. Assorted service jobs will always need to be filled.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 06, 2011, 03:02:18 AM
Did they accurately represent that it was a poor investment, indeed a terrible investment?
Do universities have an obligation to advise students on the "investment" value of their education dollars? If they do, what makes you think that the university didn't do so? Charges of fraud seem to me to be hysterical over-reaction.
QuoteI'll compromise on mutual fault if it makes you happy,
I am no lawyer, but is mutual fraud even possible? If the university's half of the fault is due to fraud, what is the student's half?
Methinks you protesteth too much.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2011, 08:26:31 AM
I'm not sure why the only value in a university degree is its supposed potential to make one wonderfully employable.
That's the key, I think. Once we start to think of education as simply a matter of increasing future employability, we are on our way to trade school universities.
Shazaam! I just had a brilliant idea to increase social mobility in the US.
Retroactively remove the tax deductability of donations to universities if one of your children is accepted to that university as a legacy.
:showoff:
Okay, so I'm going to to put you down as supporting one brand of vague rambling populist bullshit, and demonizing another either because you can't genuinely identify vague rambling populist bullshit or because you are just a hack.
Oooooh.
I think the Tea Party has a wider base. There are quite a few more pseudo-fiscal conservatives who vote Republican then there are rabble-rousing class-warfare types.
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 04:38:05 PM
I think the Tea Party has a wider base. There are quite a few more pseudo-fiscal conservatives who vote Republican then there are rabble-rousing class-warfare types.
Same thing though. Some nebulous elites are the cause of our problems. I don't know what conspiracy theories the Occupy types have, but they probably have an equivalent of the evil Jewish Financier and death panels rumbling around somewhere.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 04:38:05 PM
I think the Tea Party has a wider base. There are quite a few more pseudo-fiscal conservatives who vote Republican then there are rabble-rousing class-warfare types.
Same thing though. Some nebulous elites are the cause of our problems. I don't know what conspiracy theories the Occupy types have, but they probably have an equivalent of the evil Jewish Financier and death panels rumbling around somewhere.
Well, both are equally worthless, to be sure. I just have more sympathy for the dupes who think that Reagan-era propaganda is still applicable, compared to the professional malcontent scumbags.
I don't think they are professional. After all they don't have jobs.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 05:58:54 PM
I don't think they are professional. After all they don't have jobs.
Which is why they're taken up causing trouble and looting as their career.
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 06:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 05:58:54 PM
I don't think they are professional. After all they don't have jobs.
Which is why they're taken up causing trouble and looting as their career.
At least they don't fly planes into the IRS or conspire to shoot up the police.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 06:12:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 06:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 05:58:54 PM
I don't think they are professional. After all they don't have jobs.
Which is why they're taken up causing trouble and looting as their career.
At least they don't fly planes into the IRS or conspire to shoot up the police.
I think those guys are an even crazier fringe than the Tea Party.
Most are suicidal, but they certainly sympathized with the plane guy. They went to those rallies with side arms, so they were expecting trouble or attempting to intimate.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 06:47:53 PM
They went to those rallies with side arms, so they were expecting trouble or attempting to intimate.
No, I think those were just gun rights retards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_hand_signals
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmos.totalfilm.com%2Fimages%2F8%2F8-sneaky-supporting-actors-that-stole-the-movie-04.jpg&hash=5dc8a360938f9298e667bdacd1fd3d12c1e02a9d)
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 07:13:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 06:47:53 PM
They went to those rallies with side arms, so they were expecting trouble or attempting to intimate.
No, I think those were just gun rights retards.
Yeah just taking them because they always take them. Or to make a point about carrying. Not because they expect to open up.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 06, 2011, 08:54:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 07:13:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 06:47:53 PM
They went to those rallies with side arms, so they were expecting trouble or attempting to intimate.
No, I think those were just gun rights retards.
Yeah just taking them because they always take them. Or to make a point about carrying. Not because they expect to open up.
I seriously doubt they walk into the bank or a gas station with a handgun on their hips.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 02:52:43 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 06, 2011, 08:54:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 07:13:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 06:47:53 PM
They went to those rallies with side arms, so they were expecting trouble or attempting to intimate.
No, I think those were just gun rights retards.
Yeah just taking them because they always take them. Or to make a point about carrying. Not because they expect to open up.
I seriously doubt they walk into the bank or a gas station with a handgun on their hips.
I walk into stores with my legal CCW weapon. Unless it is marked they don't want guns in them.
Of course, Federal buildings, banks and schools are right out.
I blame the state school system. After all, my classical education taught me to disdain the money that I'm never going to earn.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 07, 2011, 08:04:23 AM
I walk into stores with my legal CCW weapon. Unless it is marked they don't want guns in them.
Of course, Federal buildings, banks and schools are right out.
But it's concealed right?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 08:51:23 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 07, 2011, 08:04:23 AM
I walk into stores with my legal CCW weapon. Unless it is marked they don't want guns in them.
Of course, Federal buildings, banks and schools are right out.
But it's concealed right?
Usually. Sometimes my suit jacket is open and the shoulder holster peeks through. Nobody bats an eye over it.
Fascist.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 07, 2011, 08:04:23 AMI walk into stores with my legal CCW weapon. Unless it is marked they don't want guns in them.
Of course, Federal buildings, banks and schools are right out.
So what happens if you're carrying and it turns out you need to enter a federal building, bank or school? Do you leave the gun in the glove compartment or trunk of your car?
He gives it to one of his kids.
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 07, 2011, 08:04:23 AMI walk into stores with my legal CCW weapon. Unless it is marked they don't want guns in them.
Of course, Federal buildings, banks and schools are right out.
So what happens if you're carrying and it turns out you need to enter a federal building, bank or school? Do you leave the gun in the glove compartment or trunk of your car?
Yeah pretty much. And Raz--yes they do. I see people in the 7-11 like that all the time. A rarely go into a bank, but I imagine the "open carry" nuts would definitely go there too.
I never saw the point in carrying a huge revolver on your thigh like John Wayne or whatever.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 07, 2011, 01:32:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 07, 2011, 08:04:23 AMI walk into stores with my legal CCW weapon. Unless it is marked they don't want guns in them.
Of course, Federal buildings, banks and schools are right out.
So what happens if you're carrying and it turns out you need to enter a federal building, bank or school? Do you leave the gun in the glove compartment or trunk of your car?
Yeah pretty much. And Raz--yes they do. I see people in the 7-11 like that all the time. A rarely go into a bank, but I imagine the "open carry" nuts would definitely go there too.
I never saw the point in carrying a huge revolver on your thigh like John Wayne or whatever.
A few years ago someone was spoted with a gun sitting on the steps of the art gallery. The streets were cleared, the tatical team was mobilized and after some time a negotiator convinced the loon to give up his gun. What civilized society needs guns?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2011, 01:39:54 PM
A few years ago someone was spoted with a gun sitting on the steps of the art gallery. The streets were cleared, the tatical team was mobilized and after some time a negotiator convinced the loon to give up his gun. What civilized emo society needs guns?
FYPFY. Pretty fucked up reaction, I agree.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 07, 2011, 01:32:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 07, 2011, 08:04:23 AMI walk into stores with my legal CCW weapon. Unless it is marked they don't want guns in them.
Of course, Federal buildings, banks and schools are right out.
So what happens if you're carrying and it turns out you need to enter a federal building, bank or school? Do you leave the gun in the glove compartment or trunk of your car?
Yeah pretty much. And Raz--yes they do. I see people in the 7-11 like that all the time. A rarely go into a bank, but I imagine the "open carry" nuts would definitely go there too.
I never saw the point in carrying a huge revolver on your thigh like John Wayne or whatever.
I have never seen anyone carry a large revolver on their hip openly like that who wasn't a police officer something similar to that. If you go to a rally with a big gun on your hip you are attempting to send a message.
Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2011, 01:47:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2011, 01:39:54 PM
A few years ago someone was spoted with a gun sitting on the steps of the art gallery. The streets were cleared, the tatical team was mobilized and after some time a negotiator convinced the loon to give up his gun. What civilized emo society needs guns?
FYPFY. Pretty fucked up reaction, I agree.
I suppose if one is used to living in a "pretty fucked up" society where carrying guns is commonplace one would tend to think as you do.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 06, 2011, 01:13:45 PM
But you do make me pause. I agree that a liberal arts education can be important for personal self-improvement. I don't think I'd want to strip gen ed classes out of the cirriculum. At the same time, it's not like anyone needs a history degree to be educated in history, or an art degree to be educated in art. Is a history degree an investment or a glorified hobby? At (let's say) $30,000, it's an expensive hobby.
Depends. No job I've ever had has been in my degree field.
It's your degree field "Library Sciences"?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 01:53:30 PM
If you go to a rally with a big gun on your hip you are attempting to send a message.
compensating for something?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2011, 02:55:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 01:53:30 PM
If you go to a rally with a big gun on your hip you are attempting to send a message.
compensating for something?
No, but I understand that a political demonstration is about sending messages. What you say, how you dress, and what you carry are all part of the message.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 03:01:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2011, 02:55:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 01:53:30 PM
If you go to a rally with a big gun on your hip you are attempting to send a message.
compensating for something?
No, but I understand that a political demonstration is about sending messages. What you say, how you dress, and what you carry are all part of the message.
Why cant a group of men who feel the need to compensate for something all take part in the same political demonstration. Dont people within a political movement have certain characteristics in common.
I thought you were suggesting I was compensating for something.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 03:20:49 PM
I thought you were suggesting I was compensating for something.
No, sorry. I should have made that more clear. Unless of course you feel a need to strap on a big gun or whatever. Then my answer would change.
Only when I look at my self naked in a mirror. Not in public. To me wearing a gun openly in public at a political demonstration sends one very loud and clear message. I'm willing to use violence.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 07, 2011, 03:38:49 PM
What do you speak on the job?
Mostly barking. It sure makes the accountants scurry!
Quote from: fahdiz on November 07, 2011, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 07, 2011, 03:38:49 PM
What do you speak on the job?
Mostly barking. It sure makes the accountants scurry!
hey, be nice to the accountants!
Quote from: HVC on November 07, 2011, 03:58:47 PM
hey, be nice to the accountants!
:D
In all honesty, I am probably a bit too nice as a boss.
If someone, say, i don't know, me, moved from canada to portland would my 4 years of canadian experience count towards me getting hired in your department? :shifty:
Quote from: HVC on November 07, 2011, 04:28:33 PM
If someone, say, i don't know, me, moved from canada to portland would my 4 years of canadian experience count towards me getting hired in your department? :shifty:
We actually have a hiring freeze at the moment. :(
So is everyone.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 07, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 07, 2011, 04:28:33 PM
If someone, say, i don't know, me, moved from canada to portland would my 4 years of canadian experience count towards me getting hired in your department? :shifty:
We actually have a hiring freeze at the moment. :(
I thought you were cool man :( :P.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 02:53:41 PM
It's your degree field "Library Sciences"?
I wish I had gotten an MLS. Librarians make a ton of cash, adn a lot of them don't seem to have to work hard to rake it in either.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 07, 2011, 04:37:08 PM
I wish I had gotten an MLS. Librarians make a ton of cash, adn a lot of them don't seem to have to work hard to rake it in either.
Where exactly do librarians make a ton of cash? And I guess, more importantly, what sum represents a "ton of cash"?
Part of me wishes I'd gotten an MLS too. Some of that coursework would help in the career direction I am exploring.
Raz hates Libraries.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 07, 2011, 04:40:41 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 07, 2011, 04:37:08 PM
I wish I had gotten an MLS. Librarians make a ton of cash, adn a lot of them don't seem to have to work hard to rake it in either.
Where exactly do librarians make a ton of cash? And I guess, more importantly, what sum represents a "ton of cash"?
Part of me wishes I'd gotten an MLS too. Some of that coursework would help in the career direction I am exploring.
From my experience, the library field is way overcrowded. My ex-girlfriend got an MLIS at the University of Pittsburgh (one of the better ones, I think), and was working at Borders until she got a job at some Three Stooges archive in suburban Philadelphia, which is pretty cool I suppose. A lot of her friends didn't have jobs within a year of graduating.
Ones here at the university star tout at 60-75k/year and just keep acrusing more. They are tenure-track faculty and there are no pay caps. Since so many of them have been here forever there are a number topping out at 125k a year or there abouts. Some in Boston make more.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 07, 2011, 04:43:41 PM
she got a job at some Three Stooges archive in suburban Philadelphia
omg best job ever.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2011, 04:43:02 PM
Raz hates Libraries.
Because of that girl who wouldn't date you, right?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 07, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 07, 2011, 04:28:33 PM
If someone, say, i don't know, me, moved from canada to portland would my 4 years of canadian experience count towards me getting hired in your department? :shifty:
We actually have a hiring freeze at the moment. :(
I think freezing would be a good investment.
Well, it seems that they're going to send in the Cossacks to disperse the Vancouver occupation. I approve. Hopefully many hippies are slashed.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 07, 2011, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 07, 2011, 04:43:41 PM
she got a job at some Three Stooges archive in suburban Philadelphia
omg best job ever.
Except for the being knocked over by a ladder bit.
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2011, 05:03:34 PM
Except for the being knocked over by a ladder bit.
Well, no job is *perfect*.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 07, 2011, 05:06:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2011, 05:03:34 PM
Except for the being knocked over by a ladder bit.
Well, no job is *perfect*.
General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? Well, until the layoffs started in 1991.
Quote from: Neil on November 07, 2011, 05:01:33 PM
Well, it seems that they're going to send in the Cossacks to disperse the Vancouver occupation. I approve. Hopefully many hippies are slashed.
Not likely. But it may come to that.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 07, 2011, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 07, 2011, 05:06:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2011, 05:03:34 PM
Except for the being knocked over by a ladder bit.
Well, no job is *perfect*.
General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? Well, until the layoffs started in 1991.
Too many meetings with those boring fucks in the Politburo.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2011, 06:36:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 07, 2011, 05:01:33 PM
Well, it seems that they're going to send in the Cossacks to disperse the Vancouver occupation. I approve. Hopefully many hippies are slashed.
Not likely. But it may come to that.
Depends. I'm under the impression that your mayor doesn't have the moral courage to have the protesters crushed, and VPD showed during the riots that they're utterly incapable of handling anything of the sort. If the lunatics turn violent, the army is going to have to be called in.
Oakland Liberation Front! :w00t:
Lengthy but a bit about participating in a protest from someone I sort of know:
QuoteFor the first few weeks of Occupy Wall St, I felt this building excitement. For quite a while, part of me didn't believe that revolution was possible in the United States, with most of us suffering from kynicism. [Quick summation: The idea that we are aware that we are being deceived but do nothing about it... perhaps because we assume we are powerless.] And also because I do believe that the minute people actually try to rise up, accusations of treason could always quash a movement. But then, a few weeks ago, something actually started to happen, and it seemed that the Man didn't know exactly what to do about. I was reading about it every day, but still couldn't quite get myself down there. I even attempted to write a blog entry classifying all of my many excuses for not going, but it sounded so whiny that I chose to abandon it. (I know... imagine how whiny is must have been!)
But then, I knew I had to go. How could I have this blog that is basically a drawn out "I am the 99%" statement, with a lot less tragedy than many of the other people out there, and sit on the sidelines of the movement? I always wrote about materialism and direct action because of my guilt of being an ivory tower idealist, and now was the time for me to act on my words.
So, I went, with a couple friends, and weaved my way through the tarps and tents. I donated 50 cents for a copy of the Occupied Wall Street Journal. I stared at the books in the library. And I felt tense and out of place. Disturbingly anxious really, standing on a precipice and not knowing if I belonged further back, further down or in the air in between. So, I said, "Screw it," and went to the next workshop: Non-violent Communication. I wasn't sure what I would learn, but I had to know if I would feel more comfortable talking to the people who were giving up the comfort and safety of home to give me a voice - rather than just staring at their feet.
The workshop mostly focused on one-on-one conflict resolution, and I definitely learned some things about how to talk to people with different ideologies without increasing antagonism, but more than anything, I was overcome by the earnestness of all of these people from so many spectrums - from hippie dippie to long island house wife - who had come from all over the country to be a part of and support the movement. When I spoke, their caring didn't feel fake or forced, and I was disturbed by all of the goodness that was around me. And I felt maybe that wasn't quite where I belonged because I'm not that giving.
But I still needed to settle that anxiety about where I would stand when the revolution began... where I stood if it had actually already begun. A friend told me that he had been brought to tears at general assembly meeting; so, I made plans to go back for one. And then Occupy Oakland was attacked, and a march was planned for the night I planned to attend the assembly. From what I could tell, the assembly that night was a bust. The facilitators were desperately trying to keep the meeting down to 2 hours, but democracy is not that easy, and every thing felt bogged down by rules and bureaucracy.
As the march began, a small string of people began to march around the park, beating drums and chanting: "Oakland is New York. New York is Oakland." among other things. Again I found myself stuck between worlds and feeling nervous and fidgety. One, do I abandon democracy for the march? Yes, that felt pretty easy; I was as shocked as everyone else about tear gas and rubber bullets being used on peaceful protesters - especially after the pepper-spraying controversy. So, I got up from my seat at the meeting and moved towards the sidewalk.
I, then, found myself standing with two of my roommates, idling between where the assembly was still taking place and the stream of people still marching around the park. After a long awkward silence that I didn't understand, one roommate told us that she didn't think that she wanted to march; she was still feeling uncertain about her place in the movement. "But you know... you guys should go...." In that moment, I imagined myself losing my chance to take action, going home with my friends so that I wouldn't be alone in the dark streets taking part in a potentially dangerous action. I saw myself doing what I'd been doing for weeks... waking up slightly hungover from a night of forgetting and reading article upon article about what action had been taking place while I was stewing in my own hopelessness - using other people's bravery to make myself feel better about the world. Anyway, I know I'm waxing a lot, but I couldn't do it. I couldn't just go home. While I had been imagining my potential regret, we had fallen back into another awkward silence. I broke it with, "I can't miss another action," and ran down the street to catch up with the tail end of the march. And to my pleasant surprise, as I got down the block, I heard my second friend yelling after me. She had just been hoping that the first would change her mind.
As we started out, I felt trepidatious, but happy that those in Oakland would be able to see a physical manifestation of our support and anger. Stuck in my own thoughts, it didn't feel right shouting, "New York is Oakland." After all... it isn't, but there were other chants I was able to echo... until the energy grew as we ran and sprinted to avoid police barricades. I felt camraderie and freedom, and the thrill of pushing myself through my fear of authority. As I was running, I thought about all the people who looked on us a group of silly, directionless kids blocking traffic and making too much noise, and I realized that even if that were true, it was OK. It was more than OK! Because that was exactly what I needed - to transform Broadway into my playground, as opposed to the street that reminded me of what I couldn't afford; to hear the joyous honks of MTA bus drivers and know that they were with me and just not the people who take my exorbitant fare; to actually know through experience that I didn't always have to feel trapped. I felt real hope. Not just a belief that possibly in my next paycheck I would make enough to pay my rent, but a belief that if we kept running, we could actually make the world make sense.
Then, I came off of the mob high and felt exhausted and hungry. But some small kernel of hope has stayed with me, and I really think it might be possible that all us kids who were taught to believe in social change but not how to fight for it, might figure it out and bust some shit up. It occurred to me while I was writing this that Obama ran his campaign on "Hope." I never really paid much attention because how can one politician offer a nation hope. But to be a complete sap now... I think... or maybe hope that if each of us can have hope in our own individual (and group) power, we may really be able to affect change.
What a douche.
I had a dream early this morning that I was with a group Occupying a Taco Bell.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2011, 02:32:08 PM
I suppose if one is used to living in a "pretty fucked up" society where carrying guns is commonplace one would tend to think as you do.
Yep. Where tolerance is generally considered a virtue, society doesn't freak out when people do things different from other people. That may be "fucked up" by the standard of emo societies, but who wants to live in a society where people who have a gun or a veil or a turban causes massive consternation?
I'll take door #1, Alex.
You really want to compare wearing a gun with wearing a veil or turban?
It could be a fashion piece. A few years ago it was small dogs. Next year it could be tricked out Lugars.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 04:10:18 PM
You really want to compare wearing a gun with wearing a veil or turban?
Apparently in Grumblers world carrying around the ability to kill someone is a sign that your society is tolerant.
Certain amounts of intolerance are expected. For instance we don't tolerate murder and rape and other crimes. I don't care for someone coming to a protest rally with pistol on his hip for the same reason I wouldn't care for someone going to a rally with a Molotov cocktail.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 04:58:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 04:10:18 PM
You really want to compare wearing a gun with wearing a veil or turban?
Apparently in Grumblers world carrying around the ability to kill someone is a sign that your society is tolerant.
That is just a rather bizarre interpretation of what he said.
Surely you can see that what he said was that carrying around a gun does not make you tolerant, but recognizing that some people DO wish to carry around a gun is tolerant.
Tolerance is all about letting other people do things even when you think there isn't a good reason for it.
Now, I am not sure I agree with grumbler that the mark of a tolerant society includes toleration of people who carry guns (I suspect that you can have generally tolerant societies with or without pistol packing people), but at least arguing against what he is saying.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 08, 2011, 03:56:23 PM
I had a dream early this morning that I was with a group Occupying a Taco Bell.
I had an occupying dream too. Can't remember much. Only I was leading a group of school kids to an occupy protest and was determined that this would somehow launch my political career.
I don't even have a problem with people carrying guns. But openly carrying them at a political protest is sending a nasty message.
@Berk, I disagree with your interpretation of what Grumbler was saying. What you said makes sense. Unfortunagely Grumbler didnt say that. What he did say is that allowing people to carry guns is the mark of a tolerant society - the very thing you doubt.
He also added in the bit about allowing people to wear a veil but that was so far removed from the conversation that it was not worth bothering with.
People need handguns to defend their right to call locally grown sparking wine "champagne".
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! :mad:
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2011, 05:20:51 PM
People need handguns to defend their right to call locally grown sparking wine "champagne".
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! :mad:
People who call sparkling wine Champagne need guns because their wits would never get them out of danger.
Now things are getting absurd. Confrontations over firefighters putting out "sacred fires" and physical altercations with the protestors. Note in particular the exuse for not pulling the site down earlier appears to be that these more violent protestors are not the good wholesome types we have before. I dont know, they look the same to me.
QuoteAn unruly element intent on violence has infiltrated the Occupy Vancouver encampment in downtown Vancouver, according to city police chief, Jim Chu. He warned "legitimate protesters" at the site to leave. Chief Chu's remarks followed an overnight onsite confrontation in which he said police officers were punched, kicked and bitten. Another officer had his ammunition clip stolen, Chief Chu said.
Vancouver police said Tuesday afternoon that they have not recovered the ammunition clip.
"This can no longer stand," he declared Tuesday. "We are issuing a public warning to those who remain on the site. It is time to leave." Despite the incident, Mayor Gregor Robertson told the Globe and Mail that he does not believe in setting a deadline to end the occupation.
"The deadlines and ultimatums have not worked in other places," he said. "They have just helped the resistors to organize. It's just not prudent to fix a deadline at this point. We just will steadily increase the pressure, and look for every opportunity to resolve it at this point."
Still, the mayor acknowledged that the confrontation was a "tense situation" and the first during the Occupy Vancouver protest. He said it highlights why the city is going to court later Tuesday to seek an injunction against the tent city.
Like Mayor Robertson, Chief Chu also gave no timetable for police to move in to end the encampment. He said police would await the outcome of the city's injunction application to have tents cleared from the site.
In the meantime, however, those who stay at the site risk arrest and possible violence from other, less peaceful protesters, Chief Chu said.
Chief Chu noted that the protest began last month with considerable good will and cooperation between occupants and police.
But lately, according to Chief Chu, the site has attracted "an increasing number of problem people who seem intent on breaking the law and fighting with anyone who gets in their way.
"Unfortunately, it now appears that the goodwill and those who espoused it are gone. We have seen the makeup of the protesting group change," Chief Chu told reporters. "We have seen the black masks and others who are intent on violence."
He blamed this group for the trouble late Monday night, when scuffles broke out between protesters, police and firefighters trying to douse a fire burning in a barrel. Protesters said it was a "sacred fire".
"Our officers received the full wrath of the protesters, who punched, kicked and bit them," Chief Chu said. Two officers were sent to hospital "with human bite marks".
He declined to say how police would end the three-and-a-half week occupation, other than to insist the goal of the VPD is end the encampment peacefully.
After the fire was extinguished, a few protesters appeared to be weeping beside some ashes still left on the ground.
From the video, the unruly crowd seemed to number about 50.
The Vancouver Police Department said they would release a report on the confrontation later Tuesday.
Victoria, meanwhile, has joined the city of Vancouver in seeking a court injunction to have tents and other structures removed from their occupation sites.
As in Vancouver, a B.C. Supreme Court hearing will be held on Victoria's application later Tuesday.
In a statement, Victoria said the square beside city hall had to be cleared to make way for upcoming Christmas activities and a public skating rink.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 05:31:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2011, 05:20:51 PM
People need handguns to defend their right to call locally grown sparking wine "champagne".
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! :mad:
People who call sparkling wine Champagne need guns because their wits would never get them out of danger.
And of course, handguns can settle this dispute in the time-honoured manner.
Is there nothing handguns cannot do?
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2011, 05:54:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 05:31:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2011, 05:20:51 PM
People need handguns to defend their right to call locally grown sparking wine "champagne".
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! :mad:
People who call sparkling wine Champagne need guns because their wits would never get them out of danger.
And of course, handguns can settle this dispute in the time-honoured manner.
Is there nothing handguns cannot do?
Exactly, the idiot who needs the gun pulls it out, gets arrested and his betters get to laugh at him while drinking Champagne.
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2011, 05:54:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 05:31:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2011, 05:20:51 PM
People need handguns to defend their right to call locally grown sparking wine "champagne".
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! :mad:
People who call sparkling wine Champagne need guns because their wits would never get them out of danger.
And of course, handguns can settle this dispute in the time-honoured manner.
Is there nothing handguns cannot do?
Can't stop tanks.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 03:44:54 PM
What a douche.
I think you are understating things.
Seemed like a decent sort to me.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 08:52:32 PM
Seemed like a decent sort to me.
I have a hard time believing that.
You know, I've been cutting you a lot of slack because of your situation, but if you can't tell asshole hipster trash from human, then you've got serious problems. Don't let unemployment turn you into an unthinking imbecile.
Ouch. Well, I was going to add that he seemed a little rainbow brite for my tastes, personally, but :blurgh:
Also, I thought Wags was Viper and Viper must be opposed at all turns.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Ouch. Well, I was going to add that he seemed a little rainbow brite for my tastes, personally, but :blurgh:
Also, I thought Wags was Viper and Viper must be opposed at all turns.
I also thought he was viper. How odd.
If you want to become a radical, then do it. But at least think things through. Provide me with a detailed and interesting vision for the future.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Ouch. Well, I was going to add that he seemed a little rainbow brite for my tastes, personally, but :blurgh:
Also, I thought Wags was Viper and Viper must be opposed at all turns.
Well Viper and Wagnaard are similar enough to make it an understandable reading error.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 09:32:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Ouch. Well, I was going to add that he seemed a little rainbow brite for my tastes, personally, but :blurgh:
Also, I thought Wags was Viper and Viper must be opposed at all turns.
I also thought he was viper. How odd.
If you want to become a radical, then do it. But at least think things through. Provide me with a detailed and interesting vision for the future.
You know my basic positions--a negative income tax, significant government control over the economy, large-scale government-run research and development for the long-run augmentation of and/or replacement for human participation in the economy and/or biosphere.
Quote from: WagnaardWell Viper and Wagnaard are similar enough to make it an understandable reading error.
It's the blondes.
Occupy Denver elected a dog their leader. Fleabaggers. :rolleyes:
Was the dog as smart as Sarah Palin?
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 09:32:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Ouch. Well, I was going to add that he seemed a little rainbow brite for my tastes, personally, but :blurgh:
Also, I thought Wags was Viper and Viper must be opposed at all turns.
I also thought he was viper. How odd.
If you want to become a radical, then do it. But at least think things through. Provide me with a detailed and interesting vision for the future.
Labor camps as far as the eye can see!
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:52:23 PM
You know my basic positions--a negative income tax, significant government control over the economy, large-scale government-run research and development for the long-run augmentation of and/or replacement for human participation in the economy and/or biosphere.
Don't you feel that your programme creates too much leisure?
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 10:09:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:52:23 PM
You know my basic positions--a negative income tax, significant government control over the economy, large-scale government-run research and development for the long-run augmentation of and/or replacement for human participation in the economy and/or biosphere.
Don't you feel that your programme creates too much leisure?
Not really. The upward march of the normal unemployment rate is basically unstoppable and will almost certainly accelerate. The question is how we intend to manage the transition.
Quote from: RazLabor camps as far as the eye can see!
Labor?
Ide's Earth:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F3%2F36%2FDancers_at_the_end_of_time.jpg%2F360px-Dancers_at_the_end_of_time.jpg&hash=3cca13b867d36aed0564555f1cb698269c9db2e1)
What the fuck is that? Tim riding a swan?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 11:11:24 PM
Not really. The upward march of the normal unemployment rate is basically unstoppable and will almost certainly accelerate. The question is how we intend to manage the transition.
I'm not so sure. You can export employment, but that's a temporary measure. Eventually, you're going to run out of money, and once you've looted every productive enterprise the state can lay its hands on to finance a huge population of layabouts, you end up like the Soviet Union.
Unless your society has access to practically limitless stocks of materials and energy, you'll reach a breaking point. The end of human work is the end of human history.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 11:49:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 11:11:24 PM
Not really. The upward march of the normal unemployment rate is basically unstoppable and will almost certainly accelerate. The question is how we intend to manage the transition.
I'm not so sure. You can export employment, but that's a temporary measure. Eventually, you're going to run out of money, and once you've looted every productive enterprise the state can lay its hands on to finance a huge population of layabouts, you end up like the Soviet Union.
Unless your society has access to practically limitless stocks of materials and energy, you'll reach a breaking point. The end of human work is the end of human history.
I don't think the entire society would become layabout even with a negative income tax--at least not in the short term--although you'd probably wind up with about 10-20%, thirty or forty million in this country as the workforce is currently calculated, which is a sustainable number, and not a great deal more than are actually unemployed or underemployed now. The true drivers of the First World economy, the scientists and engineers researchers and administrators, would be just as active as ever, and probably moreso as consumer demand spikes up. The primary motivation for work is a comfortable existence, but I think it's a mistake to equate a comfortable existence with what a dole check, or a pay check, can buy.
I know that personally I would still be looking for work even if I got $10,000 from the government just for existing, even if I could only expect to earn another $15,000 working a menial job; it would at least get me out of the house and interacting with people, and buy little luxuries that I enjoy. I think most people are like that. And those that aren't don't exactly contribute a lot anyway.
It's not about looting productive enterprises, it's merely taxing them. At a higher amount? Yes, but considering that as perforce destructive is the same zero-sum thinking of which I'm often accused. The largesse would stimulate demand for goods and services, driving up demand for labor and hence wages and likely reducing the number of people who would accept the NIT alone. Its monumentally redistributive, but I don't accept that it would be destructive. And, if these arguments fail, our government wastes colossal amounts of money on things that I would not, e.g. the F-35. And weapons generally, that is, of a non-fissile nature. (This is somewhat off-topic, but do the unit costs on IC and SLBMs include the warhead? I suppose not, as it seems kinda crazy that a tank costs more than a device capable of shattering a city.)
As for the Soviet Union, its biggest problems were party corruption and the lack of a free market*--these reinforced one another, since the former were unable to competently manage a command economy, and the lack of the latter reduced feedback that might have moderated their idiocy. These huge, insuperable problems aren't present in my program.
*And being Russian, you must admit, could not have been much of a help, either.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2011, 12:22:05 AM
I know that personally I would still be looking for work even if I got $10,000 from the government just for existing, even if I could only expect to earn another $15,000 working a menial job; it would at least get me out of the house and interacting with people, and buy little luxuries that I enjoy. I think most people are like that. And those that aren't don't exactly contribute a lot anyway.
I suspect you are wrong.
I've only read Moorcock's "Col. Bastable" alt-hist stories, but they were among the most horrendous drivel I've ever set eyes on.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:15:22 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2011, 12:22:05 AM
I know that personally I would still be looking for work even if I got $10,000 from the government just for existing, even if I could only expect to earn another $15,000 working a menial job; it would at least get me out of the house and interacting with people, and buy little luxuries that I enjoy. I think most people are like that. And those that aren't don't exactly contribute a lot anyway.
I suspect you are wrong.
Well, he might still be looking for work, but he wouldn't find it. 'Cause nobody is gonna want to employ his lazy useless ass, no matter what kind of economic system is in place.
Quote from: dps on November 09, 2011, 01:32:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:15:22 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2011, 12:22:05 AM
I know that personally I would still be looking for work even if I got $10,000 from the government just for existing, even if I could only expect to earn another $15,000 working a menial job; it would at least get me out of the house and interacting with people, and buy little luxuries that I enjoy. I think most people are like that. And those that aren't don't exactly contribute a lot anyway.
I suspect you are wrong.
Well, he might still be looking for work, but he wouldn't find it. 'Cause nobody is gonna want to employ his lazy useless ass, no matter what kind of economic system is in place.
I really wonder what I did to piss you off so much. :lol: Pretty much everything you say to me lately is some hateful bon mot like the one above.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Ouch. Well, I was going to add that he seemed a little rainbow brite for my tastes, personally, but :blurgh:
Lesbian.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:15:22 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2011, 12:22:05 AM
I know that personally I would still be looking for work even if I got $10,000 from the government just for existing, even if I could only expect to earn another $15,000 working a menial job; it would at least get me out of the house and interacting with people, and buy little luxuries that I enjoy. I think most people are like that. And those that aren't don't exactly contribute a lot anyway.
I suspect you are wrong.
Yeah isn't that what credit cards are for?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 11:11:24 PM
Not really. The upward march of the normal unemployment rate is basically unstoppable and will almost certainly accelerate.
It just went down according to the most recent statistical releases . . .
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2011, 05:15:01 PM
That is just a rather bizarre interpretation of what he said.
Look at the poster. Of course he will not only assume the most bizarre possible interpretation is what I meant, but he will insist, despite the facts, that only the most bizarre interpretation is even feasible. It's part of his vendetta for getting his ass handed to him any number of times by me, I think.
QuoteSurely you can see that what he said was that carrying around a gun does not make you tolerant, but recognizing that some people DO wish to carry around a gun is tolerant.
Tolerance is all about letting other people do things even when you think there isn't a good reason for it.
Tolerance is also assuming that people are reasonable until evidence demonstrates otherwise. :P
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 11:14:01 AM
Tolerance is also assuming that people are reasonable until evidence demonstrates otherwise. :P
I'd call that foolishness.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2011, 05:15:01 PM
That is just a rather bizarre interpretation of what he said.
Look at the poster. Of course he will not only assume the most bizarre possible interpretation is what I meant, but he will insist, despite the facts, that only the most bizarre interpretation is even feasible. It's part of his vendetta for getting his ass handed to him any number of times by me, I think.
QuoteSurely you can see that what he said was that carrying around a gun does not make you tolerant, but recognizing that some people DO wish to carry around a gun is tolerant.
Tolerance is all about letting other people do things even when you think there isn't a good reason for it.
Tolerance is also assuming that people are reasonable until evidence demonstrates otherwise. :P
It does not surprise me at all that both of you are intrepreting what I said in a rather bizarre way. I also understand why you would want to distance yourself from the comment that the mark of a tolerant society is allowing people to carry guns.
Also, Grumbler, more and more you fall back on the "look at the poster" argument. Surely the champion of complaining about ad hom arguments can do better than that.
Well he did call you "ContraryCunt" last week...
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 11:36:29 AM
Well he did call you "ContraryCunt" last week...
He is the poster child for tolerance.
With that attitude? He damned well better be packing, or he's going to have people punching him everywhere he goes.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 04:44:03 PM
With that attitude? He damned well better be packing, or he's going to have people punching him everywhere he goes.
:face:
Just read an article in Time about Van Jones, the black Marxist who used to work for Obama, Moveon and some other lefty organizations joining up with Occupy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2011, 09:43:55 PM
Just read an article in Time about Van Jones, the black Marxist who used to work for Obama, Moveon and some other lefty organizations joining up with Occupy.
