Tag Archives: greed

Tenn. Fire Department Allows Home to Burn Down over Unpaid $75 Fee

Tenn. Fire Department Allows Home to Burn Down over Unpaid $75 Fee

From today’s Democracy Now:

In Tennessee, a local fire department refused to put out a house fire last week because the homeowner had forgotten to pay $75 for fire protection from a nearby town. The firefighters showed up to the scene of the fire and then watched as the home of Gene Cranick burned to the ground. Cranick’s neighbors had paid the $75 fee, so when the fire spread across the property line firefighters took action, but only to save the neighbor’s property. The local mayor defended the actions of the firefighters. South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don’t.”

Congratulations, Capitalism! You’ve cost a family their home and even their pets. YAY!!

The Free Market really IS awesome!

Posted in none | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why do our governments hate us?

I don’t have AIDS/HIV, but I am puzzled as to why governments on both state and federal levels seem so disinterested in resisting greed and passing laws that benefit the rich or vetoing them if they don’t.

From NYC’s housingworksbookstore:

This week Gov. Paterson vetoed a bill that would have addressed an outrageous injustice.

Thousands of poor New Yorkers with HIV/AIDS in government-subsidized housing pay up to 75 percent of their income toward rent. In some cases, this leaves New Yorkers to live on just $12 a day.

The vast majority of people in government-subsidized housing pay no more than 30 percent of their income toward rent. It’s no wonder, then, that the State Senate and Assembly voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill that would offer the same benefit to poor HIV-positive people in subsidized housing—and no wonder Paterson promised to sign it.

If passed, the bill could have helped stabilize housing for at least 10,000 struggling New Yorkers.

But the governor broke his promise. He vetoed the bill.

Join our Fight the Veto! Twitter and Facebook campaign asking state representatives to override that decision. (via Housing Works: Join Our Facebook and Twitter Campaign to Fight Paterson’s Rent Cap Veto!)

I feel like it’s useless to fight this trend. Money talks and corporate money talks LOUDLY—the Supreme Court made sure of this and there are very few individuals who can compete with the finances of mega-corporations.  Also, there seem to be no ways to become that powerful/rich without compromising your morals on some level or another (or several).

We can protest as much as we want, retweet and “Like” on Facebook as much as we want, and the powers that be can simply ignore us.  Largely like they’ve been doing for the last ten years.

Posted in none | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Good to know: Major Corporations Are Downloading Those 100 Million Facebook Profiles off BitTorrent

thedaytheytriedtokillme:

Major Corporations Are Downloading Those 100 Million Facebook Profiles off BitTorrent

Who’s surprised? HANDS UP!

Read one reason this is bad. Another reason is this: why must corporations work so hard to make EVERY THIN DIME THEY CAN??

Yes, yes, I know “because they’re greedy” but that’s not a reason. That’s an excuse to be shitty.

Posted in none | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Target (the French Store) boycott being called for–but where will I get my cheap-ass socks?

stephanieleroy:

Target Donates $150,000 To Fund Anti-Gay Politics.

jlamere:

feralnostalgia:

ifighttheonesthatfightme:

mohandasgandhi:

sweetupndown9:

Welp. Looks like I’m boycotting Target. 

A friend of mine posted this on Erika’s facebook. I’m really glad I saw this before I moved, so I can avoid there store when I shop for my new house stuff. 

From the article. 

Follow the money. At least, that’s the message delivered by an article at sfist.com by Matt Baume, who tracks $150,000 from Target’s coffers, through a political action committee (PAC) known as Minnesota Forward, all the way to Tom Emmer, who himself supports a Christian rock band in Minnesota that travels around the state saying that it’s moral and righteous for religious people to kill gays and lesbians.

For those into algebra, it looks a little like this: Target + Minnesota Forward + Tom Emmer = Support for a rather dangerous and radical political philosophy that diminishes LGBT people to pests that should be murdered. And Target is cool with this?

Sign the Petition demand answers for this.

Oh, HELL NO.  What the FUCK, Target?  You’re done.

seriously?  the religious right was boycotting them a few years back because they were “pro-gay” – they’ve donated to gay rights causes and AIDS charities and such in the past too…now I’m just confused.

maybe instead of trying to be picky about which amoral-by-design corporations we consume from, we ought to switch to production instead.  Swadeshi Movement style…

 I think this might have more to do with bashing the founding family of Target and Emmers competition for governor, Mark Dayton. Either way, it’s pretty ridiculous.

OK, let’s boycott Target—but then where will we shop?  Wal-Mart? K-Mart? Actually, there’s really no source for anything we buy that doesn’t eventually connect back to some sort of horrible thing.  Whether it’s hating gays or paying pennies for hours of labor or buying conflict minerals or oil from terrorist regimes, there isn’t a dollar in our bank accounts that hasn’t paid for someone’s misery somewhere in the world. 

If there was a source for every day items that sold products that are made entirely within the US with materials originated inside the US, I’d agree with a boycott.  But boycotting Target just means you’re going to add support to some other company that is just as bad in the same or different ways. 

We’re living in an era of extremist capitalism, where the shortest route to profits is the highway (or low-way) nearly every damn company takes.  

In the end, which is worse? Hating gays or not caring about human dignity at all? 

Posted in none | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More evidence capitalism/the free market is not the way to run the world

The Friday Podcast: Death Saves You Money : NPR from July 16, 2010.  I listened to this the other day and my heart sank to hear it. Yes, humans were willing to point out that “If people die, it costs the government less.”

And some people think corporations aren’t immoral psychopaths. 

Here are more details from NPR.org:

The Friday Podcast: Death Saves You Money

06:24 pm

July 16, 2010

cigarette
Mel Evans/AP

A decade ago, Philip Morris commissioned a study that found smokers in the Czech Republic were actually saving society money.

A big part of the savings: Smoking tends to kill people while they’re still young, saving society the long-term costs of caring for them as they get older.

via npr.org

Hit up that npr.org link to listen to the entire Planet Money podcast (which sometimes comes across a bit on the amoral side, in my mind, but is still worth listening to) and learn about how the study bit Philip Morris on the ass.

Posted in none | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Good News! We’re Polluting the Atmosphere with Plane Exhaust at Increasing Levels!

underpaidgenius:

GOOD NEWS: Global Air Traffic Surges Above Pre-Recession Levels And Is Accelerating

This idiot thinks it’s good news that air travel is increasing.

A plane flying from Australia to London, for example, will use more than 200 tonnes of jet fuel and pump out more than 500 tonnes of carbon dioxide. On a flight from London to Miami, one person will be responsible for climate change emissions equivalent to one car doing 12,000 miles. Multiply that by 350,” reports Melanie Reid, Down Under. [Sydney Herald. Sept 13/05]

(via stoweboyd)

This reminds me of one time, back in the late ’90s, when I was listening to the KNX Business Hour in Los Angeles and the host reported “Good news for Phillip Morris investors, the stock jumped today…” 

I was so caught off guard by the dichotomy of that statement, so much so that I based a screenplay around a person who’s “Batman” moment I had just experienced.  Think about the moral dissonance there: the company is doing well, which means more people are becoming addicted to cigarettes, which means more people will eventually die of lung cancer AND THAT’S GOOD NEWS!!

The reporter might as well have said:

“Good news if you’ve invested in murder, more people died thanks to your money and that means you’ve just made more!”

Amazing what capitalism can do.

Religion only wishes it could be this subtle and efficient.

Posted in none | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Were AT&T’s overtures to current iPhone users a precursor to a Verizon iPhone?

newsweek:

“The truth is, Apple needs to get on Verizon, and fast, or it risks losing customers to Android. If Verizon gets the iPhone, I’d expect a huge exodus from AT&T. Which probably explains some of AT&T’s recent behavior. With the release of iPhone 4, AT&T made an unusual offer to current owners of iPhones, telling them that even if their contracts weren’t close to being over, they could still push up their expiration date and upgrade to the iPhone 4—as long as they signed a new two-year contract. Many people jumped on that offer, and some even viewed it as a case of AT&T being generous. Um, not likely. More likely it’s that AT&T knows its exclusive lock on iPhone is coming to an end, and so it sought to lock in as many iPhone users before the deal with Verizon happens. To those folks who waited in line for hours and hours to take advantage of AT&T’s “generous” offer, I can only offer my condolences and point out that, given AT&T’s past behavior, you should have known better.”

Lyons, on the latest Verizon iPhone rumors

Oooor they might just want to stay with a carrier (and a phone) that they can use on other SIM-based networks.  When I heard the Verizon rumor, I thought: “Do I want to switch to Verizon? And get stuck with Verizon forever? Not really…”

Just my ¥2, of course.

via life.thepete.com

Meant to post this here first, but Tumblr was tweaking on the bookmarklet. Ah well.

