Occupy Together - Began at 55 Wall Street & Expanded Globally

[metta]

 

[metta]

Rufus Wainwright and Sean Lennon cover Madonna’s ‘Material Girl’ at Occupy Wall Street


http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-ru...non-cover-madonnas-material-girl-1092771.html


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzv5SwMqawg[/ame]

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

this is a wall
this is a fence
this is a ditch
full da left ova bodys of dat rich ans cretin dicks
eons still Cocks
still make landfill out da human race
now come in educated zits
ans out sourced fa fillin over seas
ditch
how sweet is da face of man

thankyou

 

[belamyi]

I'm still curious about the sort of people who consider themselves the 1% according to what was posted above. They are supposed to be like 400, isn't that right? There may be "SOMEONE" among them who are for being taxed more and all that (W. Buffet and some other quirk of expenditure), but I VERY much doubt ANY billionaire, those who constitute the REAL 1% and not someone having just "+$1 million", would parade as such, let alone placarding in the streets along with the "99%".

 

[metta]

New Yorkers support anti-Wall Street protests: poll

"Anti-Wall Street protests have won broad support among New York City voters, who would overwhelmingly favor tougher regulations on the financial industry, new poll results showed on Monday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...20111018?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

 

[belamyi]

I'm still curious about the sort of people who consider themselves the 1% according to what was posted above. They are supposed to be like 400, isn't that right? There may be "SOMEONE" among them who are for being taxed more and all that (W. Buffet and some other quirk of expenditure), but I VERY much doubt ANY billionaire, those who constitute the REAL 1% and not someone having just "+$1 million", would parade as such, let alone placarding in the streets along with the "99%".

Should have added there that the worst part of the 1/99 problem is that the "1%" is actually a "0.00...%".
Hence my scepticism about the significancy of "rich people" "from the 1%" possessing a couple million dollars suporting the occupy-movement: the reason why they support it is precisely because they are not actually part of that "1%" leech-problem.

 

[Kulindahr]

New Yorkers support anti-Wall Street protests: poll

"Anti-Wall Street protests have won broad support among New York City voters, who would overwhelmingly favor tougher regulations on the financial industry, new poll results showed on Monday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...20111018?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

Interesting that more people blame Bush than blame the bankers.

They give him far too much credit.

 

[belamyi]

Shocking..

 

[hungprep]

^ Asshole-ism (a John Waters word)!


From this morning's New York Times
.

 

[Kulindahr]

From this morning's New York Times
.

That's a good read.

Though I take issue with the nerd who thinks just about anyone can afford to overeat to his heart's content -- that's only true if you don't care about paying your utilities or rent. People who can say such things show that they're also out of touch. IFF a person had free housing, and IFF a person had a vehicle that was paid for, and IFF a person had no medical costs, then that person, on the low end of wages, could afford to eat to his heart's content.

Sadly, that doesn't mean people eat in healthy fashion: filling food that's crap for nutrition is often cheaper than healthy food.

 

[metta]

Occupy Oakland protests

I've just spoken to Keith Shannon, roommate of Scott Olsen, the Iraq veteran who is in hospital after apparently having been hit in the head by a police projectile.

Shannon said doctors told him Olsen has a "skull fracture and swelling of the brain". A neurosurgeon will assess Olsen later today to determine whether he needs surgery, Shannon said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-protests-live?fb=native

 

[belamyi]

That's a good read.

Though I take issue with the nerd who thinks just about anyone can afford to overeat to his heart's content -- that's only true if you don't care about paying your utilities or rent. People who can say such things show that they're also out of touch. IFF a person had free housing, and IFF a person had a vehicle that was paid for, and IFF a person had no medical costs, then that person, on the low end of wages, could afford to eat to his heart's content.

Sadly, that doesn't mean people eat in healthy fashion: filling food that's crap for nutrition is often cheaper than healthy food.

Not to speak of the plain fact that one could already "overeat to one's heart's content" back in Rockefeller's time as much as it can be done today...

 

[Kulindahr]

Not forgetting the plain fact that one could already "overeat to one's heart's content" back in Rockefeller's time as much as it can be done today...

True.

Though we have a greater variety of food to do it with.

 

[belamyi]

True.

Though we have a greater variety of food to do it with.

You mean like Twinkies (assuming "Rockefeller's time" to be a period before WWI)? or Cheetos? or Doritos..? BK ..?
You mean "greater variety of PACKAGED food"...

 

[Kulindahr]

You mean like Twinkies (assuming "Rockefeller's time" to be a period before WWI)? or Cheetos? or Doritos..? BK ..?
You mean "greater variety of PACKAGED food"...

I was thinking of all the tropical fruits and such that were barely heard of, let alone available, including all the ones people would have thought of as "out of season" but are now commonly imported from the southern hemisphere.

 

[belamyi]

I was thinking of all the tropical fruits and such that were barely heard of, let alone available, including all the ones people would have thought of as "out of season" but are now commonly imported from the southern hemisphere.

Again, that's not anything extraordinary compared with Rock's time: the difference is that rich people's tastes today are not as parochial as they used to be, and that more people have heard of and are offered those products.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, that's not anything extraordinary compared with Rock's time: the difference is that rich people's tastes today are not as parochial as they used to be, and that more people have heard of and are offered those products.

You think tropical fruits and out-of-season fruit was in every typical grocery store back then?!!!

Heck, according to my grandma, it was hard to get bananas!

 

[belamyi]

You think tropical fruits and out-of-season fruit was in every typical grocery store back then?!!!

Heck, according to my grandma, it was hard to get bananas!

I said those fruits were perfectly available, not that they were "typically", generally, available.
At any rate, your argument is not actually so much about greater variety of products in our individual diets as, globally, a greater variety of diets,, that is, people today don't have so much the possibility to incorporate as to substitute products that would be eaten in the past and now are rather "out of fashion". A century ago, wealth of choices was manifested in other sort of products, for example clothes, rtather than food.

This is all ultimately more about cultural habits than about real sophistication and wealth of choices. People in 1900 would mandatorily wear hats, no matter their class, and today not even the quality of the clothes can, in some cases, make it distinct to what class you belong: and that doesn't mean there is more equality or that classes have come closer together.

 

[hungprep]

Solidarity!
.

 

[metta]

Oakland: Keith Shannon on injured Iraq veteran Scott Olsen

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUBH_bZJBU0[/ame]