So, I'd noticed that in nearly every incident of violence in NYC against the OWS protesters, some NYPD officer in a white shirt was involved. So I did some looking around and it seems that in 1998, NYC started a 'paid detail' in which off-duty cops were paid to do security for private organizations. This was to fill gaps in the required police force, however it seems that most of the white-shirted rent-a-cops are taking some liberties. This is a pretty interesting article on the obvious and major problems of allowing the wealthiest and most powerful companies and people in NYC hire enforcers who happen to have a NYPD badge.
Another clash between the police and Occupy Oakland. Looks like it did turn a little violent over there. I really love the picture that NPR chose to use as well. That guy is really not just a "punk" kid..
Another clash between the police and Occupy Oakland. Looks like it did turn a little violent over there. I really love the picture that NPR chose to use as well. That guy is really not just a "punk" kid..
My coworker and I laughed at this:
Around 2:50 a.m., as riot police were beginning to disperse, instead of confrontations there was a demonstrator playing "Blitzkrieg Bop on a mandolin."
That's how Occupy is being portrayed by the other side. What the hell? So we're not allowed to be unhappy with the way things are unless the government is forcing us to fight in a global conflict?
Or is the point that we shouldn't complain because hey, at least we're not dying by the thousands each day.
Its a bit of an odd statement to make really. The Allies were "liberating" Europe not occupying it. Unless the figure is supposed to represent one the German soldiers then the other side has rather lost its way a little.
Oh dear.. Friend of mine on FB last night: "Anyone who is free tonight, come to Washington Square Park! We need as many people as possible! #OccupyRIT #OccupyRochester"
Same friend on FB this morning: "Anyone got a ride back to campus at 10:30am ish for me and a couple people who got arrested last night? Text me. #OccupyRochester #OccupyRIT"
This is the second time this group has been arrested for protesting there. Obviously, the other supporters of this specific group have been up in arms about it, raging on about the major and fuck tha police and all. I looked into it myself - turns out they were protesting in a private park without permission. Police came up to them saying that they were trespassing and had to leave. An hour later, they didn't budge, so they were arrested. Same shit happened last night. Nice going, kids.
They should protest outside the RIT president's house. I don't know much about him, but what I have heard is that he's not a bad guy. But even so, he's making mad monies from their tuitions.
I don't think they have the balls - they're just blindly trying to mimic the occupy wall street protests without actually knowing the details, like that the owners of the private park allowed them to protest there. Makes a bit of a difference, when the police try to arrest you for trespassing (which they were).
Also I sort of work in the president's office, so me advocating that could end up being a fairly poor decision on my part.
I recently found out I'm closer to the 1% than I realized. I'm in the top 10% but not sure how close I am to the top 1%. Does anyone have a chart?
just looking on wikipedia you find data from 2008 on Personal Income that goes up to 100,000 and over which puts you in the top 6.24%
The chart comparing Obama and McCain's tax plan showed the top 1% starting at roughly $600,000 but it is tracking family income, and a lot of families have multiple wage earners, so it's a bit inflated. You could prolly ballpark the top 1% of personal income earners at 300-500k per year.
Power to you Tick. Though the biggest issue is not with the 1% but with the top 0.1%
When the stock market crashes the top 0.1% is hit a bit harder, but when things are good, that top tenth of the 1% in recent years earns half the 1%'s income.
So it looks like Occupy Oakland succeeded in shutting down the Port of Oakland. In addition, a pair of protesters were run over by a guy in a Mercedes. Seriously.
While it sucks that two people were injured, I can't help but laugh at the irony of the whole thing.
While I agree with the statement that the average poor person in the US is better off then someone facing famine and war in Africa, that goes back to the whole flawed argument that if something is not the worst, it's not worth thinking about. It's like trying to get out of cleaning your messy room by arguing that you have seen dirtier rooms, and by comparison, it is not that dirty and you should not have to do the chore. I've have people tell me that I should not give money or time to animal shelters when there are starving children. (I support and donate to both human and animal charities.) My view is that if there is good being done, there is good, and if there is bad being done, however small, it is bad. There has to be some amount of prioritization, sure, but our goal should be to increase the net amount of good being done overall.