Personally, I’m getting sick of this contract shit. It’s just a con-game. I’m sick of letting myself become a slave to a wireless plan. Just let me pay as I go—some months I don’t need wireless, some months I do. We’re all being taken advantage of by a bunch of white guys in suits.

Why do we put up with this crap? It’s like we’re only worthy of experiencing innovation if we’re rich enough.  I’m fine with paying for things, but it seems to me that the profit margin is so crazy high. I get that they should make money, don’t get me wrong.  The thing is, the whole system could be a lot more fair than it is.  The big communication companies could be making a less money per person from way more people if they’d give people more the freedom to choose who they want to be with.  I want to ask each big telecom one question: Do you want the industry to be healthy? Or just YOU?

And they can’t answer “just me” since that is anti-American, anti-competition and flies in the face of basic concepts that we built our economy on (that competition fuels innovation).  If anything tells us that innovation isn’t being fueled, it’s Apple’s mobile industry business plan.

Let’s release a phone with 10x the design of most other phones, but with 1/5th the features.  The phone is capable of doing the same things [as hackers have proven] but we’ll make sure the software won’t allow it.  This way, we can offer a better phone a year later that will cost us next to nothing to develop but we’ll get rich giving people what pure innovation would have allowed us to give them in the first place.

Aka: release a hobbled phone, then partially unhobble it and pretend it’s a whole new product, then repeat!

It took four iterations of the iPhone for Apple to actually give us something we can’t get anywhere else—their new retina display thingy.  Of course, the iPhone 4 is NOT a 4G phone.  So, it’s still a hobbled phone. Where can you get a 4G phone? Sprint—or any number of countries that aren’t in America.

OK, I could keep this rant going for a while, so I’ll just stop it there on the assumption you get my point.

Posted in TheTechPete | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

How many ways are there to spend money? Milton Friedman said 4. I say he’s wronging over with wrongability!

rainbowhill:

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.”

Milton Friedman (Free to choose) (via efficiency) (via thusspokezarathustra) (via ilgobbomalefico) (via rispostesenzadomanda)

Wrong, wrong and wrong (and wrong and wrong) Anyone who trusts anyone with some sort of universal rules for or of money is asking for trouble.

1) There are plenty of ways to spend money.  What about spending money donated to you? What about spending money given to you?  What about spending money inherited by you?  All of these aspects can have very significant social ramifications and can effect how you (or at least I) decide to spend said money.

2) When I spend money on myself I don’t think in terms of “really watching out what I’m doing” nor do I think in terms of “getting the most for my money.” I weigh what I need against what I want against what I need to spend my money on. Sometimes I waste money for fun, sometimes I buy only useful things.  Deciding how everyone uses their own money is a mistake because I’ll prove you wrong, because I don’t think about money like that.

3) When I spend my money on friends or family, say, for a birthday present, I usually make something for them, buy something I *know* they’ll like or want, or I just give them a gift card—in short, I give them something I’ve thought about. I do care about the content and depending on how much money I have to spend, I generally don’t care for the cost.


4) When I spend someone else’s money on myself I am more responsible than I am with my own money. Someone else shows trust in my decision making ability—I’m going to earn that trust by choosing how I spend that money well.


5) When I spend someone else’s money on someone else, then I treat it the same way as if I’m spending on myself.  With respect and I try to make the best purchase, weighing value, against usefulness, against need.


Milton Friedman is widely regarded as a master of economy.  Have a look around at the economies of the developed world—still think he’s someone to trust?

Of course, that’s just my ¥2—I’m no economist and that means I might be wrong, too.

The important thing is that you think for yourself—challenge everything.  Don’t believe anyone wholesale.

Posted in none | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Power of Branding Vs. Common Sense: learn how most of us spend 80% too much for drugs with zero benefits.

The Power of Branding Vs. Common Sense: this chart shows how most of us spend 80% too much for drugs with zero benefits.

Fight the BRAND. Buy generic and stop making the rich richer.

via: www.pdviz.com/the-rip-brand-vs-generic-drugs

brandvsgenericsThe Power of Branding Vs. Common Sense: this chart shows how most of us spend 80% too much for drugs with zero benefits.

Posted in none | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment