Jump to content

mockingbird_franklin

Established Member
  • Posts

    2,989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by mockingbird_franklin

  1. something akin to SNP and Plaid but without the nuisance nationalist bits I get a choice at least. A choice between a faux Labour Party or Plaid that have some good ideas spoiled by flag waving and chippy shoulders. many SNP and Plaid voters say it's the Labour party that deserted them not the other way around, so considering these parties success it begs the question, just why would such a party be unelectable to the greater British population as a whole doesn't it?. especially when you couldn't argue that Welsh or Scottish voters are any more left wing than the majority of their English counterparts.
  2. Actually Mike, Whenever the British public are asked what they would like the government to do without the overtones of a named party being behind the policies, by far and away the majority (and way more than the 25% of the electorate that enabled the current fascist party to get elected) would favour left of centre policies that would be traditional Labour ones of the post war balanced economy, I fully understand why the odds of such a party winning an election against the sustained campaign of the usual suspects and with the usual propaganda with it's pro corporate agenda, Me I'd just be happy with a Party made up of decent human beings that actually representative of the electorate as we'd probably end up with a reasonable centre ground party, non of the nastiness and unfairness of either the extreme right or extreme left, would make a nice change.
  3. being consistently wrong didn't seem to do Thatcher any harm. Hmm, Corbyn wins and Labour get dragged back to the centre left.... After all we've been without one for a couple of decades. First thing, Corbyn is a Marxist and closer to Syriza than the centre left, second the reason the UK has been without a large really left wing party for ages is because they were unelectable. All electing Corbyn achieves is perpetual Tory Government in Westminster. I suppose it comes down to this: does those on the left want an ideologically pure option at the ballot box, or do they want a reasonably left wing government? can you point out where I said Corbyn was Centre Left? I reasoned a far left leader would maybe balance out the effect of the torylite right leaning members of the party and end up with something nearer the center left, like a pair a scales, 100 x 5gram weights on the right, balanced out by a whopping 5kg weight on the left side well we haven't had a reasonably left wing government since the 70's so I fail to see how having another thatcherite leader of the labour party would lead to a reasonably left wing party. Anything bar electing a right wing neoliberal to lead the labour party yet again would see the full force propaganda of the usual suspects effect a Labour fail.
  4. being consistently wrong didn't seem to do Thatcher any harm. Hmm, Corbyn wins and Labour get dragged back to the centre left, Be interesting to have a large left of centre party and one that believes in a balanced economic approach again, rather than the swivel eyed right wing neoliberal bullshit ecomonic dogma. After all we've been without one for a couple of decades.
  5. Didn't read lol That's ok, I just respect your right to remain ignorant and ill informed on matters of your choice, if you so choose. it's The Government and big business encourage it
  6. nice article on Uber from November of last year, sometimes it's good to know a little about the companies one does business with. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-worst-company-silicon-valley Is Uber the worst company in Silicon Valley? Co-founder Travis Kalanick may have apologised for a fellow executive’s ‘terrible’ comments, but anger swirls at tech firm over allegations of sexism and misogyny Uber executive apologises for suggesting firm dig dirt on journalists Tuesday 18 November 2014 22.47 GMT Last modified on Thursday 20 November 2014 11.09 GMT Is Uber the worst company in Silicon Valley? The taxi app company has proved to be one of the most aggressive of the new generation of tech startups – showing a willingness to take “disruption” to new heights. Governments, states, taxi drivers, tax authorities, rivals, even blind people – all have come up against Uber and lost. On Monday, the company stepped it up a gear when it was revealed that at least one senior executive at Uber had considered a smear campaign against one journalist who has had the temerity to question the company’s ethics. At a private dinner last week at Manhattan’s Waverly Inn, Uber’s senior vice-president of business, Emil Michael, suggested the company could spend “a million dollars” to hire “four top opposition researchers and four journalists” to “help Uber fight back against the press” by looking into personal lives of reporters who write unflattering stories about the company, BuzzFeed’s editor-in-chief Ben Smith reported. The meeting was part of a series of events apparently meant to be a “charm offensive” to woo the media. Among the attendees for at least one of the events were Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick, BuzzFeed’s Smith and Johana Bhuiyan, the actor Ed Norton, Arianna Huffington, and, reportedly, representatives of the New York Times, Business Insider, Capital New York and Newsweek. Smith was there as a guest of columnist Michael Wolff. When somebody at the table at the dinner suggested the plan could be problematic for Uber, he allegedly replied: “Nobody would know it was us.” Well, they do now. On Tuesday, Kalanick tweeted an apology to Lacy and said Michael’s comments “showed a lack of leadership, a lack of humanity, and a departure from our values and ideals.” He said, however, that “folks who makes mistakes can learn from them … and that also goes for Emil,” suggesting that Michael would be remaining with the company. Advertisement The revelation is just the latest in a series of escalating clashes between Silicon Valley and the press, regulators and politicians. After years of disrupting each others’ businesses, tech is