The guy that Conservatives harped on for a year, and nobody else ever heard of or cared? Was he actually a Marxist?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2011, 10:26:55 PM
The guy that Conservatives harped on for a year, and nobody else ever heard of or cared? Was he actually a Marxist?
That's the guy.
Yes.
So? Why do Republicans get to have theocrats and they don't (in some people's minds) reflect upon all Republicans, but Democrats aren't allowed to have Marxists?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2011, 10:28:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2011, 10:26:55 PM
The guy that Conservatives harped on for a year, and nobody else ever heard of or cared? Was he actually a Marxist?
That's the guy.
Yes.
Was he a Marxist when Obama hired him? I mean, Buckley hired a Marxist for the National Review. A spy to boot. George W. Bush gave the presidential Medal of Freedom to a former communist, Irving Kristol.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
So? Why do Republicans get to have theocrats and they don't (in some people's minds) reflect upon all Republicans, but Democrats aren't allowed to have Marxists?
Because Marxism is pretty much the worst thing imaginable.
Quote from: Neil on November 14, 2011, 10:44:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
So? Why do Republicans get to have theocrats and they don't (in some people's minds) reflect upon all Republicans, but Democrats aren't allowed to have Marxists?
Because Marxism is pretty much the worst thing imaginable.
I can think of worse things. Nazis, WWI, anime, Martinus.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
So? Why do Republicans get to have theocrats and they don't (in some people's minds) reflect upon all Republicans, but Democrats aren't allowed to have Marxists?
Democrats are allowed to have Marxists. Who said they aren't?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2011, 11:28:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
So? Why do Republicans get to have theocrats and they don't (in some people's minds) reflect upon all Republicans, but Democrats aren't allowed to have Marxists?
Democrats are allowed to have Marxists. Who said they aren't?
Glen Beck.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 01:34:55 AM
Glen Beck.
Glen Beck doesn't have any power over who Obama selects for his administration.
My point is that a Marxist associated with a Democratic politician is seen as scandalous, whereas a Dominionist associated with a Republican would be less so.
Maybe it's just that the latter is to be expected.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 15, 2011, 01:38:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 01:34:55 AM
Glen Beck.
Glenn Beck thinks Democrats are Marxists.
Well, I was to understand that Obama let the guy go due in some part to shrieking of Glen Beck and other righties going on about him being a Marxist.
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Someday perhaps democracy will come to the USA. Just not yet. :(
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2011, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Someday perhaps democracy will come to the USA. Just not yet. :(
I hope that we're never in a place where democracy = shantytowns.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2011, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Someday perhaps democracy will come to the USA. Just not yet. :(
I hope that we're never in a place where democracy = shantytowns.
Then don't vote Republican.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 09:49:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2011, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Someday perhaps democracy will come to the USA. Just not yet. :(
I hope that we're never in a place where democracy = shantytowns.
Then don't vote Republican.
Voting Republican seems like it would only encourage these individuals...
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2011, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Someday perhaps democracy will come to the USA. Just not yet. :(
I think the initial hugs and puppies version of the movement has been replaced by the drug den/wastrel component of society in the hoovervilles themselves.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2011, 10:06:51 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2011, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Someday perhaps democracy will come to the USA. Just not yet. :(
I think the initial hugs and puppies version of the movement has been replaced by the drug den/wastrel component of society in the hoovervilles themselves.
maybe. So arrest those using drugs.
Apart from restricting peoples' right to peaceful and lawful assembly, it's the way it was done. One in the morning. Media blocked off. Police helicopters and according to something I've read it was organized by Homeland Security....like these were Al Qaeda terrorists. It was vaguely reminiscent of Brezhenev era Soviet Union.
How is preventing people from living in public areas restricting right to peaceful and lawful assembly? How was it either? Putting a tent in a park is restricting the park's use by anybody else who just wants to go for a walk.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 10:02:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 09:49:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2011, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Someday perhaps democracy will come to the USA. Just not yet. :(
I hope that we're never in a place where democracy = shantytowns.
Then don't vote Republican.
Voting Republican seems like it would only encourage these individuals...
I'd call reducing the U.S. to a third world hellhole "encouragement," sure.
Bloomberg is sending in the NYPD Winged Hussars.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2011, 11:33:37 AM
Also, Grumbler, more and more you fall back on the "look at the poster" argument. Surely the champion of complaining about ad hom arguments can do better than that.
I complain about arguments that employ the
ad hominim fallacy. When an
ad hominim is the correct and logical argument, it is not fallacious. You took the most bizarre possible interpretation oif my statement, and Berkut noted that. I simply pointed out the truth that you pretty much always post the most bizarre possible interpretations you can think of for anything I say, because you are setting up an attack and what I say is generally too reasonable and logical to attack unless distorted.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 10:15:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 10:02:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 09:49:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2011, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
So now the police raided both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland. I wonder where the protests will go from here...
Someday perhaps democracy will come to the USA. Just not yet. :(
I hope that we're never in a place where democracy = shantytowns.
Then don't vote Republican.
Voting Republican seems like it would only encourage these individuals...
I'd call reducing the U.S. to a third world hellhole "encouragement," sure.
Oh get out of here, you partisan hack.
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2011, 10:12:41 AM
maybe. So arrest those using drugs.
Apart from restricting peoples' right to peaceful and lawful assembly, it's the way it was done. One in the morning. Media blocked off. Police helicopters and according to something I've read it was organized by Homeland Security....like these were Al Qaeda terrorists. It was vaguely reminiscent of Brezhenev era Soviet Union.
Interestingly enough, lawful assembly isn't an excuse to just live wherever you like.
I suppose you would have liked to have given themi the time and opportunity to mount a violent resistance and create some propaganda to stir things up. That's not how sucessful societies function.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 04:44:03 PM
With that attitude? He damned well better be packing, or he's going to have people punching him everywhere he goes.
:lol: My attitude gets me through life just fine - even through life outside my basement. And when my mom does something I don't like, I have friends that I can discuss it with; I feel no need to go bawl my eyes out in front of a bunch of people whom I don't really know on the internet.
So, Mr Glass-House, watch the stone-throwing.
Raz must have really gotten under your skin.
They have antibiotics for that.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 15, 2011, 10:45:40 AM
They have antibiotics for that.
Cybernetic implants are even better.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
Bloomberg is sending in the NYPD Winged Hussars.
It is probably the best outcome for OWS. This was either going to fizzle out during the winter or be crushed by the police.
Quote from: Neil on November 15, 2011, 10:34:25 AM
Interestingly enough, lawful assembly isn't an excuse to just live wherever you like.
I suppose you would have liked to have given themi the time and opportunity to mount a violent resistance and create some propaganda to stir things up. That's not how sucessful societies function.
Public hazards also trump lawful assembly. Philly's talking about moving them out of the plaza outside City Hall since at least one tent went up in flames, and they're saying they've had numerous EMS calls for illnesses related to unsanitary conditions. Of course, the Occupy people are hemming and hawing because they're being asked to relocate to the plaza outside the police headquarters, even though it actually has more space and is right across the street. :lol:
Either that or Captain Trips was going to percolate in the squatter camp and kill us all.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 11:00:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
Bloomberg is sending in the NYPD Winged Hussars.
It is probably the best outcome for OWS. This was either going to fizzle out during the winter or be crushed by the police.
Being machine-gunned would probably be even better. Maybe not for OWSers themselves, but for their cause.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 11:00:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
Bloomberg is sending in the NYPD Winged Hussars.
It is probably the best outcome for OWS. This was either going to fizzle out during the winter or be crushed by the police.
I think it was only a matter of time, and in other cities as well. The NY movement folks were supposedly talking about blocking subways and other stuff for the 2 month anniversary. There's been trouble at the camps, local businesses and citizens are complaining about the loss of business and other problems. Eventually city officials would likely need to act.
Sounds like the Occupy movement is becoming a squatter's rebellion.
Theyre shutting down Toronto's today.
They all can come join those here in Montreal. There is not really any plan to kick them out.
There was never any problem with the Occupy Spokane group making a camp since they were too scared to spend the night in downtown Spokane.
Maybe this will inspire these hip youngsters to like, you know, maybe vote or something. :lmfao:
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 15, 2011, 01:29:25 PM
They all can come join those here in Montreal. There is not really any plan to kick them out.
There hadn't been a plan to close them down here either...
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2011, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 15, 2011, 01:29:25 PM
They all can come join those here in Montreal. There is not really any plan to kick them out.
There hadn't been a plan to close them down here either...
Montreal barely can get anything done when they have a plan. No plan means winter is whats going to kick them out.
London's has carried on. They observed Remembrance Sunday terribly well (no doubt to the annoyance of the Daily Mail) and still seem a pretty well-run group. The City's trying to evict them again, I don't know how successful they'll be at St. Paul's without the Cathedral's support :mellow:
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2011, 11:06:56 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 11:00:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
Bloomberg is sending in the NYPD Winged Hussars.
It is probably the best outcome for OWS. This was either going to fizzle out during the winter or be crushed by the police.
Being machine-gunned would probably be even better. Maybe not for OWSers themselves, but for their cause.
It would have been amazing.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2011, 11:06:56 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 11:00:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
Bloomberg is sending in the NYPD Winged Hussars.
It is probably the best outcome for OWS. This was either going to fizzle out during the winter or be crushed by the police.
Being machine-gunned would probably be even better. Maybe not for OWSers themselves, but for their cause.
It would have been amazing.
What a sick little zealot you are.
It seems to me that this sort of thing is more effective than even OWS types being machine gunned.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/audio-slideshow-on-the-streets-in-one-of-americas-hardest-hit-communities/article2229596/
Quote from: citizen k on November 15, 2011, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2011, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2011, 11:06:56 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2011, 11:00:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
Bloomberg is sending in the NYPD Winged Hussars.
It is probably the best outcome for OWS. This was either going to fizzle out during the winter or be crushed by the police.
Being machine-gunned would probably be even better. Maybe not for OWSers themselves, but for their cause.
It would have been amazing.
What a sick little zealot you are.
Ok, I was little too sanguine about it, you're right.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 02:37:22 PM
It seems to me that this sort of thing is more effective than even OWS types being machine gunned.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/audio-slideshow-on-the-streets-in-one-of-americas-hardest-hit-communities/article2229596/
I always wondered whether typical American's view of poverty, and government programs aimed to combat it, are colored by the fact that certain social constructs seem to make up a disproportionate share of those below the line.
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2011, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 02:37:22 PM
It seems to me that this sort of thing is more effective than even OWS types being machine gunned.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/audio-slideshow-on-the-streets-in-one-of-americas-hardest-hit-communities/article2229596/
I always wondered whether typical American's view of poverty, and government programs aimed to combat it, are colored by the fact that certain social constructs seem to make up a disproportionate share of those below the line.
Elaborate.
The strong correlation between poverty and race turns the poor/rich issue into a black/white issue. That also allows GOP, a party that in its current incarnation is decidedly the party of the oligarchs, appeal to the people whose economic interests it would be trampling on.
I don't see wealth.
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2011, 02:50:26 PM
I always wondered whether typical American's view of poverty, and government programs aimed to combat it, are colored by the fact that certain social constructs seem to make up a disproportionate share of those below the line.
I think the typical American's view of government programs aimed to combat to poverty are strongly influenced by the failures and pathologies of Johnson's Great Society.
How much of it was actually a failure though? Did poverty rates increase, decrease, or stay the same during the period?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
How much of it was actually a failure though? Did poverty rates increase, decrease, or stay the same during the period?
Poverty rate is a useless measure. If median income goes up, a person that was not in poverty before is now in poverty. And vice versa.
Teenage pregnancy, single mother households, inner city crime, drug use, pretty sure all those things went up.
Are those good indicators of poverty? Doesn't seem so. Teenage pregnancy increasing seems to be a good indicator of teenage pregnancy going up. Not poverty.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 04:17:05 PM
Are those good indicators of poverty? Doesn't seem so. Teenage pregnancy increasing seems to be a good indicator of teenage pregnancy going up. Not poverty.
Is change in the poverty rate the only possible metric for assessing the failure or pathology of an anti-poverty program? Doesn't seem so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 04:19:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 04:17:05 PM
Are those good indicators of poverty? Doesn't seem so. Teenage pregnancy increasing seems to be a good indicator of teenage pregnancy going up. Not poverty.
Is change in the poverty rate the only possible metric for assessing the failure or pathology of an anti-poverty program? Doesn't seem so.
Okay, So I found a graph that followed one of your metrics.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg141.imageshack.us%2Fimg141%2F268%2Fnevermarriedmothers.jpg&hash=784767efb453b213b3247dcac8c95d78fb6cc053) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/141/nevermarriedmothers.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Is it your contention that poverty has been steadily increasing since 1962? The graph seems to indicate this, if indeed this is a useful metric of measuring poverty.
No, it is not my contention that poverty has been steadily increasing since 1962. Because of the way we measure poverty, I would expect the poverty rate to be relatively steady. Which is really the fundamental critique of the Great Society, since the intention of that bundle of programs was to remove people from poverty, rather than improving the living conditions of a permanent underclass.
My contention is that the Great Society, among other things, incentivized large, single mother families, and rendered black fathers a liability rather than an asset.
Do you have anything to actually prove all this? From what I've seen the level of poverty by the way we measure poverty did not remain relatively steady during the 1960's, rather in declined dramatically.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 05:19:59 PM
My contention is that the Great Society, among other things, incentivized large, single mother families, and rendered black fathers a liability rather than an asset.
I agree that Johnson erred in pushing through the Black Fathers as a Liability Act of 1965.
Or at least I would agree if that had actually happened.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2011, 05:28:54 PM
I agree that Johnson erred in pushing through the Black Fathers as a Liability Act of 1965.
Or at least I would agree if that had actually happened.
I'm sure he gave it a different name.
Perhaps social disintegration simply strikes at the poor first, and blacks making up a disproportionate number of the poor in the U.S., it led to the (current) asymmetric result.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57325395/judge-rules-against-nyc-occupy-encampment/
QuoteJudge rules against NYC Occupy encampment
A New York judge has upheld the city's dismantling of the Occupy Wall Street encampment, saying that the protesters' first amendment rights don't entitle them to camp out indefinitely in the plaza.
State judge Michael Stallman on Tuesday denied a motion by the demonstrators seeking to be allowed back into the park with their tents and sleeping bags.
Police cleared out the protesters in a nighttime sweep early Tuesday. The judge upheld the city's effective eviction of the protesters after an emergency appeal by the National Lawyers Guild.
The protesters have been camped out in privately owned Zuccotti Park since mid-September. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he ordered the sweep because health and safety conditions and become "intolerable" in the crowded plaza.
State court ruling on Occupy protest (PDF)
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen reports that the key paragraph in the judge's ruling is as follows: "Here, movants have not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment."
"Time, place and manner" restrictions on speech like the demonstrators had petitioned against have a long history in American law, going back at least to the 1960s. It is unlikely that this ruling will be overturned on appeal, if it is appealed at all.
Tents, sleeping bags and equipment were carted away, and by 4:30 a.m., the park was empty. It wasn't clear what would happen next to the demonstration, though the new enforcement of rules banning tents, sleeping bags or tarps would effectively end an encampment that started in mid-September.
"At the end of the day, if this movement is only tied to Liberty Plaza, we are going to lose. We're going to lose," said Sandra Nurse, one of the organizers, referring to another name for the park. "Right now the most important thing is coming together as a body and just reaffirm why we're here in the first place."
:punk:
I think it was a shift in morality. Interestingly, the legalization of abortion and birth control seems to have had little effect.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 05:42:36 PM
I think it was a shift in morality. Interestingly, the legalization of abortion and birth control seems to have had little effect.
I am wondering about under reporting in the past.
"Liberty Plaza?" Justice Plaza I could maybe see, but Liberty Plaza?
New York and some other cities went about this the right way. They view it as enforcement of their by-laws and have sent the appropriate authorities in the enforce the law. Then the Courts get to decide if there has been any constitutional violation.
Here in Vancouver the Major and counsel wanted to avoid making the political decision and have sought an injunction Order from the court requiring the protestors to leave. In other words the City is asking the Court to enforce the law. In my view politicians should not ask the Courts what should be done. The Courts are there to determine whether the actions of government met the constitutional standard - not to tell everyone what to do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2011, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 05:42:36 PM
I think it was a shift in morality. Interestingly, the legalization of abortion and birth control seems to have had little effect.
I am wondering about under reporting in the past.
I doubt it could explain that much of a discrepancy, besides it was increasing dramatically before Roe v Wade made it federally protected.
Yi, do you anything else to support your previous statements?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 07:18:05 PM
Yi, do you anything else to support your previous statements?
Take a look at Daniel Moynihan's report on the black family.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 07:19:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 07:18:05 PM
Yi, do you anything else to support your previous statements?
Take a look at Daniel Moynihan's report on the black family.
Why? What does that have to do with anything?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 07:38:00 PM
Why? What does that have to do with anything?
It was the original critique of the Great Society. By a leading Democrat, God bless his soul.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 07:38:00 PM
Why? What does that have to do with anything?
It was the original critique of the Great Society. By a leading Democrat, God bless his soul.
That's nice. So it was a failure because someone who is long dead wrote something a long time ago that said black people don't get married as much anymore? Sorry Yi, that doesn't really make sense. Try again.
I still don't understand how you are moving from minority single mothers to poverty levels. How does one relate to the other? I posted a graph that showed the number of single mothers for all Hispanic and whites grew as well, especially after 1980. How does this relate to you poverty theories? Did poverty increase, decrease or stay the same during the 1980's and 1990's?
QuoteBecause of the way we measure poverty, I would expect the poverty rate to be relatively steady. Which is really the fundamental critique of the Great Society, since the intention of that bundle of programs was to remove people from poverty, rather than improving the living conditions of a permanent underclass.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg831.imageshack.us%2Fimg831%2F2488%2Fpovertygraph.png&hash=bce302bce0e72cf7feecd48681f6ec4cc108ecf6) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/povertygraph.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
It would appear the poverty rate does not do what you expect it to. Perhaps the problem lies not in our method of measuring poverty but your expectations.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 07:59:24 PM
That's nice. So it was a failure because someone who is long dead wrote something a long time ago that said black people don't get married as much anymore? Sorry Yi, that doesn't really make sense. Try again.
Why doesn't that makes sense? Marriage is the most desirable social goal, as it has a tendency to civilize everyone involved. Black people don't get married as much, and they've slipped further and further into a barbarity akin to their original condition in Africa.
I wish you could have just posted that before asking for support Raz. Would have saved me a little time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 08:03:57 PM
I wish you could have just posted that before asking for support Raz. Would have saved me a little time.
Explain.
Those most recent photos of the protest in Seattle make me sick. Not because the police used pepper spray but because the protestors were willing to exploit a pregnant woman and elderly woman.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2011, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 07:38:00 PM
Why? What does that have to do with anything?
It was the original critique of the Great Society. By a leading Democrat, God bless his soul.
You mean this guy?
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/politics/danielpatrickmoynihansspee.html
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2011, 09:59:12 AM
You mean this guy?
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/politics/danielpatrickmoynihansspee.html
Without checking the link I'm going to guess that's the Daniel Moynihan I was talking about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2011, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2011, 09:59:12 AM
You mean this guy?
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/politics/danielpatrickmoynihansspee.html
Without checking the link I'm going to guess that's the Daniel Moynihan I was talking about.
Close. Daniel Patrick moynihansspee.
:lol:
http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-streets-day-disruption-begins-150046931.html
QuoteOccupy Wall Street's Day of Disruption Begins
New York City activists, angry at having been evicted from their encampment, have vowed a "Day of Action" today including a threatened shut-down of the New York Stock Exchange, an "occupation" of 14 subway stations and, for the second time in two months, a re-occupation of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Protest organizers claim today's events, falling on the two-month anniversary of the Occupy movement, will be their biggest yet. A New York City deputy mayor said yesterday that officials are bracing for the possibility that thousands may try to clog subways and bridges. Occupy protesters in other US cities are also planning disruptions.
The group in a news release announced it would rally near the New York Stock Exchange, then head to subways and march over the Brooklyn Bridge. "Resist austerity. Rebuild the economy. Reclaim our democracy," the group wrote
"The protesters are calling for a massive event aimed at disrupting major parts of the city," New York Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson said in a news conference. "We will be prepared for that."
Amid reports that protesters would don suits and try to infiltrate the financial district, New York police this morning were asking people going to the Wall Street area to show company IDs indicating they belong there, WABC-TV reported.
Amid arrests and scattered violence, Occupy groups around the country have been evicted in recent days from campsites in Portland, Oregon; Denver, Oakland, New York, St. Louis and other cities. Meantime, the movement's system for self-governance has been evolving, and its character has grown "more militant" in the words of Adbusters, the Canadian magazine and activist organization that originally gave rise to Occupy.
Adbusters reports the change in self-governance occurred in late October, when the "structure working group" of OWS's General Assembly pushed through a "modified spokes council model" that lays the foundation for a far larger, even global spokescouncil.
"We are beginning to see," says an Adbusters member, "how the Occupy movement will elevate itself into an international force."
In the U.S., its support from organized labor is increasing, as is its willingness to engage in violence, manifested by property damage in Oakland and other cities.
Meantime, a recent survey of OWS members by Hector R. Cordero-Guzman, Ph.D, of the School of Public Affairs at New York's Baruch College, sheds new light on who they are: Young (64.2 percent are under 34), well educated, white (81.3 percent) and male (67 percent). Only half are employed full-time. Over 70 percent say they are independents politically, 27 percent are Democrats, 2.5 percent are Republicans.
Experts, taking these developments and others into account, predict varying futures for Occupy.
Vincent Schiavone, founder and chairman of ListenLogic, a company that monitors social and business trends by analyzing everything from social network chatter to the content of religious sermons, doesn't see OWS going away anytime soon. To the contrary, he says, its presence on social media is "very much growing."
More people are joining—students especially. "There's increased activity on campus." He sees an increased sophistication in how OWS communicates: "They had live blogging of Tuesday night's New York City police action, minute by minute."
There are other ways, says Schiavone, that the OWS of today differs from what the movement was a month ago: There's an increased truculence, he says, as illustrated by protesters' signs making such threats as "Rich, beware. Your days are numbered."
"The words and images are darker, more violent. You see protesters covering their faces now, which they didn't do before." There's more talk of revolution. Increasingly, he says, the targets are conservative political figures. Just yesterday, for example, Herman Cain canceled an appearance in Iowa when his campaign learned that Occupy protesters had targeted it.
He finds it curious that Occupy Oakland chose the Port of Oakland as the prime focus for its general strike, since neither the port nor the shipping industry had figured previously as an Occupy villain. Why didn't they go after some big bank, say, or some other financial target? Schiavone believes the choice is proof of organized labor's increasing involvement in and support of the movement. Unions who support OWS now include the UAW, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters.
Since Occupy's encampments are only one manifestation of the movement's strength, he doesn't see the loss of them—whether to police actions or winter and weather-related abandonment—as relevant. "It's sustainable without the encampments," he said. What's more significant, he thinks, is the growing number of people involved in the movement online around the world. "Physical encampments, it's true, may be shrinking. But the 'online' encampment, you could say, is growing dramatically."
The most surprising prediction may belong to John Friedman, a senior columnist for Dow Jones' MarketWatch, who sees ad agencies, marketing companies, and other stalwarts of mainstream U.S. business figuring out ways to make money off the very protesters now vowing to pull down the establishment. "It wouldn't surprise me," Friedman says, "to see some shrewd marketing professional on Madison Avenue hungrily eyeing the commercial potential of the rallies."
Farfetched? Not at all, he argues, pointing to how advertisers managed in the early '70s to co-opt the symbols, dress and music of '60s counter-culture radicals. In what he calls a "grotesque premonition," he imagines a future where "breathless New York City tour guides will lead groups to visit the demonstrators.
Remember when tourists flocked in the 1960s to the hippie Haight-Ashbury to 'see the freaks'?"
Quote2.5 percent are Republicans
Huh.
Lol, some guy is waving a big peasant rebel flag outside of wall street.
THEY'RE NOT PEASANTS THEY'RE MINOR NOBILITY UPSET WITH YOUR POLICIES THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THE HIGHEST LAND TECH AVAILABLE IN YOUR TECH GROUP AND OFFENSIVE AND QUALITY MAXED IT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT WHERE 40,000 OF THEM CAME FROM
--Johann Andersson
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
THEY'RE NOT PEASANTS THEY'RE MINOR NOBILITY UPSET WITH YOUR POLICIES THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THE HIGHEST LAND TECH AVAILABLE IN YOUR TECH GROUP AND OFFENSIVE AND QUALITY MAXED IT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT WHERE 40,000 OF THEM CAME FROM
--Johann Andersson
:lmfao:
100 arrested.
I earlier reported about my concern for my favourite food cart that used to be set up very near where the occupiers are now doing whatever it is they do. The cart was forced to move because business had dropped and he was faced with constant harrassment from the protestors.
He was on the news last night along with other food cart owners in the area. They report business is down about 70% as foot traffic has essentially died in this area (whereas it had been a central foot traffic area). Some may go out of business if this keeps up.
Way to stand up for the 99%!
Heard on CNN that the UAW, Teamsters, and some other unions have expressed support for Occupy.
Tactically that doesn't sound like a very smart move. So I'm all for it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2011, 11:46:51 AM
Lol, some guy is waving a big peasant rebel flag outside of wall street.
That's an anarchist flag (CNT-FAI in the Spanish Civil War).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 04:17:37 PM
Heard on CNN that the UAW, Teamsters, and some other unions have expressed support for Occupy.
Tactically that doesn't sound like a very smart move. So I'm all for it.
For whom and why? Why wouldn't or shouldn't labor support the left?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:21:29 PM
I earlier reported about my concern for my favourite food cart that used to be set up very near where the occupiers are now doing whatever it is they do. The cart was forced to move because business had dropped and he was faced with constant harrassment from the protestors.
He was on the news last night along with other food cart owners in the area. They report business is down about 70% as foot traffic has essentially died in this area (whereas it had been a central foot traffic area). Some may go out of business if this keeps up.
Way to stand up for the 99%!
There was that story here about the deli that had to lay of 25 workers because of business being down - same thing on the foot traffic bit. Protestors here said it was the fault of police presence and barricades, not them.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
For whom and why? Why wouldn't or shouldn't labor support the left?
For the unions. I think it's becoming apparent that the principle goal of Occupy is protest for the sake of protest, confrontation for the sake of confrontation. If I were the head of a union, realizing that the position of my members--and by extension my own position--is dependent to a large degree on public good will, I would be hesitant about allying myself with a movement that smacks of mindless anarchism a la the WTO types.
I also think it's ossum that Moveon has signed up.
Didn't seem to hurt the Tea Party when the militias started showing up. One when one conspired to start killing people.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
For whom and why? Why wouldn't or shouldn't labor support the left?
It makes the occupiers look bad.
I think the American thing needs to shut down. My impression is there's been violence associated with it - though I do think American policing is offensively heavy handed, but then I always think that whenever any tasing or cop related thread to do with the US comes up. But that's by the by. The downside of not having any leaders is there's no-one to distance them from the black block elements.
But I think their issues still matter and they need to work out a new way of presenting them.
Don't tase me, bro. :cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 04:47:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
For whom and why? Why wouldn't or shouldn't labor support the left?
For the unions. I think it's becoming apparent that the principle goal of Occupy is protest for the sake of protest, confrontation for the sake of confrontation. If I were the head of a union, realizing that the position of my members--and by extension my own position--is dependent to a large degree on public good will, I would be hesitant about allying myself with a movement that smacks of mindless anarchism a la the WTO types.
I also think it's ossum that Moveon has signed up.
What good will is needed for the union? I either pa 64 bucks a month to be in the union or I pay 64 bucks a month and not be in the union. I pay either way, and I have no good will towards them.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 17, 2011, 09:32:58 PM
What good will is needed for the union? I either pa 64 bucks a month to be in the union or I pay 64 bucks a month and not be in the union. I pay either way, and I have no good will towards them.
The bail outs of GM and Chrysler involved good will. The continuation of closed shop states, or union shops, or whatever they're called, requires good will. There has been a minor kerfluffle in Iowa over state funding for a municipal building project that involves a "project agreement," i.e. a union-only bid system. That calls on good will. Good will all over the place.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 04:51:41 PM
Didn't seem to hurt the Tea Party when the militias started showing up. One when one conspired to start killing people.
The tea party has lost a lot of the popular support it had at the start.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 10:08:53 PMThe continuation of closed shop states, or union shops, or whatever they're called, requires good will.
Fahdiz said these have been illegal for decades :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 10:08:53 PMThe continuation of closed shop states, or union shops, or whatever they're called, requires good will.
Fahdiz said these have been illegal for decades :mellow:
It has, but that doesn't mean conservatives have taken it off their talking points.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 10:08:53 PMThe continuation of closed shop states, or union shops, or whatever they're called, requires good will.
Fahdiz said these have been illegal for decades :mellow:
I think he means states without right to work type laws being the "union" states. For one thing, in states with right to work laws, Wags could opt NOT to be in the union, and even though his workplace is union he wouldn't have to pay dues. As it is now, he pays whether he chooses to join the union or not at his workplace because Massachusetts has no right to work laws. That's my understanding anyways.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 10:08:53 PMThe continuation of closed shop states, or union shops, or whatever they're called, requires good will.
Fahdiz said these have been illegal for decades :mellow:
The traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades). The "union shop", where a person can be hired without being a member of the union, but must join the union after being hired, is legal under federal law, but not in some states (those with "right to work" laws). The fact that the traditional closed shop is generally not legal anymore has lead to the term "closed shop" often being used to describe what are technically union shops.
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PM
The "union shop", where a person can be hired without being a member of the union, but must join the union after being hired,
Only in America... You guys are insane.
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
It seems Ide is doing that right now.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2011, 08:59:07 PM
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
It seems Ide is doing that right now.
Ide is eating a bag of Reese Cups right now.
He doesn't have the guts to try the Reese's Bar.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2011, 08:59:07 PM
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
It seems Ide is doing that right now.
Ide has a law degree, but he isn't a lawyer.
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
Ironically, the Bar Association isn't a union.
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
Ironically, the Bar Association isn't a union.
It's a conspiracy.
Looking it up union shops are also banned. I think you can be required to contribute something but you can't be required to join a union. But even that's apparently rare.
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
Ironically, the Bar Association isn't a union.
The Bar takes your dues, lobbies for you, and has a system in place to settle disputes between you and third parties. It's a union. The former AFL-CIO head here described it as "the best union in the state."
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2011, 10:56:34 PM
Looking it up union shops are also banned. I think you can be required to contribute something but you can't be required to join a union. But even that's apparently rare.
My father was fucked over because he was hired on for a job, but the union refused to give him a membership, so he couldn't get the job.
Fuck unions.
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
Administrative law. :contract:
At least in Jersey, the Bar membership is only required to provide legal services "to the public." Since we don't tend to consider the government "the public," one can theoretically work as an administrative lawyer in NJ without being a member of the Bar association. :smarty:
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 11:08:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
Ironically, the Bar Association isn't a union.
The Bar takes your dues, lobbies for you, and has a system in place to settle disputes between you and third parties. It's a union. The former AFL-CIO head here described it as "the best union in the state."
Technically it's a guild, not a union.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 09:05:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2011, 08:59:07 PM
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2011, 07:05:13 PMThe traditional "closed shop", where a person has to be a member of the union in order to be hired, has been illegal natiionwide for decades (with some exceptions in specialized industries and trades).
Ironically, the closed shop survives in white collar occupations. You try being a lawyer without joining the State Bar, for example...
It seems Ide is doing that right now.
Ide has a law degree, but he isn't a lawyer.
Correct.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2011, 10:56:34 PM
Looking it up union shops are also banned. I think you can be required to contribute something but you can't be required to join a union. But even that's apparently rare.
Indeed. I in fact worked for a union shop, and opted out of the union but was required to pay all the dues - everything, in fact, except for the $4 a month that went to the union's political action committee. I was the recipient of all the union's collective bargaining, etc but could not vote in the union elections.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK)
QuoteOccupy Wall Street protesters stay at $700-a-night hotel
By CANDICE M. GIOVE
Last Updated: 12:25 PM, November 20, 2011
Posted: 12:06 AM, November 20, 2011
Hell no, we won't go — unless we get goose down pillows.
A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can "unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko," The Post has learned.
The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.
and he basically OWS movement treasurer with access to $500.000 in donations. No wonder that they refuse to have open books and tell how the money is spend...
And there is of course this one...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided)
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on November 21, 2011, 12:54:49 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK)
QuoteOccupy Wall Street protesters stay at $700-a-night hotel
By CANDICE M. GIOVE
Last Updated: 12:25 PM, November 20, 2011
Posted: 12:06 AM, November 20, 2011
Hell no, we won't go — unless we get goose down pillows.
A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can "unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko," The Post has learned.
The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.
and he basically OWS movement treasurer with access to $500.000 in donations. No wonder that they refuse to have open books and tell how the money is spend...
Yeah, you're right, anytime anyone spends money it obviously means that they are embezzling money.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 21, 2011, 05:39:05 AMYeah, you're right, anytime anyone spends money it obviously means that they are embezzling money.
I don't see why concepts of social justice have to be mutually exclusive of concepts of nice hotels. Especially when you're earning Starwood points.
Besides, he's paying room taxes on that hotel room at W Downtown. Starwood got a $14 million tax break on Federal taxes for their rooms overseas and a break for $49 million in real estate transaction income in 2009.
And they're going to bust his balls for staying in a hotel room?
I guess it is nice that a man with money attempts solidarity with the self-labelled peons?
:lol: We are the 99.99%!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 04:34:18 PM
:lol: We are the 99.99%!
So the enemy is, what, three people? :D
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on November 21, 2011, 12:54:49 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK)
QuoteOccupy Wall Street protesters stay at $700-a-night hotel
By CANDICE M. GIOVE
Last Updated: 12:25 PM, November 20, 2011
Posted: 12:06 AM, November 20, 2011
Hell no, we won't go — unless we get goose down pillows.
A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can "unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko," The Post has learned.
The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.
and he basically OWS movement treasurer with access to $500.000 in donations. No wonder that they refuse to have open books and tell how the money is spend...
Well, that is the New York Post...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on November 21, 2011, 12:54:49 AM
and he basically OWS movement treasurer with access to $500.000 in donations. No wonder that they refuse to have open books and tell how the money is spend...
How can such a disparate movement have a treasurer? :mellow:
Also that's a Murdoch tab, I'd probably handle it with a bit of care on this sort of subject.
Did the UC-Davis pepper spray incident miss this thread, or did it get its own?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FUC-Davis-pepper-spray-615x345.png&hash=b2c2873126afdc55b66dfab31afaf8f135e4d04e)
"From Davis to Greece, fuck the police!" :swiss:
Speaking of the police, here's a retired Phila. police captain getting arrested:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Farrest.jpg&hash=214130930beba8dd1019b109df76ac03078b5ad6)
"I've had a lot of proud moments in my life, a lot of proud moments in my career. But when I had those handcuffs on and was being marched over there with the other protesters in solidarity, that was the proudest moment of my life."
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:05:59 PM
Speaking of the police, here's a retired Phila. police captain getting arrested:
"I've had a lot of proud moments in my life, a lot of proud moments in my career. But when I had those handcuffs on and was being marched over there with the other protesters in solidarity, that was the proudest moment of my life."
That's sad.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:04:03 PM
Did the UC-Davis pepper spray incident miss this thread, or did it get its own?
"From Davis to Greece, fuck the police!" :swiss:
Why would this be significant? Isn't pepper-spraying malcontents a huge part of what the police are there for?
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2011, 11:07:48 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:05:59 PM
Speaking of the police, here's a retired Phila. police captain getting arrested:
"I've had a lot of proud moments in my life, a lot of proud moments in my career. But when I had those handcuffs on and was being marched over there with the other protesters in solidarity, that was the proudest moment of my life."
That's sad.
Real solidarity is a powerful feeling. If you're lucky enough to experience it once, I can imagine it might be life-defining.
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:04:03 PM
Did the UC-Davis pepper spray incident miss this thread, or did it get its own?
"From Davis to Greece, fuck the police!" :swiss:
Why would this be significant? Isn't pepper-spraying malcontents a huge part of what the police are there for?
