(no subject)

Jul. 13th, 2005 11:51 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
Please note that just because I post something here doesn't mean that I agree 100% with the source article. If you haven't noticed, it's how I do things. I don't think I can agree 100% with anything. The key is contextual integration. But before I get longwinded, here's the quote:

"Our puppet-making skills are significantly better than our ability to challenge state power. That isn’t a problem if our goal is make good street theater, but our goal is to remake society. Certainly there is a place for puppets and street theater and other symbolic acts. But these tactics are largely disconnected from strategies for building concrete resistance to the state and capitalism."

OK, that's it for now
May have posted a link before, but have a few more to add.

Good progressive viewpoint (generally) Pro-co-op, anti communism, anti capitalism.

"* New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi

* Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's

* Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels

* The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo

* News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments

* GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble,

* Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo,

* Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America

* Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi,

* AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton"

(no subject)

Jun. 30th, 2005 02:16 am
symbioidlj: (Default)
bad past couple of days. cried at work. panic attack. fortunately was able to do my job for the most part. didn't leave early or go to the bathroom (to hide).

sick of reality. wanted escape. claustrophobic. don't know why the fuck i didn't pop in radiohead. *sigh*

tonight, I was thinking of writing to my 3rd grade teacher (I oft do so, but never get around to it), and thanking her for encouraging my questioning mind. then i thought: but that's what's causing my problems. i don't just "accept" it. and then i got mad about that. i can't just ignore it all like others do (not you guys, you're smarter than that)... but as i reflected upon this, I realized that I have this moral conviction and rage and yes it saddens me, but how dare some "Christian" lecture me on morality when they support the mass murder known as war. And I can take hope in the fact that this sorrow and anger is a symptom of my conscience, and I should be glad that I can still feel it. If I didn't, I would truly be a dead, evil person inside, and I refuse to let them do that to me. I'm better than that. So hopefully, tomorrow I can start my day with this knowledge, confident and safe in this knowledge that I still feel the right thing, that I know love for my fellow earth-children.

(no subject)

Jun. 25th, 2005 12:04 am
symbioidlj: (Default)
OK, I hate to go onto rant too much, but again...

This guy is gloating that he can charge more money for this product (which can help save lives), because the "Market" demands it.

No, fucker. It's not the market... It's the fucking patients who need healthcare, but because you have them at your mercy, you fucking steal from them. You are no better, to me, than a weasel car salesman. You are a criminal. You're a fucking crook.

And somehow our world sees this as alright. And if you defend this, if you can even think that because the market says it's moral, you are sick. You need fucking therapy.

If you think that it's moral for this dick to make more money, merely because he can, that his profit comes at the expense of, not only the individual, but the society who shares that individual's burden, and you think it's just okey-dokey.

I apologize that I'm so virulently anti-capitalist. I'm sorry. And I'm sorry I'm a fucking hypocrite. And don't try to tell me "Oh, that's okay, we all do it..." No... Hypocrite? What do you mean? Oh, let's see. Let me count the ways. I eat meat. I shop at chain stores. I buy lots of plastic things that give me temporary pleasure. All to be bedazzled by the glamoury... And I don't give as much as I should, nor participate like I say the ideal is for a community.

I liked the steady increase in sales and their ability to raise the price from $185 to $195 because of the high demand.

Kamalini Ramdas, associate professor, Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia

"SPOT Endoscopic Marking System
Credit: BOLT
Client: G.I. Supply

The SPOT Endoscopic Marking System provides a method of marking cancerous lesions on the wall of a patient's stomach or colon during an endoscopic procedure. The mark provides a reference point for subsequent removal of the tissue. The inexpensive packaging solution turned the technology into a product, by creating a whimsical brand identity that uses color and simple iconography that make it appear less threatening, thereby reducing user anxiety.

Within just three years SPOT represented 28 percent of the company's total revenues while also being the primary driver of a 61 percent cumulative increase in overall company revenues. The president of GI Supply, Frank Carter stated, "Sales on SPOT have far exceeded our expectations. It has been our most successful new product introduction ever. Thanks to BOLT, we have a strong, valuable brand and a unique market position that allows us to compete successfully against competitors or larger size and greater resources."

The SPOT Endoscopic Marking system was a 2001 Gold IDEA winner in the Packaging & Graphics category."
It's like they never grew out of being two-year old boys who clutch their toys tightly and shout "MINE MINE MINE!", stomping their feet and demanding they get what they want...

