Sunday, October 16, 2011

Documentary by Jamie Johnson - Grandson of the founder of Johnson & Johnson company.
About the 1%, and he interviews the uber-wealthy and tries to bring up the issues of inequality.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Occupy [your city]

National Convention and process of proposals and unity amongst the movement:

So I was listening to WORT on my way to work this morning.  WORT for those who don't know is our local community supported radio station - on the air since the 70s.  A great resource for the community and especially for the "left" (in all its forms).  They have voices you don't hear on the mainstream media (and that includes Air America being mainstream). 

Anyways - they were talking to the Occupy Madison folks.  They talked about their list of demands, and it got me thinking.

One of the complaints people have is "what are they wanting?"  But I got to think like... OK, if this is going to be a movement, it needs to work together.  It needs to focus on the ground up methodology.  The root needs to be the local communities.  And it needs to then send delegates to a national convention.  Proposals should be forwarded. and voted and then brought back for confirmation by the local assemblies.  This really needs to happen, I think, in order for it to really have a chance of working.  They need something other than "People's Assemblies" even though that's what I think they are.  Because that sounds a bit... Commie.  But yeah, working groups to debate/propose bills, present a unified front from the various regions.

Now, one thing that I think needs to be done is to make the movement as large as possible.

That means, as much as I hate libertarians, that they, being the original Tea Party who DID oppose bailouts (unlike the fakey astroturf republicans who claim to oppose it after their guy made it happen and the black guy took office and then magically opposed it).  The libertarians who understand the great societal costs of the drug war and wars of aggression.

There needs to be a way to focus on the economic/corporatism issue.  None of the other crazy hippie shit that comes up (for example, one thing I saw (though I think it was a proposal now that I look back on it -- not the actual "statement of the 99%" committee or whatever the fuck they are) -- they talked about animal rights (animal exploitation by corporations).  Look. I'm all for animal rights, and I think animal welfare is an important thing even though I don't do my part, I do think as a society we should do more.  But FFS that's not related to the Wall St. Issue directly.

So I propose something like any proposed statement/proposal should have an attached statement about how it relates to the corporate issues at hand.

We also need to find a way to get small business owners to recognize that it's not them that we're against.  Some will join us if they hear us speaking rationally - others are just straight up indoctrinated republicans.

Ending corporate welfare is one thing the Libertarian ilk talk about that we all agree on.  So let's start with that point.  We can bring up taxation in that context.

Anyways.  I think it's something that can and should be done if this is to take off.  I still have my doubts, I'm still skeptical (my hopes have surely been crushed many times before).

Monday, October 03, 2011

Left the G+

I know I have one reader here, and they're on G+...  So as an FYI, I did end up leaving G+...

It was this post on Wired that did it for me.

This quote is obviously him choosing one set of people over another:

"There are great debates going on about this—I saw one comment yesterday that claimed that pseudonyms protect the experience of women in the system. I felt compelled to respond, because I’ve gotten feedback from women who say that the accountability of real names makes them feel much more comfortable in Google+."
I know many OTHER women who say they feel less safe.  So your anecdote and my anecdote clashes.  Great, now what?  You are obviously choosing the anecdote that coincides with your belief structure (and of course, the one you think helps you make more money), I choose the one that coincides with mine (the right to privacy). Who are these women?  I don't know really...  I know that some of the people I've worked with on the issue are not only women who have dealt with abuse issues, but also transgendered individuals, people who work and deal with the affects of discrimination every day.

But that... That's not why I left, that was already the standard spiel for a long time.

No, it's the following quote:

But Google+ is Google itself. We’re extending it across all that we do—search, ads, Chrome, Android, Maps, YouTube—so that each of those services contributes to our understanding of who you are.
So, as a matter of fact, I feel that I have to morally leave all google services.  They say right now that they believe in pseudonymous and anonymous accounts for various things, but if their goal is to really integrate G+, how long before profiles become truly mandatory?  So I'm going to go back to bloglines for my feed aggregation, and probably will end up using a different blog service for blogging (I mean, aside from my livejournal account).  And I guess I'll try to find another email provider.

It's a real damn shame, but I can't in good conscious continue to support a company that I see is both growing into something quite different than what I initially loved about it, and a company that refuses to respect and listen to its userbase as it is.

Someone said in another thread I was reading today that if you're getting something for "free" online, it means that thing is not the product, YOU are the product.  And I already knew this, but it's becoming more clear that Google is no longer that tech-geek haven of freethinking/freewheeling individuals and becoming evermore a betentacled leviathan reaching out across the online sphere.