Forum Post: Message Discipline
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 12:36 p.m. EST by Teacher
(469)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It is the duty of individuals who support this movement to spread the word about what we support in terms that ALL people can agree with.
"Greed is bad" is not a revolutionary statement.
Crazy or incoherent messages, bickering, and the like do not do anything but turn people off of us. Can't we form a public relations group to spread one or two simple, universally appealing messages?
Quite simply. No. The message is there is no message. There are many reasons for this. Some good, some covert. To understand the covert part, you must understand the fact that a group of anarchists started this movement and is controlling this movement. And they have their own agenda which is best served by not revealing their specific intents. So, they just attract attention/support, by taking advantage of every social/political/financial issues that the 99% can come up with.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11293836/1/meet-the-man-behind-occupy-wall-street.html
Wow the power of one nerd! Maybe we should make him president if he can cause things like OWS to happen
Are you sure it wasn't Soros?
I have also heard Obama got this started to get re-elected.
Well, its up to you of course, what you want believe. But, there is plenty of evidence pointing to anarchists. I have seen none pointing to Obama. You may want see my reply below to Teacher.
Is this what you believe is going on?
"a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed".
"a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom."
I'm not sure where you got your definition exactly. Here is the wiki def - In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is meant to refer to a society which lacks publicly recognized government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] But yes, that is what I believe is going on. If you read the stuff, they say it is about anarchy. Plus, it looks like anarchy. So why should I not believe it? I had one person tell me that they did not believe in working with government for change. When I asked him why, he said that this is a "Direct Action" group. Direct Action is often associated with anarchy too. So whats not to believe?
Best I have been able to ascertain, there are lefty anarchist and righty anarchists. The leftys I think basically want to replace our Representative Republic with Direct Democracy. The rightys want to establish a new society with Anarcho-Syndicalism, with no state, maybe using Direct Democracy as a tool. I had to Wiki it. It's not like I know what any of this meant!
Then there are the participants here who I think believe in the protest. But protesting is different than Direct Action and Anarchy. And many here do not understand the intent of the founders and organizers that are running this movement. They just want to protest to affect some kind of change for all the problems in our country.
There is no doubt that they are creating paranoia
"a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others"
I don't think they intend for paranoia. I think most of them genuinely want a peaceful movement. Better to gain support that way.
The thing is, I don't believe they have any intention of every addressing the legitimate issues, such as, campaign finance reform, corp personhood, financial regulation, that people are protesting for. They do not believe in working with or through government for these things. There is another group that split off from OWS, that wants to address these things through government action.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/
"I don't believe they have any intention of every addressing the legitimate issues, such as, campaign finance reform, corp personhood, financial regulation"
This is nothing more than your belief. And in all honesty it is based more on paranoia than facts and reality. You are not alone in feeling that way, but that doesn't mean your belief is anything more than a belief that can't be backed up with facts.
I think many of us have mixed feelings over this protest format. How can we condemn or support something that we aren’t sure of?
I try to keep an open mind an not sell myself on false conclusions
It is my belief because people in the protest have been calling for these issues to be addressed for weeks. And it still has not happened.
You may not be sure. But I am.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/lghgf/dear_occupiers_a_letter_from_anarchists/
http://nefac.net/node/2569
http://commonstruggle.org/node/2570
I'm starting to agree with your belief. There are many posts at the Occupy Oakland website indicating that anarchists are in positions of "authority" there and that some of them were involved in the bank vandalism. Some posts made today stated that the Oakland general assembly refused to denounce the violence citing freedom of expression.
No one responds to questions on the forums regarding goals or even mentions politics and constitutional amendments or anything that will significantly alter the status quo.
I think there are differing factions even amongst the anarchists.
If you are interested, check out this conversation that I had with Thrasymaque, about halfway down the post. http://occupywallst.org/forum/to-those-who-ruined-all-hope-in-oakland/#comment-285652
Re: lack of goals in this movement, thats why I have gotten more involved with the 99% Declaration group, link above.
I'm going to take a look at the Oakland site. I wasn't aware of that.
Don't speak in general terms. What people? Protest where?
People who seek only evidence of there belief will always find it
People who seek the truth may not like what they find but will find the truth
Controlled by anarchists. Thanks for the laugh.
Yes, I too wish I was kidding. Sadly, I am not. I am far from being a conspiracy theorist. If you are at all interested in the truth, you will read what I give to you. It took me a while to figure this out, and it was based on other people telling me too. I know this sounds like its joke. I've been there. It's not a joke.
If you are involved in this movement, you really should make it a priority to understand what it is about.
Wiki "Direct Action" that is what this movement is. That is how I had to figure things out too.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/lghgf/dear_occupiers_a_letter_from_anarchists/
http://commonstruggle.org/node/2570
http://nefac.net/node/2569
I am quite familiar with the meaning of direct action.
okee dokee then. I guess you're all over it.
I remember laughing when someone asked if I follow Loki
Can you think of any other justification for shutting down the port in Oakland? What was the message, there?
To show that there are a hell of a lot of us that will get off our asses and that if enough of us do so there are actual consequences...how about that to start.
Consequences for whom? Longshoremen? Truck drivers? What was the point? Are you going to shut down airports next? Shopping malls? Is anarchy, and discord, the goal?
You miss the point. They showed that a lot of people want change. Maybe the next time Oakland gets 10,000 people in the streets it will be in Nov 2012. 10,000 votes can get some attention or don't you see that?
Those 10,000 people caused 11,000 workers to lose wages. You can't fight for the 99% by fighting against the 99%. Or don't you see that? This is a really simple concept. The idea that Goldman Sachs cost somebody money is a lot less of an immediate problem than a guy wearing a bandana on his face and carrying a baseball bat who is trying to prevent that same person from getting to work. Don't become a bigger threat to the average American than Wall Street. That will put a cap on potential support for the Occupy movement at maybe five or ten percent. Just extremists. If the movement becomes more attractive to extremists and less attractive to mainstream America then the movement will fail to accomplish anything.
It was a strike/workers march. Thats not anarchism. How can a group of secret anarchists control a group that settles things through votes?
I've never heard of a workers strike where workers strike against places where they don't work. Was there a General Assembly debate about shutting down the port at some point? I'm dying to know how that was justified. How is it helping anybody? What was the point?
Maybe the people who run Oakland will think twice about using violence against unarmed people.
But that didn't happen until after the protests started, which makes it obvious that the protesters are looking for rationalizations. The protests were not a reaction to police brutality. The police brutality was wrong but it was a direct consequence of the protest, so the protesters can't use that as an excuse. That's a thinly-transparent rationalization.
A non violent protest was attacked, so they had another, more confrontational protest. What about that doesn't make sense?
The thing that doesn't make sense is that the message is not clear, which makes the whole thing look like nothing but intentional escalation by anarchists. If there is no message, no statement, no point, then it's just a bunch of people trying to create disorder and disruptions, for the sake of creating disorder and disruptions. If there is no other message, then that makes this an anarchist event.
Peacefull demonstrations my ass--Occupy Oakland general strike – Thursday 3 November--There were - apparently isolated - incidents of violence by some protesters. Projectiles were thrown at police, shop windows smashed and a barricade set on fire. Police said around 60 protesters were arrested.
Taxed Enough Already ;-) j/k
No warrant; No search (in reference to TSA groping and random car checkpoints)
No stealing from the poor to give to the rich!
Let the Banks Die. No Bailouts.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom!
All of the successful protest movements of the 20th century in the U.S. had a very clear and concise goal. The civil rights movement had integration. The counter culture movement of the 60's wanted to end the Vietnam War. The Women's Suffrage movement wanted women to vote. The Anti-Saloon league wanted prohibition of alcohol.
Wayne Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon league, was known for insisting on a very clear and singular goal to the exclusion of all else, a constitutional amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol. His model for political influence through demonstration has been replicated over, and again. The prohibition movement might have been misguided, but no one could argue that it wasn't successful.
Could it be, that it is time for OWS to focus? I believe many more people would become active, if a singular goal could be devised.
Campaign Finance Reform!
Many Americans could line up behind getting the big money out of politics, I think.
What I am saying is that, imho, OWS needs a clear goal, complete with a kick ass sound bite! Americans only respond to sound bites.
Any good sound bite is concise, crunchy, and tastes good with ketchup. “BUY BACK the VOTE.”
Why are people talking about guns in the chat room? I just got banned instantly for saying "NO GUNS"
Milton Friedman on Capitalism and Greed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLiVoHuBvNI&feature=related
greed comes from an animal's need to store for winter
I have to agree. It has an instinctual basis in the human animal mind. For humans, since we don't store the nutrients in our bodies, it's different, it's mental.-----
I define greed as a sociopathic condition that results from a runaway, unchecked, unreasonable fear learned at childhood. Greed is the fear of NOT having more than you will ever need or use.
squirrels don't store nuts in their bodies
greed is an excess of a primal motivation
Fear and social structures that promote it are perhaps responsible.
indeed
And, countering it one could perhaps embrace socialism or even communism, so aspects of OWS are easily understood. Particularly if confronted with greed in a capitalistic society defining itself as one that refuses to, or is perhaps afraid to, expose secrets of high crimes by elites. But that would not be directly a political problem at all. Far deeper.
I am not in a position to control anything. I'm talking division of labor here.
I'm on board with you! I have tried to engage both sides in conversation and both sides would rather name call and finger point about what's in the past. Let's remember what has happened but understand that we need to seriously address the issues to move this country forward.
The greed needs to be more well defined, otherwise it is just a global outcry. Have to get more specific and focus on a few areas. Everyone is in agreement that greed is bad, but who do you want to reform (specific businesses), how, and what are you doing about it to help that change happen.
Second point, everyone will not be as eloquent or focused as you may want them to be. Their input is still important, do you really want a world where everyone is just exactly like you, thinks the way you do? That's a little too controlling and restrictive.
I worked with the most annoying person, who would try to force people to answer her questions only in the way she wanted. She would interrupt them and tell them, just tell me this, I don't want to know more than that. She tried to control how people answered her.
Eventually people just stopped answering her because they could not put up with her control issues in how they expressed themselves.
It's gone too far already. Greed has become a worldwide epidemic. There is no 'polite' way to address the issue. Not anymore.
My personal message to the richest one percent:
God damn it. You die hard winner take all bloodthirsty capitalists and filthy rich pigs absolutely refuse to understand the following: First, that record high charges in health care, energy, and finance also mean record high profits and record high dividends. 1/2 of which are paid to the richest one percent. This causes more hardship and more concentration of wealth. At the same time, more financial aid in the form of welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid becomes necessary. Especially with those record high charges and profits. As even more wealth is concentrated, the lower majority go into debt and lose their relative buying power. This results in less demand, layoffs, and higher unemployment. This results in even more legitimate need for financial aid, a slower economy, less revenue, and higher national debt. It's a downward cycle tied directly to the relentless concentration of wealth.
I'm not making excuses for those who sit on the couch, make no attempt to find work, and sponge off the government. I'm not calling for a welfare state. But God damn it. You die hard conservatives and filthy rich pigs need to stop being such cowards, open your god damn eyes, and finally admit that there is a downside as more and more wealth becomes concentrated.
The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all United States wealth. The lower 90 percent now own less than 10 percent of all United States wealth. This is true even after you account for all taxes, charity, and financial aid. This equation becomes more obscene when you account for nearly two trillion in consumer debt which is owed primarily by the lower 90 percent. Mark my words: this equation will get worse.
THERE IS A DOWNSIDE AS YOU GET RICHER AND RICHER!
A word for my critics: I'm no expert but I'm no fool. I predicted this socio-economic crisis in writing 6 years ago. I'm aware of all the conservative and liberal talking points. Of course, I hate politicians. But I don't hate liberals or conservatives. I agree with both on some issues. For example: I agree that we need an adequate safety net for those in need. Not for those who sit on the couch and watch TV.I agree with tax cuts for small business. But not for Wall Street and not for those making $500,000 and up. A heavy concentration of wealth is what got us here. A gradual and partial redistribution of wealth is vital.
I don't want socialism, communism, or marxism. I want modest capitalism. A reasonable scale of income opportunity for all those willing and able to work. An adequate safety net for those in need.
A word for the rich: I have received quite a bit of negative feedback from you one percent club pigs. I must be doing something right. After all, you took time away from your money bath just for me. You might want to check your ass crack for soggy bills. In the meantime, let me just say this for the record:
You can't intimidate me. You can't embarrass me. You can't make me feel uneducated, unintelligent, or otherwise insignificant. You can't confuse me. You can't divert my attention. You can't exhaust me and you sure as hell can't break my will. I know I'm getting to you because you're here with another lame psychological trick. You're here in an attempt to shut me up. It won't work. I've had it with all of you.
I won't break any laws. I would never discredit the cause with a criminal act. But I'm telling you right now that I'm virtually impossible to stop. It's a big world and I have a lot to say. If you want to break my will, you're going to have to break my neck first.
If you pull a stunt like that, a lot of people will know what happened to me and why.
Now get out of my face. I have work to do.
My reply to the one percenter who told me that I should calm down and enter into a '"meaningful discussion" on the issue:
Again, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the primary issue. The single greatest underlying cause. This relentless concentration of wealth and resources has gone virtually uninterrupted for 35 Years now. That's half a lifetime. It started slowly in the mid '70's and accelerated under Reagan. It slowed under Clinton and accelerated again under Bush. Overall, its taken place under both Democratic and Republican rule. Now, it's at record levels. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that it might reverse anytime soon. Not one shred. Its gone too God damn far. Period. Way too God damn far. That's not simple ideology. It's simple math. An absolute deal breaker.
I'm lower middle class but I'm OK with that. Its where I belong. Its where I feel comfortable. I have no dependents. I'm in perfect health. I'm doing fine. I'm not here for myself. I'm here for millions who struggle to make ends meet. Especially those who are trying to raise families under this record high cost of living. I'm not making excuses for their irresponsible spending habits but I am well aware of their hardship. Whats been happening for 35 years now is a profound injustice. An outrage. Meanwhile, you get even richer reducing their relative buying power in the process. I'm absolutely convinced that it's going to get worse.
So when you sit there and tell me that I should be willing to enter into a "meaningful discussion" with you, after 35 years of injustice from which you benefit and they lose, it's sort of like a rapist trying to negotiate with me over just how much my mother should bleed. The answer is 'no'. Stop concentrating so much God damn wealth. No? That's what I thought. Therefore, I have no choice but to persecute you and the rich in general until the lower 90 percent of Americans own a reasonable share of United States wealth. Until, you let go of your incredible greed. Until you have a little less and they have enough to get by in relative comfort. They God damn well deserve it.
They did every bit as much as your bunch have to build this country. They built our roads, built our furniture, built our homes, taught our children, fought our fires, caught the criminals, picked up the garbage, fixed our cars, and fought our wars. Many gave their lives in the process. They God damn well deserve more than 10 percent of our nation's wealth. THEY GOD DAMN WELL DESERVE IT!
So don't you even try to negotiate with me unless you're willing to start with an admission that they deserve more than 10 percent of our nation's wealth. A lot more. If you are willing to admit that, then we can talk about 'growing the pie'. But don't even try to feed me some BS about a rising tide lifting all ships. It's not that simple and it never will be until you filthy rich pigs grow a spine and admit that it hasn't for the last 35 God damn years. Any growth must benefit the lower 90 percent more than it benefits you. A lot more. Otherwise, no deal.
I never said that the relentless concentration of wealth was the only factor driving up national debt. Of course, there are other factors. But if you are not willing to admit the COW as one factor, then you are a coward and a liar.
Of course, the corporations have rigged the system. But the corporations are run primarily by the richest one percent. Most members of congress are the richest one percent. Lobbyists, investors, bankers, developers, ect. All members of the one percent club. The motive is greed. Always greed. It's not the system. It's the people running the system. The rich. It's their motive. Greed. God damn spoiled rotten black hearted greed. Whatever takes to get more of our money. Whatever it takes to concentrate more wealth in their favor. Admit, that and maybe we can have a "meaningful discussion". No? That's what I thought.
The root cause sure as hell is the COW. Getting fatter by the day. The process in which that COW gets fatter. The intention to get fatter at our expense. GREED.
You're willing to pay more taxes? Enough to reverse the concentration of wealth for a few years? Bullshit. Your club lobbied for the current tax structure. Loaded with loopholes. Nothing but a room full of smoke and mirrors in which you get richer and the lower 90 percent get poorer. It's not the system. It's the people running the system. The richest one percent. Your club hired the corporate lobbyist. Not ours. Your club did do with one primary goal. To get even richer. To concentrate even more US wealth. To win the game.
If your club wants me to believe for one second that you want unity, then you must be willing to settle for less. At least until the lower 90 percent own a reasonable share of this nation's bottom line wealth. THEY GOD DAMN WELL DESERVE IT!
No? That's what I thought. No deal.
Ok. Message discipline can mean a lot of different things but two must haves are ; short and simple message that can be readily understood; no cursing
I'm fed up with the Earth shattering greed and the admiration of those who epitomize it.
Check this out: Two examples of rotten disgusting immoral behavior involving five very well known filthy disgusting rich multi-hundred-millionaire fake humanitarian celebrity pigs.
The ugly truth about the housing market, Countrywide, predatory lending, and the endorsements of Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. Ch'Ching!
The first subprime loans were issued in 1994. It was a gimmick to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, sell more homes at higher profits, foreclose on those who could not pay when the ARM rates readjusted, take their homes leaving them with nothing to show for their payments, resell the homes at a higher profit and so on. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes and artificially inflate the market. Those loans were incredibly profitable for well over a decade before the house of cards finally collapsed. In the meantime, bankers got richer along with the richest one percent who made off with higher dividends. It was a sham.
The biggest player in the game was Countrywide. Endorsed by Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. If you have their shows from '04' to '06' on tape, watch them again. All three were paid millions specifically to endorse Countrywide by name. The biggest subprime player in the game. They issued more ARM loans than anyone else. Foreclosing on those who could not make their monthy payments when the rates suddenly went through the roof. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, foreclose, and resell for a higher profit. The sham worked like a charm for 12 years before the house of cards finally fell in.
At this approximate time, the worthless paper was sold to unsuspecting investors.
Oprah, Ellen, and Dr Phil were paid millions for their endorsements. Ch'Ching!
They have always had their ignorant love-sick fans eating right out of their hands. This alone is irresponsible. But to stand there and tell their ignorant love-sick fans to run out and get a loan from the biggest rat in the industry. That's just sick.
These three pigs are not naive little uninformed twits like Paris Hilton. They are educated, informed, and extremely savvy mass media juggernauts. They knew damn well about predatory lending. It was a common phrase by then. Still, they stood there and endorsed the biggest subprime rat in the industry. They did so with a big fat FAKE smile on their face. Unfortunately, public figures are not legally required to be straight with their ignorant fans.
But they God damn well should be.
Bono is no humanitarian. In fact, he made millions from a shady deal with Live Nation in which other investors were made to subsidize his multi-million dollar stock options regardless of market value. The stock tanked, Bono unloaded, and those 'other' investors did in fact take giant losses in part, so the filthy disgusting rich multi-hundred-millionaire 'humanitarian' Bono would not have to.
Ch'Ching!
Just another rotten immoral disgusting trick perpetrated in the name of greed.
Madonna secured a similar deal with Live Nation.
I've said it many times and I will say it many more.
There is no such thing as a multi-millionaire humanitarian.
You know, I agree with your sentiment, but reading this makes me want to disagree with you.
I have no problem with you being angry. I'm angry. A lot of people are angry.
I have a lot of problems with this seemingly vital need to express that anger taking high priority, practical effects be damned.
It tells me you're more interested in venting than finding solutions. It tells me you're more interested in making someone feel bad about themselves as an end in and of itself, rather than as a means to progress. I know that's not what you mean to say, but it is what you're saying.
I think that might be Teacher's point about message discipline. It's about controlling your personal urges to serve the greater purpose.
I want the masses to understand something vital. Greed is a form of evil. It's relative but still evil and self centered. This obsessive desire so many people have to get or stay as rich as possible burns through morality like a blow torch on a Kleenex. It is pure evil. Relative but still evil. The resulting concentration of wealth (record high) is the single greatest injustice we face and the single greatest underlying cause for economic and social instability. I'm disgusted and furious inside about it.
I won't filter my anger and disgust anymore than I already have. I want the masses to stop making excuses for those who concentrate the world's wealth, keep their own greed in check and finally admit the ugly disgusting truth.
Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
Yeah. But when you say, "I won't filter my anger and disgust anymore than I already have," you are working at cross-purposes. That's all I'm saying. When the time comes for people to actually go out and start working in a directed, coordinated way to make a change, just don't volunteer for the message or outreach working groups. That's all I'm saying.
I think I understand what you're saying. We each have our own part to do and our own strategy to make whatever difference possible.
ok. Wow! I agree with your sentiments. Even if I wouldn't have put it quite that way. But, that is what makes us all unique! And you certainly have a way with words. Putting them all together, creatively and with alot of expression. Much better than I.
But I can't help but be curious, what is the solution to all of this in your view? (Did I miss that somewhere?)
We all have our own style. Some people respond well to mine. Others hate it. The same goes for every style. I don't think there is one best way to get through to people. The more voices on these issues, the better.
Spend your money as wisely as possible. Especially in middle and lower class communities. Check the Fortune 500 list and limit your support of high profit/low labor industries (Hollywood, pro sports, energy, credit, pharmaceutical, cable, satelite, internet advertising, video, and music, cell phone, high fashion, jewelry, ect.). Cancel all but one credit card for emergencies only. Call the provider and demand a lower rate. Be persistent. You may get it. (By the way. I gave this piece of advice long before NBC. I'm not looking for kudos. I'm telling you that NBC is directly affiliated with the credit industry. They could have given you this piece of advice years ago. Instead, they stood by and allowed their parent company, sister companies, and network sponsors to RIP YOU OFF. Even now, they give the occasional 'good guy' financial advice only because they are pressured to do so. They carefully balance every piece of 'good guy' advice with their primary goal to GET YOUR MONEY. Which is why their 'good guy' advice is so often followed by a plug for one of their sister companies, sister channels, network sponsors, or coorporate partners. For example: They tell you to pay down your credit card debt. Good advice. They should have given it years ago. Then, they tell you to GET MORE CREDIT CARDS and use them. Bad advice. One week Jean Chatzky tells you to avoid the 'free credit report' scam because it is always followed by a monthly service charge. Good advice. They should have given it years ago. The following week she stands by as her paid fellow advisor Carmen Wong strongly implies for you to have your credit monitered on a monthly basis and praises a caller for doing so. Bad advice. This is actually a plug for one of their network sponsors, coorporate partners, or parent company. The praise is nothing but a psychological trick. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Don't take ANYTHING they say at face value. Instead, read between the lines. Carefully weigh every piece of 'good guy' advice given against their primary goal. THEY WANT YOUR MONEY.). If you need a cell phone, then do your homework and find the best deal on a local pre-pay. You may be able to get one for as little as $10 a month. Don't text. The charge may seem low at the time but their profit margins are obscene. If you want home internet access, then check for a locally based provider. They can be found in nearly every city nationwide. Otherwise, use the least expensive big name provider, and share accounts whenever possible. If you need to search, then use the less popular search engines. They usually produce about same results anyway. Don't pay for any internet download. Their profit margins for such data transfers are obscene. Don’t pay to see any blockbuster movie. Instead, wait a few months and rent the DVD from a local store, borrow it, or buy it USED. Then loan it to a friend or family member. If you prefer the outing, then choose a film produced by the lesser known studeos with lower paid actors. If you want to see a big name game or event, then watch it in a local bar, club, or at home on network TV. Don’t buy any high end official merchandise and don’t support the high end sponsors. If its endorsed by a big name celebrity, then don’t buy it. If you can afford a new car, then make an exception for GM, Ford, and Dodge. If they don’t increase their market share soon, then a lot more people are going to get screwed out of their pensions and/or benefits. Of course, you must know by now to avoid those big trucks and SUVs unless you truly need one for its utility. Don’t be ashamed to buy a foreign car if you prefer it. Afterall, those with the most fuel efficient vehicles consume a lot less foreign oil. Which accounts for a pretty big chunk of our trade deficit. Its a reasonable trade-off. Anyway, the global economy is worth supporting to some extent. Its the obscene profit margins, trade deficits, and BS from OPEC that get us into trouble. Otherwise, the global economy would be a good thing for everyone. Just keep in mind that the big 3 are struggling and they do produce a few smaller reliable cars. Don’t frequent any high end department store, mall, or any business in a newly developed center or upper class community. By doing so, you encourage greedy developers, make them richer, and draw vital support away from industrial areas and away from the middle and lower class communities. Instead, support the local retailer and the less popular shopping centers. Especially in lower or middle class communities. If you can afford to buy a home, then do so. But go smaller and less expensive. Don’t get yourself in too deep and don’t buy into the newly developed condos or gated communities. Instead, find a modest home in a building or neighborhood at least 20 years old. If you live in one of the poorer states, then try to support its economy first and foremost.
I agree, much of what you say is good common sense advice. You mentioned greed in an earlier post. And I too think that greed is an underlying cause of many of our problems. Some of them brought on by ourselves (those that took on too much debt). Some of them we are victims of - like the financial crisis - which in large part was caused be Wall Streets criminal greed. The main problem as I see it is the monied corruption of our government. Again, greed is the underlying issue. So even if we all follow the common sense advice that you suggest, we are still in a position of being victims of others greed. Simplest example is that of Wall Street. They have yet to be regulated in a meaningful way, so there is the potential of another financial crisis, which we would all be punished for to some degree in spite of following all the common sense advice.
Your points are all legit. My greatest concern is the record high concentration of wealth and the greed that spreads like wildfire with every 'zero' on the paycheck. My ideas are intended to address both. They aren't perfect but it's up to us. Our leaders will never fall back down to Earth as long the wealth (and influence) is so concentrated. If we could tip the transfer of wealth slightly in favor of the majority, then the middle class would be strong again after 20 years or so. We still have some flexibility with our spending habits. We need to use it to make whatever dent possible. That's how I feel about it.
Agree! ok question! If you are on the street protesting - what does your sign say? Must be 6 words or less!! haha
I would rather not answer that. Hope you understand.
I don't understand, but I'll respect you wishes.
Thankyou.
Be on the lookout for commercial brainwash plots on TV. They are written into nearly every scene of nearly every show. Most cater to network sponsors, coorporate partners, and parent companies. Especially commercial health care. In particular, high profit pharmaceuticals and excessive medical testing. These plugs are countless, calculated, and VERY well written. They have commercial brainwashing down to a science. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Get off the couch and take care of your own body the way nature intended. There is no substitute. If you must see a doctor, then DEMAND that he/she give you more than 5 minutes of their undivided attention. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Be prepared with written questions about your condition and get them answered one at a time. If they refuse, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe excessive medical testing, then ask if they personally own the equipment or if they are paid a commission for each test. If they find nothing new or signifigant, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe a pharmaceutical, then ask for a generic. Better yet, concider a change in lifestyle or simple tolerance. If they still recommend the name brand pharmaceutical, then ask about any financial ties or conflict of interest. If they get offended, then dispute their unreasonable charges and consider a new doctor. If you must drug away your sniffles, worries, jitters, aches, and pains, then at least do your homework. Be aware of the possible side-effects ahead of time. Don't be surprised to find yourself back a week or two later feeling worse. In which case, you should dispute their unreasonable charges. If you are diagnosed with another medical condition, then ask your doctor what he/she has done to rule out those possible side-effects. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't let any greedy doctor treat you like a number, make you wait an hour, or rush you out of their office. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't fall for this CRAP that doctors have no choice but to over-book their time or over-charge their patients because of a high overhead. ITS A LIE. YOUR DOCTOR IS MOST LIKELY A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE. The same goes for their bogus claim to over-test so many of their patients because they are afraid of missing something and being sued for it. THAT IS ANOTHER FLAT-OUT LIE. Afterall, if this were true, then it would only explain some of the unnecessary testing. NOT THE OBSCENE CHARGES. It also wouldn't explain their own financial ties directly to the manufacturers of said testing equipment. Thats right. Most doctors hold stock in the very same companies that produce that equipment. Its another conflict of interest. So don't fall for their CRAP. Demand their undivided attention and respect. Afterall, they took an oath. If you have the opportunity before being admitted, then check the record of your hospital. Check to see if they have been investigated or sued for providing unnecessary treatment, excessive medical testing, or fraudulent billing. Dozens have already been caught doing so. Do all of the above regardless of your coverage. Don't force your employer to cover the obscene and often fraudulent charges of a corrupt health care industry. By doing so, you make the problem worse. Keep your guard up when watching ANY talk show. These people are not your friends. They are not your advocates. They are paid actors hired to get your attention and your money. Some of them are also executive producers (Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil.). Nearly every word, smile, and stupid joke is rehearsed ahead of time. Including those which take place so often during what appear to be 'technical oversights' (Today Show. Even their stage hands are mixed in behind the scenes so that you can hear them laugh at every stupid joke.). Its all fake. Its all calculated. These people are not trying to make the world a happy place. They are trying to entertain you only because their marketing studies have shown that you are more likely to drop your guard and support their sponsors. Nearly every segment is about marketing some over-priced product or service. They will use any excuse to plug a gadget, fashion item, travel destonation, credit card, university, drug, medical test, surgical procedure, movie, TV show, book, magazine, song, website, ect. Almost all of it over-priced. Almost all of it resulting in higher profits for their sponsors, partners, and parent companies. DON'T FALL FOR IT.
Big business is fine on occasion depending on their product, ethics, employment, profit margins, and profit sharing. Do your homework. If they are screwing up our economy or society, then don't pay them for it. If you want to support any legitimate charity, then do so directly. Never support any celebrity foundation. Don't be fooled by the sale of baby photos, lies about percentage of income donated, or praise from other well known public figures. Celebrity foundations are CRAP. They spend most of their funding on PR campaigns, exotic travel, and super high end accomodations for themselves. Thats right. Filthy rich public figures have been jet-setting the world in the name of 'humanity' for years. Riding in personal jets, staying in super-exclusive resorts, and living it up in exotic locations around the world the likes of which most people could never afford even if their lives depended on it. They bring along agents, advisors, publicists, hair, make-up, wardrobe, lighting, and photo crews who are also in it for themselves. They are paid six or seven figures for their part to schedule, manage, document, showcase, praise, and publicize the 'good will' of said public figures and their respective industries. Every possible expense is passed of as 'incidental' or 'necessary' and billed right back to some 'foundation' named after said public figure and/or respective industry. Every possible tax deduction is claimed. Which are incredibly vague and diverse thanks to our sold-out government. Deals are cut with major networks who agree to praise the 'good will' or 'humanitarian' effort of said public figures and plug their latest commercial project around the same time. Others from around the world pick up the story and save these industries billions in advertising every year. Resulting in higher profits and paychecks for the 1% club. When its all said and done more wealth is transfered from poor to rich. NOT the other way around. So don't support any charity named after a living celebrity. Don't be fooled or inspired by any photo you see in a magazine, any clip on TV, any affiliation, or any short term short sighted progress report. Instead, go to Charitywatch.org and look up a top rated charity to support your favorite cause. Its all there. For example: 'Habitat For Humanity' is a top rated charity. They have been for many years. They operate with a low overhead, volunteer workforce, and donated materials. They have built homes for the less fortunate in nearly every city nationwide. Including New Orleans. They do so as we speak. No similar effort can match their progress hour for hour or dollar for dollar. So there is no legitimate reason to support a slower, less efficient effort represented by a filthy rich Hollywood actor who flies in on a personal jet, takes most of the credit, and makes a deal with a major network for plugs just days before the premier of his latest film or DVD release. By doing so, you support not only the inefficient effort, but also the filthy rich actor. Concentrating more wealth and dumbing down our society further in the process. Instead, support 'Habitat For Humanity'. Its not perfect. It is affiliated with some big business. However, it is MUCH more efficient, effective, and less corrupt than 'Make It Right'. The difference is profound. In general, support the little guy as much as possible and the big guy as little as possible.
And this:
The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global. These 'humanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base. Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame.
This is why the rich and famous have all taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product.
Charitywatch.org and Charitynavigator.org are both non-profit charity watchdogs. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money on private jet rides, five star accommodations, and PR crews.
The fans have been terribly misled. For example:
Virtually every penny 'donated' by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to date has come from repeated sales of baby photos. With each sale, the baby money goes to the 'Jolie-Pitt' foundation. A foundation which has never done anything but shelter funds. The 'donation' is immediately publicized worldwide.
When Jolie or Pitt have a new movie to promote, a portion is then donated from their own 'foundation' to a legitimate charity. This leaves their ignorant fans under the impression that 'another' donation has been made. When in fact, its the same baby money being transferred again and again. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, super-exclusive accommodations, photo ops, and PR crap. This saves Jolie and Pitt millions in travel/stay expenses and their respective studios tens of millions in advertising. It's all very calculated.
Of course, Jolie and Pitt could simply endorse any of the 1500 most efficient and effective charities. Of course, the baby money would go much further and do far more good if it were donated to such charities to begin with.
But that would be too boring.
The 'Make it Right' Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor, planner, or designer. He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more. Still, he has been showered with glorious praise by fellow celebrities and media outlets around the world. Again, the fans have been terribly misled.
In order to move into a 'green' home, the innocent victims of Katrina are required to provide a property deed, meet a number of financial requirements, and pay an average of $150,000 UP FRONT. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion (according to the website) forgiven. To date, only a few dozen former home owners have qualified.
The 'Make it Right' foundation was never intended to help the lower income residents of New Orleans reclaim anything lost in Katrina. In fact, 'Make it Right' is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward without them. Part of a calculated effort to raise property values in the area by displacing the poor. They are by design, excluded. Unable to qualify. Of course, Brad Pitt could have simply endorsed 'Habitat For Humanity'. A well known, proven, and efficient home building operation. Of course, the tens of millions in funding would have gone MUCH further.
But that would be too boring. Big name celebrities have no desire to make the world a better place.
Their primary goal is to appear as if they do.
The answer is 'no'.
I couldn't agree more.
Keep your children at home the protesting in the streets has become a dangerous place for them to make a stand against the wall.
you better step back bro
Sorry Smartguy but a child doesn"t need to get wacked out with a tear gas or a rubber bullet.
We need to create a shared set of principles that are used to filter those that are sent by the infiltrated government to infiltrate the message board with garbage. This is 100% real and it's been going on heavy sonce 2004.--------
http://politics.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
This will take more than public relations, this will take a culture of real social strategy.