Wall Street Protests

[henry quirk]

HA!

[Stormieweather]

Frankly, I don't care how many bananas the monkey's have, or don't have. I can't stand bananas.

What I have a problem with is redistricting the jungle so all of the banana trees end up on plots belonging to 1% of the monkeys. Then they try to sell their bananas to the monkeys without any for exhorbitant fees and then claim the hungry monkeys are hungry because they're lazy and stupid.

[classicman]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!

[henry quirk]

"What I have a problem with is redistricting the jungle so all of the banana trees end up on plots belonging to 1% of the monkeys. Then they try to sell their bananas to the monkeys without any for exhorbitant fees and then claim the hungry monkeys are hungry because they're lazy and stupid."


HA!

All: irrelevant.

I get that's what irks you (and many others): so what?

The banana-holders HAVE the bananas...if the non-holders were too stupid, too slow, or too trusting to stop them, then that's on THEM.

What's embedded in your post, Storm: the banana-holding monkeys are liars, greedy, manipulative, and zealous.

A good assessment, but: so what?

Righteous indignation is well and good but foundationless as morality is a fiction with no more 'umph' to it than the one or ones promulgating it can muster up (mustering up 'force', 'power', 'might', the fist, the stick, the knife, the gun, the bomb, etc.).

If Joe the monkey lies, cheats, steals, manipulates to get his bananas AND he has the craftiness to see his lies and theft are not only sanctioned by *'law' but largely applauded by the majority, then that IS the way it IS.

Arguing with Joe (or sitting on his doorstep, crying) will net the occupying monkey exactly what he or she already has: nada.

The lesson: if you want the banana-holder's goods then you will have to take them by way of a superior 'might', or though a more cleverly implemented lesser 'might'.

Now: the moral argument CAN work if understood AS an expression of might...in this case: the moral argument is meant to persuade (as in: cajole, confuse, manipulate, lie, cheat, etc.). The non-holder works to direct other non-holders to form an 'army' so that this 'army' can storm the tree and take the bananas...the manipulator will wax poetic and be oh-so charismatic and lay out a case for fairness and justice and whatever, but the argument is just the method, not the actual drive, which -- again -- is envy.

My point: your distaste is driven by envy...envy for bananas...envy for the quickness, and slyness of the banana-holder.

Your mistake is assuming your 'morality' is 'real' and shared ultimately by everyone...it's not.


As for "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!” no, not by a longshot.









*codified morality...equally absurd...another fiction...only as 'good' as the enforcement.

This is an amoral world and utopia is a (crack)pipe dream.

[henry quirk]

In its widest sense: you just described 'living' for any individual of any species, past or present, you care to name.

Those who own and run corporations just do 'it' better (in a very narrow context) than you...*shrug*.

The rest of your post: unfounded assessments (of me)...a tactic used by one who can't dredge up a cogent, opposing, argument.

You, therefore, are dismissed...


To everyone else: From where does 'morality' come? What is the source of morality? What makes this behavior 'right' or 'good' and another 'wrong' or 'evil'?

[henry quirk]

If you're an occupant: of course not!

Looking to justify actions founded in *envy (to him- or her-self, and others) is at least half the work of an occupying monkey. So: the 'reasons' the occupant foists are very relevant (to him or her, as justification).

On the wider scale (beyond the subjective and personal), however: everything is irrelevant.









*Envy, of course, needs no justification...wanting something is not 'good' or 'bad'...it just 'is'.

[henry quirk]

I'm not cynical: just realistic.

Reality is amoral...implement 'fairness' as you can and like...I see the practicality of it (and the trap!)...I'm not, however, believing 'fairness' is anything other than another model that only works to the extent it's enforced.

As of today: 'fairness' has a less than stellar track record as model (useful fiction, but still fiction).

*shrug*

#

"dismiss this."

Done, and done.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

HA!

All: irrelevant.

I get that's what irks you (and many others): so what?

You are not the first person to discover cynicism. It's a great cloak for the "You're stupid, and I'm right" crowd.

So what?

I'll tell you what. You are the winner of Sam's

Poster Not Worth Seriously Replying To Award.

This prestigious award has been won by only two other posters in Internet history - Urbane Guerrilla and a poster on another board who shall remain anonymous. Congratulations! If you wish an actual paper depiction of your Award, embossed and with gilt edges, please e-mail a SASE complete with small barking dog to AynRandAnonymous.com. A link to your Face Book page is optional.

And don't worry. Everyone else around here will probably continue to humor you. And Merc is gonna cream his pants when he reads your shit er stuff.

[classicman]

All: irrelevant.

Not at all.

[classicman]

The only reason you feel her post is irrelevant is because it shows your perspective is incorrect. dismiss this.

[classicman]

~~~

[classicman]

An Open Letter to the Citizens of Oakland from the Oakland Police Officers’ Association

1 November 2011 – Oakland, Ca.

We represent the 645 police officers who work hard every day to protect the citizens of Oakland. We, too, are the 99% fighting for better working conditions, fair treatment and the ability to provide a living for our children and families. We are severely understaffed with many City beats remaining unprotected by police during the day and evening hours.

As your police officers, we are confused.

On Tuesday, October 25th, we were ordered by Mayor Quan (Democrat) to clear out the encampments at Frank Ogawa Plaza and to keep protesters out of the Plaza. We performed the job that the Mayor’s Administration asked us to do, being fully aware that past protests in Oakland have resulted in rioting, violence and destruction of property.

Then, on Wednesday, October 26th, the Mayor allowed protesters back in – to camp out at the very place they were evacuated from the day before.

To add to the confusion, the Administration issued a memo on Friday, October 28th to all City workers in support of the “Stop Work” strike scheduled for Wednesday, giving all employees, except for police officers, permission to take the day off.

That’s hundreds of City workers encouraged to take off work to participate in the protest against “the establishment.” But aren’t the Mayor and her Democratic Administration part of the establishment they are paying City employees to protest? Is it the City’s intention to have City employees on both sides of a skirmish line?

It is all very confusing to us.

Meanwhile, a message has been sent to all police officers: Everyone, including those who have the day off, must show up for work on Wednesday. This is also being paid for by Oakland taxpayers. Last week’s events alone cost Oakland taxpayers over $1 million.

The Mayor and her Administration are beefing up police presence for Wednesday’s work strike they are encouraging and even “staffing,” spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for additional police presence – at a time when the Mayor is also asking Oakland residents to vote on an $80 parcel tax to bail out the City’s failing finances.

All of these mixed messages are confusing.

We love Oakland and just want to do our jobs to protect Oakland residents. We respectfully ask the citizens of Oakland to join us in demanding that our City officials, including Mayor Quan, make sound decisions and take responsibility for these decisions. Oakland is struggling – we need real leaders NOW who will step up and lead – not send mixed messages. Thank you for listening.

This has got to be a first.
Link via Occupy Philadelphia.

[Happy Monkey]

Is it the City’s intention to have City employees on both sides of a skirmish line?

Don't make it a "skirmish line", then.

Quan gave a crappy order, but police excitement about breaking out the fun weapons and playing war exacerbated it.

[classicman]

meh - we can't paint the whole dept by the actions of one or at most, a few.

[Lamplighter]

Life can be confusing, can't it.