looking outside the Valley for new businesses. And as it does, it is finding that assumptions people make in tech don’t always travel well. Michael singled out Sarah Lacy, editor of the tech blog PandoDaily, who has been a persistent critic of the company and recently accused Uber of “sexism and misogyny” over a promotional deal in France that paired riders with “hot chick” drivers. Photos of women in lingerie appeared on the app for customers to choose from. “I don’t know how many more signals we need that the company simply doesn’t respect us or prioritize our safety,” she wrote, declaring she would delete the Uber app from her phone. In a piece titled ‘The horrific trickle down of asshole culture: why I’ve just deleted Uber from my phone’, Lacy pointed to comments from founder Kalanick about “how his company should be called ‘Boober’” in reference to his desirability among women. Lacy is rightly furious about Uber’s response to her criticism. As she pointed out in a PandoLive podcast shortly after the story broke, she has never discussed personal or family matters pertaining to Uber executives, and her criticisms were based on the actions of the company. “What’s astounding to me is that this is a ‘holy shit’, whistleblower moment that the culture of this company is so rotten that an executive was bragging about this to a journalist at dinner. They don’t even think there is anything wrong with this,” she said. Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick. Photograph: AP In what was almost an aside, Smith also said Uber had accessed the profile of a journalist to see she had traveled while using Uber, without permission. Given the picture that can be built from travel data, that news could arguably be the most alarming thing in his report. An Uber spokesperson told Smith this was against Uber’s policies. On Tuesday, Kalanick tweeted an apology to Lacy and called Michael’s comments “showed a lack of leadership, a lack of humanity, and a departure from our values and ideals.” Shocking as Michael’s comments are, they will not surprise many who have followed the company. In five years, Uber has managed to build itself into a company operating in more than 205 cities across 45 countries, and with a $25bn valuation, by cracking heads across the world as it attempts to disrupt the economics of the taxi industry. Advertisement That valuation is built in large part on the idea that Uber will expand beyond its taxi app base into other services – and they too can expect the hardest of hardball tactics. The company is currently being sued in San Francisco by the family of a six-year-old girl who was killed by an Uber driver. The company claims its driver was not performing an Uber ride at the time, but the family argue he was on the road because he was working for Uber. The company has been sued by the National Federation of the Blind for allegedly refusing rides once the driver saw the passenger had a service dog. The case alleges that one driver even put a service dog in the trunk of his car. In the UK and India Uber has been challenged on taxability of its activities. Overseas the company’s tax structure includes maintaining companies and partnerships in Bermuda, Ireland and the Netherlands. The Wall Street reported last month that Indian tax authorities were raising questions over the company electronically running transactions through another country. Last month Uber was referred to the UK tax authorities by London’s taxi and minicab regulator, Transport for London, after senior Labour MP Margaret Hodge said Uber was “opting out of the UK tax regime”. Its dirty tricks campaign isn’t restricted to journalists. Uber and rival Lyft have been engaged in an internecine battle for drivers and riders, which has seen both sides ordering cars only to cancel them in order to frustrate each other’s business. Verge reported in August that Uber would request rides from Lyft drivers only to cancel them en masse; Forbes, meanwhile, documented Lyft’s aggressive attempts to hire drivers away from Uber. For Kalanick, the company’s combative chief executive, this is all the price of doing business. Much of the heat on the company comes from local taxi lobbies and their supporters, he argues. And the libertarian boss sees it as his mission to fight the power. “We don’t have to beg for forgiveness because we are legal,” he told the Wall Street Journal last year. “But there’s been so much corruption and so much cronyism in the taxi industry and so much regulatory capture that if you ask for permission upfront for something that’s already legal, you’ll never get it. There’s no upside to them.” Worryingly, Kalanick’s sharp-elbowed approach works, as far as investors are concerned, and it comes as Silicon Valley eyes an ever larger share of the “1099 economy” – self-employed people often engaged in the service industry. Taxi drivers, laundry workers and home cleaners are just the first guinea pigs for a new breed of tech firms looking to make big business out of often low-paid workers. The trend is unlikely to stop there with other, even more regulated, industries like home help, even nursing, seen as lucrative markets. Lacygate may well be a turning point for Uber. The company has serious investors – Google Ventures and Goldman Sachs among them. David Plouffe, the former campaign manager for Barack Obama, recently joined the company to head policy and strategy. Even with Uber’s bro-ocracy there are some serious grown-ups in the room who will be pushing for the company to contain this scandal, not least to protect its astronomic valuation. But as Silicon Valley looks ever more closely at “disrupting” the real world economy, and the legislation that binds it, the culture wars look set to intensify. This story was amended on Tuesday 18 November to clarify that there were several events attended by Uber representatives and media. An earlier version of the story had mischaracterised several members of the media as having attended the dinner rather than an event beforehand. According to Ben Smith’s reporting, of the members of the media mentioned in the story, only Smith, Michael Wolff and Arianna Huffington attended the dinner.
  7. I refer you to Mr John Adams who i believe i quoted earlier, there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation, one is the sword the other is by debt. It seems the sword is now reserved for use on nations made up of brown people Who are the enslaved and what do you mean by a nation? That's a very good rhetorical question that everyone should ask themselves,then a good long hard bit of philosophical thinking might help lead to the answer, getting away from the stereotypical in chains and whipped black person implanted into the psyche can be hard to do though, it's the sort of question you really have to realise the answer for yourself, however uncomfortable the answer might be, As for a nation i guess I quite like the Benedict Anderson's definition of an 'imagined community' which I believe accurately describes most modern states or countries in those two words. But here i guess Jughashvili's definition is more apt, though not totally at odds with Anderson's which is "a historically constituted community of people;" "a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration but a stable community of people"; "a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercouse as a result of people living together generation after generation"; or, in its entirety: "a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture" *thanks to wikipidea for providing an easy refreshment of my memory.
  8. I refer you to Mr John Adams who i believe i quoted earlier, there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation, one is the sword the other is by debt. It seems the sword is now reserved for use on nations made up of brown people,
  9. That is straight from IMF-playbook which they have used a lot in South America. Along with sudden death of anyone who stood up for the peoples interest against the corporate might, but I'm sure all those plane crashes etc were just coicidence
  10. Banking is a very simple business to understand, Banking at it's essence has 3 simple rules Rule 1, get people into debt, with money that you don't actually have yourself, using whatever means possible, Rule 2, keep them in debt. using whatever means possible Rule 3, use this debt to obtain the real wealth of those in debt using whatever means possible.
  11. nicely balanced, any result possible, could see the game going in so many different directions before England get to bat again. We need a good session in the morning
  12. Saw these guys at Godiva on saturday, they were excellent live
  13. Looks like they Ain't gonna work on Maggies farm no more
  14. Ultimately, it's not the Germans behind the situation.
  15. Two ways to conquer and enslave the people of a nation, one is with the sword, the other is with debt. both should be met with equal resistance, other nations prefer the sword, those that practice usury prefer debt, though they are not disinclined to the use of the sword, after all it provides an excellent means for debt
  16. No nation is suitable for neo liberal politics, and no people should be made to suffer the consequences of it's utterly flawed and bullshit ideology Also, Whilst the Eu isn't blameless, the focus needs to be on the IMF and the world bank.so often behind the instruments of financial ruin inflicted on nations
  17. for those interested in this situation, maybe they should consider reading up on the London agreement of 1953 and the very favourable (for Germany) restructuring of Germany's debt post war. yes Germany was dealing with a post war situation, but then isn't Greece along most of the world being subjected to a covert finacial war? Not a war fought with guns and tanks to grab land, but finacial tools like inflation and usury to grab physical Assets on the cheep. But just like any war, it's the average men and women that are being asked to bear the greatest cost
  18. Someone has actually started a crowd-funding thing. If every person in the EC paid 3 euros Greece could meet their immediate needs and 300 euros would pay off their debts completely. unfortunately those that can most afford 300 Euros are those least likely to give 3 Euros never mind 300 Euros
  19. Banks V's the people is a war that has been fought throughout the centuries, unfortunately for the people, banks being dead fictions, legal entitles, or just simply something written on a piece of paper are difficult to kill off forever in the way people can be, so this war is one that has to be fought again and again even when the people win.
  20. Austerity on its own doesn't work. Austerity is working perfectly as it is supposed to do, the error is believing it's meant to balance the books and pay off debt.
  21. Well that's a start on the right road. but you have to forgive me my difficult nature here, whilst I accept most religions arn't inherently bad, they tend to have some very questionable believers and beliefs, I include statism in my broad sweeping statement about religions of course
×
×
  • Create New...
Â