Well the video is a bit shocking. That said - isn't Davis one of the least important UCs?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:04:03 PM
Did the UC-Davis pepper spray incident miss this thread, or did it get its own?
I've got huge problems with American/Euro style policing. This and the NY traffic case are examples why. On the other hand I think it's a cultural difference - like having guns - that I just won't ever get so there's not much of use to say.
But more widely with all police forces the worst will also hit minority groups a lot harder because it's unfortunately more tolerated. I think that creates a problem for necessary police reform because it's seen as a minority issue. In the UK there's problems with the police handle protests and the Independent Police Complaints Commission - in 10 years, with 400 deaths in custody or in police shootings there's not been one conviction, as the Economist says either they don't deserve the I or it should stand for incompetent. But I don't think those issues or stop and search will be addressed until they cause serious problems.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:11:10 PM
Real solidarity is a powerful feeling. If you're lucky enough to experience it once, I can imagine it might be life-defining.
Which is why I find it sad that he felt it at this particular time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:16:54 PM
I've got huge problems with American/Euro style policing. This and the NY traffic case are examples why. On the other hand I think it's a cultural difference - like having guns - that I just won't ever get so there's not much of use to say.
What do you think is the appropriate way to get demonstrators to leave a place they're not supposed to be?
I don't know anything about The UC-Davis Pepper Spraying, but it looks from the pic that they're blocking a road and the copper wants them to leave. Go up on the grassy knoll with the other demonstrators.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:20:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:16:54 PM
I've got huge problems with American/Euro style policing. This and the NY traffic case are examples why. On the other hand I think it's a cultural difference - like having guns - that I just won't ever get so there's not much of use to say.
What do you think is the appropriate way to get demonstrators to leave a place they're not supposed to be?
I don't know anything about The UC-Davis Pepper Spraying, but it looks from the pic that they're blocking a road and the copper wants them to leave. Go up on the grassy knoll with the other demonstrators.
Because God knows in a free country like ours you do exactly what a copper wants or you get chemical burns to the face.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:27:16 PM
Because God knows in a free country like ours you do exactly what a copper wants or you get chemical burns to the face.
Because God knows people with jobs who pay taxes might have to drive somewhere.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:27:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:20:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:16:54 PM
I've got huge problems with American/Euro style policing. This and the NY traffic case are examples why. On the other hand I think it's a cultural difference - like having guns - that I just won't ever get so there's not much of use to say.
What do you think is the appropriate way to get demonstrators to leave a place they're not supposed to be?
I don't know anything about The UC-Davis Pepper Spraying, but it looks from the pic that they're blocking a road and the copper wants them to leave. Go up on the grassy knoll with the other demonstrators.
Because God knows in a free country like ours you do exactly what a copper wants or you get chemical burns to the face.
In a free country, punks like that get shot by citizens that they are trying to hurt. Because we are kind, they get pepper-sprayed by professionals instead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:20:37 PM
What do you think is the appropriate way to get demonstrators to leave a place they're not supposed to be?
I don't know, I imagine the rules'll vary by jurisdiction. In the UK I think they'd probably have a cordon put round them and dispersed slowly over the day.
The police shouldn't be the ones escalating from non-violent protest to the use of pepper spray. Also the fact that the police are in riot gear at that sort of event is absolutely absurd and speaks volumes of their mentality. Riot gear's required when a situation's escalated to provide officers with physical safety. It shouldn't be there at a peaceful protest.
Edit: Actually looking at the footage just picked them up one by one. No need for kettling or anything like that. You've got a small number of people passively resisting. That shouldn't be beyond the ken of a police force to deal with non-violently.
QuoteI don't know anything about The UC-Davis Pepper Spraying, but it looks from the pic that they're blocking a road and the copper wants them to leave. Go up on the grassy knoll with the other demonstrators.
This is an attitude I really dislike and find difficult to comprehend. But it comes up whenever there's a tasing/pepper spray/police brutality thread.
QuoteBecause God knows people with jobs who pay taxes might have to drive somewhere.
I think they'r just in campus on a path, not on a public highway :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:36:33 PM
The police shouldn't be the ones escalating from non-violent protest to the use of pepper spray. Also the fact that the police are in riot gear at that sort of event is absolutely absurd and speaks volumes of their mentality. Riot gear's required when a situation's escalated to provide officers with physical safety. It shouldn't be there at a peaceful protest.
We've learned from assorted G8 and IMF protests that there is no such thing as a peaceful protest anymore. All protests are just waiting to turn violent, because all protesters are criminals.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:36:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:20:37 PM
QuoteI don't know anything about The UC-Davis Pepper Spraying, but it looks from the pic that they're blocking a road and the copper wants them to leave. Go up on the grassy knoll with the other demonstrators.
This is an attitude I really dislike and find difficult to comprehend. But it comes up whenever there's a tasing/pepper spray/police brutality thread.
Society has decided that when you're an asshole, you pay a price.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:36:33 PM
This is an attitude I really dislike and find difficult to comprehend. But it comes up whenever there's a tasing/pepper spray/police brutality thread.
I also find it bizarre that in your world demonstrators get a veto on use of public space.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:43:59 PMI also find it bizarre that in your world demonstrators get a veto on use of public space.
I've no issue with the polce moving demonstrators on or breaking demonstrations up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:45:55 PM
I've no issue with the polce moving demonstrators on or breaking demonstrations up.
It seems you do have an issue with police moving demonstrators along who are unwilling to move along.
Yi acknowledges not knowing shit about this incident, but dammit, any police brutality is good police brutality and someone needs to step up to defend it. And Neil is in his usual troll mode.
A country where the go-to police response to passive resistance in the furtherance of political speech (which, incidentally, courts have always deferred to in this country over other kinds of behavior, the sine qua non of protected speech) is blasting seated people in the face with industrial pepper spray from 2 feet away is a country that... fill in the blank. :yawn:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:11:10 PM
Real solidarity is a powerful feeling. If you're lucky enough to experience it once, I can imagine it might be life-defining.
Indeed, just ask these guys:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnait5.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F06%2F163842_3.jpg&hash=36d7d77c266b65aea7eadeaf891c9aa88adc0f57)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:43:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:36:33 PM
This is an attitude I really dislike and find difficult to comprehend. But it comes up whenever there's a tasing/pepper spray/police brutality thread.
I also find it bizarre that in your world demonstrators get a veto on use of public space.
Thing is pepper spray is supposed to be like a gun in terms of when you're supposed to use it. Even if they were taking up the space, he should just write them a ticket. Or whack them with a nightstick or whatever police do for that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:47:56 PMIt seems you do have an issue with police moving demonstrators along who are unwilling to move along.
Not at all. My objection's the escalation and the attitudes involved. The attitude that justifies it on the ground that they're disobeying the police I just don't get and the casual use of pepper spray is something I find unsettling in a police force.
In this example, as I say, I think there's passive resistance going on but it looks like a group that's dispersable. I don't think there's a need for any tough crowd control measures like kettling. There's certainly no need for the police to be using pepper spray, in riot gear or carrying those paintball guns. The use of force by the police and riot gear should only be because it's essential to preserve public order, or for their own safety. I don't think either looks the case here.
Quote from: citizen k on November 21, 2011, 11:56:47 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:11:10 PM
Real solidarity is a powerful feeling. If you're lucky enough to experience it once, I can imagine it might be life-defining.
Indeed, just ask these guys:
:lol: Or these:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-vibe.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2Fsolidarnosc_25lat.jpg&hash=2ef5dadf19b89ab7975bae924782a4047fef9e1a)
If the political term is deployed in a way that capitalist power interests find comfortable, especially from a distance, it's eye-wateringly moving. Those brave Poles! :weep: If it's used otherwise, yuo = Hitler. Comprendo. :sleep:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:56:15 PM
Yi acknowledges not knowing shit about this incident, but dammit, any police brutality is good police brutality and someone needs to step up to defend it. And Neil is in his usual troll mode.
I think this is the very first time I've seen you lying on this board.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2011, 12:00:26 AM
Not at all. My objection's the escalation and the attitudes involved. The attitude that justifies it on the ground that they're disobeying the police I just don't get and the casual use of pepper spray is something I find unsettling in a police force.
In this example, as I say, I think there's passive resistance going on but it looks like a group that's dispersable. I don't think there's a need for any tough crowd control measures like kettling. There's certainly no need for the police to be using pepper spray, in riot gear or carrying those paintball guns. The use of force by the police and riot gear should only be because it's essential to preserve public order, or for their own safety. I don't think either looks the case here.
It seems we're back to the previous point about demonstrator having a veto over the use of public space. As long as they're nonviolent, there's nothing cops can do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2011, 12:44:21 AMIt seems we're back to the previous point about demonstrator having a veto over the use of public space. As long as they're nonviolent, there's nothing cops can do.
Disperse them peacefully. There's a whole array of policing options between doing nothing - riot control tactics - use of force.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2011, 12:45:06 AM
Disperse them peacefully. There's a whole array of policing options between doing nothing - riot control tactics - use of force.
The one you mentioned was wait till they get bored and leave. Can you name some more?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2011, 12:46:20 AMThe one you mentioned was wait till they get bored and leave. Can you name some more?
What do you think should be the limits of police use of force?
As to your question I don't know, I'm not a crowd control trained cop. My experience of sit-ins (though I've not taken part, I prefer a march) is that the protestors try to link arms and go limp - all of the usual passive resistance techniques - the cops disentangle them and lift them out, then they get booked for resisting arrest/causing a public disorder or whatever.
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2011, 11:59:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:43:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:36:33 PM
This is an attitude I really dislike and find difficult to comprehend. But it comes up whenever there's a tasing/pepper spray/police brutality thread.
I also find it bizarre that in your world demonstrators get a veto on use of public space.
Thing is pepper spray is supposed to be like a gun in terms of when you're supposed to use it.
Son, are you on drugs?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2011, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:56:15 PM
Yi acknowledges not knowing shit about this incident, but dammit, any police brutality is good police brutality and someone needs to step up to defend it. And Neil is in his usual troll mode.
I think this is the very first time I've seen you lying on this board.
I would describe it as insinuating rather than lying. But my role on this board has already changed. I've always enjoyed the buddies aspect of Languish, but the tenor is different now than a few years ago. I generally don't feel like making/staying friends here anymore, all I want to do is launch left-wing attacks on anything and everything. Out of my genuine "positive" political commitments, for sure, but also out of a lot personal despair and hopelessness unrelated to the forum.
I'm glad Sheilbh is around to engage in "reasonable" dialogue. I certainly would have been doing so in the past. But I'm losing a sense of why it's important or valuable to have that dialogue.
The more I live and see, the more radical I've become. Maybe it's just dealing with the criminal justice system and the vast carceral-industrial complex, actually getting to know the people who get the shaft. Comparing teeth with a convict friend so we can see if all the teeth he lost during his stay in state prison from guard and inmate beatings look pretty normal. Maybe it's spending time around a group of people who are all about legal reasoning in a social vacuum, when their ultimate commitments are to backing up the entrenched financial and governmental interests for lots of dough.
You've certainly become less able to express your beliefs.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 01:00:01 AM
Son, are you on drugs?
When do you believe that pepper spray is called for? I don't think it's when people are sitting down not attacking anyone.
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 01:24:30 AM
You've certainly become less able to express your beliefs.
I don't think I have any "beliefs." Stances, positions, engagements, maybe, but not beliefs. The only thing I believe in is mortality.
But it is hard to get the energy for a type of dialogue where the basic premises -- "the market," "liberty," "coercion," "rule of law" -- are already defined to the exclusion of positions that don't take any of these for granted.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 01:29:10 AM
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 01:24:30 AM
You've certainly become less able to express your beliefs.
I don't think I have any "beliefs." Stances, positions, engagements, maybe, but not beliefs. The only thing I believe in is mortality.
But it is hard to get the energy for a type of dialogue where the basic premises -- "the market," "liberty," "coercion," "rule of law" -- are already defined to the exclusion of positions that don't take any of these for granted.
This is word salad. Maybe you're high?
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 01:32:12 AM
This is word salad. Maybe you're high?
As long as they pile it with ranch, I'll eat it. Getting high is a good way to avoid dealing with the implications of basic terms in trying to have a political discussion. Except getting high on grass, then I'd get lost on the endless significance of every word...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 01:02:41 AM
I would describe it as insinuating rather than lying. But my role on this board has already changed. I've always enjoyed the buddies aspect of Languish, but the tenor is different now than a few years ago. I generally don't feel like making/staying friends here anymore, all I want to do is launch left-wing attacks on anything and everything. Out of my genuine "positive" political commitments, for sure, but also out of a lot personal despair and hopelessness unrelated to the forum.
I get this. Since I've been back here at Languish, I've remembered a bit what was so maddening about it: the opportunities for coming to an understanding are so rare, while the people declaring victory because they caught a typo or twisted someone's words and crushed the resulting argument are Legion.
But I work in a nonprofit where political discussion of any stripe is frowned on (might offend donors) and so there's not many other places I can go to get some intelligent - if not necessarily educational - political discourse. So here I am.
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 01:26:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 01:00:01 AM
Son, are you on drugs?
When do you believe that pepper spray is called for? I don't think it's when people are sitting down not attacking anyone.
I don't know, but I am pretty sure that the continuum of force does not go from "Do nothing" to "Pepper spray or just shoot them".
My comment is solely directed at your claim that pepper spraying "supposed to be like a gun in terms of when you're supposed to use it."
That is just laughably wrong.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 02:00:29 AM
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 01:26:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 01:00:01 AM
Son, are you on drugs?
When do you believe that pepper spray is called for? I don't think it's when people are sitting down not attacking anyone.
I don't know, but I am pretty sure that the continuum of force does not go from "Do nothing" to "Pepper spray or just shoot them".
My comment is solely directed at your claim that pepper spraying "supposed to be like a gun in terms of when you're supposed to use it."
That is just laughably wrong.
I'm almost certain that pepper spray is for self-defense only, not to catch the bad guy; like a taser or gun. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
:huh: Tasers and guns are definitely used to "catch the bad guy" in situations that aren't solely self-defense. So is pepper spray. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
The cops can't just shoot a shoplifter or a speeder. And a speeder endangers way more people than the guy that was passively sitting on the ground.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2011, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:56:15 PM
Yi acknowledges not knowing shit about this incident, but dammit, any police brutality is good police brutality and someone needs to step up to defend it. And Neil is in his usual troll mode.
I think this is the very first time I've seen you lying on this board.
I would describe it as insinuating rather than lying. But my role on this board has already changed. I've always enjoyed the buddies aspect of Languish, but the tenor is different now than a few years ago. I generally don't feel like making/staying friends here anymore, all I want to do is launch left-wing attacks on anything and everything. Out of my genuine "positive" political commitments, for sure, but also out of a lot personal despair and hopelessness unrelated to the forum.
I'm glad Sheilbh is around to engage in "reasonable" dialogue. I certainly would have been doing so in the past. But I'm losing a sense of why it's important or valuable to have that dialogue.
The more I live and see, the more radical I've become. Maybe it's just dealing with the criminal justice system and the vast carceral-industrial complex, actually getting to know the people who get the shaft. Comparing teeth with a convict friend so we can see if all the teeth he lost during his stay in state prison from guard and inmate beatings look pretty normal. Maybe it's spending time around a group of people who are all about legal reasoning in a social vacuum, when their ultimate commitments are to backing up the entrenched financial and governmental interests for lots of dough.
Don't get annoyed with Yi. He is a contrarian loser. I think he doesn't even have a job, or was unemployed for a long time and was living with his parents despite being in his 30s. Stuff like this destroys souls. He is a husk. I just ignore him.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 12:01:07 AM
Quote from: citizen k on November 21, 2011, 11:56:47 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:11:10 PM
Real solidarity is a powerful feeling. If you're lucky enough to experience it once, I can imagine it might be life-defining.
Indeed, just ask these guys:
:lol: Or these:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-vibe.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2Fsolidarnosc_25lat.jpg&hash=2ef5dadf19b89ab7975bae924782a4047fef9e1a)
If the political term is deployed in a way that capitalist power interests find comfortable, especially from a distance, it's eye-wateringly moving. Those brave Poles! :weep: If it's used otherwise, yuo = Hitler. Comprendo. :sleep:
Most people do not realize that the majority of Solidarity's demands were labour related and economical (such as minimum wage or working time rules) rather than political in nature. Solidarity was a trade union. It's funny when you see Walesa mentioned in the same breath as Reagan or Thatcher.
Edit: I know/suspect you know this. That's more for the benefit of the ignorami. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 11:20:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 11:16:54 PM
I've got huge problems with American/Euro style policing. This and the NY traffic case are examples why. On the other hand I think it's a cultural difference - like having guns - that I just won't ever get so there's not much of use to say.
What do you think is the appropriate way to get demonstrators to leave a place they're not supposed to be?
I don't know anything about The UC-Davis Pepper Spraying, but it looks from the pic that they're blocking a road and the copper wants them to leave. Go up on the grassy knoll with the other demonstrators.
Then you pick them up and move them. The OC spray was an unnecessary move.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 22, 2011, 02:19:38 AM
:huh: Tasers and guns are definitely used to "catch the bad guy" in situations that aren't solely self-defense. So is pepper spray. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Cops don't like to put their hands on people. Leads to lawsuits. And, they're usually out of shape and have forgotten their come-along tactics they learned in the academy and forget the 8 hours of in-service training they usually skip every year.
Going straight to the baton or the taser or the OC spray isn't the usual doctrine, it's just really laziness.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 22, 2011, 01:56:39 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 01:02:41 AM
I would describe it as insinuating rather than lying. But my role on this board has already changed. I've always enjoyed the buddies aspect of Languish, but the tenor is different now than a few years ago. I generally don't feel like making/staying friends here anymore, all I want to do is launch left-wing attacks on anything and everything. Out of my genuine "positive" political commitments, for sure, but also out of a lot personal despair and hopelessness unrelated to the forum.
I get this. Since I've been back here at Languish, I've remembered a bit what was so maddening about it: the opportunities for coming to an understanding are so rare, while the people declaring victory because they caught a typo or twisted someone's words and crushed the resulting argument are Legion.
But I work in a nonprofit where political discussion of any stripe is frowned on (might offend donors) and so there's not many other places I can go to get some intelligent - if not necessarily educational - political discourse. So here I am.
Yes, the tone is much less happy here in the last two years.
:hmm:
I'M LEAFING.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:04:03 PM
Did the UC-Davis pepper spray incident miss this thread, or did it get its own?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FUC-Davis-pepper-spray-615x345.png&hash=b2c2873126afdc55b66dfab31afaf8f135e4d04e)
"From Davis to Greece, fuck the police!" :swiss:
Those Syrians really have to stop doing that to their own...wait....that's not Syria is it? :huh:
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 02:00:29 AM
I don't know, but I am pretty sure that the continuum of force does not go from "Do nothing" to "Pepper spray or just shoot them".
My comment is solely directed at your claim that pepper spraying "supposed to be like a gun in terms of when you're supposed to use it."
That is just laughably wrong.
No, wait. That's a good idea.
Then, the cops can just roll up to the Occupiers, shout 'Disperse, fuckers!', and then start blasting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 06:31:52 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 22, 2011, 02:19:38 AM
:huh: Tasers and guns are definitely used to "catch the bad guy" in situations that aren't solely self-defense. So is pepper spray. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Cops don't like to put their hands on people. Leads to lawsuits. And, they're usually out of shape and have forgotten their come-along tactics they learned in the academy and forget the 8 hours of in-service training they usually skip every year.
Going straight to the baton or the taser or the OC spray isn't the usual doctrine, it's just really laziness.
Don't "come along" tactics imply some kind of pain hold anyway?
Where does zapping someone with pepper spray fit into the continuum of force?
I would think that putting your hands on someone to force them to move has vastly greater potential for actual harm than pepper spray, which is painful but cannot do permanent damage, so far as I know.
I think the outrage is more over the casualness with which it was employed - the police officer just seems kind of "ho-hum, I guess I will blast all these people indiscriminately with this here pepper spray now..."
Quote from: Josephus on November 22, 2011, 08:16:52 AM
Those Syrians really have to stop doing that to their own...wait....that's not Syria is it? :huh:
Yeah, because pepper spray and bullets are the same thing.
Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2011, 02:48:23 AM
Most people do not realize that the majority of Solidarity's demands were labour related and economical (such as minimum wage or working time rules) rather than political in nature. Solidarity was a trade union. It's funny when you see Walesa mentioned in the same breath as Reagan or Thatcher.
Edit: I know/suspect you know this. That's more for the benefit of the ignorami. ;)
Considering Communism supposedly represents the working class, a trade union strike can't help but be political regardless of its demands.
Quote from: Caliga on November 22, 2011, 07:53:12 AM
:hmm:
If only we espoused more liberal beliefs...then we would be happier! :weep:
Of course, then we'd be the dicks complaining about a man from Iowa posting his thoughts as he's like totally ruining the vibe, man.
I cannot help but suspect that the "outrage" over the pepper spray is really just standard outrage over anything the cops do to try to handle these things.
If they had brought in a couple dozen guys and physically moved them, resulting in some 84 year old with a broken rib, then the outrage would be all "ZOMG! Fascists! They didn't have to attack those people - they could have just used pepper spray instead!".
I don't think there is any "nice" way to deal with protesters who refuse to comply with the law, other than simply abdicating enforcements and letting them be in the hope they get bored and leave. And I think that is pretty much what was attempted, right? These things have been going on for a rather long time now, and the stated intent has been that they would stay "as long as it takes" or "for the long haul", whatever that means.
Hell, they used to use fire hoses, right? I get that wasn't considered very nice either.
So, for those outraged at some pregnant woman getting pepper sprayed, what would have been the right way to deal with her? Should the police have asked if anyone was pregnant before dousing them? If she was worried about the safety of her child, why didn't she just leave when told to do so? Does she bear any responsibility for what happened to her, or is it solely the responsibility of the police who told her to stop her illegal activity?
I am open to the idea that using pepper spray on this large group of people indiscriminately was poor police work, but I haven't heard a single actual suggestion about what should have been done instead from anyone complaining.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
I am open to the idea that using pepper spray on this large group of people indiscriminately was poor police work, but I haven't heard a single actual suggestion about what should have been done instead from anyone complaining.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ia-pl.org%2Fcivil_rights%2Fimages%2FUnconscious_student.jpg&hash=18c399452e1ce3e2363e04e99691708a6cb19541)
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
I cannot help but suspect that the "outrage" over the pepper spray is really just standard outrage over anything the cops do to try to handle these things.
Especially from Mihali, who hates the police no matter what they do.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 09:17:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
I am open to the idea that using pepper spray on this large group of people indiscriminately was poor police work, but I haven't heard a single actual suggestion about what should have been done instead from anyone complaining.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ia-pl.org%2Fcivil_rights%2Fimages%2FUnconscious_student.jpg&hash=18c399452e1ce3e2363e04e99691708a6cb19541)
OK, so your argument is that they should have physically dragged each protester away instead.
OK, fair enough.
Why?
Why is physically assaulting them a better solution? When the 84 year old woman gets a broken hip from being dragged along the ground, I suspect you would be here saying "ZOMG what fascists! They attacked a poor old lady! Why did they have to even touch her???"
And the next question then becomes - if that is the better solution, why isn't it the standard practice for these police officers. I am assuming that they knew what they were getting into when they showed up to break up the protests, and used whatever their defined SOP stated for handling crowds of non-complying protesters. So they have some manual somewhere that some expert presumably put together, and it said "pepper spray them!"
You are arguing that that SOP should be different - why? Instead of complaining about what happened, perhaps you could tell us your expertise on crowd control, and why you feel that your suggested practice is superior to what they have now.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:24:47 AM
OK, so your argument is that they should have physically dragged each protester away instead.
OK, fair enough.
Why?
Why is physically assaulting them a better solution?
And the next question then becomes - if that is the better solution, why isn't it the standard practice for these police officers. I am assuming that they knew what they were getting into when they showed up to break up the protests, and used whatever their defined SOP stated for handling crowds of non-complying protesters. So they have some manual somewhere that some expert presumably put together, and it said "pepper spray them!"
You are arguing that that SOP should be different - why? Instead of complaining about what happened, perhaps you could tell us your expertise on crowd control, and why you feel that your suggested practice is superior to what they have now.
:lol: You asked for a single example and I gave it to you. This is hardly the first passive resistance sit-in since 1961. Examples abound.
I'm not arguing any of the things you tell me I am. If I was arguing anything it would be that the police should take off their badges and sit down alongside them. Maybe save the spray for collective self-defense. :)
Quote from: Neil on November 22, 2011, 09:24:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
I cannot help but suspect that the "outrage" over the pepper spray is really just standard outrage over anything the cops do to try to handle these things.
Especially from Mihali, who hates the police no matter what they do.
He does?
Whatever - I don't hate the police, nor do I assume they are right.
But I do assume that they did what they were trained/instructed to do, until someone provides evidence to the contrary.
And if they are doing what they are trained and instructed to do, and people don't like it, then it behooves them to come up with an alternative, and one that adresses their stated concerns *better* than the existing practice.
I don't see how the claim that not using pepper spray, and instead physically assaulting and dragging away each protestor, necessarily results in a better outcome for the canonical "84 year old pregnant woman" that everyone seems so worried about.
Which makes no sense - how is pepper spraying someone who is 84 somehow more egregious than someone who is 24 anyway? It isn't a matter of their threat (they were no threat, no matter what the police say), it is a matter of trying to enforce compliance with the least risk of doing actual harm beyond simple pain.
There are ebbs and flows in the policing of demonstrations.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fscience%2Fpolicing-protests.jpg&hash=61eccc4b58bd5c3ce0aeee8fdc94d5e57b8965f7)
This article in The Atlantic (which you should be reading anyways if I recall your agreement with Yi), makes the argument that the Seattle WTO protests and then 9/11 radically changed SOP for dealing with protestors.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/why-i-feel-bad-for-the-pepper-spraying-policeman-lt-john-pike/248772/
Quote from: BerkutWhy is physically assaulting them a better solution?
Pepper spray is still a physical assault, Berkie.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 09:28:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:24:47 AM
OK, so your argument is that they should have physically dragged each protester away instead.
OK, fair enough.
Why?
Why is physically assaulting them a better solution?
And the next question then becomes - if that is the better solution, why isn't it the standard practice for these police officers. I am assuming that they knew what they were getting into when they showed up to break up the protests, and used whatever their defined SOP stated for handling crowds of non-complying protesters. So they have some manual somewhere that some expert presumably put together, and it said "pepper spray them!"
You are arguing that that SOP should be different - why? Instead of complaining about what happened, perhaps you could tell us your expertise on crowd control, and why you feel that your suggested practice is superior to what they have now.
:lol: You asked for a single example and I gave it to you. This is hardly the first passive resistance sit-in since 1961. Examples abound.
Indeed, and I thank you. But as I pointed out, your single example doesn't actually address the supposed issues that people have raised. It fails to actually respond to the complaints. So we are still left with nobody actually giving a workable solution, other than "do nothing".
Quote
I'm not arguing any of the things you tell me I am. If I was arguing anything it would be that the police should take off their badges and sit down alongside them. Maybe save the spray for collective self-defense. :)
Ahh, that is a valid argument, but it is an argument that has nothing to do with 84 year old women or pregnant chicks. It is irrelevant to the complaint that the police used unreasonable or excessive force, since your argument is that they should do nothing, and hence no argument about appropriate force matters at all.
If you presume that the police are going to use some level of compliance to get protestors to stop illegal activity, then I do not see how the complaint that pepper spray is excessive works. It seems safer than the alternatives provided, certainly safer than sending in a couple dozen police officers to physically assault the group of protestors.
Quote from: Neil on November 22, 2011, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 22, 2011, 08:16:52 AM
Those Syrians really have to stop doing that to their own...wait....that's not Syria is it? :huh:
Yeah, because pepper spray and bullets are the same thing.
They both tend to prevent people from exercising their rights to demonstrate and protest.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2011, 09:34:59 AM
Quote from: BerkutWhy is physically assaulting them a better solution?
Pepper spray is still a physical assault, Berkie.
Yes, but I think you know what I mean. Why is using physical contact somehow less likely to do actual permanent harm? I bet dollars to donuts that it is LESS likely to actually injure someone, which is almost certainly why it is used instead.
I got the chance to do a "ride along" with a sheriff's officer in a rural county of East Tennessee last summer. He was a very nice guy and we made a lot of awkward conversation about classic rock, etc. Nothing much going on that night except one sub-COPS level domestic dispute and one guy passed out in the field behind a bar.
We ended up talking about his non-lethal weapons. Using physical force was by far his preferred method of subduing someone if he thought he could. More nuance in the level of force, more psychological pressure, more humane. The tazer was the next best choice, and then finally the spray. I asked something like, "Why not use the spray more?" At the time, I thought I'd much rather be sprayed than tazed (having been neither). The main reason was that the spray tends to blow back into the officer's face.
To get certified to use these non-lethal weapons, you had to get blasted once with each. Getting tazed, he said, was horrible but ended immediately. Getting doused in the face with spray, on the other hand, he described as the worst experience of his life. Hours of burning agony, feeling like you are going to suffocate to death, the total helplessness of not being able to get it off no matter what you do (I think water makes it worse), etc.
I only offer this anecdote to emphasize how nasty the spray is. :mellow:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 09:34:14 AM
There are ebbs and flows in the policing of demonstrations.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fscience%2Fpolicing-protests.jpg&hash=61eccc4b58bd5c3ce0aeee8fdc94d5e57b8965f7)
This article in The Atlantic (which you should be reading anyways if I recall your agreement with Yi), makes the argument that the Seattle WTO protests and then 9/11 radically changed SOP for dealing with protestors.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/why-i-feel-bad-for-the-pepper-spraying-policeman-lt-john-pike/248772/
See, that is exactly the point - if you want to bitch about the tactics, at least understand why they are what they are, and argue that they should NOT be what they are, but something else.
So you think the police should go back to...what, exactly? Water hoses? "Negotiated Management"? If the latter, how do you address the problems with it, that resulted in it no longer being the paradigm? Specifically, that even when you negotiate reasonable accomodation, some people may decide to be unreasonable anyway, and sit in public places engaged in illegal activity and refuse to negotiate at all? And some of those people might be 4'10" 84 year olds or pregnant?
The article is quite good, but his conclusions make no sense. He states the problem, and then just assumes that the current "solution" is deficient, but does not provide any alternative, just like everyone else.
Your comment that you think the cops should join the protesters really proves my point. Your objection and faux outrage ar enot about what they are doing, but that they are doing anything at all. If they used some other technique to enforce compliance, THAT would be outrageous as well, because the problem is not the tactics, it is that they are doing anything at all.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 09:46:14 AM
I got the chance to do a "ride along" with a sheriff's officer in a rural county of East Tennessee last summer. He was a very nice guy and we made a lot of awkward conversation about classic rock, etc. Nothing much going on that night except one sub-COPS level domestic dispute and one guy passed out in the field behind a bar.
We ended up talking about his non-lethal weapons. Using physical force was by far his preferred method of subduing someone if he thought he could. More nuance in the level of force, more psychological pressure, more humane. The tazer was the next best choice, and then finally the spray. I asked something like, "Why not use the spray more?" At the time, I thought I'd much rather be sprayed than tazed (having been neither). The main reason was that the spray tends to blow back into the officer's face.
To get certified to use these non-lethal weapons, you had to get blasted once with each. Getting tazed, he said, was horrible but ended immediately. Getting doused in the face with spray, on the other hand, he described as the worst experience of his life. Hours of burning agony, feeling like you are going to suffocate to death, the total helplessness of not being able to get it off no matter what you do (I think water makes it worse), etc.
I only offer this anecdote to emphasize how nasty the spray is. :mellow:
I've never been pepper sprayed, but I did do the tear gas thing in the army. It is pretty damn miserable.
Again, I don't really know if pepper spray is or is not the right level of force. My basic argument, however, is that the majority of the people "outraged" are really just on the side of the protesters, and are going to be outraged if the police do anything other than "take off their badges and sit down alongside them."
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:48:55 AM
My basic argument, however, is that the majority of the people "outraged" are really just on the side of the protesters, and are going to be outraged if the police do anything other than "take off their badges and sit down alongside them."
Well, I'm not the one to argue the other side. I don't accept the moral legitimacy of the laws that make police action permissible in the first place, the laws that ludicrously criminalize the capacity of citizens to use the space that surrounds them (since very little purely public space is left) for political expression. Once you've got those laws, the police have a mandate to enforce them, and then, jeez, it's hard to figure out what exactly they should do.
Quote from: Josephus on November 22, 2011, 09:37:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 22, 2011, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 22, 2011, 08:16:52 AM
Those Syrians really have to stop doing that to their own...wait....that's not Syria is it? :huh:
Yeah, because pepper spray and bullets are the same thing.
They both tend to prevent people from exercising their rights to demonstrate and protest.
But all rights are limited, correct?
I don't have the right to do anything I like as long as I label it "demonstration and/or protest", correct?
For example, you would agree that I don't have the right to break into a store and steal a TV as part of a protest, correct? And you would have no problem with the police using force to stop me from doing so.
At what point do the police have the responsibility to enforce the law by removing people who are breaking it as a form of protest? This goes beyond the current protests of course, and speaks to the G8 protests and such.
And on the other side as well, Tianemin Square for example - certainly we can all agree that the Chinese used ridiculously excessive force in putting that down.
I don't think there is any easy answer, and I don't think it is fair to hold up the police as the evil side as a matter of course. There is a line *somewhere*, and it seems to me that overall the US has been pretty damn tolerant of these protests, and that is a good thing. We *should* be pretty damn tolerant, a little social disruption is not a bad thing.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:46:19 AM
The article is quite good, but his conclusions make no sense. He states the problem, and then just assumes that the current "solution" is deficient, but does not provide any alternative, just like everyone else.
Providing a solution to serious social problems is something that even the most brilliant minds in world history have been stumped by. It would be awesome if magazines like the Atlantic were coming up with excellent ones all the time but it hardly seems like something that should be expected. That just strikes me as a pretty tall order. Heck, as you said, I am just impressed when somebody really understands a problem these days much less has a bunch of solutions in mind.
Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2011, 09:58:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:46:19 AM
The article is quite good, but his conclusions make no sense. He states the problem, and then just assumes that the current "solution" is deficient, but does not provide any alternative, just like everyone else.
Providing a solution to serious social problems is something that even the most brilliant minds in world history have been stumped by. It would be awesome if magazines like the Atlantic were coming up with excellent ones all the time but it hardly seems like something that should be expected. That just strikes me as a pretty tall order. Heck, as you said, I am just impressed when somebody really understands a problem these days much less has a bunch of solutions in mind.
I am not talking about coming up with solutions to societies problems, I am talking about an alternative to the use of pepper spray.
The article in question illustrates why the "negotiated management" strategy failed and was replaced. There is actually a video of the Miami protests where everyone in this thread advocating that the police should use physical force to remove protesters can lead to - a bunch of protesters with linked arms getting the shit beat out of them with guys with batons. That is what you get when you insist that the police do not use something like pepper spray - THAT is the alternative they are advocating, and I think it is a lot worse.
But the article damns the current strategy, while providing no alternative, it is a case example of what I am talking about. The authors complaint is really that the police are doing anything at all. If they had used the strategy suggested (physically removing protesters by officers assaulting them) they would complain about the resulting injuries from that as well.
Quote from: BerkutYes, but I think you know what I mean. Why is using physical contact somehow less likely to do actual permanent harm? I bet dollars to donuts that it is LESS likely to actually injure someone, which is almost certainly why it is used instead.
No, you're right--there's some indication that it's less likely to injure suspects (though it can injure and can kill in some situations), which I suppose is good in ordinary policing situations. It adds a new component to the spectrum of force, and in confrontations where external considerations are important a fuller spectrum of responses is certainly worthwhile. Just ask Robert McNamara.
Here, however, debilitating but non-lethal, less-injurious measures are a godsend for a repressive strategy. You neither make significantly sympathetic martyrs--as you would with the unavoidable fatalities or severe and photogenic injuries accruing to fists, batons, firehoses, and bullets rubber or otherwise--and you reduce risk to officers,
and you still achieve the goal of hurting and frightening people (rather badly, as I understand it) and forcing them to disperse or submit to arrest.
As for physically restraining individuals, that happened immediately after pepper spray deployment anyway. The risk of injury to the suspect is, I imagine, quite similar, especially as they are likely blind, certainly in pain, and often in panic. The principal tactical goal of the action at UC Davis appeared to be to cow the students who'd come to add their presence and voices, but had made no otherwise threatening move.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 09:53:33 AM
Well, I'm not the one to argue the other side. I don't accept the moral legitimacy of the laws that make police action permissible in the first place, the laws that ludicrously criminalize the capacity of citizens to use the space that surrounds them (since very little purely public space is left) for political expression. Once you've got those laws, the police have a mandate to enforce them, and then, jeez, it's hard to figure out what exactly they should do.
Which I think is what Berk is getting at. There's no way to dissipate the outrage unless you just let protestors do whatever they'd like.
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2011, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 09:53:33 AM
Well, I'm not the one to argue the other side. I don't accept the moral legitimacy of the laws that make police action permissible in the first place, the laws that ludicrously criminalize the capacity of citizens to use the space that surrounds them (since very little purely public space is left) for political expression. Once you've got those laws, the police have a mandate to enforce them, and then, jeez, it's hard to figure out what exactly they should do.
Which I think is what Berk is getting at. There's no way to dissipate the outrage unless you just let protestors do whatever they'd like.
And I think sometimes that is exactly the right response - let them do what they like.
But there is a limit to that. You can argue whether that limit was reached or not, but we all agree that there is SOME limit. I don't think it is fair to blast the police because they are doing what they were trained to do. Now, if they are doing things they were NOT trained to do, then throw the book at them.
But everyone accepts that at least in theory, there comes a point where "protest" is no longer a legitimate justification for some actions. At that point the police are expected to do something. What should they do is not an easy question to answer, and I am generally unwilling to sit here and claim I know that some action is evil/terrible/brutal/etc., and it annoys me to no end when it seems clear to me that those making the argument about police brutality are cherry picking clearly emotional examples, rather than attacking the policies and procedures themselves. That suggests to me that the motivation really has nothing to do with actual concern about people getting hurt.
Or maybe the police should not have used a weapon against a guy sitting on the ground.
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
Or maybe the police should not have used a weapon against a guy sitting on the ground.
This.
I am not sure why some people here think the usual protocol of arrest and moving the protestors away should not not be used in this situation. The long recognized purpose of civil disobedience is to invoke this kind of response from authorities. The protestors for their part are willing to be arrested to make their point and there is no reason for the police to escalate the level of violence needed to deal with the protestors unless the protestors themselves escalate the situation.
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
Or maybe the police should not have used a weapon against a guy sitting on the ground.
Is that a general principle, or specific to protests?
I mean, that sounds so obvious and simple, but it pretty much misses the point.
It is cheap to say what the police should NOT do (and of course it is always whatever it is they DID do that they shouldn't), but what they should do to deal with the guy sitting on the ground?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 22, 2011, 10:55:32 AM
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
Or maybe the police should not have used a weapon against a guy sitting on the ground.
This.
I am not sure why some people here think the usual protocol of arrest and moving the protestors away should not not be used in this situation.
I bet the police did use the "usual protocol" as defined in their standards manual. I am not sure why some people assume they did otherwise. Cite?
Again, why is the police physically attacking the protesters with their hands (and all that leads to, the inevitable physical confrontations, fights, and people getting more seriously injured) assumed to be a better outcome than pepper spray in the general case?
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:00:31 AM
Is that a general principle, or specific to protests?
Always. This shouldn't be difficult for non-sadists
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:00:31 AM
It is cheap to say what the police should NOT do (and of course it is always whatever it is they DID do that they shouldn't), but what they should do to deal with the guy sitting on the ground?
Ignore him. If they can figure out who he is, give him a huge ticket and repo his stuff if he doesn't pay.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 22, 2011, 07:54:34 AM
I'M LEAFING.
Nah. It's just...not as fun. It's not that it's lifeless.
Maybe this place has stayed the same and I'm the one who's changed. That certainly could be.
I think it's because we don't have a My Little Pony thread and are therefore less bright than most of the internet.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 22, 2011, 11:22:42 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 22, 2011, 07:54:34 AM
I'M LEAFING.
Nah. It's just...not as fun. It's not that it's lifeless.
Maybe this place has stayed the same and I'm the one who's changed. That certainly could be.
I hate the internet.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:04:18 AM
I bet the police did use the "usual protocol" as defined in their standards manual. I am not sure why some people assume they did otherwise. Cite?
There is a picture of a police officer pepper spraying a group of people sitting on a road way. Is that the usual police protocol where you live?
Are you being serious or is this another Berkusian/Grumbleresque semantics bs session?
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2011, 11:10:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:00:31 AM
Is that a general principle, or specific to protests?
Always. This shouldn't be difficult for non-sadists
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:00:31 AM
It is cheap to say what the police should NOT do (and of course it is always whatever it is they DID do that they shouldn't), but what they should do to deal with the guy sitting on the ground?
Ignore him. If they can figure out who he is, give him a huge ticket and repo his stuff if he doesn't pay.
Right, so your complaint isn't about tactics, but that they police are doing anything at all.
Can I come protest in your living room, as long as I am "just sitting there"?
How about your front porch?
The street outside your house, blocking your driveway so you cannot leave?
If that is not ok with you, what should the police do to stop me from "...just sitting there" protesting?
I am sure if the police took his posessions, all these same people would not be talking about what fascists they are for doing that though, when they could have just removed him if he refused to leave.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 22, 2011, 11:47:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:04:18 AM
I bet the police did use the "usual protocol" as defined in their standards manual. I am not sure why some people assume they did otherwise. Cite?
There is a picture of a police officer pepper spraying a group of people sitting on a road way. Is that the usual police protocol where you live?
I have no idea what the usual police protocal is for the use of force to handle people illegaly blocking access or whatever they call it. What is the protocal where I live relevant, this didn't happen here.
*You* are arguing that they should not have used pepper spray, presumably because that is not usual protocol. What is your cite to support this claim that this was not the usual protocol for those officers? I have never heard such a claim, and if true makes the issue much simpler.
I'm enjoying the pepper spray meme on the interwho though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYOwCO.jpg&hash=c668fa44b68421d9d04134e6bab2dfe1879ee939)
Especially that one.
That one's great. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_luzrw0znv71r6m1z5o1_500.jpg&hash=0203448f908815925e658a0bcec3238510bdfcd1)
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 08:51:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 06:31:52 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 22, 2011, 02:19:38 AM
:huh: Tasers and guns are definitely used to "catch the bad guy" in situations that aren't solely self-defense. So is pepper spray. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Cops don't like to put their hands on people. Leads to lawsuits. And, they're usually out of shape and have forgotten their come-along tactics they learned in the academy and forget the 8 hours of in-service training they usually skip every year.
Going straight to the baton or the taser or the OC spray isn't the usual doctrine, it's just really laziness.
Don't "come along" tactics imply some kind of pain hold anyway?
Where does zapping someone with pepper spray fit into the continuum of force?
Pepper spray is designed to be debilitating. There's no reason that non-violent protesters need to be debilitated. Picking them up by their pressure points, or turning their arm or wrists, is only as painful as they let it.
Quote
I would think that putting your hands on someone to force them to move has vastly greater potential for actual harm than pepper spray, which is painful but cannot do permanent damage, so far as I know.
I think the outrage is more over the casualness with which it was employed - the police officer just seems kind of "ho-hum, I guess I will blast all these people indiscriminately with this here pepper spray now..."
You put your hands on someone, pick them up and move them, you've got a small chance of bruises, etc. Pepper spray can lead to respiratory distress, and the fact that it's not synthetic can lead to anaphylactic shock. Bruises or respiratory failure, I'll take my chances on the bruises. It's just not nice stuff.
Besides, you spray it on someone, it gets all over you too. Shit stays in your hair, your clothes, etc. Kinda tough handling people you've sprayed when you wind up getting it all over you as well.
I assume that all of Berkut's information about pepper spray came from that one episode of The Critic.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 09:46:14 AM
We ended up talking about his non-lethal weapons. Using physical force was by far his preferred method of subduing someone if he thought he could. More nuance in the level of force, more psychological pressure, more humane. The tazer was the next best choice, and then finally the spray. I asked something like, "Why not use the spray more?" At the time, I thought I'd much rather be sprayed than tazed (having been neither). The main reason was that the spray tends to blow back into the officer's face.
I always bought and carried foam over the spray. Less blow-back potential. Foam, you see where it lands. I've been zapped by accident, I've zapped others by accident, you're all blind if you're using it in a stiff wind. Toss the contacts, they're useless after that.
QuoteTo get certified to use these non-lethal weapons, you had to get blasted once with each. Getting tazed, he said, was horrible but ended immediately. Getting doused in the face with spray, on the other hand, he described as the worst experience of his life. Hours of burning agony, feeling like you are going to suffocate to death, the total helplessness of not being able to get it off no matter what you do (I think water makes it worse), etc.
I only offer this anecdote to emphasize how nasty the spray is. :mellow:
It is nasty shit. And you'll have it on you until you get to go home and shower. Dries in your hair, every time you rub your face you feel it. Never been tazed, since that came after my time, but I definitely could see why it'd be preferable. It least it's over when it's over.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:48:55 AM
My basic argument, however, is that the majority of the people "outraged" are really just on the side of the protesters, and are going to be outraged if the police do anything other than "take off their badges and sit down alongside them."
I'm outraged, and it has nothing to do with the protesters. It has everything to do with lazy ass cops, their refusal to fucking put their hands on people when that's all that's necessary, and the unnecessary use of 15% OC, which is bear repellent, as opposed to the usual 5% issued to most LEOs.
Quote from: MoneyI always bought and carried foam over the spray. Less blow-back potential. Foam, you see where it lands. I've been zapped by accident, I've zapped others by accident, you're all blind if you're using it in a stiff wind. Toss the contacts, they're useless after that.
Indeed. Korea and I got exposed to pepper spray from twenty yards away and ten feet down once, when the bouncer at the (now-defunct) dazzling urbanite club across the street used it on a crowd of unrulies. Explains the windscreens they wear in the video.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2011, 02:44:46 PM
I assume that all of Berkut's information about pepper spray came from that one episode of The Critic.
I know mine did. "Mmmm, jalapeno!"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 02:50:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:48:55 AM
My basic argument, however, is that the majority of the people "outraged" are really just on the side of the protesters, and are going to be outraged if the police do anything other than "take off their badges and sit down alongside them."
I'm outraged, and it has nothing to do with the protesters. It has everything to do with lazy ass cops, their refusal to fucking put their hands on people when that's all that's necessary, and the unnecessary use of 15% OC, which is bear repellent, as opposed to the usual 5% issued to most LEOs.
I still want to know what the cops SOP is though.
Is it to going in blasting pepper spray, or do they have other options for that situation?
It seems clear from what you are saying (and it is nice to see someone who actually knows something rather than just imagining how terrible the bad policemans are) that there ought to be options, especially given the numbers involved. Are the cops lazy, or are they just doing what the book says they should do in this case?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 22, 2011, 10:55:32 AM
This.
I am not sure why some people here think the usual protocol of arrest and moving the protestors away should not not be used in this situation. The long recognized purpose of civil disobedience is to invoke this kind of response from authorities. The protestors for their part are willing to be arrested to make their point and there is no reason for the police to escalate the level of violence needed to deal with the protestors unless the protestors themselves escalate the situation.
Indeed. My view as I've said is that the polie escalated here which was wrong - in my view the police shouldn't escalate a situation at all - and I've said I don't think they should be using force like pepper spray, tasers, riot gear or batons unless absolutely essential to preserve public order or their own safety. There are lots of examples of sit-ins being cleared peacefully by the police disentangling the protestors, sat with linked arms, and carrying them away. That's one of the ways to deal with it that seems far preferable.
Having said all of that you're spot on that from the protestors' point of view police escalation is exactly what they want. It increases the sympathy for them and chips at the legitimacy of the police/power establishment confronting them. It's always been so. I don't like civil rights movement comparisons but I think purely in terms of tactics of non-violent resistance that's something that you have there, in the Northern Ireland civil rights movement and with the 'Quit India' campaign. Police over-reaction is very often what protest movements want in a way.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 02:54:26 PMIt seems clear from what you are saying (and it is nice to see someone who actually knows something rather than just imagining how terrible the bad policemans are) that there ought to be options, especially given the numbers involved. Are the cops lazy, or are they just doing what the book says they should do in this case?
But even if they're just doing what the book says doesn't that just mean the book needs changing?
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:56:14 AM
Can I come protest in your living room, as long as I am "just sitting there"?
How about your front porch?
The street outside your house, blocking your driveway so you cannot leave?
loitering in someone's home is alarming and invasive in a way that sitting in a outdoor plaza is not. I believe you are smarter than this.
Berkut, you can crash on my couch anytime.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 02:50:46 PM
I'm outraged, and it has nothing to do with the protesters. It has everything to do with lazy ass cops, their refusal to fucking put their hands on people when that's all that's necessary, and the unnecessary use of 15% OC, which is bear repellent, as opposed to the usual 5% issued to most LEOs.
Well it's better then those transit cops in San Fran who already had the perp face down and shot the guy in the back.
I don't care about the feelings of the garbage when the streets get cleaned.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 02:50:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:48:55 AM
My basic argument, however, is that the majority of the people "outraged" are really just on the side of the protesters, and are going to be outraged if the police do anything other than "take off their badges and sit down alongside them."
I'm outraged, and it has nothing to do with the protesters. It has everything to do with lazy ass cops, their refusal to fucking put their hands on people when that's all that's necessary, and the unnecessary use of 15% OC, which is bear repellent, as opposed to the usual 5% issued to most LEOs.
I still want to know what the cops SOP is though.
Is it to going in blasting pepper spray, or do they have other options for that situation?
It seems clear from what you are saying (and it is nice to see someone who actually knows something rather than just imagining how terrible the bad policemans are) that there ought to be options, especially given the numbers involved. Are the cops lazy, or are they just doing what the book says they should do in this case?
Quickie continuum of force is: verbal, hands, tools (baton, tazer, OC spray, even flashlight if necessary), deadly force.
I'll just go into what we were trained for when it came to riot and crowd control (and it was about half a morning's worth :lol:); if they are doing non-violent protests like sit-ins and the order is to disperse or arrest, you use as many officers as it takes to remove one at a time. It's not that difficult to conceive, sorta like trying to put the cat into the carrier for a trip to the vets. You pick em up, you take em to the wagon. One at a time.
And considering how campus police forces are trained--particularly with the sensitivities of college-related political action--I can't fathom why that lieutenant did what he did. If I was working that crowd alongside with him, I'd be incredibly pissed that I'd wind up getting that shit all over me handling those kids. And guess what? That's what they wound up doing anyway--put their hands to them and carted them off. Only except carting off kids, you're carting off kids that require medical attention because of that shit.
And how the fuck didn't they think, surrounded by a shitload of Generation Tech, that this wasn't going to be posted onto Youtube within the hour. Just stupid.
I really think it comes down to laziness coupled with liability. Cops nowadays are loathe to put their hands on anybody, and I blame the political correctness that's come with the disappearance of the baton, nightstick and espantoon. It's got a bad rap, but it is an invaluable tool to use in the field when it comes to something like this. Alas, the imagery of nightsticking the darkies doesn't work in media relations anymore. So, they're going to use other tools, tools that are situationally inappropriate.
Hell, I've seen too many times when officers have gone straight from verbal to hands to the gun. Putting a Glock barrel on someone's eyeball because he won't get off the pavement. Now what, dumbass? Never made sense to me.
Now, if they're being violent, then it's on. Kinda like my Dad telling me when 400 BPD officers were bussed down to College Park during the draft riots. Little fuckers were scooping up the tear gas canisters with their fucking lacrosse sticks and tossing them back.
Lacrosse. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Habbaku on November 22, 2011, 01:28:43 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_luzrw0znv71r6m1z5o1_500.jpg&hash=0203448f908815925e658a0bcec3238510bdfcd1)
That one is so beautiful and sublime, on so many levels.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:58:22 AM
I have no idea what the usual police protocal is for the use of force to handle people illegaly blocking access or whatever they call it. What is the protocal where I live relevant, this didn't happen here.
That is the point Berk. You really have no idea what you are talking about but you still engage in semantics. It is mind boggling that you think pepper spaying is ok even given your lack of knowledge. However, if you really are curious about the proper police response to civil disobediance a good place to start is the Hughes report which was written at the Conclusion of the APEC Inquiry.
You should read the section regarding the RCMP officer who pepper sprayed a group of protestors who were sitting on a roadway.
edit: you can save yourself the trouble and just read what cdm wrote. It is pretty much exactly what the Report said.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 03:29:17 PM
That one is so beautiful and sublime, on so many levels.
All the Vietnam-era ones are pretty bitchin'.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F378765_139107856196095_121408401299374_190045_1460852941_n.jpg&hash=6a33aec88fa343b43d828f18e01f34a005a68b3d)
:)
Wonder if that cop knows he's currently in his 15 minutes of fame?
The picking up before pepper spraying arguments have convinced me.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lv07fzMkAE1r6m1z5o1_500.jpg&hash=8ce3d653862d102a8375fa0fbd15bc5ee810557c)
:D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2011, 06:18:17 PM
The picking up before pepper spraying arguments have convinced me.
Thing is, somebody gave that lieutenant the order. to do that. And the campus police chief should be fired, because he should fucking know better.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2011, 06:18:17 PM
The picking up before pepper spraying arguments have convinced me.
Thing is, somebody gave that lieutenant the order. to do that. And the campus police chief should be fired, because he should fucking know better.
There are enough "beat the filthy hippie" types out there that would riot and probably cause a lot of damage.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2011, 02:58:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 02:54:26 PMIt seems clear from what you are saying (and it is nice to see someone who actually knows something rather than just imagining how terrible the bad policemans are) that there ought to be options, especially given the numbers involved. Are the cops lazy, or are they just doing what the book says they should do in this case?
But even if they're just doing what the book says doesn't that just mean the book needs changing?
Of course - there are lots of books out there, and it is certainly the case that police departments should be evaluating how they've handled protests, how others have handled them, and figuring out what needs to be adjusted.
I just don't think this is as easy as you guys want to make it out to be, and that desire to make it seem trivial seems driven by the need to exaggerate the injustice of the police. And had the police simply "dragged them away", I am sure much of the same people would be complaining about that as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 22, 2011, 05:35:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 11:58:22 AM
I have no idea what the usual police protocal is for the use of force to handle people illegaly blocking access or whatever they call it. What is the protocal where I live relevant, this didn't happen here.
That is the point Berk. You really have no idea what you are talking about but you still engage in semantics. It is mind boggling that you think pepper spaying is ok even given your lack of knowledge. However, if you really are curious about the proper police response to civil disobediance a good place to start is the Hughes report which was written at the Conclusion of the APEC Inquiry.
You should read the section regarding the RCMP officer who pepper sprayed a group of protestors who were sitting on a roadway.
edit: you can save yourself the trouble and just read what cdm wrote. It is pretty much exactly what the Report said.
I would say that your continuing crusade to turn every discussion into a personal fight is mind boggling, but it isn't anymore.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 09:17:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
I am open to the idea that using pepper spray on this large group of people indiscriminately was poor police work, but I haven't heard a single actual suggestion about what should have been done instead from anyone complaining.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ia-pl.org%2Fcivil_rights%2Fimages%2FUnconscious_student.jpg&hash=18c399452e1ce3e2363e04e99691708a6cb19541)
OK, so your argument is that they should have physically dragged each protester away instead.
OK, fair enough.
Why?
Why is physically assaulting them a better solution? When the 84 year old woman gets a broken hip from being dragged along the ground, I suspect you would be here saying "ZOMG what fascists! They attacked a poor old lady! Why did they have to even touch her???"
And the next question then becomes - if that is the better solution, why isn't it the standard practice for these police officers. I am assuming that they knew what they were getting into when they showed up to break up the protests, and used whatever their defined SOP stated for handling crowds of non-complying protesters. So they have some manual somewhere that some expert presumably put together, and it said "pepper spray them!"
You are arguing that that SOP should be different - why? Instead of complaining about what happened, perhaps you could tell us your expertise on crowd control, and why you feel that your suggested practice is superior to what they have now.
CountdeMoney said it was SOP less then a page before this post, and they didn't do it because they were lazy. You blind?
Tim keep to the sandbox, mkay?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2011, 11:01:07 PM
CountdeMoney said it was SOP less then a page before this post, and they didn't do it because they were lazy. You blind?
Well, it looks like CdM is wrong.
Berkut, can you suggest any reason why it's acceptable to pepper spray someone who's sitting down in a public place, taking no aggressive action? Beyond "they did it, so they must've had a good reason to and none of you are qualified to question that," I mean.
Quote
Pepper spray cop newest meme
By Jeanne Moos
New York (CNN) - Pepper spray can hurt, but online mockery stings for a lot longer.
First, an officer hosed down protestors with pepper spray, now he's getting hosed back, peppered with ridicule for "watering my hippies."
Now he's spraying everyone from Santa to Jesus at the last supper. He's spraying Lassie and he's spraying Snoopy.
He's become what's called a meme, an idea reproducing across the web, even spraying another meme, the keyboard cat.
He's spraying The Beatles on their Sergeant Pepper album; he's spraying to stop the flag raisers at Iwo Jima. His pepper spray replaces the torch on the Statue of Liberty, and he's spraying in famous paintings, at historic moments, at national monuments, and now we know why House Speaker John Boehner cries; he too has been pepper sprayed by the now infamous officer.
His name is Lieutenant John Pike, but he's been tagged with the nickname PepperSpray Pike. That's the name on his fake parody Twitter account, full of bellicose tweets.
"Wanna see the super committee do something? Give me 10 minutes with them in a locked room with spray," said the fake account.
The hacker group "Anonymous" went after Lieutenant Pike by publicizing his phone and address. Someone even created the "Pepper spray cop's lament."
When Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly described pepper spray this way, "It's like a derivative of actual pepper. It's a food product, essentially," she was mocked.
Kelly would probably like to eat her words, as long as they weren't seasoned with pepper spray.
On Amazon.com, critics are writing reviews of actual pepper spray, calling it the "Cadillac of citizen repression technology." Pepper spray is being aimed at old people and the Village People. It's even being shot up Marilyn Monroe's dress.
Anyone care to give thanks for pepper spray on Turkey Day?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.bizjournals.com%2Fcms_media%2Fseattle%2Fpepersprayknowyourmemetf.jpg%3Fsite%3Dtechflash.com&hash=8ae6e0291610f5dda7d5b6ded6f52739bcd5fee7)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.occupythegame.com%2Fpepper_spray_used_at_UC_davis.jpg&hash=3ff9ab4f2288446b4fdb154d5f8390fe534851dc)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.occupythegame.com%2Fjohn_pike2.jpg&hash=fe69ffd3553655e3bf1ab9368c90bc80983c8213)
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 10:48:13 PMOf course - there are lots of books out there, and it is certainly the case that police departments should be evaluating how they've handled protests, how others have handled them, and figuring out what needs to be adjusted.
Yes but there's a difference between the police evaluating what's the operationally best way of dealing with protests and general limits that us laymen should be involved in setting. It's up to us not just the police to establish what are the acceptable boundaries of policing - such as when force should be used - and then it's up to the police to work operationally within that framework. Appealing for special knowledge or a 'what would you do' doesn't seem helpful.
QuoteI just don't think this is as easy as you guys want to make it out to be, and that desire to make it seem trivial seems driven by the need to exaggerate the injustice of the police. And had the police simply "dragged them away", I am sure much of the same people would be complaining about that as well.
But there have been hundreds of sit-ins over the years that have had people getting dragged away and I don't think they've had a flood of litigants costing the police a lot of money or that they've caused any major controversy. I can't think of any example where there has been outrage over that.
That's how the sit-in at my uni ended (it was by history students outraged that I think they had only 1-2 teaching hours a week) and there wasn't any outcry.
HK police usually drag non-violent protesters away, one-by-one. Pepper spray is only used if the protesters hit back in some way, e.g. throw objects, punch the police. If they chain themselves to objects or to each other, the police simply cut the chains, then form teams of 4-6 officers to drag each individual protester to the waiting police vehicles.
It is manpower intensive. HK police can mobilize thousands of men with good training in riot control at a moment's notice, while still maintain adequate police coverage in the rest of the city. We have about 30,000 full time police officers, which is a luxury a lot of other cities don't have.
Mono, to go off the main topic for a bit, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Firstly, to what extent does the current HK police force maintain the traditions and policing style of the old colonial force? Secondly, how does this compare with mainland policing?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2011, 05:18:06 AM
Mono, to go off the main topic for a bit, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Firstly, to what extent does the current HK police force maintain the traditions and policing style of the old colonial force? Secondly, how does this compare with mainland policing?
1. Quite different, and in a good way. The old colonial force had a pretty bad reputation among the population. Mostly for demanding bribes from pretty much everybody from the triads to every shopkeeper. The government, through raising salaries through the roof and setting up a dedicated law enforcement agency with the express goal of policing the police, turned that around. Now the police is quite highly regarded as modern and professional.
2. They can't be more different :lol: The mainland police is arbitrary, and often downright barbaric. They can lock people up for months and impose "administrative jail sentences." The HK police is by the book in comparison.
Thanks :cool:
So it was true about the police force back in the old days. I had heard that it was a good place for a second-rate person to make his fortune by dubious means; they used to advertise in the British press and it seemed that any old Caucasian could step into a fairly senior role right from the start.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2011, 06:02:26 AM
any old Caucasian could step into a fairly senior role right from the start.
That's true not just for the police, but for the civil service in general. The civil service is quite cleverly designed so that the Brits hold real power without resorting to blatent racial discrimination, while still allowing some Chinese to reach the top. We still have a few Brits in the civil service and the police force in 2011, though most of them are not too far from retirement.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 10:50:52 PM
I would say that your continuing crusade to turn every discussion into a personal fight is mind boggling, but it isn't anymore.
Stop being a dick, Berkut.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2011, 02:05:19 AM
Berkut, can you suggest any reason why it's acceptable to pepper spray someone who's sitting down in a public place, taking no aggressive action? Beyond "they did it, so they must've had a good reason to and none of you are qualified to question that," I mean.
That's going to be kinda tough to do, since pepper spray is a defensive tactic, not an offensive one.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2011, 02:05:19 AM
Berkut, can you suggest any reason why it's acceptable to pepper spray someone who's sitting down in a public place, taking no aggressive action? Beyond "they did it, so they must've had a good reason to and none of you are qualified to question that," I mean.
I don't know - do you mean in this particular instance, where it seems pretty clear that there were not enough of them that physically removing them one by one was an option? Then judging by CDMs info, that seems like the better choice.
On the other hand, I can understand how history has resulted in that becoming the first option in a SOP for dealing with people protesting illegally and refusing to be dealt with absent some measure of force.
But like I said before, if the police in this particular case had physically removed those people by hand, and someone was hurt as a result, I think the same people bitching about police brutality would still be bitching about police brutality, and probably saying they had no right to touch those peaceful people who were just sitting there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2011, 02:16:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 10:48:13 PMOf course - there are lots of books out there, and it is certainly the case that police departments should be evaluating how they've handled protests, how others have handled them, and figuring out what needs to be adjusted.
Yes but there's a difference between the police evaluating what's the operationally best way of dealing with protests and general limits that us laymen should be involved in setting.
That is true to an extent, but the means by which that is effected is already in place. People hire legislators who right laws which we then demand that the police enforce. Which is exactly what happened. Prior to the protests, there was some SOP for handling this. The question is, was that SOP followed, where is there discretion, and if it was violated, who made the decision to step outside of it?
Or perhaps it was not violated at all, in which case the bitch is not with the officer, it is with the SOP.
My point is that everyone bitching don't even know the answer, but that isn't going to stop them, and they mostly don't even seem to care, which suggests to me that their complaint isn't really about the tactics, but the result. They want to complain about the fascist pigs, so this is their chosen means of doing so. If it wasn't this, it would be something else.
The only person in this entire thread who actually has any idea what the typical SOP is or was is Seedy. And even he only knows from the standpoint of what is typical in his past experience.
As more information is presented, it seems likely that the protesters sitting there being sprayed in the iconic photo are NOT being dealt with by the normal SOP - on the other hand, the complaints are not limited to them. The 84 year old woman, for example, was part of a Seatle protest that blocked several streets and refused to leave when the police told them to - they were not sitting down. Was that done properly? Do you know? I don't. I would like to know before I condemn the people doing their job though. I guess that makes me some kind of asshole.
Quote
It's up to us not just the police to establish what are the acceptable boundaries of policing - such as when force should be used - and then it's up to the police to work operationally within that framework. Appealing for special knowledge or a 'what would you do' doesn't seem helpful.
Asking what the boundaries are and whether some action fit within those boundaries first of all, and what ought to be changed as an alternative doesn't seem helpful? Really?
I think complaining without knowledge or any suggestion for an alternative is what doesn't seem helpful myself, but YMMV I guess.
Quote
QuoteI just don't think this is as easy as you guys want to make it out to be, and that desire to make it seem trivial seems driven by the need to exaggerate the injustice of the police. And had the police simply "dragged them away", I am sure much of the same people would be complaining about that as well.
But there have been hundreds of sit-ins over the years that have had people getting dragged away and I don't think they've had a flood of litigants costing the police a lot of money or that they've caused any major controversy. I can't think of any example where there has been outrage over that.
Miami protests saw the police beating the crap out of people with batons and those body shields who refused to disperse. Lots and lots and lots of people complained about that.
Police are often assholes. Shock!
Quote from: Berkut on November 23, 2011, 08:00:17 AMI don't know - do you mean in this particular instance, where it seems pretty clear that there were not enough of them that physically removing them one by one was an option? Then judging by CDMs info, that seems like the better choice.
Yes, I mean in this particular instance.
QuoteOn the other hand, I can understand how history has resulted in that becoming the first option in a SOP for dealing with people protesting illegally and refusing to be dealt with absent some measure of force.
Is using pepper spray on sitting, non-resisting demonstrators SOP? It seems to me that the controversy about this is precisely because the UC Davis police did not follow SOP. If it was SOP, I'd expect we'd have heard about it by now, but maybe not. Do you have any particular sources or previous incidents in mind that make you conclude that it's SOP? Because for my part I can't think of any similar incidents.
On a different note, was the students' protest illegal? I was under the impression that there was a pretty strong right to assemble in public places in the US.
QuoteBut like I said before, if the police in this particular case had physically removed those people by hand, and someone was hurt as a result, I think the same people bitching about police brutality would still be bitching about police brutality, and probably saying they had no right to touch those peaceful people who were just sitting there.
I think more people are bitching about police brutality than normally would, because this particular police action seems uncommonly brutal given the circumstances. CdM is not generally noted for being easily riled up about police brutality; CC for his part has made his loathing of the various occupy protesters quite clear as well. I don't think you'd hear either of them complaining if the police had simply removed the protesters one by one and someone had dislocated a shoulder or something like that.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2011, 10:50:52 AM
QuoteBut like I said before, if the police in this particular case had physically removed those people by hand, and someone was hurt as a result, I think the same people bitching about police brutality would still be bitching about police brutality, and probably saying they had no right to touch those peaceful people who were just sitting there.
I think more people are bitching about police brutality than normally would, because this particular police action seems uncommonly brutal given the circumstances. CdM is not generally noted for being easily riled up about police brutality; CC for his part has made his loathing of the various occupy protesters quite clear as well. I don't think you'd hear either of them complaining if the police had simply removed the protesters one by one and someone had dislocated a shoulder or something like that.
But then on the other hand, you have Mihali.
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:54:17 AMBut then on the other hand, you have Mihali.
More than balanced out by you, I should think.
I think it's time police just go back to busting heads and physically thrashing people who resist them when they want to move them somewhere (based on legal orders.) If the police are told someone is trespassing, or that a crowd needs to be disperse, just use the old school sticks and hands.
The TASER and the pepper spray are almost certainly less harmful on a grand scheme of things, and result in fewer injuries. But they've become politically sensitive and now people act like you're running a gas chamber if you use either. So just go back to the old school methods which work fine, and then after people get back injuries or head injuries because cops thumped the shit out of them for resisting too much you'll see us go back to pepper spray and TASERs until the cycle repeats.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2011, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:54:17 AMBut then on the other hand, you have Mihali.
More than balanced out by you, I should think.
I think both the protesters and cops are at fault here. I think on some level that's why New York is so tired of OWS. It was weird having to side with the NYPD which we typically dislike and then at this point the protest here seems more just a fight between the cops and protesters...with us just being the battleground.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 23, 2011, 11:07:07 AM
I think it's time police just go back to busting heads and physically thrashing people who resist them when they want to move them somewhere (based on legal orders.) If the police are told someone is trespassing, or that a crowd needs to be disperse, just use the old school sticks and hands.
The TASER and the pepper spray are almost certainly less harmful on a grand scheme of things, and result in fewer injuries. But they've become politically sensitive and now people act like you're running a gas chamber if you use either. So just go back to the old school methods which work fine, and then after people get back injuries or head injuries because cops thumped the shit out of them for resisting too much you'll see us go back to pepper spray and TASERs until the cycle repeats.
I don't really agree with what you're saying, but yes - TASER and OC spray have become very politically sensitive. Which is unfortunate because as you point out they are far less dangerous than other, traditional police tools such as batons and other means of pain compliance.
Just pull a noriega and blast the collected works of william shatner at the protesters.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 11:16:41 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 23, 2011, 11:07:07 AM
I think it's time police just go back to busting heads and physically thrashing people who resist them when they want to move them somewhere (based on legal orders.) If the police are told someone is trespassing, or that a crowd needs to be disperse, just use the old school sticks and hands.
The TASER and the pepper spray are almost certainly less harmful on a grand scheme of things, and result in fewer injuries. But they've become politically sensitive and now people act like you're running a gas chamber if you use either. So just go back to the old school methods which work fine, and then after people get back injuries or head injuries because cops thumped the shit out of them for resisting too much you'll see us go back to pepper spray and TASERs until the cycle repeats.
I don't really agree with what you're saying, but yes - TASER and OC spray have become very politically sensitive. Which is unfortunate because as you point out they are far less dangerous than other, traditional police tools such as batons and other means of pain compliance.
Are you not a law and order guy? I'm all for protest rights, but if you're on private property or you are destroying public property or denying the public its use (by converting a for-public-use-park into a private colony, for example, that the rest of the public cannot use because you've erected residential structures), then there is a lawful need for the police to do something. This will involve moving people, sometimes against their will. For government to work it has to be able to use force on its people, and if we're at a point where we can't use pepper spray or TASERs because liberals get too offended by them, then we're back to cops wrestling people and carrying them off, and if those people get too out of control then you beat them with a baton or such. (And when properly done you don't hit them on the head or anything, but instead use it as pain compliance by targeting areas of the body where you aren't likely to cause permanent injury.)
The UC Davis pepper spraying isn't something I'm saying was right and is only being opposed because of knee-jerk anti-pepper spray feelings, that whole situation could have been handled differently. But generally speaking if property rights are to exist, or if public property for the enjoyment of the public is to exist at some point you may have to use force to stop recalcitrant bums and hobos from ruining things and that force is going to sometimes necessitate some pain, regardless of method.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 23, 2011, 11:26:44 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 11:16:41 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 23, 2011, 11:07:07 AM
I think it's time police just go back to busting heads and physically thrashing people who resist them when they want to move them somewhere (based on legal orders.) If the police are told someone is trespassing, or that a crowd needs to be disperse, just use the old school sticks and hands.
The TASER and the pepper spray are almost certainly less harmful on a grand scheme of things, and result in fewer injuries. But they've become politically sensitive and now people act like you're running a gas chamber if you use either. So just go back to the old school methods which work fine, and then after people get back injuries or head injuries because cops thumped the shit out of them for resisting too much you'll see us go back to pepper spray and TASERs until the cycle repeats.
I don't really agree with what you're saying, but yes - TASER and OC spray have become very politically sensitive. Which is unfortunate because as you point out they are far less dangerous than other, traditional police tools such as batons and other means of pain compliance.
Are you not a law and order guy? I'm all for protest rights, but if you're on private property or you are destroying public property or denying the public its use (by converting a for-public-use-park into a private colony, for example, that the rest of the public cannot use because you've erected residential structures), then there is a lawful need for the police to do something. This will involve moving people, sometimes against their will. For government to work it has to be able to use force on its people, and if we're at a point where we can't use pepper spray or TASERs because liberals get too offended by them, then we're back to cops wrestling people and carrying them off, and if those people get too out of control then you beat them with a baton or such. (And when properly done you don't hit them on the head or anything, but instead use it as pain compliance by targeting areas of the body where you aren't likely to cause permanent injury.)
The UC Davis pepper spraying isn't something I'm saying was right and is only being opposed because of knee-jerk anti-pepper spray feelings, that whole situation could have been handled differently. But generally speaking if property rights are to exist, or if public property for the enjoyment of the public is to exist at some point you may have to use force to stop recalcitrant bums and hobos from ruining things and that force is going to sometimes necessitate some pain, regardless of method.
Of course I'm a law and order guy. :cool:
However my answers are pretty much the same as CdMs. These protestros are displaying what is termed 'passive resistance' - they are not complying with police orders, but are not actively resisting police, and are not engaging in assaultive behaviour. The proper police response is to use a soft physical response, and the use of any weapon is not authorized. That soft physical response it of course to lift/remove the individuals involved away from the scene.
So no - there is a continuum regarding the level of force that can be used, and just because physical force is called for does not mean you can use any level of force you wish.
If they start to physically resist, then and only then can more hard physical responses be authorized, be it pain compliance or weapons.
I had a trial not too long ago - police arrived on the scene in the midst of a very loud and verbal argument. They attempted to separate the two individuals to determine just what was going on. The one individual refused to follow directions. After a couple minutes of that, when police tried to physically escort him away, he then physically began to resist being moved. The officer then gave him three warnings that if he did not comply he was going to punch him in the nose - and after he continued to resist that's exactly what he did. :lol: Anyways, that officer gave one of the best explanations over police use of force I've ever heard on the stand.
For those who are curious, here is the RCMP Use of Froce guidelines, which are simialr to those of police forces across north America.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcmp-grc.gc.ca%2Fccaps-spcca%2Fcew-ai%2Fimages%2Fimim_migi_lg.jpg&hash=b6ef6e23a700be27da515e1d99969bc824b452c3)
When people took to the streets and protested in Libya we gave them air support. Here we pepper spray them. Bit of a double standard. NIMBY to the nth degree. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 11:38:23 AM
Of course I'm a law and order guy. :cool:
Thing is, Otto isn't: he's military, so he's a
search and destroy clear and secure guy.
And that's only reinforced as a Virginian and Yankees fan.
I can't help but admit that in the academy when I read The Campaigns of Napoleon (http://www.amazon.com/Campaigns-Napoleon-David-G-Chandler/dp/0025236601/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322070167&sr=8-1), one of my favorite parts is near the beginning in the brief biographical portion of the book in which it discusses how a young Napoleon Bonaparte disperses a Parisian mob with grapeshot.
That's what real order is about, and not something I'm entirely against seeing done.
I don't know why that translation has stuck. Grapeshot is a naval round. Boner fired canister. :nerd:
and didn't he fire at the people who ended up winning the revolution?
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2011, 12:54:27 PM
and didn't he fire at the people who ended up winning the revolution?
No, he fired on members of the middle class who were trying to stage some kind of counterrevolution. Or something like that.
Ah, ok. Then i agree. Buckshot the protesters :lol:
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2011, 12:59:40 PM
Ah, ok. Then i agree. Buckshot the protesters :lol:
Cannister. :mad:
The occupy protestors who claim to represent the 99% in Vancouver found out yesterday they need to come up with a new slogan. After being removed from the grounds they occupied they tried to move to a public park in an area they might have thought they would recieve support. The park is in what might be thought of as a working class and it votes heavily in favour of the NDP (or leftist party for people who dont know).
But they were greeted by residents who told the protestors in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of their park.
I have two thoughts about that. First, I told Grallon when this all started that the day I see the middle class join the protestors then that is the day I would think this is a bona fide political movement in Canada and not just a faux protest copying the occupy movement in the US. Again to clarify I make no comment on the occupy movement in the US since I think the circumstances in the US are very different. The events of last night demonstrate the hope of Grallon that this signals some kind of fundamental movement in Canada is well far of the mark.
Second, I have been very critical of the police not enforcing the law but waiting for the Courts to tell them they can move people out through the procedure of obtaining an injunction. One of the risks of police not enforcing the law is that private individuals might feel compelled to enforce the law themselves. It came close to that last night but eventually City officials arrived on the scene and the protestors dispersed. I am glad nothing more serious occurred when the protestors and local residents clashed. But I think it provides a good warning to police that they need to be more proactive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2011, 12:59:40 PM
Ah, ok. Then i agree. Buckshot the protesters :lol:
Cannister. :mad:
cannons and cannister shot are harder to procure :P
Which park CC?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2011, 02:11:10 PM
The occupy protestors who claim to represent the 99% in Vancouver found out yesterday they need to come up with a new slogan. After being removed from the grounds they occupied they tried to move to a public park in an area they might have thought they would recieve support. The park is in what might be thought of as a working class and it votes heavily in favour of the NDP (or leftist party for people who dont know).
But they were greeted by residents who told the protestors in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of their park.
I have two thoughts about that. First, I told Grallon when this all started that the day I see the middle class join the protestors then that is the day I would think this is a bona fide political movement in Canada and not just a faux protest copying the occupy movement in the US. Again to clarify I make no comment on the occupy movement in the US since I think the circumstances in the US are very different. The events of last night demonstrate the hope of Grallon that this signals some kind of fundamental movement in Canada is well far of the mark.
Second, I have been very critical of the police not enforcing the law but waiting for the Courts to tell them they can move people out through the procedure of obtaining an injunction. One of the risks of police not enforcing the law is that private individuals might feel compelled to enforce the law themselves. It came close to that last night but eventually City officials arrived on the scene and the protestors dispersed. I am glad nothing more serious occurred when the protestors and local residents clashed. But I think it provides a good warning to police that they need to be more proactive.
If police had moved in immediately on the first night I suspect that the protestors would have garned substantial public support for their cause. It was by waiting, letting this all play out, and seeing what their little camps turned into, which solidly (in my opinion) turned public opinion against the protestors.
Otto's drunken rant makes me slightly more symptomatic to these idiots.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 02:35:19 PM
Otto's drunken rant makes me slightly more symptomatic to these idiots.
:lmfao:
"sympathetic"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2011, 02:11:10 PM
The occupy protestors who claim to represent the 99% in Vancouver found out yesterday they need t
I have two thoughts about that. First, I told Grallon when this all started that the day I see the middle class join the protestors then that is the day I would think this is a bona fide political movement in Canada and not just a faux protest copying the occupy movement in the US. Again to clarify I make no comment on the occupy movement in the US since I think the circumstances in the US are very different. The events of last night demonstrate the hope of Grallon that this signals some kind of fundamental movement in Canada is well far of the mark.
Didn't you say that in Vancouver the protesters were all well off university students?
:lol:
Symbiotic might work too.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 02:26:32 PMIf police had moved in immediately on the first night I suspect that the protestors would have garned substantial public support for their cause. It was by waiting, letting this all play out, and seeing what their little camps turned into, which solidly (in my opinion) turned public opinion against the protestors.
Yeah for sure. If the police had pushed them out immediately, I'd probably have been fairly sympathetic even if I thought the whole thing was a little off. But now? After heroin overdoses, thoroughly mixed messages and the impact on the local businesses I have very little sympathy for them at all; they got to make their case in the public sphere and this is where it got them.
I am very supportive of these people!
Every morning when I drive by the Occupy Rochester park I beep my horn, loud and long, for support as their sign asks. Granted, it's 5 AM and most them probably aren't awake (or there, I see tons of tents but maybe the five same people) enough to appreciate it but every little bit counts!
I'm sort of torn over the whole thing.
The problem with it is that it had no real end game. Were they going to overthrow the system? No.
I also felt it had a kind of exclusive attitude to it. I went downtown Toronto on Saturday afternoon (before going to a Leaf game to which I had a $450 ticket) and sat in for half an hour. I couldn't follow their strange hand signals.
Their vagueness also led to a lot of misunderstanding. I've heard people say that they're protesting cause they can't find work....or tehy're protesting because daycare is too expensive....or because they can't afford tuition.
Every protest needs leadership and a clear agenda. This had neither.
These guys weren't going to change the world.
Which is unfortunate because I do believe it needs changing and I don't think voting for Party A over Party B is going to change it.
Now, although as I said, I don't think these protesters are doing anything useful--I'm also not necessarily sure of their need to camp out. But that's the method they chose and I am against their dispersal. People should be allowed to peacefully demonstrate and protest. I don't buy into the whole "people want to walk in parks" nonsense. There's plenty of other parks. So it disrupts a few businesses. So does a road closure or a snow storm. Or the G8 summits.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2011, 03:45:32 PM
Now, although as I said, I don't think these protesters are doing anything useful--I'm also not necessarily sure of their need to camp out. But that's the method they chose and I am against their dispersal. People should be allowed to peacefully demonstrate and protest. I don't buy into the whole "people want to walk in parks" nonsense. There's plenty of other parks. So it disrupts a few businesses. So does a road closure or a snow storm. Or the G8 summits.
Justice Brown wrote a very nice decision in going over what restrictions can (and can not) be imposed on the right of free expression when he kicked them out.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc6862/2011onsc6862.html
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2011, 03:45:32 PM
I don't buy into the whole "people want to walk in parks" nonsense. There's plenty of other parks. So it disrupts a few businesses. So does a road closure or a snow storm. Or the G8 summits.
There's also plenty of other places protesters can spend the night.
The snow storm comment is just bizarre.
What I mean is if you have a business, sometimes shit happens and you lose business. You can take out risk insurance.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2011, 04:03:10 PM
What I mean is if you have a business, sometimes shit happens and you lose business. You can take out risk insurance.
Even assuming there's such as thing as loss of business due to political protest insurance, why is it fair to impose the cost of the premium on those guys?
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 03:51:33 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2011, 03:45:32 PM
Now, although as I said, I don't think these protesters are doing anything useful--I'm also not necessarily sure of their need to camp out. But that's the method they chose and I am against their dispersal. People should be allowed to peacefully demonstrate and protest. I don't buy into the whole "people want to walk in parks" nonsense. There's plenty of other parks. So it disrupts a few businesses. So does a road closure or a snow storm. Or the G8 summits.
Justice Brown wrote a very nice decision in going over what restrictions can (and can not) be imposed on the right of free expression when he kicked them out.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc6862/2011onsc6862.html
thanks for posting that. And it's a fine, well articulated and fair ruling. Doesn't mean I have to agree. ;)
Disappearment! :o
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 02:26:32 PM
If police had moved in immediately on the first night I suspect that the protestors would have garned substantial public support for their cause. It was by waiting, letting this all play out, and seeing what their little camps turned into, which solidly (in my opinion) turned public opinion against the protestors.
In my view it is not the role of the police to balance such political concerns. The role of the police is to enforce the law. It may be that the Major could make such a political judgment and then instruct the police in how they should respond but that is not what happened here. In numerous interviews during the "occupation" the Mayor said he was not instructing the police or any officials but that they were using their own judgment.
In my view the correct approach is for the police to enforce the law and then if anyone arrested wishes to challenge the validity of that arrest by making a Charter challenge then they may do so. I believe that is what occured in Toronto.
I dont think politicians should to the courts to tell them what to do for a number of reasons. One of them was easily seen yesterday. The City obtained an injunction removing the protestors from the Art Gallery. So they just moved across the street to the Courthouse grounds. Another injunction removed them from there so they moved on to another location where residents had to take things into their own hands.
The police should not have to be told by the Courts to enforce the law.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2011, 02:50:25 PM
Didn't you say that in Vancouver the protesters were all well off university students?
Yep, that is exactly how it started out. It is pretty well recognized that the "occupiers" changed character considerably as the kids out for the street theatre went home. What is your point?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2011, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 02:26:32 PM
If police had moved in immediately on the first night I suspect that the protestors would have garned substantial public support for their cause. It was by waiting, letting this all play out, and seeing what their little camps turned into, which solidly (in my opinion) turned public opinion against the protestors.
In my view it is not the role of the police to balance such political concerns. The role of the police is to enforce the law. It may be that the Major could make such a political judgment and then instruct the police in how they should respond but that is not what happened here. In numerous interviews during the "occupation" the Mayor said he was not instructing the police or any officials but that they were using their own judgment.
In my view the correct approach is for the police to enforce the law and then if anyone arrested wishes to challenge the validity of that arrest by making a Charter challenge then they may do so. I believe that is what occured in Toronto.
I dont think politicians should to the courts to tell them what to do for a number of reasons. One of them was easily seen yesterday. The City obtained an injunction removing the protestors from the Art Gallery. So they just moved across the street to the Courthouse grounds. Another injunction removed them from there so they moved on to another location where residents had to take things into their own hands.
The police should not have to be told by the Courts to enforce the law.
There has always been substantial discretion in how police "enforce the law". I know of no police agency that automatically, robotically lays every charge, arrests every lawbreaker, etc.
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:54:17 AM
But then on the other hand, you have Mihali.
:lol:
I'm cast as the conservative reactionary in my real-life discussions of Occupy (Wall Street, Boston, Seattle, Harvard, Davis) because I think the camping-out premise has definitely run its course by now, if it was ever a great way to stage a protest.
I think strategically it is too divisive, since only a small core of people will commit to sleeping rough in the name of a vague cause (especially in the face of police violence), and it deters fellow-travelers from participating. And it's only by virtue of a mild Fall in the Northeast that things have lasted as long as they have.
I agree with what some labor guy said, that the leading people in the groups need to leverage the notoriety from the physical Occupying into a more general campaign of rallies, candidates, etc.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 04:32:45 PM
There has always been substantial discretion in how police "enforce the law". I know of no police agency that automatically, robotically lays every charge, arrests every lawbreaker, etc.
I am not talking about discretion in enforcing the law. This was a case where the police said the law was being breached. What I am disagreeing with is that the police said they could do nothing without an injunction. That is simply wrong headed.
edit: I read through the decision in Toronto. That is the correct approach in my view. The Police enforce the law and then, if someone believes their rights have been violated, a Court is asked to sort it out.
In the context of the reasons dealing with the alleged duty to consult the Court was quite right to note that otherwise a Municipality could become paralyzed if it was unable to enforce its own laws. Just as it could become parazlyzed if the police refuse to enforce the law without court order.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 12:52:37 PM
I don't know why that translation has stuck. Grapeshot is a naval round. Boner fired canister. :nerd:
I dunno what Bony fired, but Grapeshot, while used more in naval applications, was also used on land. It fired larger projectiles than canister. There is nothing improbable about a land battle using grapeshot.
Is this the long dreamed of Directorate hijack? :o
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
Each time I forget how loony the left can get, I just wait to hear from one of them on Languish.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
Otto's just drunk again.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
So reactionary is anyone who disagrees with that righteousness of the occupiers?
I'm a revanchist. Revenge for 1979!
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
How can you possibly forget?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2011, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
So reactionary is anyone who disagrees with that righteousness of the occupiers?
I'm pretty liberal here, and I don't think much of them. At least I think I'm pretty liberal. :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 06:29:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2011, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
So reactionary is anyone who disagrees with that righteousness of the occupiers?
I'm pretty liberal here, and I don't think much of them. At least I think I'm pretty liberal. :unsure:
I see, you must be suffering from some form of false consciousness. You are obviously reactionary scum and will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
No.
To me, a reactionary is someone who almost always finds personal contentment in the status quo, for whom any situation could always be worse, and therefore, should never be contested. It would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any - should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so. I distinguish it from conservatives, because conservatives usually have elaborated reasons to defend the values they feel are threatened.
And, of course, reactionary is - much like fascist - a polemical word which almost always necessitates an explanation
Can a person subscribe to only two or three of those positions and still be a reactionary? :hmm:
Oex, I guess you missed all the posts about the salutory effects of civil disobedience. What is missing of course is the fact that it is "disobedience". What people now seem to want is to be able to engage in civil disobeidience without acutally having to face the consquences which has always imo been the most effective part of civil disobediance - that people say they feel so strongly about in issue that they are willing to be arrested and perhaps be put in jail for it.
What has somehow evolved is a "right" to civil disobedience that is somehow protected by the law. It is not. That is the whole point of civil disobedience!
The occupy movement could easily protest without breaking laws. But they didnt. And to point out that they have engaged in civil disobedience is reactionary?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2011, 05:39:59 PM
Is this the long dreamed of Directorate hijack? :o
I prefer the Convention. If OWS was run by Turreau, the Vendee would already have been dealt with.
Quote from: garbonEach time I forget how loony the left can get, I just wait to hear from one of them on Languish.
Mihali and I have names, garbon.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 23, 2011, 04:33:58 PM
I think strategically it is too divisive, since only a small core of people will commit to sleeping rough in the name of a vague cause (especially in the face of police violence), and it deters fellow-travelers from participating. And it's only by virtue of a mild Fall in the Northeast that things have lasted as long as they have.
I agree with what some labor guy said, that the leading people in the groups need to leverage the notoriety from the physical Occupying into a more general campaign of rallies, candidates, etc.
They should show up at GOP political rallies with guns, just like the Teabaggers did with Obama's campaign, because nobody seems to have a problem with that.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 06:33:26 PM
No.
To me, a reactionary is someone who almost always finds personal contentment in the status quo, for whom any situation could always be worse, and therefore, should never be contested. It would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any - should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so. I distinguish it from conservatives, because conservatives usually have elaborated reasons to defend the values they feel are threatened.
And, of course, reactionary is - much like fascist - a polemical word which almost always necessitates an explanation
Huh. I always consider reactionaries to be not so passive. I think of a reactionary who wants to change things back (often to a mythical time period). We want to take our country back! is the rally cry of the reactionary. Who that is often different. Liberals, Jews, Communists, the PTA, etc. Hence they are "reacting" to something. A reactionary need not actually be bad. If some crazy dictatorship has taken over you may very well be in your rights to want things to return to the way they were.
I would consider Fascism a form of reactionary politics, (though not the only one. I believe Hitler characterized his conservative enemies as reactionary).
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 06:33:26 PMNo.
To me, a reactionary is someone who almost always finds personal contentment in the status quo, for whom any situation could always be worse, and therefore, should never be contested. It would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any - should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so. I distinguish it from conservatives, because conservatives usually have elaborated reasons to defend the values they feel are threatened.
And, of course, reactionary is - much like fascist - a polemical word which almost always necessitates an explanation.
I agree with this and like it a lot. I think it's spot on.
QuoteI would consider Fascism a form of reactionary politics, (though not the only one. I believe Hitler characterized his conservative enemies as reactionary).
I think you'd be wrong. Fascism's basically modernism + kitsch. The only reactionary Fascist governments I can think of would be, possibly, Spain and Portugal. Everywhere else Fascism's resolutely about the future and sort-of smashing the past.
In Italy and Germany they were about bring back past glories. For the Italians it was the Roman Empire. For the Germans it was some mythical nonsense, but more immediately destroying the Republic, returning Germany to it's status as a great power, and taking the country back from Jews and Communists.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
Oex, I guess you missed all the posts about the salutory effects of civil disobedience.
Languish is very much right-wing, stamp-on-the-hippies. Whenever you get the usual suspects trying to defend something perceived as leftist, he's rapidly surrounded by your clan (hi Berk!).
Also, it's salutary. :bowler:
They're reactionary in that they're reacting against something. The distinction I'd make is that reactionary's are about preserving the past and the status quo, whereas Fascism's about destroying.
So in Italy and Germany this wasn't just a reaction against the Jews and the Communists but against a lot of the established churches, against the industrialists, the upper class and the old institutions. They were all part of the establishment that'd failed Germany or Italy (as ideas) and allowed the soul-sapping self-indulgence of liberalism. The destruction of that and ultimately the replacement of it all with the state and the leader as the core of the system was the goal of Fascism.
I think if you're calling for a return to a mythic Golden Age - whether it's the Roman Empire or some Tacitan ideal of Teutonicness - then you're not really 'reactionary' or 'conservative' in any meaningful sense. You're as revolutionary and as addicted to the future as Communism.
As I say I think the Iberian forms of Fascism are different. But I'd say that pseudo-Fascist third world regimes also look a bit more like Italy than Spain in this respect.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 23, 2011, 11:52:55 PMLanguish is very much right-wing, stamp-on-the-hippies. Whenever you get the usual suspects trying to defend something perceived as leftist, he's rapidly surrounded by your clan (hi Berk!).
Also, it's salutary. :bowler:
I find it weird that Languish is generally anti-government. Government should be controlled and viewed with deep suspicion and God help you if you think public pensions are a good idea. Except, of course, for the coercive wing of the state where we should listen to experts, generally people are trying their best, it is better if you just do what your told and there's no real need for the state having to take too much responsibility.
I find it weird people like to shit on the arm of the government. We've all collectively, from stupidest leftist French idiot to farthest right wing nutjob living in Texas agreed that the government should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. We've agreed to hire professionals to utilize this force.
By and large, from one country to the next, these people make a middling wage and they deal with the people we intentionally avoid in our day to day lives. Do they get shot at every day? No, not at all, the job isn't that dangerous in terms of deaths (less dangerous than others, like commercial fishing, logging, or mining.) But they do get more or less shit on every single day, lied to, yelled at by women for arresting their husbands (who just beat them halfway into a coma), mocked by teenagers, disdained by yuppies driving 70 mph in a school zone and etc.
They deal with basically the biggest assholes most of us will meet in a year, except they deal with 20 of them a day. Sometimes they mess up on the job, too.
Given the setting for that tale, I'll almost always be pro-LEO when it's them versus someone who doesn't have to be there because it's their job to be there. Hippie shits at UC-Davis aren't serving any damn purpose in the world.
I'm not going to defend New Orleans cops that randomly killed people in the aftermath of Katrina "just because." But I'm also not going to be the guy tying the hangman's knot anytime a cop steps over the line.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 05:54:14 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
Otto's just drunk again.
I posted that from work, you fat basement troll. Unlike you I don't have the luxury of getting drunk on a Wedsnesday before noon.
Oex's definition of reactionary is fancy but totally divorced from how the word has ever been used, in the history of the world. Reactionary is almost universally understood to mean people who are reacting against a change in the status quo in order to revert back to an older status quo. That's how the word has been used for like 200 years.
Oex is basically saying "if you think various obnoxious and mostly ineffective forms of protesting aren't awesome, and advocate more restrained much more effective ones, that don't involve 20 year olds screaming and smoking pot, you're a reactionary." FWIW all those old hippie white dudes who are filing court cases and doing the "polite" stuff that Oex calls reactionary are the ones who have mostly gotten any real change for their cause since the 60s. The people making noise in the street have done no favors to the left in this country in over a generation.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2011, 12:09:26 AM
I find it weird people like to shit on the arm of the government. We've all collectively, from stupidest leftist French idiot to farthest right wing nutjob living in Texas agreed that the government should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. We've agreed to hire professionals to utilize this force.
...
They deal with basically the biggest assholes most of us will meet in a year, except they deal with 20 of them a day. Sometimes they mess up on the job, too.
We hire people and let them wear uniforms and have the right to use force on their fellow citizens. But it's absolutely for that reason that we've got to hold them to high standards and regulate how they behave. Otherwise you don't end up with professionals, you've got guys who like wearing uniforms and using force.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2011, 12:13:43 AMWe hire people and let them wear uniforms and have the right to use force on their fellow citizens. But it's absolutely for that reason that we've got to hold them to high standards and regulate how they behave. Otherwise you don't end up with professionals, you've got guys who like wearing uniforms and using force.
That's the thing, holding someone to standards means you actually hold them to standards. And the standard isn't "that looks fucked up, fire/arrest the guy!" Legitimate, legal police action is sometimes ugly. Which is why you don't send in riot police unless you really need to do so.
The dude that pepper sprayed the people sitting at UC Davis? That's not a good thing, and he deserves punishment. However Zoupa is acting as though we're always hyper-defensive of the police here. Well, that's because the vast majority of these "police use of TASER" incidents like "don't tase me bro!" and et cetera, ultimately end up, after an analysis of the fact, being legitimate and by the book uses of force. People just don't like seeing it, and they don't like the ugliness of it, or some other such reason.
No one anywhere is saying police shouldn't be held to standards, but holding someone to standards involves having a process where you actually look to see what happened and if standards were followed. So many of these internet videos show very deceptive views of police on citizen activity. Hell, at Occupy Seattle there is word that a woman miscarried because of being brutalized by police. Now there is word she's homeless and mentally ill and may have not miscarried at all. She may not even have been
pregnant. Basically her whole store has come out as fraudulent. But you know what I saw going around the libsphere the moment that shit hit the blogosphere? "Stay classy Seattle PD" "Seattle PD are murderers" and all that shit. Well, it looks like the whole story may have been a fabrication from a mentally ill homeless woman looking to profiteer off of a situation.
Further and here's the thing, you don't pay people who you know may get the shit kicked out of them by criminals and fire them the moment they use a bit more force than is necessary. Because you can't create robots and you won't have robots doing police work, sometimes a cop who has just been kicked in the nuts is going to deliver a few more blows than necessary to subdue someone. I think for situations like that you go through some low level discipline, write the guy up, but people who are paid and hired with the expectation they may get beat up on the job should be given some leeway in how they respond to physical situations, mainly because there is no method for totally divorcing naturally human reaction to getting hit or hit on from someone just because they're wearing a uniform. You can't totally train away a natural fight response. (Again, irrelevant to the UC Davis thing, but in many cases of "YouTube brutality" you have cops using a bit too much force on someone who has already hit a cop.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2011, 12:23:00 AM
No one anywhere is saying police shouldn't be held to standards, but holding someone to standards involves having a process where you actually look to see what happened and if standards were followed.
Bingo. This thread is a fine example. I think I was labelled "reactionary" for the crime of asking what those standards are, whether they were actually violated, and if not, why are they the standard, and what ought they be otherwise.
Nobody in the thread had the slightest idea if pepper cop was in violation until Seedy came along, but that didn't stop them from complaining and saying how terrible it all is that some people got pepper sprayed. Which is my only point - people are complaining without bothering to even find out, which to me means they are just bitching to bitch. If not this, then something else will be held up as the example of the fascist state. And if you even deign to question the outrage, why, you must be some kind of "reactionary".
Otto all of that's fine and I broadly agree. But there are a few problems I have with it.
The guy probably deserves punishing, unfortunately. But that shouldn't be an excuse to not actually see who ordered it, or ordered police in riot gear with paintball guns to clear a sit-in, and wonder how they got it so wrong. The only degree that it matters whether this is SOP, for me, is that if it is then there needs to be a change in the procedures.
I think I've said earlier the tase me thing I find unsettling because of a different policing culture in the UK. I disagree that it's legitimate in those circumstances on a fundamental level, but you know, if you guys are okay with that then fine. But that it's by the book is, for me, just an excuse to change the book. As I've said my view is that force should generally only be used when essential to restore public order or for the officer or public's safety (by force I mean taser, pepper spray, batons - not just shoving them against the wall and cuffing them or lifting them out of a demonstration).
I do divorce the normal human reaction from a policeman because, like a soldier, they're in uniform. They've been trained and they represent the state. I think they've got a far higher reponsibility.
I get what you're saying about people judging on these pictures and then later it turns out there was some justification. Which I've done, I don't really care about the individual officer, I think the problem's more systemic because he's not the only guy who turned up ready to police an event where you need those sort of weapons and riot gear. But in the UK I think we've the opposite experience and there's a few differences.
First of all it's very difficult to sue the police for damages so there's not a great deal of litigation and I think it has to go through the Independent Police Complaints Commission (I think it used to be at the discretion of the Home Secretary, but I'm not sure).
Secondly as I said earlier the IPCC have found investigated over 400 deaths in police custody or from police shootings over the last decade. Yet there's never once been a conviction, as the Economist's said that doesn't quite sound right and, with other problems, calls the independence of the IPCC into doubt.
Thirdly, the police lie. I can't think of a single police brutality or wrongful death that hasn't involved the police making strong statements at the beginning that were, by the end, completely disproved or had considerable doubt thrown on it. Whether it's Jean Charles de Menezes, Mark Duggan or Ian Tomlinson. Now I think the police do reform and change and respond to these mistakes (or to the misuses of stop and search powers, or the institutional racism discussed in the MacPherson Report) but only if their feet are held to the fire.
For those reasons my initial response to a police explanation is scepticism until the independent inquiry that'll inevitably follow reports.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2011, 12:31:56 AMNobody in the thread had the slightest idea if pepper cop was in violation until Seedy came along, but that didn't stop them from complaining and saying how terrible it all is that some people got pepper sprayed.
That doesn't matter. Based on that video it was wrong regardless of whether it was a violation or not.
Otto you dont seem to be responding to how the guy in this instance was sitting passively and not threatening the officer in any way, yet the officer used a weapon on him.
It is not a simple divide between anti-police and pro-police factions. I have high expectations of the police and in return give them my support. In Lancashire we have a particularly good force and my support is more or less unqualified. My support was far more conditional when I lived in London, the metropolitan police force is simply not as good as the one we have here. If I had had the misfortune to live in Stalin's Russia then my support for the police would probably have been as little as I could have got away with.
Quote from: chipwich on November 24, 2011, 04:55:04 AM
Otto you dont seem to be responding to how the guy in this instance was sitting passively and not threatening the officer in any way, yet the officer used a weapon on him.
My problem with that police officer is that what he did was worse than a crime - it was a mistake. His actions unnecessarily garnered support for the protesters.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 24, 2011, 05:47:08 AM
Quote from: chipwich on November 24, 2011, 04:55:04 AM
Otto you dont seem to be responding to how the guy in this instance was sitting passively and not threatening the officer in any way, yet the officer used a weapon on him.
My problem with that police officer is that what he did was worse than a crime - it was a mistake. His actions unnecessarily garnered support for the protesters.
Yes, at it so happens with incidents caught on tape, as usual the cops wind up becoming their own enemies by not doing the correct thing.
The protesters were protesting tuition hikes on campus. It had nothing to do with the Occupy Wall Street people, so the "garnered support for the protesters" thing isn't going to cause a groundswell of support, merely make another case of "don't trust cops with anything". Which, in this particular case, is entirely the cops' own doing. Could've been handled better, and if it had been handled appropriately and in accordance with modern police theory and training, we wouldn't be discussing this.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 06:33:26 PM
No.
To me, a reactionary is someone who almost always finds personal contentment in the status quo, for whom any situation could always be worse, and therefore, should never be contested. It would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any - should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so. I distinguish it from conservatives, because conservatives usually have elaborated reasons to defend the values they feel are threatened.
And, of course, reactionary is - much like fascist - a polemical word which almost always necessitates an explanation
The interesting thing about this explaination is that, as far as I know, it fits absolutely no-one on Languish - yet it is made in response to the generalized statement that Languish "is reactionary". :hmm:
Is there anyone here who has ever argued "... any situation could always be worse, and therefore, should never be contested"?
Fascism needs to have an expansionist aspect which was lacking in salazarism which itself was not totalitarian to begin with but authoritarian and reactionary indeed.
Francoism did call for Greater Spain but never really tried.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2011, 12:44:50 AM
For those reasons my initial response to a police explanation is scepticism until the independent inquiry that'll inevitably follow reports.
I agree with holding cops to high standards and being sceptical of thier explainations - that's all part of the basic bargan with the state in a democracy: it has the ultimate use of force, but in turn, its use of force will and should be held under the public microscope.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2011, 06:31:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 06:29:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2011, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 23, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.
So reactionary is anyone who disagrees with that righteousness of the occupiers?
I'm pretty liberal here, and I don't think much of them. At least I think I'm pretty liberal. :unsure:
I see, you must be suffering from some form of false consciousness. You are obviously reactionary scum and will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Nah...he'll be second. ;)
I admit, I found some aspects of Communism appealing as a Teenagers. Naturally, I outgrew it and like most who go through such a silly faze I'm quite distrustful of the Reds.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2011, 10:39:27 AM
I admit, I found some aspects of Communism appealing as a Teenagers. Naturally, I outgrew it and like most who go through such a silly faze I'm quite distrustful of the Reds.
Anti-intellectual fag.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 24, 2011, 10:49:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2011, 10:39:27 AM
I admit, I found some aspects of Communism appealing as a Teenagers. Naturally, I outgrew it and like most who go through such a silly faze I'm quite distrustful of the Reds.
Anti-intellectual fag.
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2011, 11:56:16 PM
They're reactionary in that they're reacting against something. The distinction I'd make is that reactionary's are about preserving the past and the status quo, whereas Fascism's about destroying.
I see so the left wing in Canada are reactionaries against the shift toward a more conservative Canada. Interesting.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2011, 12:31:56 AM
This thread is a fine example. I think I was labelled "reactionary" for the crime of asking what those standards are, whether they were actually violated, and if not, why are they the standard, and what ought they be otherwise.
You were being an idiot becuase you were arguing that pepper spraying in the first instance was acceptable. Nobody labelled you as a reactionary - especially since Oex's definition doesnt actually fit anyone. But I did label you as engaging in meaningless semantics to cover up your lack of knowledge in the area.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2011, 11:58:51 PMI find it weird that Languish is generally anti-government. Government should be controlled and viewed with deep suspicion and God help you if you think public pensions are a good idea. Except, of course, for the coercive wing of the state where we should listen to experts, generally people are trying their best, it is better if you just do what your told and there's no real need for the state having to take too much responsibility.
That's an American phenomenon, and I think it's only true of languish to the degree that Americans define it.
^^^
and many of the Canadians too.
Quote from: Josephus on November 24, 2011, 12:07:07 PM
^^^
and many of the Canadians too.
Who are the anti-government Canadians?
Quote from: chipwich on November 24, 2011, 04:55:04 AM
Otto you dont seem to be responding to how the guy in this instance was sitting passively and not threatening the officer in any way, yet the officer used a weapon on him.
Actually I've already said:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarckThe UC Davis pepper spraying isn't something I'm saying was right and is only being opposed because of knee-jerk anti-pepper spray feelings, that whole situation could have been handled differently. But generally speaking if property rights are to exist, or if public property for the enjoyment of the public is to exist at some point you may have to use force to stop recalcitrant bums and hobos from ruining things and that force is going to sometimes necessitate some pain, regardless of method.
And
Quote from: OttoVonBismarckThe dude that pepper sprayed the people sitting at UC Davis? That's not a good thing, and he deserves punishment.
The only guy here that's been a cop has basically said the UC Davis situation was a fuckup, so I'll bow to authority on that particular one, since I'm certainly no kind of expert on police procedures. I tried to make it clear I was explaining why some might be reflexively pro-LEO, or at least pro-"give them some respect" and let an investigation happen before sending them to the gallows.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 12:13:28 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 24, 2011, 12:07:07 PM
^^^
and many of the Canadians too.
Who are the anti-government Canadians?
Josephus and Grallon? :unsure:
I thought Grallon at least needed the government, to keep out the Muslims and other undesireables. ;)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 24, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
Fascism needs to have an expansionist aspect which was lacking in salazarism which itself was not totalitarian to begin with but authoritarian and reactionary indeed.
Francoism did call for Greater Spain but never really tried.
Really, they already had 'Greater Spain'. Where else were they going to take? Portugal? France, Italy and their former colonies were all militarily far stronger than Spain could ever hope to be.
Quote from: Malthus on November 24, 2011, 01:13:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 12:13:28 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 24, 2011, 12:07:07 PM
^^^
and many of the Canadians too.
Who are the anti-government Canadians?
Josephus and Grallon? :unsure:
I thought Grallon at least needed the government, to keep out the Muslims and other undesireables. ;)
And to enforce the French language on everybody.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 12:13:28 PM
Who are the anti-government Canadians?
Josephus and Grallon? :unsure:
I don't think so. Grallon is very statist, he's just thoroughly unhappy that the state isn't expelling people he considers undesirable.
I don't think Josephus is anti-government. I mean, isn't he essentially a social-democrat. He may be against the current government, but he's not against the concept of government; nor does he think that government is inherently corrupt and the solution is to have less of it.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 12:13:28 PM
Who are the anti-government Canadians?
Josephus and Grallon? :unsure:
I don't think so. Grallon is very statist, he's just thoroughly unhappy that the state isn't expelling people he considers undesirable.
I don't think Josephus is anti-government. I mean, isn't he essentially a social-democrat. He may be against the current government, but he's not against the concept of government; nor does he think that government is inherently corrupt and the solution is to have less of it.
They are the only ones the come closest to anti government in Languish (other than Ide) based on what they have said about hoping for change. They all come closest to being anarchists. I am not sure we have true Libertarians here although Berkut does his best imitation of one from time to time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:34:24 PMThey are the only ones the come closest to anti government in Languish (other than Ide) based on what they have said about hoping for change. They all come closest to being anarchists. I am not sure we have true Libertarians here although Berkut does his best imitation of one from time to time.
I'm not going to get into what posters say what, but there does seem to be a pretty strong strain in the current American discourse that holds that "government can do no right" and "government is the problem, not the solution". You know, the whole "my aim is to make government so small we can drown it in a bath tub" sentiment, considered as basically an axiomatic truth.
While I don't think anyone on languish necessarily espouse that view consistently, parts of that strain of the American discourse seems to show through now and then in some of the posts from American Languishites. I don't see that from Josephus - though he can speak for himself. As for grallon, his whole myopic xenophobic bitter queen Cassandra schtick has little to do with government one way or the other.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 12:13:28 PM
Who are the anti-government Canadians?
Josephus and Grallon? :unsure:
I don't think so. Grallon is very statist, he's just thoroughly unhappy that the state isn't expelling people he considers undesirable.
I don't think Josephus is anti-government. I mean, isn't he essentially a social-democrat. He may be against the current government, but he's not against the concept of government; nor does he think that government is inherently corrupt and the solution is to have less of it.
Right. I don't think the government is big enough.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:34:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 12:13:28 PM
Who are the anti-government Canadians?
Josephus and Grallon? :unsure:
I don't think so. Grallon is very statist, he's just thoroughly unhappy that the state isn't expelling people he considers undesirable.
I don't think Josephus is anti-government. I mean, isn't he essentially a social-democrat. He may be against the current government, but he's not against the concept of government; nor does he think that government is inherently corrupt and the solution is to have less of it.
They are the only ones the come closest to anti government in Languish (other than Ide) based on what they have said about hoping for change. They all come closest to being anarchists. I am not sure we have true Libertarians here although Berkut does his best imitation of one from time to time.
Far from it. Not sure about Grallon, but to me anarchism is the same as libertarianism. Too little government. Hoping for change does not mean anarchism. i do believe our current system, could use a bit of reform; but never preach open revolt. When I do get anti-gov't, it's less about Canada and more so about the US which I really think needs
a lot of reform and isn't hardly as democratic as it likes to preach...but that's for another thread.
I think Yake is right. Hell, even Neil the Falangist is pro socialized medicine.
There are some Yuro outlyers though, like Tamas and Slag.
Am I a Falangist?
Quote from: Josephus on November 24, 2011, 02:40:04 PM
Hoping for change does not mean anarchism. i do believe our current system, could use a bit of reform; but never preach open revolt. When I do get anti-gov't, it's less about Canada and more so about the US which I really think needs a lot of reform and isn't hardly as democratic as it likes to preach...but that's for another thread.
Alright. Thank you for clarifying your position.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 01:34:24 PM
They are the only ones the come closest to anti government in Languish (other than Ide) based on what they have said about hoping for change. They all come closest to being anarchists. I am not sure we have true Libertarians here although Berkut does his best imitation of one from time to time.
Skip is libertarian. Grumbler never states his political preference really, though he sometimes leans that way. Most of our Republican board members tend toward the libertarian aspects of the GOP. I think I recall Berkut saying he attended a Libertarian party meeting or something (it could have been someone else), and saying he was unimpressed with the folks there. There was a few others but they have quieter about libertarian leanings since Obama got elected or have since left.
I'm National Socialist.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
I'm National Socialist.
I can get on board with some elements of their platform, but I disagree with the racial policies and economic management.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
I'm National Socialist.
I can get on board with some elements of their platform, but I disagree with the racial policies and economic management.
'Loot Poland' is a fine economic program.
Languish only has one Libertarian Socialist.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 08:23:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
I'm National Socialist.
I can get on board with some elements of their platform, but I disagree with the racial policies and economic management.
'Loot Poland' is a fine economic program.
Eventually you run out of Poles.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 08:23:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
I'm National Socialist.
I can get on board with some elements of their platform, but I disagree with the racial policies and economic management.
'Loot Poland' is a fine economic program.
Eventually you run out of Poles.
There are plenty of Europeans to exploit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 08:23:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
I'm National Socialist.
I can get on board with some elements of their platform, but I disagree with the racial policies and economic management.
'Loot Poland' is a fine economic program.
Eventually you run out of Poles.
There are plenty of Europeans to exploit.
Eventually you run out of Euros. This was tried, and it didn't work.
I'd be satisfied with a small Gebietskommissariat under the RK Moskau. I don't think I'd run out. I discovered how to make more. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on November 24, 2011, 09:50:31 PM
I'd be satisfied with a small Gebietskommissariat under the RK Moskau.
:)
Neil is too defeatist.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 09:32:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 08:23:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 24, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
I'm National Socialist.
I can get on board with some elements of their platform, but I disagree with the racial policies and economic management.
'Loot Poland' is a fine economic program.
Eventually you run out of Poles.
There are plenty of Europeans to exploit.
Eventually you run out of Euros. This was tried, and it didn't work.
You never run out of Russkies.
They'll work hard for a hunk of black bread and a cup of vodka.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2011, 11:58:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2011, 12:31:56 AM
This thread is a fine example. I think I was labelled "reactionary" for the crime of asking what those standards are, whether they were actually violated, and if not, why are they the standard, and what ought they be otherwise.
You were being an idiot becuase you were arguing that pepper spraying in the first instance was acceptable.
You are so willing to just lie your ass off whenever you start taking off after your little personal vendetta.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 24, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
Fascism needs to have an expansionist aspect which was lacking in salazarism which itself was not totalitarian to begin with but authoritarian and reactionary indeed.
Francoism did call for Greater Spain but never really tried.
I always thought it was an irony that though Franco had that rhetoric he decolonised while Salazar clung on to colonial possessions to the bitter end. I should say though that I know very little about Salazarism, I simply associate it with Francoism though I'm sure there are differences.
QuoteI see so the left wing in Canada are reactionaries against the shift toward a more conservative Canada. Interesting.
I think the left in the UK, and maybe in Canada too, is to an extent problematically conservative. Their goal is to preserve parts of the welfare state created last century as they are rather than to reform them and try and deal with problems that simply didn't exist when it was created (Andy Burnham's campaign for a national care service is an honourable exception).
I think Oex's description fits the tenor of discussion pretty well, even if it doesn't entirely cover any individual.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 02:01:04 AM
I think Oex's description fits the tenor of discussion pretty well, even if it doesn't entirely cover any individual.
I think anytime someone says something along the lines of "Those who don't agree with what I say all do/say/think X, Y, Z" and the universal response from those who do not agree with them is "I don't think X, Y, or Z", then it is pretty safe to say it doesn't fit much of anything.
It is pretty cheap shelf to fall back on "I think it fits the tenor of the discussion, even if it doesn't actually fit anyone participating...". That isn't a position that anyone can answer to, or defend themselves from - and you are basically pigeonholing those you want to debate with, and then refusing to actually defend the pigeonhole by retreating to something as vague as "tenor of the discussion".
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 02:16:00 AMIt is pretty cheap shelf to fall back on "I think it fits the tenor of the discussion, even if it doesn't actually fit anyone participating...". That isn't a position that anyone can answer to, or defend themselves from - and you are basically pigeonholing those you want to debate with, and then refusing to actually defend the pigeonhole by retreating to something as vague as "tenor of the discussion".
I'm not saying anyone's a reactionary. But I think this is a very accurate description of lots of positions taken on Languish and the general tone:
QuoteIt would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any - should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 02:24:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 02:16:00 AMIt is pretty cheap shelf to fall back on "I think it fits the tenor of the discussion, even if it doesn't actually fit anyone participating...". That isn't a position that anyone can answer to, or defend themselves from - and you are basically pigeonholing those you want to debate with, and then refusing to actually defend the pigeonhole by retreating to something as vague as "tenor of the discussion".
I'm not saying anyone's a reactionary. But I think this is a very accurate description of lots of positions taken on Languish and the general tone:
QuoteIt would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any - should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so.
I think it is a very inaccurate description. Almost exactly the opposite of what the actual tone is on Languish.
And what sucks is that comments like yours and Oex is, IMO, nothing but an attempt to stifle discussion with pretty standard pseudo-intellectual arrogance. It can be that people do not agree with you for reasons that are not because they are just so damn stupid and "reactionary". Oex can pretty up the words all he likes, and you can avoid owning them by saying "Oh, they don't apply to anyone, just the 'tenor' of discussion", but it amounts to nothing more than an attempt to sit around and tell each other how smart you are for agreeing with one another, unlike those dumb ass reactionaries who "wish dissent to be silent". The fact that nobody (much less the majority who define "tenor") would ever agree to that as being reflective of their position should tell you *something*.
I mean really - "I am not saying anyone is reactionary...but I think it is a
very accurate description of lots of positions...". Seriously? How can it be such a dominating "tenor" if nobody actually puts those positions forth? What is the point of a comment like that, if you aren't even willing to pin it on someone specifically?
You might as well say "I don't think you are a racist, but I think you put forth lots of racist positions..."
Weak. Very weak.
There used to be three tenors.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 02:24:14 AM
I'm not saying anyone's a reactionary. But I think this is a very accurate description of lots of positions taken on Languish and the general tone:
I'm not
saying it so I'll just announce a strawman I created on a whim
Pathetic.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2011, 12:31:56 AM
Nobody in the thread had the slightest idea if pepper cop was in violation until Seedy came along,
Anyone with common sense and human empathy knows that pepper spraying someone who isn't violent is unnecessary and cruel
Do you think the policeman should have shot him, you bloodthirsty savage? Keep in mind that if the guy had asthma, he would've been just as dead as if the police unloaded a machine gun into his body.
You're taking the word reactionary very hard. It's nowhere near comparable to racism and I don't think it implies stupidity or anything so sneerish.
QuoteSeriously? How can it be such a dominating "tenor" if nobody actually puts those positions forth? What is the point of a comment like that, if you aren't even willing to pin it on someone specifically?
Because I think most languishites a pretty varied on their opinions. This sort of attitude comes up in almost any thread - just look at this one or any on the Arab revolutions - but it's not always the same people or for the same reasons. That's why I'm distinguishing between the tenor of discussion and positions taken which I think fits (and has nothing to do with being a majority of people) and people, which I don't think does. There's noone consistent enough to fit the description as a whole - though Yi says he comes close supporting two of the three :lol:
For me it's more a tone that comes up in many threads. Things are always worse somewhere else, that's what people should focus on, because of that change is suspicious. Any social movement needs to be 'respectable' and ideally have a clear list of demands that have ideally been written by a think tank and are implementable - this has come up in almost every thread I can think of on a protest movement, it was a criticism of the TP, the OWS, the Arabs, the unions, the anti-war and more - failure on that makes the protests sort-of invalid. And I think there's a general bias towards authority on Languish as I said before.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 03:00:06 AM
There's noone consistent enough to fit the description as a whole - though Yi says he comes close supporting two of the three :lol:
I didn't say two of the three, I said two
or three. There were about 12 or 14 descriptions in Oex's post.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2011, 03:12:04 AMI didn't say two of the three, I said two or three. There were about 12 or 14 descriptions in Oex's post.
I read them as a few points that were exemplified by different descriptions, so I thought you meant you were agreeing with a couple of the general points. Soz :p
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 03:14:15 AM
I read them as a few points that were exemplified by different descriptions, so I thought you meant you were agreeing with a couple of the general points. Soz :p
Soz who?
Quote from: chipwich on November 25, 2011, 02:58:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2011, 12:31:56 AM
Nobody in the thread had the slightest idea if pepper cop was in violation until Seedy came along,
Anyone with common sense and human empathy knows that pepper spraying someone who isn't violent is unnecessary and cruel
What does that have to do with whether or not it was SOP? Nice emotive language - I like the implication that if someone does not agree with you they are not just lacking in human empathy, but also common sense, and is probably cruel as well! Nicely done.
Quote
Do you think the policeman should have shot him, you bloodthirsty savage?
Clearly, asking if the police was operating under some SOP means I think the cop should have shot them.
Quote
Keep in mind that if the guy had asthma, he would've been just as dead as if the police unloaded a machine gun into his body.
Well, I guess we are lucky he doesn't have asthma. If only more cops carried machine guns though.
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 03:17:52 AM
What does that have to do with whether or not it was SOP?
Ah so it doesn't matter if it's right, only that it's legal. Gotcha.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 03:00:06 AM
You're taking the word reactionary very hard.
I doubt that, since I don't even know what the hell it really means. It is surely used as something of a expletive though.
And the further "clarification" of what it means is pretty over the top insulting.
Quote
It's nowhere near comparable to racism and I don't think it implies stupidity or anything so sneerish.
Oh please - you whole heartedly agreed that it means someone who justifies slavery, because there is worse slavery somewhere else! That implies stupidity at the very least.
Quote
QuoteSeriously? How can it be such a dominating "tenor" if nobody actually puts those positions forth? What is the point of a comment like that, if you aren't even willing to pin it on someone specifically?
Because I think most languishites a pretty varied on their opinions. This sort of attitude comes up in almost any thread - just look at this one or any on the Arab revolutions - but it's not always the same people or for the same reasons. That's why I'm distinguishing between the tenor of discussion and positions taken which I think fits (and has nothing to do with being a majority of people) and people, which I don't think does. There's noone consistent enough to fit the description as a whole - though Yi says he comes close supporting two of the three :lol:
For me it's more a tone that comes up in many threads.
Since the "tone" basically amounts to "Wow, some people, all of whom of course are on the OTHER side of my position, sure to seem to be effing idiots!", I suspect the way to "tone comes up in many threads" is that there are many threads where people do not see things the same way you do.
But here is the thing - people might not agree with you, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that they are simply "reactionary". THat is a cheap stereotype that attempts to dismiss discussion by what amounts to a sweeping and generalized ad hom.
Quote from: chipwich on November 25, 2011, 03:20:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 03:17:52 AM
What does that have to do with whether or not it was SOP?
Ah so it doesn't matter if it's right, only that it's legal. Gotcha.
If you say so - but don't pin those words on me - they are all yours.
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 03:23:37 AMOh please - you whole heartedly agreed that it means someone who justifies slavery, because there is worse slavery somewhere else! That implies stupidity at the very least.
:blink: That was an example of attitude not a statement that any reactionary Languishite posters support slavery.
That's a nonsense and extreme reading of it, I think you're really assuming the worst of me (and Oex I imagine) if you think we're saying there are people here justifying slavery. I can't believe you're reading that that literally.
QuoteSince the "tone" basically amounts to "Wow, some people, all of whom of course are on the OTHER side of my position, sure to seem to be effing idiots!", I suspect the way to "tone comes up in many threads" is that there are many threads where people do not see things the same way you do.
Not at all. I don't think I've got that reactionary attitude (maybe I've just not found the issue here), in comparison, I think Tim is probably its antithesis on Languish. On the issues though I generally disagree with Tim. Similarly there have been threads where I agree with someone on the actual issue but I'd say their position fits the description of reactionary.
Quote
Soz who?
You, I'd misunderstood what you said.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 03:37:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 03:23:37 AMOh please - you whole heartedly agreed that it means someone who justifies slavery, because there is worse slavery somewhere else! That implies stupidity at the very least.
:blink: That was an example of attitude not a statement that any reactionary Languishite posters support slavery.
Of course, just like nobody is actually a reactionary, it is just the tone is always reactionary.
Oex specifically chose a rather onerous example because he wanted to point out how typically unreasonable people are - they will justify slavery because somewhere else there is worse slavery. Sorry, you cannot use that as your example of how people think, then say they should not be offended that you consider them in that manner - that is a grossly offensive characterization of anyone's position, *because* it is basically saying that it is the kind of thinking that CAN justify slavery.
Quote
That's a nonsense and extreme reading of it,
I think it is a nonsense and extreme characterization of people who do not agree with you. Hence my taking you to task over it. But the entire post from Oex you are gushing over is basically the same. It amounts to a extremely arrogant view of others and their views, IMO.
Quote
I think you're really assuming the worst of me (and Oex I imagine) if you think we're saying there are people here justifying slavery.
Funny, I think you are assuming the worst of others if you think they would justify slavery because there is worse slavery somewhere else. Or justify any terrible thing because there is some worse terrible thing elsewhere - and why, that is no different than justifying slavery!
Quote
I can't believe you're reading that that literally.
I cannot believe you don't see how offensive the post was to those who find themselves on the other side of discussions from the "non-reactionary" Languish crowd. And then to follow it up by saying "Oh, well, you know, there aren't really any people who are actually like that, but the discussion is almost always like that...". Uggh. Very poor form.
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 03:50:30 AMOf course, just like nobody is actually a reactionary, it is just the tone is always reactionary.
Oex specifically chose a rather onerous example because he wanted to point out how typically unreasonable people are - they will justify slavery because somewhere else there is worse slavery. Sorry, you cannot use that as your example of how people think, then say they should not be offended that you consider them in that manner - that is a grossly offensive characterization of anyone's position, *because* it is basically saying that it is the kind of thinking that CAN justify slavery.
Of course it can justify slavery. But it's possible to be sort of empathetic with people who were sympathetic to slavery. They weren't all horrifying inhumans. Similarly I think we all generally sort-of get people whites in the US in the 60s who were scared and unhappy at the civil rights movement and equal rights. We can say they're wrong but see where they're coming from, but the truth is that a default suspicion of change will inevitably lead sometimes to justifying what later seems simply wrong.
I'd also contrast the people who were merely of that view and those who were in a position of power and trying to manipulate fear - 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour'.
I think the contrasting example for someone (rather closer to me) who automatically assumes that change is generally good and the status quo is always in need of changing is that we buy into something that's simply wrong like eugenics in the early 20th century. Or, more likely, we'll be fellow travellers of right or left.
Anyway there's nothing wrong with being unreasonable. Reason's over-rated.
Quote from: The Brain on November 25, 2011, 02:49:56 AM
There used to be three tenors.
I miss the fat guy. Not that he was fat, but he certainly put forward a lot of fat positions.
LOL, occupy Black Friday.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 04:19:10 AM
Anyway there's nothing wrong with being unreasonable. Reason's over-rated.
Amen. Especially since it's fairly subjective.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2011, 01:56:27 PM
... As for Grallon, his whole myopic xenophobic bitter queen Cassandra schtick has little to do with government one way or the other.
:lol:
If you recall Cassandra was proven right in the end - and Troy was razed to the ground.
-----
And I am a statist yes. Any society needs regulation in order to function. Individuals, being irrational and consumed with their own desires, cannot regulate themselves. Private organizations such as unions or corporations are factions, that is aggregates of irrational individuals consumed with the pursuit of their own desires - and thus incapable of restraining themselves. Only the State, who by definition is above the melee, can - and must - regulate the constant jockeying happening below.
Which is why the pathological suspicion of/paranoia against the State, shared by so many Americans, is so repellent to me.
G.
Why is the state above the melee?
Well if you say something is going to fail you going to be right eventually. It may be 10,000 years in the future, but you'll eventually be right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 03:00:06 AM
You're taking the word reactionary very hard. It's nowhere near comparable to racism and I don't think it implies stupidity or anything so sneerish.
QuoteSeriously? How can it be such a dominating "tenor" if nobody actually puts those positions forth? What is the point of a comment like that, if you aren't even willing to pin it on someone specifically?
Because I think most languishites a pretty varied on their opinions. This sort of attitude comes up in almost any thread - just look at this one or any on the Arab revolutions - but it's not always the same people or for the same reasons. That's why I'm distinguishing between the tenor of discussion and positions taken which I think fits (and has nothing to do with being a majority of people) and people, which I don't think does. There's noone consistent enough to fit the description as a whole - though Yi says he comes close supporting two of the three :lol:
For me it's more a tone that comes up in many threads. Things are always worse somewhere else, that's what people should focus on, because of that change is suspicious. Any social movement needs to be 'respectable' and ideally have a clear list of demands that have ideally been written by a think tank and are implementable - this has come up in almost every thread I can think of on a protest movement, it was a criticism of the TP, the OWS, the Arabs, the unions, the anti-war and more - failure on that makes the protests sort-of invalid. And I think there's a general bias towards authority on Languish as I said before.
I think you're right. Remember how the only people who thought John Brown was right were, like, me and CdM?
I could see how people could justify slavery. "If we don't enslave these people, some other people are going to enslave us". I would think that most people would believe that slavery possibly happening to them is worse slavery then slavery happening to someone else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 03:37:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 03:23:37 AMOh please - you whole heartedly agreed that it means someone who justifies slavery, because there is worse slavery somewhere else! That implies stupidity at the very least.
:blink: That was an example of attitude not a statement that any reactionary Languishite posters support slavery.
That's a nonsense and extreme reading of it, I think you're really assuming the worst of me (and Oex I imagine) if you think we're saying there are people here justifying slavery. I can't believe you're reading that that literally.
I disagree with Berkut all the time - often I find him too stubborn for words. But the notion that he comes up with his attitudes because of "reactionaryism", whether phrased offensively or not, is simply not accurate.
I think you and Oex are making a fundamental mistake: of not seeing an idealism different from your own *as* a form of idealism, as opposed to a mere unthinking impulse of reaction.
This sort of mistake is hardly unique to you guys of course.
The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'. It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.
Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2011, 10:38:25 AM
The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'. It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.
Clearly we need a Reactionary Socialist party then.
Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2011, 10:38:25 AM
The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'. It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.
I dunno, many proudly describe
themselves as 'socialist' or describe particular measures, neutrally, as 'socialist'. Few people proudly refer to themselves as "reactionary". I don't think socialist always has the perjorative meaning of 'reactionary'.
Quote from: Jacob on November 25, 2011, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2011, 10:38:25 AM
The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'. It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.
Clearly we need a Reactionary Socialist party then.
What, the NDP? :P
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 10:49:17 AMWhat, the NDP? :P
I was thinking the Conservatives, what with their support of medicare and so on....
Quote from: Jacob on November 25, 2011, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2011, 10:38:25 AM
The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'. It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.
Clearly we need a Reactionary Socialist party then.
I'm willing to start one. Just for fun. Who wants to join? :)
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 10:48:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2011, 10:38:25 AM
The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'. It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.
I dunno, many proudly describe themselves as 'socialist' or describe particular measures, neutrally, as 'socialist'. Few people proudly refer to themselves as "reactionary". I don't think socialist always has the perjorative meaning of 'reactionary'.
yeah, but I see what BB means. In the US especially, left-of-centrists are always labelled socialists in a purely pejorative manner. Obama, for instance, wouldn't call himself a socialist.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2011, 12:31:56 AM
Nobody in the thread had the slightest idea if pepper cop was in violation until Seedy came along
No Berkut. You were the only one who didnt have a clue that it was wrong until Seedy had to explain to you in detail how wrong it was. BB certainly understood it since he deals with the issue of police force in his work. I certainly knew it from the work I had done with the APEC Inquiry years ago. In fact I cant think of one other person that didnt know that using pepper spray in the fist instance was wrong.
Just becuase you didnt understand it but continued to assert nobody could know for sure doesnt make everyone around you as blissfully unaware as you seemed to be.
Quote from: Josephus on November 25, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 10:48:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2011, 10:38:25 AM
The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'. It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.
I dunno, many proudly describe themselves as 'socialist' or describe particular measures, neutrally, as 'socialist'. Few people proudly refer to themselves as "reactionary". I don't think socialist always has the perjorative meaning of 'reactionary'.
yeah, but I see what BB means. In the US especially, left-of-centrists are always labelled socialists in a purely pejorative manner. Obama, for instance, wouldn't call himself a socialist.
Yeah, the usual trope here is for the left to call themselves "progressive" and then call the right a number of things but reactionary fits in this case. I dont see many people on the left here proudly calling themselves socialist. Certainly that was once true but less so now. In fact the NDP had a bit of an internal fight over the issue of whether they should keep the word socialist. I cant remember how that worked out.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2011, 12:18:49 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 25, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 10:48:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2011, 10:38:25 AM
The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'. It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.
I dunno, many proudly describe themselves as 'socialist' or describe particular measures, neutrally, as 'socialist'. Few people proudly refer to themselves as "reactionary". I don't think socialist always has the perjorative meaning of 'reactionary'.
yeah, but I see what BB means. In the US especially, left-of-centrists are always labelled socialists in a purely pejorative manner. Obama, for instance, wouldn't call himself a socialist.
Yeah, the usual trope here is for the left to call themselves "progressive" and then call the right a number of things but reactionary fits in this case. I dont see many people on the left here proudly calling themselves socialist. Certainly that was once true but less so now. In fact the NDP had a bit of an internal fight over the issue of whether they should keep the word socialist. I cant remember how that worked out.
They dropped the matter. The NDP is still "socialist".
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1011414
Quote"Socialism is not an anchor, it's a rocket," Barry Weisleder, who chairs the unofficial socialist caucus that meets in its own room at NDP conventions, shot back.
"You can take socialism out of the preamble, but you can't take socialism out of the NDP."
Can anyone imagine someone being part of a "reactionary caucus" within the Conservative Party proudly stating "You can take reationary out of the preamble, but you can't take reactionary out of the Conservatives"?
Quite obviously, in Canada at least "socialist" is not perjorative in the same way that "reactionary" is. Just ... no.
Malthus the point is that many in the NDP once proclaimed themselves as socialist. That is not true anymore. They are trying their best to move away from that descriptor because it is recognized in today's politics as a negative characterization. There appear to still be some hard core socialists within the NDP. I suppose that is not all that surprising. It might take another generation to be rid of them entirely. But I dont think any of that takes away form what BB said.
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 12:31:33 PMCan anyone imagine someone being part of a "reactionary caucus" within the Conservative Party proudly stating "You can take reationary out of the preamble, but you can't take reactionary out of the Conservatives"?
Easily :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2011, 12:41:24 PM
Malthus the point is that many in the NDP once proclaimed themselves as socialist. That is not true anymore. They are trying their best to move away from that descriptor because it is recognized in today's politics as a negative characterization. There appear to still be some hard core socialists within the NDP. I suppose that is not all that surprising. It might take another generation to be rid of them entirely. But I dont think any of that takes away form what BB said.
I disagree. What you have is some in the NDP who think the party should move to the middle of the spectrum, perhaps merge with the liberals, and have a real shot at actual power - being for once the governing party. Naturally, to do that they will have to look more like the Liberals, and tossing out "socialism" is part of that.
This demonstrates that these folks believe an openly "socialist" party is unlikely to win enough support to be THE GOVERNING PARTY. Note that this issue only came up after an election in which the openly-socialist NDP
won official opposition status, thus making it look like they had a shot at "the big time".
What it does NOT demonstrate, is that "socialism" is really a dirty, perjorative term only applied to them by their enemies, inaccurately, to blacken their names - something from which all reasonable NDPers would react with righteous anger at the abuse of being so smeared -- such as the term "reactionary".
That is true in the US with the Democrats.
It is simply not true in Canada, where an openly socialist party, full member party of the Socialist International, is her majesty's official opposition.
Look here under "Canada":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International
Quote from: Jacob on November 25, 2011, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 12:31:33 PMCan anyone imagine someone being part of a "reactionary caucus" within the Conservative Party proudly stating "You can take reationary out of the preamble, but you can't take reactionary out of the Conservatives"?
Easily :)
Since no one within the Conservative party would ever label themselves as "reactionary" I am not sure how you might think that this would be easy to imagine. Granted it is easy for someone on the left to image parts of the Conservative caucus as reactionary but that is a different matter.
Quote from: Jacob on November 25, 2011, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 12:31:33 PMCan anyone imagine someone being part of a "reactionary caucus" within the Conservative Party proudly stating "You can take reationary out of the preamble, but you can't take reactionary out of the Conservatives"?
Easily :)
Speaks more for your opinion of Conservatives, than anything else! :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2011, 12:52:30 PMSince no one within the Conservative party would ever label themselves as "reactionary" I am not sure how you might think that this would be easy to imagine. Granted it is easy for someone on the left to image parts of the Conservative caucus as reactionary but that is a different matter.
All it would require is a little more honesty from some conservatives.
Though I guess you're right. That is hard to imagine.
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 25, 2011, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 12:31:33 PMCan anyone imagine someone being part of a "reactionary caucus" within the Conservative Party proudly stating "You can take reationary out of the preamble, but you can't take reactionary out of the Conservatives"?
Easily :)
Speaks more for your opinion of Conservatives, than anything else! :lol:
:lol:
Much as it's against Languish SOP, I'll admit to just fucking around.
You and CC are correct - the word "reactionary" is a pejorative in Canada (though this doesn't mean that Oex's usage is incorrect either, just that the terminology is rather politicized).
Mathus, I am not sure why you say the NDP is an "openly socialist" party. How many times did you hear Layton utter the word socialist during the last, or any, election. I cant recall it ever happening. And certainly here in BC (arguably the heartland of NDP socialism now that Saskatchewan has veered hard right) the provincial NDP would never dream of using the word. The Leader Adrian Dix is doing his best to paint himself as a moderate - even though in the past he was one who would readily have called himself a socialist.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 25, 2011, 12:55:35 PM
Mathus, I am not sure why you say the NDP is an "openly socialist" party. How many times did you hear Layton utter the word socialist during the last, or any, election. I cant recall it ever happening. And certainly here in BC (arguably the heartland of NDP socialism now that Saskatchewan has veered hard right) the provincial NDP would never dream of using the word. The Leader Adrian Dix is doing his best to paint himself as a moderate - even though in the past he was one who would readily have called himself a socialist.
Easy - the issue of wherther to remove the term "socialist" in describing themselves was brought up, and it was not so removed. They are openly members of the "Socialist International".
What more is needed to be "openly socialist"?
I think it's because the American use of the term pejoratively is creeping into Canadian lexicon. When Americans say "socialist" they equate it with un-democratism and the worst excesses of the Soviet Union, long lineups and empty cupboards. When the NDP says Socialist, it's not exactly the image they like to paint. Yet it is the one that even in Canada is now sticking with the mass public. So obviously the NDP wants to move away from that image, but not necessarily from its "progressive" platform. In other words the feeling in the party is one of "Well, we know we are socialists but they don't need to know that." ;)
Quote from: Josephus on November 25, 2011, 01:08:45 PM
I think it's because the American use of the term pejoratively is creeping into Canadian lexicon. When Americans say "socialist" they equate it with un-democratism and the worst excesses of the Soviet Union, long lineups and empty cupboards. When the NDP says Socialist, it's not exactly the image they like to paint. Yet it is the one that even in Canada is now sticking with the mass public. So obviously the NDP wants to move away from that image, but not necessarily from its "progressive" platform. In other words the feeling in the party is one of "Well, we know we are socialists but they don't need to know that." ;)
There is somewhat to the notion that political terms are creeping in from the US, but obviously it is not yet sufficient to actually get them to stop calling themselves socialist yet.
I think the bigger issue is that the NDP, with the taste of actual power in its mouth, wishes to move into the space mostly vacated by the bumbling Liberals and perhaps govern the country.
Less "we are actually socialists, just called something else" than "you know, perhaps we oughtta tone down those actually socialist policies we have, and get elected just a
bit more in the centre, and we could oust the Cons ... ".
Quote from: Josephus on November 25, 2011, 01:08:45 PM
I think it's because the American use of the term pejoratively is creeping into Canadian lexicon. When Americans say "socialist" they equate it with un-democratism and the worst excesses of the Soviet Union, long lineups and empty cupboards. When the NDP says Socialist, it's not exactly the image they like to paint. Yet it is the one that even in Canada is now sticking with the mass public. So obviously the NDP wants to move away from that image, but not necessarily from its "progressive" platform. In other words the feeling in the party is one of "Well, we know we are socialists but they don't need to know that." ;)
I think the irony of it becoming such a perjorative term in the US is that if you go back 80 years and look at where we are now compared to them, the Socialists won.
The question is not whether or not the US should be Socialist, it is HOW Socialist should we be, at least in terms of pre-WW1 or probably even pre-WW2. Which makes all the angst over the term kind of ridiculous. Republicans? Yeah, they are socialists. I don't see any of them campaigning to repeal Social Security or Medicare or Workers Comp or...
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2011, 10:08:11 AMI think you and Oex are making a fundamental mistake: of not seeing an idealism different from your own *as* a form of idealism, as opposed to a mere unthinking impulse of reaction.
I think most of my idealism's an unthinking reaction, a gut instinct that I later justify and intellectualise - though there's a couple of issues where that's not the case. I think most people are the same.
QuoteI think the irony of it becoming such a perjorative term in the US is that if you go back 80 years and look at where we are now compared to them, the Socialists won.
Weirdly in the US they did, in their way.
But this is why I think it's fair to say the modern left have very often become conservative parties looking to preserve the gains made in the 20th century rather than recalibrating. In much of Europe, though, socialists wanted much more than the SPA (from what I understand).
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 02:03:12 PM
I think most of my idealism's an unthinking reaction, a gut instinct that I later justify and intellectualise - though there's a couple of issues where that's not the case. I think most people are the same.
Even so, you are mistaking the sources of the gut instinct. In the case of libertarian-tinged US folks going against stuff, it is usually "doing this feels like it will lead to less freedom", not "doing this will change things and change is bad".
I think what annoys me about the characterization is that I do think there are people out there who fit the "reactionary" mold. It is just bizarre to see someone who I respect quite a bit (both SHelf and Oex) as slapping the label on nearly everyone, or claim that the tone is generally reactionary. There are a few true blue, died in the wool conservatives who I think do pretty much reflexively oppose change. But to say that it is the general tone on languish? That is simply crazy talk - languish as a whole is MUCH more liberal that society in general, IMO.
And I am generally very annoyed by label like "reactionary" where the people being labelled by and large don't agree that the label fits them. That to me is a pretty good indicator that the label is inteneded to be used to strawman the opposition within your own side.
It is like pro-life people calling pro-choice people baby killers, or pro-choice people calling pro-life people misogynists. BY and large, pro-coice people hold the position they hold for a particular reason, and it isn't because they like killing babies. And pro-life people hold their views for a particular reason, and it generally isn't because they hate women. And their self-selected labels do a very nice job of labeling them in an accurate manner based on WHY they hold their views.
I'll cop to being reactionary on some issues. For example, I had just posted something in the games forum stating that I think that our old copyright law that we had before Disney convinced Congress to greatly extend the time limts was better than our current copyright law. I don't see how anyone could hold that position and not acknowledge that it's a reactionary position (that it, a position that seeks a return to a past condition) if they're honest about it. But I think that most of my political/social views, while unabasedly conservative, are not reactionary.
What do you call someone who favors change for the sake of change?
What do you call someone who favors protest for the sake of protest?
Quote from: dps on November 25, 2011, 02:59:14 PM
I don't see how anyone could hold that position and not acknowledge that it's a reactionary position (that it, a position that seeks a return to a past condition) if they're honest about it.
If thinking a change in a particular law is daft then we are all likely reactionaries. I doubt there is anyone alive that believes all legistlative changes have been good.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2011, 03:41:30 PM
What do you call someone who favors change for the sake of change?
What do you call someone who favors protest for the sake of protest?
Hmmm.............young or daft :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2011, 03:41:30 PM
What do you call someone who favors change for the sake of change?
It depends. In a political/social system that allows for personal freedom and human rights, I guess I'd call such a person a gadfly. In a system that doesn't allow those, I might call them desperate.
QuoteWhat do you call someone who favors protest for the sake of protest?
An asshole.
Quote from: dps on November 25, 2011, 02:59:14 PM
I'll cop to being reactionary on some issues. For example, I had just posted something in the games forum stating that I think that our old copyright law that we had before Disney convinced Congress to greatly extend the time limts was better than our current copyright law. I don't see how anyone could hold that position and not acknowledge that it's a reactionary position (that it, a position that seeks a return to a past condition) if they're honest about it. But I think that most of my political/social views, while unabasedly conservative, are not reactionary.
I don't think that a reactionary label applies in such a case. It applies only to bad people, or people holding clearly idiotic views.
Quote from: DGuller on November 25, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
Quote from: dps on November 25, 2011, 02:59:14 PM
I'll cop to being reactionary on some issues. For example, I had just posted something in the games forum stating that I think that our old copyright law that we had before Disney convinced Congress to greatly extend the time limts was better than our current copyright law. I don't see how anyone could hold that position and not acknowledge that it's a reactionary position (that it, a position that seeks a return to a past condition) if they're honest about it. But I think that most of my political/social views, while unabasedly conservative, are not reactionary.
I don't think that a reactionary label applies in such a case. It applies only to bad people, or people holding clearly idiotic views.
Well, then your view is an example of what was under discussion with regards to the term "socialist"--you are twisting the meaning of the word in order to use it in a perjoratve way, rather than in a descriptive manner. And I don't mean to be insulting when I say that, because almost anyone is guilty of it at some time or the other when discussing political and social issues. It's like the example Berkut gave of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" vice "baby-killer" and "misogynist" in the abortion debate--if you can control the terminology used and bend words to mean what you want them to mean, then you can control the debate without actually getting into the actual merits of the differing positions. It's tempting, because it's often easier to control the terminology, since such control can often be facilitated through sound bites and one-liners.
Or the alternative is that you think our Disneyfied IP laws are actually better now, and anyone who disagrees is a bad person and/or holds idiotic views.
Agree very much that labelling is a way to avoid discussion of the merits.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 25, 2011, 09:33:55 AMI think you're right. Remember how the only people who thought John Brown was right were, like, me and CdM?
I actually defended the
righteousness of John Brown's cause, and also defended the concept of using violence to kill an evil system. If I recall much of the argument was that in a democracy there was no justification for it, then there was some argument about what constitutes a democracy. But anyway, I was pro-John Brown's motives, if you see something you truly believe is evil and you cannot work through the normal political system to stop it I believe violence is a valid answer. I believe in a universal right of all slaves to fight and kill their masters, going back to the time of the ancients. I don't morally judge any slave who kills their owner in order to free themselves, essentially. Nor can I blame someone helping slaves to freedom.
But I was opposed to John Brown's
specific actions, for a few reasons. One, he killed like two innocent bystanders who were not slaveowners and not even pro-slavery (one of them was a train conductor who himself was an emancipated slave.) Two, his plan was mind-numbingly stupid and put all of the slaves involved at great risk with no chance of success. Basically I agree with Frederick Douglass, who was vaguely supportive but ultimately opposed to JB's plan because he knew it would just backfire and get a bunch of slaves killed.
Nah, I remember now. You made a pretty good case that, tactically, John Brown was pretty dumb. If the goal was to free slaves with direct action, he was bound to fail eventually; if the goal was to die a martyr and piss people off, though, he was pretty successful.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2011, 06:29:19 PM
Nah, I remember now. You made a pretty good case that, tactically, John Brown was pretty dumb. If the goal was to free slaves with direct action, he was bound to fail eventually; if the goal was to die a martyr and piss people off, though, he was pretty successful.
Brown's failure wasn't necessarily the plan itself--while still fatally flawed, but at least was based upon the successful slave revolts of the Caribbean--as much as it was totally underestimating the town's level of resistance. Of course, they promptly demonstrated how they felt about the whole event with the sheer mutilation of some of the freedmen and slaves that did fight that morning.
Brown's sense of martyrdom was only realized when he was captured.
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 02:23:39 PM
It is like pro-life anti-choice people calling pro-choice people baby killers, or pro-choice people calling pro-life anti-choice people misogynists.
Baby killer.
Whatever gets traffic moving in the morning.
Huh, remember back when I was pro-life (anti-choice, whatever, Money)? Ideologue: capable of change.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2011, 11:14:58 PM
Huh, remember back when I was pro-life (anti-choice, whatever, Money)? Ideologue: capable of change.
I don't remember that. I do remember when you were Pro-Bush. But that was back on Pdox.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2011, 11:14:58 PM
Huh, remember back when I was pro-life (anti-choice, whatever, Money)? Ideologue: capable of change.
You were also saddled with a psycho shitbag with Daddy issues, so yeah, you are.
:XD:
We love you Ide!
(i'm drunk)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2011, 11:50:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2011, 11:14:58 PM
Huh, remember back when I was pro-life (anti-choice, whatever, Money)? Ideologue: capable of change.
I don't remember that. I do remember when you were Pro-Bush. But that was back on Pdox.
I'm not sure I was ever really pro-Bush, though I was pro some Bush policies, especially the war in Iraq. Hell, I'm still for that.
Nothing wrong with being pro bombing brown people with towels on their heads. Derka derka.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 27, 2011, 12:44:37 AM
:XD:
We love you Ide!
(i'm drunk)
We love you too, buddy. :frog:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2011, 02:01:04 AM
I always thought it was an irony that though Franco had that rhetoric he decolonised while Salazar clung on to colonial possessions to the bitter end. I should say though that I know very little about Salazarism, I simply associate it with Francoism though I'm sure there are differences.
Easy to explain: Gibraltar is a colony and Franco did not care much about the pitiful Spanish colonial remnants.
Shark: Jumped (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovs0fpFgeqw)
Sorry, Siege.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2011, 12:10:41 AM
You were also saddled with a psycho shitbag with Daddy issues, so yeah, you are.
She seemed pretty cool when I met her. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2011, 07:40:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2011, 12:10:41 AM
You were also saddled with a psycho shitbag with Daddy issues, so yeah, you are.
She seemed pretty cool when I met her. :hmm:
That's what they do.
Surprised you didn't know that.
http://occupywallst.org/
QuoteTomorrow, the Aviation Week and Credit Suisse will be holding their 17th annual Aerospace & Defense Finance Conference in NYC. These war profiteers export death in the name of defense. They have obscene influence over our democracy with politicians in their pockets and hundreds of lobbyists working congress. They sell arms to to the 1% so that war can be waged against the 99% in efficient and technologically advanced ways. #OWS will not stand silent as these dangerous parasites take our tax dollars and turn them into arms and profit.
WHEN: Wednesday, 11/30, two rallies/marches--6:30am meet up and rally to non-violently interrupt business as usual as delegates enter the conference, and 4:30pm to rally against militarism.
WHERE: Both rallies are In Madison Sq. Park near the intersection of 24th and Madison. The Conference is being held at One Madison Avenue 12th Floor (Park Ave South between 24th & 23rd streets).
I love that my building feels like it is under siege. I really love the police presence!
Harvard freshman staged a walkout protest of Econ 10 (intro to economics) to protest the biased conclusions of the field. About 5-10% of students enrolled participated, according to one of the professors's estimate. :bleeding:
Biased conclusions?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 06:35:54 PM
Harvard freshman staged a walkout protest of Econ 10 (intro to economics) to protest the biased conclusions of the field. About 5-10% of students enrolled participated, according to one of the professors's estimate. :bleeding:
Keynes won.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 06:35:54 PM
Harvard freshman staged a walkout protest of Econ 10 (intro to economics) to protest the biased conclusions of the field. About 5-10% of students enrolled participated, according to one of the professors's estimate. :bleeding:
Harvard freshman can go jump off a fucking bridge. They have those in Cambridge, right? High enough to kill a man?
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 06:41:40 PM
Biased conclusions?
I figure 5-10% is a good rough approximation of the students majoring in neo-Marxist oppression majors like womens' studies, black studies, and sociology.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 06:59:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 06:35:54 PM
Harvard freshman staged a walkout protest of Econ 10 (intro to economics) to protest the biased conclusions of the field. About 5-10% of students enrolled participated, according to one of the professors's estimate. :bleeding:
Keynes won.
Keynes is almost certainly part of the curriculum and, if he isn't, should be.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 04, 2011, 08:06:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 06:59:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 06:35:54 PM
Harvard freshman staged a walkout protest of Econ 10 (intro to economics) to protest the biased conclusions of the field. About 5-10% of students enrolled participated, according to one of the professors's estimate. :bleeding:
Keynes won.
Keynes is almost certainly part of the curriculum and, if he isn't, should be.
I'm sure he is, but like so many of today's other Chicago-driven MBAtard factories, I'm sure Harvard ignores him in practice.
:shakeshead:
Most MBAs are barely literate anyways, so I don't think it really matters what they're taught at school.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:05:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 06:41:40 PM
Biased conclusions?
I figure 5-10% is a good rough approximation of the students majoring in neo-Marxist oppression majors like womens' studies, black studies, and sociology.
How did you take to be force fed Marx?
I think he thinks your name is Marx.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:22:37 PM
:shakeshead:
Today's economics taught at the collegiate level since WW2 has been broken, bereft of a moral compass or even a passing acknowledgement of ethics, and you fucking know it. So don't even try to defend a model predicated on greed and avarice.
Fucking Gordon Gekko fanboi.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:22:37 PM
:shakeshead:
Today's economics taught at the collegiate level since WW2 has been broken, bereft of a moral compass or even a passing acknowledgement of ethics, and you fucking know it. So don't even try to defend a model predicated on greed and avarice.
Fucking Gordon Gekko fanboi.
I disagree. I think that the study of economics is descriptive. It's the MBAs themselves who are without a trace of ethics. It's not that the study of economics makes one bad, it's that bad, petty people who thirst for authority without responsibility are attracted to MBAs.
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 08:48:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:22:37 PM
:shakeshead:
Today's economics taught at the collegiate level since WW2 has been broken, bereft of a moral compass or even a passing acknowledgement of ethics, and you fucking know it. So don't even try to defend a model predicated on greed and avarice.
Fucking Gordon Gekko fanboi.
I disagree. I think that the study of economics is descriptive. It's the MBAs themselves who are without a trace of ethics. It's not that the study of economics makes one bad, it's that bad, petty people who thirst for authority without responsibility are attracted to MBAs.
Bah. It all sucks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:36:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2011, 08:32:00 PM
How did you take to be force fed Marx?
Huh?
Sorry about that. "Be" should be "being".
In other words, how did you take paying money to be taught something you believe to be fundamentally wrong?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:05:36 PMI figure 5-10% is a good rough approximation of the students majoring in neo-Marxist oppression majors like womens' studies, black studies, and sociology.
I don't entirely know why but this reminds me of that Scots' Calvinist fear that someone somewhere is having fun.
If Greg Mankiw is still giving Econ 10, then the students may have a point.
Quote from: Warspite on December 05, 2011, 05:18:49 AM
If Greg Mankiw is still giving Econ 10, then the students may have a point.
The article was written by Mankiw about his Econ 10 class.
What's your knock on Mankiw?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 05:20:29 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 05, 2011, 05:18:49 AM
If Greg Mankiw is still giving Econ 10, then the students may have a point.
The article was written by Mankiw about his Econ 10 class.
What's your knock on Mankiw?
He's a douche.
Now they're messing with my shows! :angry:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/occupy-wall-street-protesters-shut-law-order-svu-set-depicting-ows-article-1.989070
QuoteMore than 100 Occupy Wall Street demonstrators stormed the set for "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" across from the Manhattan State Supreme Courthouse, shutting down production of an OWS-themed episode.
"We made it so that they could not exploit us and that's awesome," said Tammy Schapiro, 29, of Brooklyn.
The protesters arrived around midnight at Foley Square and roamed around the park inspecting tents and signs built by the production company.
"This is not us," said Drew Hornbein, 24, of Brooklyn Heights. "We are not part of corporate TV America."
Some of the set signs read "End War on Workers" "Greed No" and "War Profiteers."
About 100 police officers lined the perimeter of the production, preventing protesters from getting too close.
"It's hysterical," Hornbein said. "Two weeks ago they kicked us out of Zuccotti Park. Now they have this set trying to pretend it's us. It's odd."
After midnight, a police officer on a bullhorn announced that the film permit had been rescinded by the city, which drew cheers from the crowd.
Cops then threatened to arrest them if they did not leave the park. After a momentary standoff, police moved in and dispersed the crowd.
"This is bastardization going on. This is not the case of imitation is a form of flattery," said a man identified as Scooby 49. "This is insulting."
The production crew moved in and started dismantling the set.
Scooby 49 belongs here with Lettow, warmongers, and Count.
Quote from: Warspite on December 05, 2011, 05:33:14 AM
He's a douche.
Is this based on personal contact or a reaction to his textbook, writings, commentary, etc?
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2011, 11:46:32 AM
Now they're messing with my shows! :angry:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/occupy-wall-street-protesters-shut-law-order-svu-set-depicting-ows-article-1.989070
QuoteMore than 100 Occupy Wall Street demonstrators stormed the set for "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" across from the Manhattan State Supreme Courthouse, shutting down production of an OWS-themed episode.
"We made it so that they could not exploit us and that's awesome," said Tammy Schapiro, 29, of Brooklyn.
The protesters arrived around midnight at Foley Square and roamed around the park inspecting tents and signs built by the production company.
"This is not us," said Drew Hornbein, 24, of Brooklyn Heights. "We are not part of corporate TV America."
Some of the set signs read "End War on Workers" "Greed No" and "War Profiteers."
About 100 police officers lined the perimeter of the production, preventing protesters from getting too close.
"It's hysterical," Hornbein said. "Two weeks ago they kicked us out of Zuccotti Park. Now they have this set trying to pretend it's us. It's odd."
After midnight, a police officer on a bullhorn announced that the film permit had been rescinded by the city, which drew cheers from the crowd.
Cops then threatened to arrest them if they did not leave the park. After a momentary standoff, police moved in and dispersed the crowd.
"This is bastardization going on. This is not the case of imitation is a form of flattery," said a man identified as Scooby 49. "This is insulting."
The production crew moved in and started dismantling the set.
Good. The Rape Show sucks anyway.
SVU gives me a boner when they have the east European maid episodes.
I died a long time ago. But you'll go on reading my screeds and one-liners anyway. It is the nature of things.
Fwiw, though, I really only dislike Stabler. That guy gets on my nerves.
Edit: and it looks like he's not even there anymore. Hm.
Both of you shut the hell about with the insults at each other and get back to insulting the occupy fuckwits.
Garbon, start out harsh, but then end on a conciliatory note. Ides, go after the hippies in Vancouver.
Get to it.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 07:46:23 PM
Fwiw, though, I really only dislike Stabler. That guy gets on my nerves.
Edit: and it looks like he's not even there anymore. Hm.
Yeah he's gone. :D
Why would I insult the hippies in Vancouver? Sure, they were coattail riders and they already live the good life in the off-world colonies, but on the plus side they annoyed CC to no end. Could I truly ask for more?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 08:05:59 PM
Why would I insult the hippies in Vancouver? Sure, they were coattail riders and they already live the good life in the off-world colonies, but on the plus side they annoyed CC to no end. Could I truly ask for more?
You can cooperate or you can be turned over for re-education.
Fine, as long as I don't have to take out any loans this time.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 08:24:09 PM
Fine, as long as I don't have to take out any loans this time.
You'll be billed for the complete works of Noam Chomsky that they bore you to death with.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 08:05:59 PM
Why would I insult the hippies in Vancouver? Sure, they were coattail riders and they already live the good life in the off-world colonies, but on the plus side they annoyed CC to no end. Could I truly ask for more?
You are correct that they annoyed me to no end. I am happy I could make you happy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2011, 08:43:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 08:05:59 PM
Why would I insult the hippies in Vancouver? Sure, they were coattail riders and they already live the good life in the off-world colonies, but on the plus side they annoyed CC to no end. Could I truly ask for more?
You are correct that they annoyed me to no end. I am happy I could make you happy.
:P
Quote
Percussion grenades used to disperse Seattle protesters
By KOMO Staff & News Services December 12, 2011
SEATTLE -- Seattle police used "flash bang" percussion grenades to disperse protesters who blocked an entrance to a Port of Seattle facility. Police said "multiple" people have been arrested.
Occupy Seattle protesters had started setting up wooden crates and aluminum in front of the entrance to Terminal 5 when police moved in to clear the area. Earlier, police reported "multiple" arrests at nearby Terminal 18 after about 100 occupy protesters stopped traffic for about 20 minutes.
The protests were part of a national effort to disrupt West Coast port traffic. The Seattle activity snarled nearby traffic during the Monday evening commute and caused several bus routes to be rerouted or delayed.
About 100 protesters blocked railroad tracks near downtown Bellingham. Some were seen lying down, bound together by bicycle locks around their necks.
A train expected at 3 p.m. was delayed by Burlington Northern Santa Fe as police arrested protesters who refused to clear the tracks.
Earlier in the longshoremen at the Longview port went home for the day, essentially shutting down the terminal after an Occupy Wall Street demonstration.
Protesters are most upset by two West Coast companies: port operator SSA Marine and grain exporter EGT. The bank, Goldman Sachs, manages an investment fund that holds a minority stake in SSA Marine and has been a frequent target of protesters.
They say they are standing up for workers against the port companies, which have had high-profile clashes with union workers lately. Longshoremen at the Port of Longview, for example, have had a longstanding dispute with EGT.
A spokesman for SSA Marine said the company is a union shop and is the largest employer of ILWU workers on the U.S. West Coast.
Several hundred people began picketing at the Port of Oakland before dawn and blocked some trucks from going inside. Police are monitoring at the scene, but no major clashes have been reported so far. Occupy protesters successfully shut down the port in November.
In Los Angeles, Occupy LA protesters have ended a demonstration at one of the world's largest port complexes after briefly blocking traffic. Only one arrest was reported as about 200 demonstrators gathered Monday morning near a shipping terminal at the Port of Long Beach.
Police forced the demonstrators out of a parking lot but several dozen regrouped and briefly blocked a major roadway, backing up a line of trucks heading to the port. Heavy rain dampened the protest and the demonstrators, who were flanked by dozens of police, have now moved off, effectively making a peaceful end to a four-hour protest.
Port spokesman John Pope says other routes are available and disruption has been minimal.
In Vancouver, B.C., police say Occupy Wall Street demonstrators briefly blocked two gates at Port Metro Vancouver near downtown Vancouver. The Canadian Press reported demonstrators held up a large banner proclaiming solidarity with Longshore union members involved in a dispute at the Port of Longview, Wash.
The disruption lasted for about an hour before the protest moved to a second gate, blocking it for less than 30 minutes before moving on.
Down in Portland, About 300 protesters from Occupy Portland blocked entrances to two terminals at the Port of Portland, preventing trucks from entering.
The Oregonian said workers at the two terminals were told to stay home on Monday. Spokesman Josh Thomas said an unspecified number of workers at the terminals wouldn't be paid. A couple of hundred people gathered at the port Monday morning to try to shut down the port's terminals. Police in riot gear were on hand, but there were no confrontations or arrests.
Before the protest began, police arrested three people on their way to the protest. In one case, the police seized a gun, ammunition clips and a sword. A spokeswoman for Occupy Portland said they weren't part of the group.
The protests being billed as action against "Wall Street on the waterfront" are perhaps the Occupy movement's most dramatic gesture since police raids sent most remaining camps scattering last month. Demonstrators began forming those camps around the country about two months ago to protest what they call corporate greed and economic inequality.
Officials at West Coast ports said they have been coordinating with law enforcement agencies as they prepare for possible disruptions. Protesters said police violence against blockades in any city will trigger an extension of blockades in other cities as a show of resolve.
Organizers of the port demonstrations said they hope to draw thousands to stand in solidarity with longshoremen and port truckers they said are being exploited, though the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents many thousands of longshoremen up and down the West Coast, has distanced itself from the shutdown effort.
The union's president suggested in a letter to members that protesters were attempting to co-opt the union's cause to advance their own agenda.
Protesters have cited a longstanding dispute between longshoremen at the Port of Longview in Washington and grain exporter EGT as a key reason for the blockades. Shutdown supporters said they're not asking longshoremen to organize a work stoppage in violation of their contract but simply asking them to exercise their free speech rights and stay off the job, in keeping with the union's historic tradition of activism.
If protesters muster large enough numbers to block port entrances, arbitrators could declare unsafe working conditions, which would allow port workers to stay home.
Organized labor appears divided over the port shutdown effort. In Oakland, which saw strong union support for the Nov. 2 general strike that culminated in the closing of the port, the city's teachers union is backing Monday's action, while the county's construction workers have come out against the shutdown, saying the port has provided jobs to many unemployed workers and apprentices.
QuoteSEATTLE -- Seattle police used "flash bang" percussion grenades to disperse protesters who blocked an entrance to a Port of Seattle facility. Police said "multiple" people have been arrested.
Occupy Seattle protesters had started setting up wooden crates and aluminum in front of the entrance to Terminal 5 when police moved in to clear the area. Earlier, police reported "multiple" arrests at nearby Terminal 18 after about 100 occupy protesters stopped traffic for about 20 minutes.
Thats right Occupy Bitches.
Thank God someone is standing up for those poor exploited longshoremen.
Keep up the good work Occupiers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=N2qqRFYv3ao
First bit and then end are the best. Middle just seems like a re-hash of the first bit.
I wish these fuckers would stop that "mike test" bullshit at campaign events.
Oh the mike check is now their signature move.
The Tea Party folks are so nice, especially in comparison to the Occupod people. ;)
Quote from: KRonn on December 16, 2011, 06:07:56 PM
The Tea Party folks are so nice, especially in comparison to the Occupod people. ;)
Yes, all those guns at Obama rallies in 2008 were so much more polite. Much less threatening than coffee shoptards that don't bathe for a week.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2011, 08:54:16 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 16, 2011, 06:07:56 PM
The Tea Party folks are so nice, especially in comparison to the Occupod people. ;)
Yes, all those guns at Obama rallies in 2008 were so much more polite. Much less threatening than coffee shoptards that don't bathe for a week.
Lol. Acutually, even with those gun toters the Tea Partiers were a lot more polite! :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-protesters-march-against-trinity-church.html?src=mv&ref=nyregion
QuoteFrom his spot at the center of Duarte Square in Lower Manhattan, Matt Sky watched on Saturday as hundreds of protesters streamed into the public areas of the triangle-shaped space at the center of an ideological tug of war between onetime allies turned adversaries:
That began a long day of demonstrations and marches that extended as far as Times Square and resulted in at least 50 arrests.
By noon, protesters had streamed into the square from all directions under cold, cloudy skies to reinforce the vibrancy of a movement swept last month from another space, Zuccotti Park, and signal a resolve against ecclesiastical leaders resisting their wish to set up an encampment on property owned by the venerable Episcopal church.
"Everything about this movement is momentum," said Mr. Sky, 27, an Internet consultant from the East Village. "We need to show people that we are still relevant."
Even before the protesters were displaced on Nov. 15, Trinity gave many of them hot chocolate, blankets and a place to rest at a space owned by the church. But when the Occupy movement expressed an interest in setting up an organizing camp on vacant Trinity property at Canal Street and Avenue of the Americas, the church said no.
The Occupy Wall Street forces then directed their skills at the church: They took their arguments to the streets. In familiar fashion, police officers converged on the area, standing around the perimeter.
A flier distributed by protesters summed up their mood: "While the event may include a reoccupation, the event itself is a broader celebration and expansion of Occupy Wall Street," it said. It also advised people to bring backpacks, warm clothes and sleeping bags.
About 3 p.m., several hundred people began to slowly march along the blocks around the park. They went about five blocks north, then circled back. They were carrying homemade wooden ladders, draped with yellow banners. At Grand Street, the protesters made a move: They threw a ladder fashioned into a portable staircase against a chain-link fence separating the sidewalk from the church's property.
Many people went over the fence that way. Others lifted the fence from the bottom, allowing protesters to squeeze into the space. The protesters were joined by a few clerics, including Bishop George Packard, a retired former supervisor of Episcopal military chaplains.
Within minutes, police officers began taking people into custody. About 4:15 p.m., Bishop Packard was led into a police van.
On the sidewalk, other officers pushed into a line of protesters, ordering them to disperse.
But hundreds of demonstrators marched up Seventh Avenue on Saturday evening, in the street and on the sidewalk — and against traffic.
Police vehicles — cars, scooters, vans — followed, and there were more arrests.
"Is there a problem?" said one protester, who was on a bicycle, as a police officer grabbed him on West 29th Street, near Seventh Avenue.
"The problem is you're under arrest," an officer replied.
Earlier in the day, the Rev. Stephen Chinlund, 77, an Episcopal priest who retired seven years ago, held a placard reading: "Trinity Hero of 9/11. Be a Hero Again."
The mission of the church was to help those in need, he said.
The church's rector, the Rev. Dr. James H. Cooper, expressed sadness over the protesters' actions on Saturday.
"O.W.S. protestors call out for social and economic justice; Trinity has been supporting these goals for more than 300 years," Dr. Cooper said in a statement. "We do not, however, believe that erecting a tent city at Duarte Square enhances their mission or ours."
:lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2011, 10:10:43 AM
You gotta wonder if there ever going to be point where all of this blows up.
I don't know, I think they shoot themselves in the foot by not not having a leadership and some form of define platform.
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2012, 05:58:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2011, 10:10:43 AM
You gotta wonder if there ever going to be point where all of this blows up.
I don't know, I think they shoot themselves in the foot by not not having a leadership and some form of define platform.
So you're saying they're suffering from a lack of...community organization?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 05:59:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2012, 05:58:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2011, 10:10:43 AM
You gotta wonder if there ever going to be point where all of this blows up.
I don't know, I think they shoot themselves in the foot by not not having a leadership and some form of define platform.
So you're saying they're suffering from a lack of...community organization?
It pains me to say it but, I was looking at the Occupy London's web presence at it looks like their combined forum is no bigger than that Languish !
Quote
Most users ever online was 57, 14-01-2012 at 02:48 PM.
Users active in the past 24 hours
262 Users have visited the forum. 19 members and 243 guests
Occupy Forum Statistics
Threads: 390 Posts: 1,948 Members: 190 Active Members: 125
Welcome to our newest member, Bill-K
In some ways it's smaller than languish, we probably have more active members than a mass movement. :hmm:
"
"O.W.S. protestors call out for social and economic justice; Trinity has been supporting these goals for more than 300 years," Dr. Cooper said in a statement. "We do not, however, believe that erecting a tent city at Duarte Square enhances their mission or ours." "
Word.
Not really a mass movement then Drafty.
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2012, 09:55:42 PMIn some ways it's smaller than languish, we probably have more active members than a mass movement. :hmm:
But we'd never get it off the ground; too many of us would be plotting the counter-revolutionary purgers and the post-revolutionary shootings before we even came up with an actual first meeting date and a caterer.
My camps proposal is still stuck in committee. <_<
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 10:19:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2012, 09:55:42 PMIn some ways it's smaller than languish, we probably have more active members than a mass movement. :hmm:
But we'd never get it off the ground; too many of us would be plotting the counter-revolutionary purgers and the post-revolutionary shootings before we even came up with an actual first meeting date and a caterer.
:D
Yeah, Languish is the very last place you'd look for social change to originate from.
edit:or for that matter anything to come from.
Hell, I'm willing to bet that if two or more of the Languish Danes ever actually managed to meet up that would be far more prophecy like, than all of the 2012 Mayan bullshit.
Quote from: mongers on January 16, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
Hell, I'm willing to bet that if two or more of the Languish Danes ever actually managed to meet up that would be far more prophecy like, than all of the 2012 Mayan bullshit.
I wouldn't judge us all by Danish standards. With my own eyes, I've seen England and New England do a decent effort of getting together. :)
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2012, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 16, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
Hell, I'm willing to bet that if two or more of the Languish Danes ever actually managed to meet up that would be far more prophecy like, than all of the 2012 Mayan bullshit.
I wouldn't judge us all by Danish standards. With my own eyes, I've seen England and New England do a decent effort of getting together. :)
I wasn't, just that the chances of Languish Danes getting together is so improbably it makes the Mayan BS seem like a slight possibility. ;)
One would think, given the size of Denmark, that they would bump into each other every now and then purely by chance :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2012, 09:55:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 05:59:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2012, 05:58:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2011, 10:10:43 AM
You gotta wonder if there ever going to be point where all of this blows up.
I don't know, I think they shoot themselves in the foot by not not having a leadership and some form of define platform.
So you're saying they're suffering from a lack of...community organization?
It pains me to say it but, I was looking at the Occupy London's web presence at it looks like their combined forum is no bigger than that Languish !
Quote
Most users ever online was 57, 14-01-2012 at 02:48 PM.
Users active in the past 24 hours
262 Users have visited the forum. 19 members and 243 guests
Occupy Forum Statistics
Threads: 390 Posts: 1,948 Members: 190 Active Members: 125
Welcome to our newest member, Bill-K
In some ways it's smaller than languish, we probably have more active members than a mass movement. :hmm:
Maybe languish should go and occupy the occupy forum :hmm: ?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 02:58:38 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2012, 09:55:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 05:59:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2012, 05:58:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2011, 10:10:43 AM
You gotta wonder if there ever going to be point where all of this blows up.
I don't know, I think they shoot themselves in the foot by not not having a leadership and some form of define platform.
So you're saying they're suffering from a lack of...community organization?
It pains me to say it but, I was looking at the Occupy London's web presence at it looks like their combined forum is no bigger than that Languish !
Quote
Most users ever online was 57, 14-01-2012 at 02:48 PM.
Users active in the past 24 hours
262 Users have visited the forum. 19 members and 243 guests
Occupy Forum Statistics
Threads: 390 Posts: 1,948 Members: 190 Active Members: 125
Welcome to our newest member, Bill-K
In some ways it's smaller than languish, we probably have more active members than a mass movement. :hmm:
Maybe languish should go and occupy the occupy forum :hmm: ?
Here you go:
http://www.occupyforum.org.uk/forum.php (http://www.occupyforum.org.uk/forum.php)
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
You're not interested in the possible breadmaking workshop?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
Yes, I know; i just don't get were their activism is happening, not on the web, not much outreach, where ?
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2012, 11:35:18 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
Yes, I know; i just don't get were their activism is happening, not on the web, not much outreach, where ?
Yeah, right. They have some good points, or I should say some of them do, just like any political movement. But they so far haven't had the organization to turn it into something more tangible, like the Tea Party has done.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
We could liven it up. Heck, we haven't done an invasion in a long time.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 17, 2012, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
We could liven it up. Heck, we haven't done an invasion in a long time.
I'm already there and at other places as well. :ph34r:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 17, 2012, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
We could liven it up. Heck, we haven't done an invasion in a long time.
I'm not sure they would notice. Their forum is pathetic rather than irritating............sigh :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
Well maybe Brits just are not as outraged by the evils of Wall Street and government bailouts of the rich being so far away from it.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
Well maybe Brits just are not as outraged by the evils of Wall Street and government bailouts of the rich being so far away from it.
Try the American forum:
http://occupywallstreetforum.com/ (http://occupywallstreetforum.com/)
if anything it might be more inactive than the British one.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
Well maybe Brits just are not as outraged by the evils of Wall Street and government bailouts of the rich being so far away from it.
We've our own of all of that.
I don't think they're massively based online because they're occupying a physical space. The arguments are happening there. I get Occupy London SX's tweets and they're mostly retweets of praise, or messages of who's coming to lecture at the tent university etc.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 05:01:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
Well maybe Brits just are not as outraged by the evils of Wall Street and government bailouts of the rich being so far away from it.
We've our own of all of that.
I don't think they're massively based online because they're occupying a physical space. The arguments are happening there. I get Occupy London SX's tweets and they're mostly retweets of praise, or messages of who's coming to lecture at the tent university etc.
I've got some friends up there at the moment, I'm popping up there at the weekend and shall relay a 'progress report'.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 17, 2012, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
Hmmm.....it's bloody boring in there :(
We could liven it up. Heck, we haven't done an invasion in a long time.
The commie one was entertaining, though I didn't actively participate.
Occupy D.C. attacks White House with smoke bomb.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/smoke-bomb-tossed-over-fence-at-white-house/ (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/smoke-bomb-tossed-over-fence-at-white-house/)
I see great things ahead for the Occupy movement.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 18, 2012, 08:54:03 AM
I see great things ahead for the Occupy movement.
I am just amazed the thing is still going on.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 18, 2012, 04:38:13 AM
Occupy D.C. attacks White House with smoke bomb.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/smoke-bomb-tossed-over-fence-at-white-house/ (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/smoke-bomb-tossed-over-fence-at-white-house/)
Yes, Ide. I do think this kind of protesting is fundamentally bad.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 10:25:39 AM
Yes, Ide. I do think this kind of protesting is fundamentally bad.
So what sort of protesting are you in favor of?
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 10:36:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 10:25:39 AM
Yes, Ide. I do think this kind of protesting is fundamentally bad.
So what sort of protesting are you in favor of?
I like protest marches. Even if repeated, you don't tend to end with the general squalor that has come about due to the occupy movement.
Marches are good. Every time there is one, it'll make the news. Just setting up a camp will fade out of the news, unless someone does something to escalate the situation, which can get away from being a peaceful protest fairly quickly.
In addition anyone can go on a march, whereas a camp is confined to that small percentage of people who have no work or family responsibilities.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 18, 2012, 02:14:47 PM
In addition anyone can go on a march, whereas a camp is confined to that small percentage of people who have no work or family responsibilities.
This isn't the case, of the one I've talked with, the majority have jobs and so put-in an effort in the evenings, weekends and sometimes overnight.
What has happened, as in any large city, is the camps have attracted a fair share of the homeless, some groups have been feeding them, and mixed in with this is a proportion drunk, rowdy and violent individuals who aren't necessarily all homeless either. And this seems to have caused problems in several locations. Anyway that's my experience.
Ok.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 02:24:13 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 18, 2012, 02:14:47 PM
In addition anyone can go on a march, whereas a camp is confined to that small percentage of people who have no work or family responsibilities.
This isn't the case, of the one I've talked with, the majority have jobs and so put-in an effort in the evenings, weekends and sometimes overnight.
What has happened, as in any large city, is the camps have attracted a fair share of the homeless, some groups have been feeding them, and mixed in with this is a proportion drunk, rowdy and violent individuals who aren't necessarily all homeless either. And this seems to have caused problems in several locations. Anyway that's my experience.
I think that's fair although even if the latter part doesn't happen - you largely end up with what is a shanty town. Other than it being somewhat novel, I'm not really sure what the benefit of an encampment based protest is.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 09:09:43 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 18, 2012, 08:54:03 AM
I see great things ahead for the Occupy movement.
I am just amazed the thing is still going on.
Is it? This seems more a meaningless exercise of idle boredom than a movement.
I wonder what will happen when the last major occupy group is expelled from a major city centre ?
London looks like it has another week or so to go.
Looks like Occupy London is being infected with conspiracy nuts and 'Freeman of the Land' advocates.
Here's the meetings of the Real Democracy working group:
http://www.occupyforum.org.uk/showthread.php?485-Amended-minutes-of-RDWG-February-13&p=2712#post2712 (http://www.occupyforum.org.uk/showthread.php?485-Amended-minutes-of-RDWG-February-13&p=2712#post2712)
QuoteAmended minutes of RDWG, February 13
Amended Minutes from Real Democracy Working Group Meeting February 13th 2012
Julie. Corinna.George. Steve. Claudine. Rada and Natasha were there.
Julie facilitated.
Apologies from Ivette and Paul. V for Vendetta personage also present.
Agenda: Feedback from Crown sub group
Blog Idea
Discussion of Real Democracy Working Group Statement.
Day School Themes.
Achieving Democratic Change.
Steve gave feedback from Crown Group. Said it was an eclectic meeting with 15 people and all sorts of ideas including Rainbow People and disccusion of Freemasons.
George arrived-suggested we introduce ourselves and say why we are at group.
Julie said we would-but after we had finished Crown item on agenda.
Steve said there is a link between hierarchy of Freemasons and The Crown.
Julie said that there is a link between Freemasons and Freeman debate. Freeman debate pragmatic-Occupy is challenged to stay pragmatic.
Steve distributed the first chapter of The Nature of the Crown. Steve talked about the meaning of the Crown and how different people have different definitions. He believes is Crown is a group of core executives including heads of MI5 who make key decisions not the Cabinet. That the Crown is not the Queen. That the Crown is all pervasive. That the Crown is more like the State- a sum total of governmental powers.
Chris disagreed.
Steve said that Polly Toynbee wrote an interesting article saying that the implementation of NHS Bill was already taking place before the bill was passed.
At some point, Steve seemed to suggest that the future and direction of administration of the NHS over the past 30 years had been in the 'gift'/agenda of the State, with the implication that Govt. policy, whether Labour or Conservative had reflected little, if anything, more than adherence to the predetermined agenda of 'The State'. To this Chris (who for some reason had no more than a ghostly presence at this meeting) responded with the question as to what the position and agenda of 'The State' had been in 1948 (inception of NHS and Welfare State) – reply ?something along the lines of rebuilding Nation after war.
The phantom Chris also at some point in such discussions inferred a theme of conspiracy theory in relation to the concept of the 'The State' as the purveyor of absolute disempowerment of Parliament.
Steve carried on to say the biggest multinational in Britain was the Crown. It's got an army too.
And that the word civil servant comes from The East India Company.
That the Queen is a smoke screen –a family that does the marketing for the real Crown.
George said Top down system isn't unique to Britain.
Julie said there is something unique and invidious to our system as we didn't get rid of the Monarchy.
Corinna said It is dangerous to say Crown is a corporation –to meld economics with democracy as they are not identical. She said Steve's interpretation of Crown could be seen as a conspiracy theory. And that The Crown is not the sum total of the State.
Claudine said Corporations have used democracy for vested interests. That the elite will always keep their power mysterious.
Chris didn't agree with Steve's interpretation and asked "If Tony Blair had said we are not going to war would the state have steamrollered him into it?
Steve responded that Tony Blair was part of a group of people who wanted to go to war. Complicite.
We moved on to discussion of how to proceed with our working group statement.
Claudine wanted to put it up on the website and move on with our work.
I wanted to take it to the GA
Julie felt we hadn't done the hard work of incorporating all of the previous GA's comments so we shouldn't take it back to GA until we have,
Claudine said that the statement was not for inclusion in the initial Occupy statement so we didn't need to incorporate comments from GA. That we should get the statement out and get on with work like on The Bill of Rights.
Julie suggested we put statement on website and let people edit it.
I said put a deadline on the editing.
Julie said after deadline we should take it back to GA.
Steve wanted to leave statement as it is.
Chris felt it needed further work.
Claudine felt leaving the statement open for editing would be counter productive.
We agreed that Julie will contact Mark who will put the statement on website to be moved to an open forum where anyone who wishes to can post comments on it. There will be a deadline of 2 weeks for those comments.
Chris suggested we email it across working group spaces.
We agreed. And moved onto discussion of Day School and themes.
Day school to be held on 25th Feb 11am -4pm.
We agreed that Claudine will give a talk on the way our Parliamentary Democracy is supposed to work.
Steve will talk about The Crown.
We will ask Melanie if she will talk about the Community Bill of Rights.
That we will discuss what we understand democracy to be.
That Julie will talk about Participatory Techniques.
.....
Interesting someone proposed doing something symbolic like Ghandi's salt march.
http://www.occupyforum.org.uk/showthread.php?475-Alternatives-to-Ghandi-s-Salt-March&p=2631#post2631 (http://www.occupyforum.org.uk/showthread.php?475-Alternatives-to-Ghandi-s-Salt-March&p=2631#post2631)
Apparently the answer is not paying for your tv licence:
Quote
Want a simple protest? Stop paying the TV licence. It affects almost everyone, it's easy to do from an armchair and there are no personal consequences, it doesn't affect any funding in important areas and they'll be crapping themselves if it takes hold.
Apparently, based on FOTL mojo:
QuoteNo, people have been jailed for non payment of a fine, not for non payment of a TV licence.
In reality you do not have to engage with the "Inspector" nor do you have to let them into your home, you do not have to talk to them or do anything other than shut the door on them. Their threats of search warrants are idle, they won't get them.
TV detector vans are a myth as are hand held devices. TV licence inspectors have no powers at all, they're salesmen, they get £20 commission for every licence they sell.
The only reason anyone will find themselves in court is if they make a doorstep confession, if you treat them as you would any other unwelcome visitor you won't have any trouble.
If tens of thousands stopped paying it would be the perfect protest.
How does that compare to Ghandi's salt march ? :hmm:
The perfect protest of what?
More Anti-Masonic propaganda from the secular humanists. :(
I wonder if they had anyone worrying about Reptoids.
Or Red Lectroids.
Now that the occupation at St.Pauls has ended, maybe it's time for a bit of reflection on what, if anything was achieved; I've read a few interesting bbc/newspaper articles on the subject, of which I'll post link when I find them.
My understanding of the situation now, is many tent city residents have moved to the previously rather quiet Finsbury park site in Islington, some 1200 yards up the road from St Pauls. Their 'school of ideas', successor to the 'Bank of Ideas' was also emptied at the same time.
I know they're planing a community/schools outreach programme, where they go next I'm not sure: I've heard talk of doing something during the Olympics, but I assume, even the slightest disruption, won't be tolerated this summer.
I do know that some, really a breakaway group, are forming a political party, possibly called 'We Are London' and a planning to run a candidate in the London mayoral election, which i think is a thoroughly good idea, it's positive, participatory and could prove a good test of public sentiment regarding their movement.
Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, I've been pushing for running a candidate or two in any forthcoming parliamentary by-elections, wouldn't cost too much, I think about £1,500+ each and London Occupy still have substantial donations left iirc around £15,000 to £20,000, though how that might fund a election campaign could be a legal minefield.
Here's a video of part of their first GA meeting at St Pauls, since being evicted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxslgRjVzZs&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxslgRjVzZs&feature=youtu.be)
I don't know what to make of it or the 2+ 'factions' involved. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on February 29, 2012, 06:54:42 PM
..
I do know that some, really a breakaway group, are forming a political party, possibly called 'We Are London' and a planning to run a candidate in the London mayoral election, which i think is a thoroughly good idea, it's positive, participatory and could prove a good test of public sentiment regarding their movement.
Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, I've been pushing for running a candidate or two in any forthcoming parliamentary by-elections, wouldn't cost too much, I think about £1,500+ each and London Occupy still have substantial donations left iirc around £15,000 to £20,000, though how that might fund a election campaign could be a legal minefield.
OK I spoke too soon, the person or people involved seem to be extreme right-wingers of the non-tory party sort if you get my drift, with a some anti-UN/EU/everything conspiracy stuff thrown on top as a garnish. JFC :bleeding:
I had a brief 'chat' on facebook with the founder of this political party/movement on the matter of posting extreme right wing material.
Turns out he was happy for me to leave the party, if I didn't agree with it. Which confused me a bit as I'd not joined anything and had only been encouraging him and others, on the occupy forum, to stand for parliament and the mayoral election.
Subsequently I've found out my 'leaving' the party (unlike on facebook) has decimated their party, well not to exaggerate, but then when from 6 likes down to 5 likes. :D
Apparently the new big thing is that they are going to be occupying bank of america with furniture.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 04:30:55 PM
Apparently the new big thing is that they are going to be occupying bank of america with furniture.
?
Quote from: mongers on March 14, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 04:30:55 PM
Apparently the new big thing is that they are going to be occupying bank of america with furniture.
?
I recommend against even trying to understand. You are on the precipice as it is.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 14, 2012, 06:59:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 14, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 04:30:55 PM
Apparently the new big thing is that they are going to be occupying bank of america with furniture.
?
I recommend against even trying to understand. You are on the precipice as it is.
:blink:
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120314/FINANCE/120319948
QuoteAfter a winter of regrouping, Occupy Wall Street will unveil a new, more targeted approach Thursday when it launches a campaign directed at Bank of America Corp.
In a symbolic protest against the bank's role in the foreclosure crisis, protesters will fan out across the city—and nine others across the country—and try to set up couches, chairs, rugs and plants in Bank of America branches. It's part of a new springtime strategy that will see the protesters put a strategic slant on their traditional Occupy tactics.
Last Saturday, in a test run of their "livingrooming" tactic, protesters set up furniture in a Bank of America branch in the city and sang "Our House/In the middle of the bank" before being escorted out. A video of the protest had logged 55,000 hits by Wednesday morning.
"We are moving furniture into Bank of America lobbies across the city and country to demonstrate that we should be foreclosing on the bank, the bank shouldn't be foreclosing on our homes," said Karanja Gaçuça, a member of Occupy Wall Street.
A website, FTheBanks.org, is also up and running, detailing the "Fight BAC" campaign against Bank of America.
"For too long they've preyed on us—but now, we're turning the tables," the site reads.
The protesters are planning a series of targeted actions against the bank leading up to its annual shareholders meeting in May. Other tactics will include encouraging companies and individuals to move their money out of the bank; a weeklong series of actions next month directed at the bank's board members; and a people's shareholders meeting to run alongside the official one.
A research team that includes former Wall Streeters is studying the bank's financial reports and trying to bring together plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits against the bank.
"It's the first time a group has sat down and said, 'We want to run a campaign,'" said Austin Guest, an Occupy Wall Street member. "It's great running around and doing schizophrenic actions, but we decided to sink our teeth into one campaign."
The group's goal—to get the federal government to break up the bank—is a reach, but Bank of America does have plenty of problems. It has been hobbled by billions in mortgage-related losses, and it isn't clear how much the damage will ultimately total. It will cost untold billions to settle the many lawsuits it faces from investors whom BofA sold securities backed by mortgages that had robo-signing and other deficiencies. The bank has undergone several shifts in management and its stock price was hammered into the single digits.
A Bank of America spokeswoman declined to comment.
There you go. On twitter they were asking for donations of furniture.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 08:50:08 PM
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120314/FINANCE/120319948
QuoteAfter a winter of regrouping, Occupy Wall Street will unveil a new, more targeted approach Thursday when it launches a campaign directed at Bank of America Corp.
In a symbolic protest against the bank's role in the foreclosure crisis, protesters will fan out across the city—and nine others across the country—and try to set up couches, chairs, rugs and plants in Bank of America branches. It's part of a new springtime strategy that will see the protesters put a strategic slant on their traditional Occupy tactics.
Last Saturday, in a test run of their "livingrooming" tactic, protesters set up furniture in a Bank of America branch in the city and sang "Our House/In the middle of the bank" before being escorted out. A video of the protest had logged 55,000 hits by Wednesday morning.
"We are moving furniture into Bank of America lobbies across the city and country to demonstrate that we should be foreclosing on the bank, the bank shouldn't be foreclosing on our homes," said Karanja Gaçuça, a member of Occupy Wall Street.
A website, FTheBanks.org, is also up and running, detailing the "Fight BAC" campaign against Bank of America.
"For too long they've preyed on us—but now, we're turning the tables," the site reads.
The protesters are planning a series of targeted actions against the bank leading up to its annual shareholders meeting in May. Other tactics will include encouraging companies and individuals to move their money out of the bank; a weeklong series of actions next month directed at the bank's board members; and a people's shareholders meeting to run alongside the official one.
A research team that includes former Wall Streeters is studying the bank's financial reports and trying to bring together plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits against the bank.
"It's the first time a group has sat down and said, 'We want to run a campaign,'" said Austin Guest, an Occupy Wall Street member. "It's great running around and doing schizophrenic actions, but we decided to sink our teeth into one campaign."
The group's goal—to get the federal government to break up the bank—is a reach, but Bank of America does have plenty of problems. It has been hobbled by billions in mortgage-related losses, and it isn't clear how much the damage will ultimately total. It will cost untold billions to settle the many lawsuits it faces from investors whom BofA sold securities backed by mortgages that had robo-signing and other deficiencies. The bank has undergone several shifts in management and its stock price was hammered into the single digits.
A Bank of America spokeswoman declined to comment.
There you go. On twitter they were asking for donations of furniture.
Thanks, now to. :hmm:
Looks like protestors chose tonight to act up again. I wonder if it had anything to do with getting drunk on St. Patrick's Day...:hmm:
edit: ah, 6-month anniversary. OWS might get some news coverage given new complaints of police...brutality(?)
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/occupy-wall-street-members-making-brooklyn-economic-hub-article-1.1075082
QuoteOccupy Wall Street members making Brooklyn their economic hub
Occupy Wall Street protesters may be marching for change in Manhattan, but they're making money in Brooklyn.
More than a dozen savvy OWS entrepreneurs have opened a printing shop, a T-shirt operation and a tech venture - all running coop style without a boss.
"OWS has different sides. There are the kids who drum all day and piss people off. But we are trying to show people that a democratic economy can work," said Dale Luce, 25, cofounder of OccuCopy print shop at 388 Atlantic Avenue.
Two of the businesses got their start last fall in Zuccotti Park where OWS set up camp.
Now, the budding businesses are based on or near trendy Atlantic Avenue in Boerum Hill with more in the works - many stashing cash aside to loan to other start-ups.
"I see twelve other businesses that can spring up," said Darrell Prince, 35 who launched a tech coop on the floor above OccuCopy and is working with six other techies.
"We are trying to save up money for them too. We are building that into costs," said Prince who hopes to land a lucrative contract with an upstate hotel asking for a revamped reservation system.
"At least 25 % of our profits should go to starting other businesses."
OccuCopy biggest client is OWS. The General Assembly - OWS's governing body - signed off on thousands of dollars since December so Luce, and his staff of six, can churn out posters, fliers, stickers, and buttons for the mass protests which have flooded Manhattan streets.
Luce has spent close to $11,000 on a slew of printers, a cutter, and a dye press, hoping to start paying his still volunteer crew "a living wage" before doling out loans to others.
OccuCopy has also done contract work for other left leaning groups like commuter advocacy nonprofit Transportation Alternatives.
"There are certain criteria," said OccuCopy cofounder Sergio Jimenez, 25, explaining that OWS businesses are picky about which clients to choose, snubbing corporations.
Julie Goldsmith and her t-shirt making friends were a big hit at Zuccotti with their tops sporting images like Guy Fawkes mask - from the movie "V For Vendetta - and Rich Uncle Pennybags, the Monopoly game mascot.
Now the group has formed OWS Screenprint Coop on Bergen Street amd charge $5 a shirt plus donations for labor.
"They can push us out of (Zuccotti) Park," said Goldsmith, 29, "but we have to start leading by example.
Brooklyn is a community of independent artists, and there is a need to create some roots in this movement."
Different note, I heard that some OWS types rioted on my home street in SF last Tuesday. Took out some glass windows of small business fronts. :(
"Occupy Boerum Hill" doesn't quite have the same ring . . .
It's sad when soldiers don't know they've lost the fight.
Quote from: HVC on May 09, 2012, 03:52:25 PM
It's sad when soldiers don't know they've lost the fight.
Like some of the Japanese soldiers discovered decades after The Big One these guys just kinda linger on.,
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2012, 03:48:26 PM
"Occupy Boerum Hill" doesn't quite have the same ring . . .
I think they're just pissing off the 99% now. OWS needs a coherent message, and some better slogans! And some cool flags would help! :swiss:
Quote from: KRonn on May 09, 2012, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2012, 03:48:26 PM
"Occupy Boerum Hill" doesn't quite have the same ring . . .
I think they're just pissing off the 99% now. OWS needs a coherent message, and some better slogans! And some cool flags would help! :swiss:
At this point it would probably be best if they re-formed under a different name.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 08:33:31 PM
Quote from: KRonn on May 09, 2012, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2012, 03:48:26 PM
"Occupy Boerum Hill" doesn't quite have the same ring . . .
I think they're just pissing off the 99% now. OWS needs a coherent message, and some better slogans! And some cool flags would help! :swiss:
At this point it would probably be best if they re-formed under a different name.
Occupy Washington DC! :cool:
Quote from: KRonn on May 09, 2012, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2012, 03:48:26 PM
"Occupy Boerum Hill" doesn't quite have the same ring . . .
I think they're just pissing off the 99% now. OWS needs a coherent message, and some better slogans! And some cool flags would help! :swiss:
They never had a coherent message and they are incapable of creating one. They are just ab a bunch of goofy malcontents.
Quote from: KRonn on May 09, 2012, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2012, 03:48:26 PM
"Occupy Boerum Hill" doesn't quite have the same ring . . .
I think they're just pissing off the 99% now. OWS needs a coherent message, and some better slogans! And some cool flags would help! :swiss:
Now!
Quote from: KRonn on May 09, 2012, 08:09:56 PM
OWS needs a coherent message, and some better slogans! And some cool flags would help! :swiss:
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité" would do the trick. And a shitload of guillotines.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Quote from: KRonn on May 09, 2012, 08:09:56 PM
OWS needs a coherent message, and some better slogans! And some cool flags would help! :swiss:
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité" would do the trick. And a shitload of guillotines.
I don't understand why you are so quick to sell out your nation. Americans aren't 18th century heathens who have yet to recognize the superiority of English.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
I don't understand why you are so quick to sell out your nation. Americans aren't 18th century heathens who have yet to recognize the superiority of English.
Because my nation is predominantly populated by morons.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
I don't understand why you are so quick to sell out your nation. Americans aren't 18th century heathens who have yet to recognize the superiority of English.
Because my nation is predominantly populated by morons.
Oh so edgy. You're like a freshman in college.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:05:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
I don't understand why you are so quick to sell out your nation. Americans aren't 18th century heathens who have yet to recognize the superiority of English.
Because my nation is predominantly populated by morons.
Oh so edgy. You're like a freshman in college.
What can I say, my idealism has been progressively crushed since Haig '88.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:05:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
I don't understand why you are so quick to sell out your nation. Americans aren't 18th century heathens who have yet to recognize the superiority of English.
Because my nation is predominantly populated by morons.
Oh so edgy. You're like a freshman in college.
What can I say, my idealism has been progressively crushed since Haig '88.
Well you could say that you endeavor to leave Maryland and move to a real state.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:05:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
I don't understand why you are so quick to sell out your nation. Americans aren't 18th century heathens who have yet to recognize the superiority of English.
Because my nation is predominantly populated by morons.
Oh so edgy. You're like a freshman in college.
What can I say, my idealism has been progressively crushed since Haig '88.
That was all Haig's fault.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Quote from: KRonn on May 09, 2012, 08:09:56 PM
OWS needs a coherent message, and some better slogans! And some cool flags would help! :swiss:
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité" would do the trick. And a shitload of guillotines.
To Liberté, égalité, and fraternité I present infantry, cavalry, and artillery.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité" would do the trick. And a shitload of guillotines.
"Take money from rich people and use it to pay off our useless degrees" would get to the point quicker.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2011, 11:04:03 PM
Did the UC-Davis pepper spray incident miss this thread, or did it get its own?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FUC-Davis-pepper-spray-615x345.png&hash=b2c2873126afdc55b66dfab31afaf8f135e4d04e)
QuoteUC to pay nearly $1 million in UC Davis pepper-spray settlement
The University of California will pay damages of $30,000 to each of the 21 UC Davis students and alumni who were pepper-sprayed by campus police during an otherwise peaceful protest 10 months ago, the university system announced Wednesday.
The agreement, which must still be approved in federal court, also calls for UC to pay a total of $250,000 to the plaintiffs' attorneys and set aside a maximum of $100,000 to pay up to $20,000 to any other individuals who join the class-action lawsuit by proving they were either arrested or directly pepper-sprayed, a university statement said.
A video released online, showing an officer spraying seated students directly in their faces at close range during an Occupy rally, had triggered outrage.
And UC's own investigations and a shake-up at the UC Davis police force put the university in a weak position to argue against the students' lawsuit.
The preliminary settlement, which was approved by the UC regents in a closed-door meeting earlier this month, will be paid through the UC's self-insurance program, which officials said has about $600 million in reserves.
[Updated 11:30 a.m. Sept. 26: The settlement also calls for UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to write a formal apology to each of the students and alumni who were pepper-sprayed or arrested.
Fatima Sbeih, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who was pepper-sprayed, said in a statement the incident created a divide between students and campus police.
"Since Nov. 18, students have been afraid of the police. The university still needs to work to rebuild students' trust and this settlement is a step in the right direction," said Sbeih, who recently graduated with a degree in international studies.
Another protester, Ian Lee, who is entering his sophomore year at the school, said in a statement that he participated in the demonstrations because of the "privatization of the university" and rising tuition costs.
"I felt like the university silenced me," he said in the statement.]
In April, a UC task force headed by former state Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso found that UC Davis police had violated policy and that campus administrators mishandled the November 2011 campus protest.
In May, a separate draft report about campus responses to civil disobedience across UC urged administrators to use mediation instead of confrontation in most cases, although it said pepper spray might remain a necessary tool of last resort. A final version was released this month with no major policy changes.
Oh, and the cop?
QuoteLt. John Pike, the UC Davis police officer who became a focal point of last November's pepper-spraying incident during a campus protest, is no longer employed by the university, a spokesman confirmed late Tuesday.
UC Davis spokesman Barry Shiller said he could not discuss the details of Pike's departure, but in response to queries from The Bee, he said Pike was no longer employed there as of Tuesday.
"Consistent with privacy guidelines established in state law and university policy, I can confirm that John Pike's employment with the university ended on July 31, 2012," Shiller said. "I'm unable to comment further."
Pike, 39, declined to comment when reached by The Bee as he was sitting in a meeting on campus where he said he was being terminated.
Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12. He has been on paid leave since the debacle unfolded last year, sparking worldwide outrage, numerous investigations and calls for the resignation of UC Davis leaders.
Pike's leave coincided with an internal affairs investigation into his and other officers' actions on the campus quad Nov. 18, when Pike and at least one other officer used pepper spray on students and protesters who were seated and had locked arms, refusing police orders to disperse.
UC Davis officials have said that because the internal affairs probes are confidential, they cannot not disclose their findings.
As a result of cellphone video showing Pike spraying the students and protesters, he became the primary symbol of the public outrage over the incident as the images spread worldwide on the Internet.
Pike, a former Sacramento police officer, was suspended with pay after the incident along with another officer and then-UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza. Spicuzza retired in April after an independent panel issued an investigative report that severely criticized her leadership of the Police Department and found fault with much of the university leadership during the crisis.
Pike's future had remained in limbo until now, and at one point he faced harassment that included a barrage of 10,000 text messages, 17,000 emails and numerous items being ordered delivered to his home.
That backlash led, in part, to a judge's order that the names of other officers involved in the incident not be revealed, an order that is currently the subject of a legal battle between the Federated University Police Officers Association and lawyers for The Bee and the Los Angeles Times.
Fired and incurring liability. Gee, I didn't call that one or anything.
You see his salary? And you people bitch about fucking teachers' unions.
Who are the posters here who are staunch defenders of cops? :huh:
Also, lame. So protest like a bitch and get paid for it.
Do you want just any schmoe off the street pepper spraying you in the eyes?
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 08:24:08 AM
Do you want just any schmoe off the street pepper spraying you in the eyes?
Depends on how much they pay me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 08:10:57 AM
You see his salary? And you people bitch about fucking teachers' unions.
Pretty sure I bitch about all public sector unions :P
As bad as most public employee unions are, police unions have to go right at the top of the list. They don't just extort higher wages and perks, they also further corruption that's ultimately a conspiracy against the public.
NYPD union started pouting after some officers (including union officials) got hammered for fixing tickets, officers started writing less tickets in retaliation, and now traffic fatalities in NYC are up sharply for the first time in many years. All because NYPD brass cracked down on their God-given privilege of "professional courtesy".
:zzz:
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 08:22:35 AM
Who are the posters here who are staunch defenders of cops? :huh:
That would be me. :)
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
As bad as most public employee unions are, police unions have to go right at the top of the list. They don't just extort higher wages and perks, they also further corruption that's ultimately a conspiracy against the public.
Ed's gonna make another Slavic crack at you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 08:10:57 AM
You see his salary? And you people bitch about fucking teachers' unions.
Which one is it Seedy: teachers' salaries too low or cops' salaries too high?
I say cut 'em all. And don't forget the military.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 11:42:01 AM
Which one is it Seedy: teachers' salaries too low or cops' salaries too high?
I say cut 'em all. And don't forget the military.
Race to the bottom baby.
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2012, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
As bad as most public employee unions are, police unions have to go right at the top of the list. They don't just extort higher wages and perks, they also further corruption that's ultimately a conspiracy against the public.
Ed's gonna make another Slavic crack at you.
What for?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 08:10:57 AM
You see his salary? And you people bitch about fucking teachers' unions.
Which one is it Seedy: teachers' salaries too low or cops' salaries too high?
I say cut 'em all. And don't forget the military.
I think that in the case of cops, efficiency wages may actually not be a bad thing. You don't necessarily want the market to just clear when it comes to law enforcement. The trick is that the people that should be weeded out are the ones who should never be entrusted with a gun and a badge, not the ones who are too far back in line or don't have the necessary connections.
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 11:43:15 AM
Race to the bottom baby.
When the status quo is an artificial floor on pay a race to the bottom is exactly what you want.
Okay, then maybe you should do your part and ask your boss for a pay cut.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 11:43:15 AM
Race to the bottom baby.
When the status quo is an artificial floor on pay a race to the bottom is exactly what you want.
Not really. Society is better served by having high paying jobs. But it is probably necessary right now.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2012, 12:03:07 PM
Okay, then maybe you should do your part and ask your boss for a pay cut.
Do the one about media bias = consipiracy theory next. That one always shuts me up.
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 12:04:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 11:43:15 AM
Race to the bottom baby.
When the status quo is an artificial floor on pay a race to the bottom is exactly what you want.
Not really. Society is better served by having high paying jobs. But it is probably necessary right now.
Because if everyone is paid highly, the price of goods will stay low?
No, I'll save that till when you when are flailing around uselessly to a terminal degree. Seriously though, why do you resent people getting paid money?
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 12:04:22 PM
Not really. Society is better served by having high paying jobs. But it is probably necessary right now.
Yes really. Society is better served by having high paying jobs for which the pay is a function of high productivity. It is not served by overpaying.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 12:11:43 PM
Because if everyone is paid highly, the price of goods will stay low?
The price of goods, at least the ones people need like fuel, housing, education, food are not staying low. Meanwhile wages are stagnating and decreasing. I think this is a problem. Further I said society benefits from high paying jobs, more money out there to consume goods and drive the economy. I did not say everybody should be highly paid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
Yes really. Society is better served by having high paying jobs for which the pay is a function of high productivity. It is not served by overpaying.
I agree. But if private sector wages were not so low the public sector ones would not necessarily be overpaid. But pay is not established by high productivity they are dictated by the labor market. If wages went up when productivity went up we should be having historic highs of real wages.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2012, 12:12:48 PM
No, I'll save that till when you when are flailing around uselessly to a terminal degree. Seriously though, why do you resent people getting paid money?
Perhaps the answer lies in the manner in which the people go about the business of getting paid. Criminal gangs who sell protection services are getting paid money. Bureaucrats who take bribes are getting paid money. Thiefs, con artists, lawmakers who sell votes, poachers, sex slavers, the list of people who I resent for getting paid money is virtually limitless.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 12:32:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2012, 12:12:48 PM
No, I'll save that till when you when are flailing around uselessly to a terminal degree. Seriously though, why do you resent people getting paid money?
Perhaps the answer lies in the manner in which the people go about the business of getting paid. Criminal gangs who sell protection services are getting paid money. Bureaucrats who take bribes are getting paid money. Thiefs, con artists, lawmakers who sell votes, poachers, sex slavers, the list of people who I resent for getting paid money is virtually limitless.
Before I jump to some conclusion, what is your point?
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 12:28:58 PM
I agree. But if private sector wages were not so low the public sector ones would not necessarily be overpaid. But pay is not established by high productivity they are dictated by the labor market. If wages went up when productivity went up we should be having historic highs of real wages.
Labor productivity factors into the labor market. The old shibboleth about workers not enjoying the benefits of increasing productivity overlooks the fact that increasing productivity in the modern age is largely a function of computerization of the work place. Economics predicts that if a worker increases his output
with a fixed amount of capital the benefits of the increased productivity should accrue to the worker.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2012, 12:35:41 PM
Before I jump to some conclusion, what is your point?
That you don't have one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 12:41:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 12:28:58 PM
I agree. But if private sector wages were not so low the public sector ones would not necessarily be overpaid. But pay is not established by high productivity they are dictated by the labor market. If wages went up when productivity went up we should be having historic highs of real wages.
Labor productivity factors into the labor market. The old shibboleth about workers not enjoying the benefits of increasing productivity overlooks the fact that increasing productivity in the modern age is largely a function of computerization of the work place. Economics predicts that if a worker increases his output with a fixed amount of capital the benefits of the increased productivity should accrue to the worker.
I brought up that very point to Minsky some time ago, about the farmers and the tractors, but he refuted that with some kind of argument about competition for workers.
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2012, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
As bad as most public employee unions are, police unions have to go right at the top of the list. They don't just extort higher wages and perks, they also further corruption that's ultimately a conspiracy against the public.
Ed's gonna make another Slavic crack at you.
What for?
For slagging police unions.
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 12:44:23 PM
Is that a Slavic trait?
Speesh is taking a jab at Boner for getting soft and lumpy when the governor of Ohio tried to take on the police union.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2012, 12:35:41 PM
Before I jump to some conclusion, what is your point?
That you don't have one.
Everyone you named in your example is engaged in criminal acts. Is that a coincidence?
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 08:22:35 AM
Who are the posters here who are staunch defenders of cops? :huh:
Also, lame. So protest like a bitch and get paid for it.
They were college kids. Let them sit there until they needed to recharge their cell phones or ipods and it'd have broken up on its own.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 12:41:38 PM
Labor productivity factors into the labor market. The old shibboleth about workers not enjoying the benefits of increasing productivity overlooks the fact that increasing productivity in the modern age is largely a function of computerization of the work place. Economics predicts that if a worker increases his output with a fixed amount of capital the benefits of the increased productivity should accrue to the worker.
I am not making some moral or theoretical point here or even demanding some action be taken because it is just a reflection of current realities than some sort of great injustice. I am just lamenting the facts on the ground. This is a problem that exists across the First World. To me it appears result of the inevitable and necessary globalization of the labor market.
I expected something like this would happen and hoped the eventual benefits would be worth a tough transition time...but it is on a pretty big scale and I do worry about social stability. Also I have to admit I am rather sobered by the amount of service sector jobs that are being outsourced though in retrospect I should have expected it. And it is pretty sobering to see it upclose. Also I think the hope was that the social safety net would carry us over any rough spots but they seem to be strained.
Also it seems awfully inefficient to have such huge numbers of people unemployed or underemployed and relying on public assistance. We have surplus labor but there is no place for it to go. Thus the race to the bottom.
Naturally as the facts stand public sector wages have just got to be cut. But it is hardly something to celebrate. It is a reflection of difficult times.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2012, 12:50:34 PM
Everyone you named in your example is engaged in criminal acts. Is that a coincidence?
I could easily come up with examples of people plundering the public treasury for private gain that were not illegal. I just finished up Fukuyama's book on the origins of government (which I heartily recommend to everyone), which had a long discussion of the sale of offices by France and Spain. Obviously those were legal acts because the kings said they were. Still worthy of resentment.
The fact is I don't resent people for getting paid money. Nor for getting paid in kind. Nothing I have ever posted would lead a reasonable person to infer that I resent people for getting paid money.
Will this post cause you to reflect back on your ridiculous post about me resenting people getting paid? To concede that it was retarded and you should make an effort not to post further retarded thoughts? Probably not. If you follow the historical pattern you will forget you ever made it and procede on, looking for that next post that you think will be the real death-dealer that blows apart my entire position.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
Yes really. Society is better served by having high paying jobs for which the pay is a function of high productivity.
How would you propose measuring productivity for school teachers and police?
QuoteEconomics predicts that if a worker increases his output with a fixed amount of capital the benefits of the increased productivity should accrue to the worker.
"should" is a prescriptive statement - i would agree with the concept but that doesn't meant that is what will happen.
Whether worker compensation will actually rise may depend on a number of factors including industry structure and labor market dynamics.
Another problem with this formulation is identifying with any precision what is meant by fixed quantum of capital, which raises a lot of methodlogical issues that were all the rage in the 60s and 70s.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 27, 2012, 01:10:10 PM
How would you propose measuring productivity for school teachers and police?
Inversely. :D
More kids arrested = more productive police, less productive teachers. Less kids arrested = less productive police, more productive teachers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 27, 2012, 01:10:10 PM
How would you propose measuring productivity for school teachers and police?
Do you think the details regarding how you measure it are important?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 27, 2012, 01:10:10 PM
How would you propose measuring productivity for school teachers and police?
What hypothetical situation have you placed me in that requires I even bother?
Quote"should" is a prescriptive statement - i would agree with the concept but that doesn't meant that is what will happen.
Whether worker compensation will actually rise may depend on a number of factors including industry structure and labor market dynamics.
Another problem with this formulation is identifying with any precision what is meant by fixed quantum of capital, which raises a lot of methodlogical issues that were all the rage in the 60s and 70s.
All true, but at the risk of sounding overly brusque, so what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 01:17:36 PM
What hypothetical situation have you placed me in that requires I even bother?
I don't think I've placed you in any situation. But if your position is that compensation should be proportional to productivity and you have an opinion as to whether teacher/police pay is too high or too low, then it would seem necessary to have data on the former to support the latter.
Quote
All true, but at the risk of sounding overly brusque, so what?
Computerization in the workplace does not necessarily explain stagnation in worker incomes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 01:17:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 27, 2012, 01:10:10 PM
How would you propose measuring productivity for school teachers and police?
What hypothetical situation have you placed me in that requires I even bother?
If you can't measure their productivity, how do you know they are being paid too much?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 27, 2012, 01:21:19 PM
I don't think I've placed you in any situation. But if your position is that compensation should be proportional to productivity and you have an opinion as to whether teacher/police pay is too high or too low, then it would seem necessary to have data on the former to support the latter.
Fair enough. I start from the assumption that teacher producitivity is more or less constant across all states and conclude that teachers in unionized states are overpaid based on the salary differential between those states and right to work states.
This thesis is also supported by the well-documented connection between union campaign contributions and legislative support for their pay and benefits.
And finally there is the fact that, with the exception of certain academic fields like science and math, and certain "hardship" locations, school districts are not going begging for applicants, which one would expect if the positions were underpaid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 01:37:08 PM
Fair enough. I start from the assumption that teacher producitivity is more or less constant across all states and conclude that teachers in unionized states are overpaid based on the salary differential between those states and right to work states.
What kind of an assumption is that? :wacko:
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 01:49:00 PM
What kind of an assumption is that? :wacko:
Don't Raz out on me. If you have some reason to suppose that average teacher productivity in union states is on the order of 40% higher than in right to work states, spit it out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 01:37:08 PM
Fair enough. I start from the assumption that teacher producitivity is more or less constant across all states and conclude that teachers in unionized states are overpaid based on the salary differential between those states and right to work states.
Yi that makes about as much sense as when you told me that basic foodstuffs don't cost different prices in different places. Where's the factoring in of differences in living costs - or are you just saying the average of salaries across unionized states vs. average across right to work states?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 01:51:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 01:49:00 PM
What kind of an assumption is that? :wacko:
Don't Raz out on me. If you have some reason to suppose that average teacher productivity in union states is on the order of 40% higher than in right to work states, spit it out.
For one, the large disparity in test results between states. For all we know, maybe Mississippi teachers are just as productive as Massachusetts teachers, and some other factor is entirely responsible for the difference, but that wouldn't exactly be my starting assumption.
Yi, I am not sure how you are thinking about productivity but the socio-economic conditions of the students they teach probably have a signficant impact on "productivity" by any measure one might consider. I doubt that all States have uniform socio-economic conditions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 01:51:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 01:49:00 PM
What kind of an assumption is that? :wacko:
Don't Raz out on me. If you have some reason to suppose that average teacher productivity in union states is on the order of 40% higher than in right to work states, spit it out.
Nice of you to bring me up. Why not assume that non unionized employees are under-payed?
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 02:00:10 PM
For one, the large disparity in test results between states. For all we know, maybe Mississippi teachers are just as productive as Massachusetts teachers, and some other factor is entirely responsible for the difference, but that wouldn't exactly be my starting assumption.
Why not? As crazy canuck pointed out socioeconomic differences are a major driver. Compare apples and apples. Iowa and Wisconsin have very similar demographics, yet Wisconsin teachers average 73K while Iowa teachers average 45K. Do you really think Wisconsin teachers are 62% more productive than Iowa teachers?
Raz: your question has already been answered. Right to work states are not having noticeable difficulty in filling teaching positions.
Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2012, 10:43:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 08:22:35 AM
Who are the posters here who are staunch defenders of cops? :huh:
That would be me. :)
And me. Spraying malcontents with poison? This guy is a hero.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 02:54:49 PM
Raz: your question has already been answered. Right to work states are not having noticeable difficulty in filling teaching positions.
Lots of states are having difficulty filling teaching positions.
States such as Georgia, Japan, China and South Korea.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2012, 03:15:21 PM
Lots of states are having difficulty filling teaching positions.
Depends on the type of position. High level math and science teachers are hard to come by since people with those skills usually have better opportunities.