Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[woob]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Kind of amusing contrast of how everyone spent their day and why.

Cowperson

I'm curious to know what it is about the contrast that you find amusing?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Lead Now's letter stopping Brookfield temporarily.

Assuming you guys were actually responsible (and I doubt it), all it does is make you hypocrites. Brookfield has its own rights, and you don't seem terribly interested in respecting theirs. So why should anyone care about what you have to say?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by woob

I'm curious to know what it is about the contrast that you find amusing?

500 idiots randomly protesting in an ineffective way.

vs.

A couple dozen people in a small village working to better their community, funded by the Big Evil Corporation no less.

I would say that is amusing. Especially the fact that the very people these protesters hate are doing more for the community than they are.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

500 idiots randomly protesting in an ineffective way.

vs.

A couple dozen people in a small village working to better their community, funded by the Big Evil Corporation no less.

I would say that is amusing. Especially the fact that the very people these protesters hate are doing more for the community than they are.

Thanks for your reply resolute!

[Resolute 14]

Any time!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Five hundred in this population size would be pretty much what you'd expect and describe as "The Usual Suspects."

We'll see if this core group can inspire others beyond themselves, those who wouldn't normally have the same axe to grind.

If it hovers around that initial 500 going forward, I wouldn't be surprised.

Amusingly, the Herald said some 9/11 Truthers were there with signs.

Outside of my day job as a Titan of finance, I spent this afternoon in a small village, representing a non-profit I volunteer with, accepting a cheque for tens of thousands of dollars from an intermediate oil company for a community capital project we have going. The village populace was also out, dozens of them in a big worker bee effort at rebuilding a park among other things, also with oil company funds, separate from our project. Kind of amusing contrast of how everyone spent their day and why.

Cowperson

So these other protesters don't rebuild their communities at other times? The dozen caught on camera now are suddenly more committed than others?

It's kind of funny, that the spotlight that said protest cast, you use to show the good deeds of others. If we all want to be as negative of the movement as you, I could easily extrapolate these people don't usually rebuild parks and these companies don't usually fund it, they are just using the argument to do it.

Of course that's not right. And it's not right either ways. Many of these protesters help out outside the glare of lights and camera, and many of these companies truly help their communities.

Your original sentences indicate why many people are upset. They see it as an 'Us vs. Them' dichotomy. And I will agree, based on the attitudes of many protesters, it often seems like that. But based on the actions of business and government, it really seems like that.

Truly, in Calgary or most of Canada today, we aren't fighting anything. I like the path. But, it's not perfect, there are problems, and we're bringing light to different issues. You ask, well why don't you do you job and donate time or money outside? The point is WE DO. We do just like you. We do just like the example above. To assume the protesters are lazy, or jobless, or don't give their time is boorish and untrue.

Anyone could have set up today and said, 'well look what we did, instead of protesting.' And you know what? If that was truly their attitude, it was because of the light that the protesters shined on the city.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So these other protesters don't rebuild their communities at other times? The dozen caught on camera now are suddenly more committed than others?

It's kind of funny, that the spotlight that said protest cast, you use to show the good deeds of others. If we all want to be as negative of the movement as you, I could easily extrapolate these people don't usually rebuild parks and these companies don't usually fund it, they are just using the argument to do it.

Of course that's not right. And it's not right either ways. Many of these protesters help out outside the glare of lights and camera, and many of these companies truly help their communities.

Your original sentences indicate why many people are upset. They see it as an 'Us vs. Them' dichotomy. And I will agree, based on the attitudes of many protesters, it often seems like that. But based on the actions of business and government, it really seems like that.

Truly, in Calgary or most of Canada today, we aren't fighting anything. I like the path. But, it's not perfect, there are problems, and we're bringing light to different issues. You ask, well why don't you do you job and donate time or money outside? The point is WE DO. We do just like you. We do just like the example above. To assume the protesters are lazy, or jobless, or don't give their time is boorish and untrue.

Anyone could have set up today and said, 'well look what we did, instead of protesting.' And you know what? If that was truly their attitude, it was because of the light that the protesters shined on the city.

Sorry, but I have my doubts that many in the Occupy movement volunteer to benefit their communities in any meaningful way.

How many of those Occupying St Patricks Island give of their time? How many of those Occupying banks, parks, restaurants, etc. in NYC give of their time?

I suspect that a 'civil disobedience' is ALL that most protesters in this movement can even claim as their contribution to making their communities better places to live.

It's easy and in many instances, it gives you a chance to "break stuff".

It's YOUR group that won't do a thing without the glare of social and conventual media shining on them. Take that away and most 'followers' in the Occupy movement would disappear.

[Slava]

I watched a bunch of the coverage and aside from the obvious issues (PETA, nationalize the banks people, signs like "no jail time for pot" etc.) I do understand the point to some extent. I do think that there is a growing gap between rich and poor and somehow that has to be managed....I have zero idea on how you do this, but a piece of me thinks its not something that should be managed.

Part of the problem here is a "grass is always greener" mentality. When I came out of school I really wanted to make $100k a year. The problems with society were the same at the time in the sense that the rich kept getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. Without getting into detail, when I passed the $100k/yr mark nothing really changed. It was nice and I suppose sort of rewarding because it was something I wanted to do. Otherwise life didn't suddenly get simple. I didn't magically have things figured out and problems I had when I made $50k a year were still problems at $100k a year.

I just point that out because I think its awfully easy to look at a guy making millions each month and think of how simple life would be. I get that if my bank account had an extra few million that somethings are easier, but not everything. I also think that there is a tendency for people to look purely at a guys wage and think that they have everything easy and handed to them. Maybe they were just lucky. Maybe....but most of the people I know who are in these positions took enormous risks to get there. They did and still do work really hard for their money. That doesn't mean that work for minimum wage is not hard work, I know first hand that it is. These positions that pay enormous sums of money though are full of large responsibility and significant duties.

I don't mean this to try to justify every CEO salary out there and say that every protestor has no idea what they're talking about. Its just that there are a lot of factors here and to just say "that guy makes more than $181k therefore he should share" isn't taking everything into account.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So these other protesters don't rebuild their communities at other times? The dozen caught on camera now are suddenly more committed than others?

It's kind of funny, that the spotlight that said protest cast, you use to show the good deeds of others. If we all want to be as negative of the movement as you, I could easily extrapolate these people don't usually rebuild parks and these companies don't usually fund it, they are just using the argument to do it.

Of course that's not right. And it's not right either ways. Many of these protesters help out outside the glare of lights and camera, and many of these companies truly help their communities.

Your original sentences indicate why many people are upset. They see it as an 'Us vs. Them' dichotomy. And I will agree, based on the attitudes of many protesters, it often seems like that. But based on the actions of business and government, it really seems like that.

Truly, in Calgary or most of Canada today, we aren't fighting anything. I like the path. But, it's not perfect, there are problems, and we're bringing light to different issues. You ask, well why don't you do you job and donate time or money outside? The point is WE DO. We do just like you. We do just like the example above. To assume the protesters are lazy, or jobless, or don't give their time is boorish and untrue.

Anyone could have set up today and said, 'well look what we did, instead of protesting.' And you know what? If that was truly their attitude, it was because of the light that the protesters shined on the city.

Fair enough . . . . it could be true those attending this protest could also be volunteers in their communities at other times. Really wasn't my observation.

It just struck me as somewhat amusing, as I was pulling out of town, at the contrast of how differing groups were spending this particular day . . . . . a group of quiet "doers" picking up shovels, rakes, etc and getting something done for the benefit of their community, using big oil money that was flowing back into the community, and then contrasting that with a group that's . . . well, I'm not sure what you're doing although, as I've said repeatedly, I encourage your right to do it. I believe you when you say you believe you are benefiting your community through protest as well, although I'm not seeing the tangible results of that.

Amusingly, The Seventh Annual Zombie March in Calgary yesterday also drew hundreds. http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/15...nvade-the-core They describe themselves as having no goal or cause.

Which again brings me to turnout . . . .

Across all locations, from New York to Calgary, it seems these "Occupy Wall St. Marches are consistently inspiring about 3/1000's to 5/1000's of the local population to come out and make a statement, which is the observation I've been making.

You're selling a growing multiple of locations as a vast movement of discontent when, actually, as I've observed before, it's an extremely marginal segment of any local population that appears to be visibly committed.

The most impressive might have been in Saskatoon, where hundreds also came out relative to a fairly small population.

The percentages above go to your claim that you are representing millions, something that has yet to be demonstrated, not withstanding that the majority of the population is mad at their politicians (so am I) and, as would be expected in any higher unemployment period, fearful for their jobs and distrustful of the next steps of business.

The next few weeks and months will tell us if you have a genuine, widespread inspirational protest movement or not.

You need to pop those crowds higher on a consistent basis to demonstrate your point. Otherwise its going to become pretty clear who is representing the "1%" of the population and who is representing the "99%."

And, again, I support your right to protest your point in a peaceful manner. Knock yourself out.

Cowperson

[woob]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

It just struck me as somewhat amusing, as I was pulling out of town, at the contrast of how differing groups were spending this particular day . . . . . a group of quiet "doers" picking up shovels, rakes, etc and getting something done for the benefit of their community, using big oil money that was flowing back into the community, and then contrasting that with a group that's . . . well, I'm not sure what you're doing although, as I've said repeatedly, I encourage your right to do it. I believe you when you say you believe you are benefiting your community through protest as well, although I'm not seeing the tangible results of that.
Cowperson

I'm still not really understanding what is amusing about this contrast? I agree, you had a vastly different day as compared to the protesters, but that's because each group in this scenario was doing different things. Still trying to figure out where the amusing part comes in?

[kevman]

Talk is cheap? The big bad corporations were actually doing more to help the community yesterday? I know you understand exactly what he found amusing and are just trying to make a point...

I'd like to see the occupiers open their homes up to the homeless for a night. Since, you know, they're not using them...

[woob]

Originally Posted by kevman

Talk is cheap? A corporation was actually doing more to help the community yesterday? I know you understand exactly what he found amusing and are just trying to make a point...

I'd like to see the occupiers open their homes up to the homeless for a night. Since, you know, they're not using them...

Let me fix that for you.

That would be cool. Perhaps someone should go down there and see if anyone would do that? Oh I know what's easier, let's just assume they won't since we all know they're lazy hippies anyways.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by woob

Let me fix that for you.

My bad - singular - you are correct. That said, a lot of community projects rely on the generosity of corporate sponsorship. Everything from youth sports to public spaces to medical research...

That would be cool. Perhaps someone should go down there and see if anyone would do that? Oh I know what's easier, let's just assume they won't since we all know they're lazy hippies anyways.

Good, we're in agreement then - I was afraid for a second you might just take my comments too seriously!

[opendoor]

Part of the problem is that people really don't understand each other. It seems one side thinks people in large corporations are some Bond villains holed up in an underground dungeon scheming how to screw the world while the other thinks that anyone who supports aspects of this movement is a hipster/unemployed/hippie/welfare recipient/communist/etc.

I know that's an exaggeration and a generalization just like I'm criticizing, but the way people seem to think in terms of caricatures is kind of stifling actual discussion of the real issues. Not on here necessarily, as I think there's some good input from all sides and most people seem to have a good handle on things. But when people paint an entire group with a single brush and lower them to some stereotype it's a lot easier to ignore what they're saying. Sometimes people do that to avoid having to think too hard about things that might contradict their world view.

[Barnet Flame]

In many instances, corporate sponsorship has ulterior motives. Many corporations would give back a lot more to their communities if they met all their tax obligations and stopped spending far more in political lobbying for laws/taxation regimes that benefit them far more than their local communities.

And when things still go wrong and they still manage to lose money (after paying their top execs stupid salaries), if the well paid people responsible for failed strategies fell on their swords rather than their employees well down the food chain.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

And when things still go wrong and they still manage to lose money (after paying their top execs stupid salaries), if the well paid people responsible for failed strategies fell on their swords rather than their employees well down the food chain.

Typical leftie nonsense. In the real world, just because an industry fails doesn't mean it wasn't run well.

Listen to what this guy has to say:

“Who do you think pays the taxes?” said one longtime money manager. “Financial services are one of the last things we do in this country and do it well. Let’s embrace it. If you want to keep having jobs outsourced, keep attacking financial services. This is just disgruntled people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

See? Financial services are one of the things they do well. If anything, they should be paid more, so they don't not fail again.

The people who take issue with government bailouts of private industries are communists.

[Barnet Flame]

None of what you posted makes sense or deal with what I mentioned.

My issue was with the people who run companies using failed strategies passing on the consequences of their failed actions on to employees further down the food chain.

That aint leftie nonsense - what is nonsense is these muppets being rewarded for their failure.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

In many instances, corporate sponsorship has ulterior motives. Many corporations would give back a lot more to their communities if they met all their tax obligations and stopped spending far more in political lobbying for laws/taxation regimes that benefit them far more than their local communities.

And when things still go wrong and they still manage to lose money (after paying their top execs stupid salaries), if the well paid people responsible for failed strategies fell on their swords rather than their employees well down the food chain.

You do understand that large part of why corporations give to charity is to get those tax breaks you're complaining about, right? The whole 'make them pay more taxes' argument keeps pretending that taxation is a simple thing, and that there aren't severe consequences that accompany changes.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

None of what you posted makes sense or deal with what I mentioned.

My issue was with the people who run companies using failed strategies passing on the consequences of their failed actions on to employees further down the food chain.

That aint leftie nonsense - what is nonsense is these muppets being rewarded for their failure.

I think or at least hope he's kidding around. The US doesn't do the financial industry well. I say this by working in the industry including some time in NYC. The US was a global leader that is falling behind.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

See? Financial services are one of the things they do well. If anything, they should be paid more, so they don't not fail again.

The people who take issue with government bailouts of private industries are communists.

How does paying executives more money make sure they don't fail again? High executive salaries were directly contributing to the causes for the 2008 economic collapse. Throwing more money at this problem won`t solve it; complete banking regulation and reform will. Doubt that`ll ever happen though, considering how hard these financial institutions lobby government bodies and leader to prevent that from happening.



I really hope people get a chance to watch Inside Job if they can. It explains very well why we are where we are today. Some of these financial fat cats will defend their ways of life until their very last day - and of course they will.