While I don't agree with it, you could argue that an inefficient good is the same as a bad.
For example, let's say that you give $1 to charity X and it does 10 goods. Giving a $1 to charity Y does 5 goods. Well then isn't giving $1 to charity Y actually doing 5 bads because you could have given it to X instead?
What about people who champion a cause where it is easy (equality for women in the USA) but ignore the same cause where it is difficult (equality for woman in the middle east)?
Shouldn't these groups focus on the areas with the largest problems and not the ones where most of the problems are solved and what remains tend to be trivial in nature?
What about people who champion a cause where it is easy (equality for women in the USA) but ignore the same cause where it is difficult (equality for woman in the middle east)?
Shouldn't these groups focus on the areas with the largest problems and not the ones where most of the problems are solved and what remains tend to be trivial in nature?
The existence of something bad in one place doesn't make invalid something less bad in another place. Unless you think that humanity should drop everything and expend all our efforts on solving one problem at a time by order of badness... and you can get people to agree what is most bad.
What about people who champion a cause where it is easy (equality for women in the USA) but ignore the same cause where it is difficult (equality for woman in the middle east)?
Shouldn't these groups focus on the areas with the largest problems and not the ones where most of the problems are solved and what remains tend to be trivial in nature?
People work on what they can. I don't think I have heard any feminist in my circles argue that we should ignore the plight of women in the middle east, but because of limited resources and ability, we focus on what is close at hand. Also, I disagree that what remains is trivial. I think that while legally women have gained much in the way of equality, societal treatment of them is still kinda meh. (Check out the percentage of rape victims who are female, and you will see what I mean.) This goes back to the what I was saying. Although they don't have it the worst and are not starving North Korean peasants, the 99% in the US are still put upon and in a rough place. People should do what they can about all problems they see, no matter how small, and everything will get better little by little.
While I don't agree with it, you could argue that an inefficient good is the same as a bad.
For example, let's say that you give $1 to charity X and it does 10 goods. Giving a $1 to charity Y does 5 goods. Well then isn't giving $1 to charity Y actually doing 5 bads because you could have given it to X instead?
While I don't agree with it, you could argue that an inefficient good is the same as a bad.
For example, let's say that you give $1 to charity X and it does 10 goods. Giving a $1 to charity Y does 5 goods. Well then isn't giving $1 to charity Y actually doing 5 bads because you could have given it to X instead?
Maths.
I also could have spent it on a bag of chips, but grabbing a bag of Doritos doesn't exactly fill me with guilt.
For example, let's say that you give $1 to charity X and it does 10 goods. Giving a $1 to charity Y does 5 goods. Well then isn't giving $1 to charity Y actually doing 5 bads because you could have given it to X instead?
Maths.
Maths in the morality gets ugly obviously.
If you draw a line in the sand and say that anything that turns up a net good is a good action you get into a bit of a problem when someone chooses to do something that "just barely" nets a positive when there were obvious ways to do more good.
The other end of that spectrum is where you consider it morally obligatory to do optimal good, or at least near-optimal good within your limitations (esp. knowledge). It's not a very good practical standard and makes the real world seem quite a bit gray. I can't fault it out of its inconvenience though.
You would be actively preventing 5 good from being done, that would be choosing to save 5 lives instead of 10. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, or in this case less.
We shouldn't ignore problems at home but there needs to be an understanding of the plight of the rest of the world. It sucks to not have a job, but it's worse to be starving, if you join the peace corps you get food and housing plus you can help to feed/educate a society of people.
I would rather bring even one country into the developing phase rather then solve pretty much any "problem" in America.
But it's never that clear-cut either. If solving an American problem makes it possible to bring twice as much good to the rest of the world tomorrow (or 10x, or 100x) you have some considerations. There's also a morass of good-will gone bad and bad-will gone good.
Idea: If we had truly universal healthcare, supported by progressive taxation, we would see much more self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and self-employment, along with increased volunteer work at large.
Reasoning: the biggest dangers of self-employment and cottage industry is the hurdle presented by health care. People cannot afford to take a "break" for volunteer work between jobs without losing their necessary benefits (COBRA is far too expensive for most people, and is limited in nature), and small businesses often don't hire or under-employ solely due to the insane cost of providing health care to full time employees.
How many people would work niche cottage industries, like online tutoring or artistic pursuits, if all they had to cover were their own basic living expenses (rent, food, minimal savings)?
We would decrease unemployment by allowing more motivated people to self-employ, freeing more traditional jobs for those who aren't willing or able to do so. We would increase the average individual's ability to accept employment risk or attempt to start a business. We would increase the likelihood of small businesses hiring more people for more hours.
And the burden of this, rather than falling heavily on smaller businesses, would be progressively distributed through basic taxation.
Idea: If we had truly universal healthcare, supported by progressive taxation, we would see much more self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and self-employment, along with increased volunteer work at large.
Reasoning: the biggest dangers of self-employment and cottage industry is the hurdle presented by health care. People cannot afford to take a "break" for volunteer work between jobs without losing their necessary benefits (COBRA is far too expensive for most people, and is limited in nature), and small businesses often don't hire or under-employ solely due to the insane cost of providing health care to full time employees.
How many people would work niche cottage industries, like online tutoring or artistic pursuits, if all they had to cover were their own basic living expenses (rent, food, minimal savings)?
We would decrease unemployment by allowing more motivated people to self-employ, freeing more traditional jobs for those who aren't willing or able to do so. We would increase the average individual's ability to accept employment risk or attempt to start a business. We would increase the likelihood of small businesses hiring more people for more hours.
And the burden of this, rather than falling heavily on smaller businesses, would be progressively distributed through basic taxation.
In a similar vein, I've been pondering how some people seem to be ruled by fear of losing their job in the workplace. At-all-costs they do not want to be the one to do something wrong and get canned. So they play a perpetual defensive strategy. I'm of the opinion that overall this results in worse productivity.
Admittedly, it's easy for me to do whatever I think is best because I've got backup plans, applicable skills, and no dependants. I don't know if my perspective would change under other circumstances.
Not to say that people wouldn't still be afraid of responsibility if they had a stronger safety net, but I think it could help, and by proxy help productivity. But I have nothing but my own personal anecdotes to go off.
I do the same thing as you Creamsteak, but that's only because I can get another job at the drop of a hat. If that were not the case, I also would have a different attitude.
Idea: If we had truly universal healthcare, supported by progressive taxation, we would see much more self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and self-employment, along with increased volunteer work at large.
Reasoning: the biggest dangers of self-employment and cottage industry is the hurdle presented by health care. People cannot afford to take a "break" for volunteer work between jobs without losing their necessary benefits (COBRA is far too expensive for most people, and is limited in nature), and small businesses often don't hire or under-employ solely due to the insane cost of providing health care to full time employees.
How many people would work niche cottage industries, like online tutoring or artistic pursuits, if all they had to cover were their own basic living expenses (rent, food, minimal savings)?
We would decrease unemployment by allowing more motivated people to self-employ, freeing more traditional jobs for those who aren't willing or able to do so. We would increase the average individual's ability to accept employment risk or attempt to start a business. We would increase the likelihood of small businesses hiring more people for more hours.
And the burden of this, rather than falling heavily on smaller businesses, would be progressively distributed through basic taxation.
Have Spanish citizenship, take sabbaticals from work in Europe and benefit from free healthcare. Work on photography.
Didn't some Scandinavian country say entrepreneurship is much better there despite large amount of taxes because of the awesome services available to them?
Comments
This is a pretty interesting article on the obvious and major problems of allowing the wealthiest and most powerful companies and people in NYC hire enforcers who happen to have a NYPD badge.
Additionally, the protesters are going to try to get the entire port to strike. If they can pull off a city-wide strike, like they say they want to, I'd expect similar actions throughout the country in other cities.
That's how Occupy is being portrayed by the other side. What the hell? So we're not allowed to be unhappy with the way things are unless the government is forcing us to fight in a global conflict?
Or is the point that we shouldn't complain because hey, at least we're not dying by the thousands each day.
It makes me rage so. Fucking. Hard.
http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/wp-content/images/wapo.gif
Same friend on FB this morning: "Anyone got a ride back to campus at 10:30am ish for me and a couple people who got arrested last night? Text me. #OccupyRochester #OccupyRIT"
This is the second time this group has been arrested for protesting there. Obviously, the other supporters of this specific group have been up in arms about it, raging on about the major and fuck tha police and all. I looked into it myself - turns out they were protesting in a private park without permission. Police came up to them saying that they were trespassing and had to leave. An hour later, they didn't budge, so they were arrested. Same shit happened last night. Nice going, kids.
Also I sort of work in the president's office, so me advocating that could end up being a fairly poor decision on my part.
The chart comparing Obama and McCain's tax plan showed the top 1% starting at roughly $600,000 but it is tracking family income, and a lot of families have multiple wage earners, so it's a bit inflated. You could prolly ballpark the top 1% of personal income earners at 300-500k per year.
Power to you Tick. Though the biggest issue is not with the 1% but with the top 0.1%
When the stock market crashes the top 0.1% is hit a bit harder, but when things are good, that top tenth of the 1% in recent years earns half the 1%'s income.
While it sucks that two people were injured, I can't help but laugh at the irony of the whole thing.
For example, let's say that you give $1 to charity X and it does 10 goods. Giving a $1 to charity Y does 5 goods. Well then isn't giving $1 to charity Y actually doing 5 bads because you could have given it to X instead?
Maths.
Shouldn't these groups focus on the areas with the largest problems and not the ones where most of the problems are solved and what remains tend to be trivial in nature?
This goes back to the what I was saying. Although they don't have it the worst and are not starving North Korean peasants, the 99% in the US are still put upon and in a rough place. People should do what they can about all problems they see, no matter how small, and everything will get better little by little. No. It is still good, it is just less good. 5>0
If you draw a line in the sand and say that anything that turns up a net good is a good action you get into a bit of a problem when someone chooses to do something that "just barely" nets a positive when there were obvious ways to do more good.
The other end of that spectrum is where you consider it morally obligatory to do optimal good, or at least near-optimal good within your limitations (esp. knowledge). It's not a very good practical standard and makes the real world seem quite a bit gray. I can't fault it out of its inconvenience though.
We shouldn't ignore problems at home but there needs to be an understanding of the plight of the rest of the world. It sucks to not have a job, but it's worse to be starving, if you join the peace corps you get food and housing plus you can help to feed/educate a society of people.
Reasoning: the biggest dangers of self-employment and cottage industry is the hurdle presented by health care. People cannot afford to take a "break" for volunteer work between jobs without losing their necessary benefits (COBRA is far too expensive for most people, and is limited in nature), and small businesses often don't hire or under-employ solely due to the insane cost of providing health care to full time employees.
How many people would work niche cottage industries, like online tutoring or artistic pursuits, if all they had to cover were their own basic living expenses (rent, food, minimal savings)?
We would decrease unemployment by allowing more motivated people to self-employ, freeing more traditional jobs for those who aren't willing or able to do so. We would increase the average individual's ability to accept employment risk or attempt to start a business. We would increase the likelihood of small businesses hiring more people for more hours.
And the burden of this, rather than falling heavily on smaller businesses, would be progressively distributed through basic taxation.
Do you think it will ever happen?
Admittedly, it's easy for me to do whatever I think is best because I've got backup plans, applicable skills, and no dependants. I don't know if my perspective would change under other circumstances.
Not to say that people wouldn't still be afraid of responsibility if they had a stronger safety net, but I think it could help, and by proxy help productivity. But I have nothing but my own personal anecdotes to go off.
Enviers will invariably envy.