(no subject)

Jun. 9th, 2005 11:17 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
The heads of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54% pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation amounted to $5.1 billion, versus $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003.

We define total compensation as salary and bonus plus "other" compensation, which includes vested restricted stock grants and "stock gains," the value realized from exercising stock options during the just-concluded fiscal year.

For those companies in which the chief executive has been in office six years or longer, we looked at average six-year total compensation and compared this to long-term stock performance of industry peers as well as the overall stock market. We ranked 189 chief executives in our performance versus pay scorecard. More...
Original Post, my reply and other replies are here

Which was a mistaken post to my journal instead of a reply. I had received this reply and my reply is further below. Any comments are appreciated. :)

------- (Their response to my initial post) ----------
However, the biggest problem that I have with that is that it leads certain individuals (i.e. those with property) to have more rights than others (i.e. homeless people).

The state of property ownership doesn't grant you rights. You have the same natural rights whether you happen to be a billionaire or a homeless person with nothing but the clothes on your back. You have the same rights if you're living naked on a tropical island all by yourself.

Whether it is fundamentally fair that a wealthy person can obtain a prestigious and skilled attorney to escape or lessen punishments to which a homeless person would be subjected after their public defender fumbles the ball--and the even thornier question of whether we should do anything about this fundamental unfairness--is a separate issue. But it is not that the wealthy person has any mysterious "wealthy-person-only" rights that the homeless person does not.

------- (My Reply) ----------
I guess there's a few points of contention in our discussion that would need to be clarified. I have a feeling we approach things from different angles on at least two points.

1) The nature of "rights": That is to say... "What is a right?" I shall limit it in this context to the issue of privacy (which is really what I meant to say.) Privacy is not a "right" in the US Constitution, though we cherish it an awful lot. That said, assuming that we do appreciate and honor it as a right, there is still a discrepency. It naturally follows that if someone has property to live on, they have a certain amount of privacy which a homeless person, without that property, does not have. You can talk semantics and say they still have that right. But de facto denial of granted rights essentially means NO right.

It would be as if I were to give you a thousand dollars, and then told you: You just can't spend it. You can have it all you want. But what good is it if it can't be put into use? Now, seeing as how I used the term "right" instead of "privacy" you are correct. In theory we have public defenders who are supposed to be as skilled as expensive attorneys... Of course we all know that's completely not true. I'm not going to argue that with you.

2) The other issue I am curious to know about is the question of the origin of rights. If, as you say "we all have the same rights" (you use the term natural right, which appears to be taken from a more Constitutional, perhaps Libertarian (as in the party) point of view. Pleas correct me if I'm wrong.), where are these rights derived from? The founding fathers were Deists and appropriately used their reasoning to derive a set of rights based upon their philosophical premise.

I tend to follow Mao's statement that "power flows from the barrel of a gun." This is the source of "right." Not from a personal ethics (Theory) standpoint, but from a political and sociological standpoint (Praxis.) If we have different view of the origins of right, then we may never come to agreement. So be it.

3) What are these rights of which I speak? The issue of privacy, as I noted, is not guaranteed in the constitution. I add my own rights to what I perceive as sociological rights that are to be granted (ie: they are not natural, since I don't believe that they are ordained by "nature and nature's god.") These rights are the right to necessities of survival (Food, Shelter, Clothing, (clean) Water) And also the right to improve ones condition (this includes Education, Communication and Transportation. Especially the right to education, and higher education at that.)

I note that these rights are not to be construed as being equal in terms of ownership. There should be a minimum standard for all, but people don't automatically have a right to big designer name clothes, or a nice mansion.

Since my philosophy is always evolving and my knowledge is quite limited, I will not say that this is complete truth, even though I feel a moral conviction towards it's rightness. I am still working on how this applies in terms of distribution. Does a rich person have a right to better health care than a poor person? Do they have a right to make billions of dollars? My personal stance is "no." I am interested in hearing alternative POV's, but right now, I think wealth disparity and the feudalism that we still live in is quite dangerous to an individual's rights. I could also touch upon the issue of Maslow's Hierarchy, and how that it serves our corporate/feudal system to limit satisfaction of these basic needs (as animals and social creatures.) It makes more "holes" to fill.

(no subject)

Apr. 2nd, 2005 11:07 am
symbioidlj: (Default)
In a recent post of mine regarding my friend Tony's purchase of the PSP, I was very judgemental. It was during my dark time on that Monday that I was feeling all this negativity.

Part of the reason of this darkness I was feeling was due to my oppositional tendencies. The biggest problem I have is playing the "devils advocate" and I believe it's an essential part to play...

at times.

However, I do it all too frequently. And not just in a sustained, reasonable manner, but with an excessive degree of passion that is not becoming of the situation in which I am being critical.

I think about this many times, especially the roles of opposition. The psychology of labeling something as "enemy," and other such issues. Relations of power. I deal with these things mentally, because of the effect that the teasing in school had on me. Some kids handle it in different ways.

I told Rosemary that if I were in school today, I've no doubt that some kids would be calling the pigs on me, afraid I was going to kill them. Put it this way... one of my best friends ([livejournal.com profile] vesicular's) cousin (I hope I did my apostrophes right... :) )... Travis... said to me "You scare me. I think you're gonna be the next Jeffrey Dahmer." And the thing was... I don't think he was joking. I mean, sure a little over the top, but you get the gist. I liked to wear black (still do)... I had a trenchcoat, and wore combat boots. I know I've described probably half my friends list as well. So you can probably empathize...

Anyways, this had an effect on me. I root for the little guy. That doesn't mean I fully support their cause or methods. I'm for Palestinian rights, but not Hamas, for example. I'm against "anti-semitism", but NOT for Zionism as it currently exists, which is an oppressive, racist(religious) state.

When I was a Christian, I was trained to believe that we were under attack by the evil, satanic, secular forces of the world. Now that I'm not, I see that it's a ruse to get a process of mental victimization instilled, in order to justify ever growing aggression. (the same reason that zionism bothers me). It's a sort of extreme outgrowth of the justice I feel needs done. Too often, victims don't want justice, but vengeance. And they want to have power their way.

So, when I see a big guy, I root for the little guy... When my friends support the big guy, it bothers me. It was pointed out to me, by [livejournal.com profile] rflagg that Nintendo is a big corporation... But they're not nearly as big as Sony, and I believe that they work towards making really unique and innovative games, and are trying to do something different at least.

But this oppositional tendency gets me down.

I was thinking about this on Monday with regards to my upbringing and the persecution/martyr complex fundie xians have. And how they're so intimately tied up with the power base as it is now in America. How they're so pro-capitalism (even though, to me, that is one of the biggest offshoots of Babylon there is), and yet they say they're persecuted. Because they can't have everything their way.

Yet, at least they have a system that is generally aligned with their beliefs. I live in a world that is completely and utterly not attuned to any of my beliefs. I am so alienated in the system. I hate Capital. And I hate unrestrained growth, and the drive for ever increasing profits. And I see all these issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, and many other issues of discrimination, and wonder why the fuck it has to be like this. And it gets me down.

I told Tony about my big post ranting about him, and told him I was sorry, cuz it is a shitty thing to do like that. I felt better after that.

Anyways, maybe you see why I bitch all the time. I'm trying to be more positive and affect my own spiritual growth in a more enlightened way. But I tell you, it's fucking hard... But that won't stop me from working on it.
" If between these two classes there be a clear and vital conflict of interest, all the factors are present which make a class struggle; but this struggle will lie dormant if the strong and capable members of the inferior class be permitted to leave that class and join the ranks of the superior class. The capitalist class and the working class have existed side by side and for a long time in the United States; but hitherto all the strong, energetic members of the working class have been able to rise out of their class and become owners of capital."

--Jack London


(no subject)

Mar. 21st, 2005 01:20 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
one more example of the absurdity of copyright laws.  i hope this gets tossed.

get this, some asshole "guru" has "copyrighted" 26 asanas(yoga poses), which are actually part of the historical yoga, and he's suing people who are teaching these postures under copyright law.  Claiming they need to pay a license fee and go through training, and if they teach it outside his school, they need to pay franchise fees as well.

how utterly fucking ridiculous, and how can people not see a charlatan like this for what he is.  same for that "qabalah" dipshit that madonna is all into.  wtf??? come on people.
Note: why, when discussing single payer health care, do the rightwingnuts always say "canada's plan sucks" (etc, even though it's not perfect, sure)... but if you show them something like this: Oh, we don't have to do it the same way... which is what I say to them for converting health, but they don't think that's a legit argument...

Long URL - for self reference later...
Read more... )


symbioidlj: (Default)

November 2015

1 234567


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 08:06 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios