Community Organizers vs Entreprenuers

[merh]

[merh]

[abbey1227]

Aug 28, 2022 2:47:28 GMT merh said:

Aug 28, 2022 2:02:19 GMT abbey1227 said:

So the Govt got to pick Winners & Losers yet again. And we're all suffering for it. Fewer Mom & Pop places than ever before. More people looking for handouts than ever before.

Can't you see where this all leads?

What sort of business operations did she have? Maybe they should report WHERE that money went? Too much to investigate?

You really should have been there for They Live.
Haven't seen it in years. But it feels so much like now.

I remember liking it at the time........but Rowdy Roddy isn't much of an actor and wasn't it basically him and the other guy beating each other up for far too long?

Great idea for an alien invasion and takeover, though.

It does seem that way......... like Idiocracy displays how the sheep/people are........THEY is a great allegory for the way we allow Govt/Establishment to dictate our lives to us.

[abbey1227]

Aug 28, 2022 4:40:06 GMT merh said:

The owner of the gym I work at turned off the water heater so the showers are ice cold, so people won’t shower and he can save money

Should cut down on sexual offenses, too   

[abbey1227]

Aug 28, 2022 4:45:55 GMT merh said:

My favorite character being sacrificed for the BS of humanity.

Just last nite I was thinking if we were in that movie, I'd be Rorshach..........and Prometheus would be Ozymandias       

[abbey1227]

Aug 28, 2022 5:42:21 GMT merh said:

Everyone can choose to skip marriage, having children, following fashion, and watching TV

And if you skip those, you may not even need a job or save much for old age. 

[merh]

Aug 28, 2022 11:43:14 GMT abbey1227 said:

Aug 28, 2022 4:45:55 GMT merh said:

My favorite character being sacrificed for the BS of humanity.

Just last nite I was thinking if we were in that movie, I'd be Rorshach..........and Prometheus would be Ozymandias       

Really,?

Prometheus?

Never read the comic.
Didnt like the movie

[merh]

Aug 28, 2022 11:45:50 GMT abbey1227 said:

Aug 28, 2022 5:42:21 GMT merh said:

Everyone can choose to skip marriage, having children, following fashion, and watching TV

And if you skip those, you may not even need a job or save much for old age. 

I posted it because it is basically They Live's point.
The aliens consumed & moved on.
All those messages to consume, breed, watch TV, stay asleep. The humans who play along because the are making bank. 

[abbey1227]

Aug 28, 2022 16:01:18 GMT merh said:

Really,?

Prometheus?

Never read the comic.
Didnt like the movie

He doesn't strike you as an overly rational type that is highly intelligent and feels what's best for humanity as a whole is the most important goal?

I never even heard of the comics. But I loved that movie. So gritty and accurate in regards to the way people really are. imo

[abbey1227]

Aug 28, 2022 16:03:58 GMT merh said:

I posted it because it is basically They Live's point.
The aliens consumed & moved on.
All those messages to consume, breed, watch TV, stay asleep. The humans who play along because they are making bank.

As opposed to the humans who don't make bank, though?

I happen to think most of America is asleep.........but to it's own self-destructive nature/behavior. No aliens even needed.

[merh]

[merh]

Britain and the US are poor societies with some very rich people
When it comes to average household incomes, the UK may soon need to ask migrant labourers to take a pay cut
JOHN BURN-MURDOCHAdd to myFT



John Burn-Murdoch SEPTEMBER 15 2022
1153
Where would you rather live? A society where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor, or one where the rich are merely very well off but even those on the lowest incomes also enjoy a decent standard of living?

For all but the most ardent free-market libertarians, the answer would be the latter. Research has consistently shown that while most people express a desire for some distance between top and bottom, they would rather live in considerably more equal societies than they do at present. Many would even opt for the more egalitarian society if the overall pie was smaller than in a less equal one.

On this basis, it follows that one good way to evaluate which countries are better places to live than others is to ask: is life good for everyone there, or is it only good for rich people?


To find the answer, we can look at how people at different points on the income distribution compare to their peers elsewhere. If you’re a proud Brit or American, you may want to look away now.

Starting at the top of the ladder, Britons enjoy very high living standards by virtually any benchmark. Last year the top-earning 3 per cent of UK households each took home about £84,000 after tax, equivalent to $125,000 after adjusting for price differences between countries. This puts Britain’s highest earners narrowly behind the wealthiest Germans and Norwegians and comfortably among the global elite.

So what happens when we move down the rungs? For Norway, it’s a consistently rosy picture. The top 10 per cent rank second for living standards among the top deciles in all countries; the median Norwegian household ranks second among all national averages, and all the way down at the other end, Norway’s poorest 5 per cent are the most prosperous bottom 5 per cent in the world. Norway is a good place to live, whether you are rich or poor.

Britain is a different story. While the top earners rank fifth, the average household ranks 12th and the poorest 5 per cent rank 15th. Far from simply losing touch with their western European peers, last year the lowest-earning bracket of British households had a standard of living that was 20 per cent weaker than their counterparts in Slovenia.

It’s a similar story in the middle. In 2007, the average UK household was 8 per cent worse off than its peers in north-western Europe, but the deficit has since ballooned to a record 20 per cent. On present trends, the average Slovenian household will be better off than its British counterpart by 2024, and the average Polish family will move ahead before the end of the decade. A country in desperate need of migrant labour may soon have to ask new arrivals to take a pay cut.

Across the Atlantic it’s the same story, only more so. The rich in the US are exceptionally rich — the top 10 per cent have the highest top-decile disposable incomes in the world, 50 per cent above their British counterparts. But the bottom decile struggle by with a standard of living that is worse than the poorest in 14 European countries including Slovenia.

To be clear, the US data show that both broad-based growth and the equal distribution of its proceeds matter for wellbeing. Five years of healthy pre-pandemic growth in US living standards across the distribution lifted all boats, a trend that was conspicuously absent in the UK.

But redistributing the gains more evenly would have a far more transformative impact on quality of life for millions. The growth spurt boosted incomes of the bottom decile of US households by roughly an extra 10 per cent. But transpose Norway’s inequality gradient on to the US, and the poorest decile of Americans would be a further 40 per cent better off while the top decile would remain richer than the top of almost every other country on the planet.

Our leaders are of course right to target economic growth, but to wave away concerns about the distribution of a decent standard of living — which is what income inequality essentially measures — is to be disinterested in the lives of millions. Until those gradients are made less steep, the UK and US will remain poor societies with pockets of rich people.

[merh]

Relations of Class in the Great Depression

Despite the fact that nearly everyone in the country was hurt to some degree by onset of the Depression, the 1930's was a period of exacerbted class conflict. One possible reason for this was the divergent responses which upper and lower class individuals had to the crisis. While many of the richest people in America lost money when the stock market crashed, the upper classes as a whole still retained much of the wealth which they had held before the Depression and in most cases did not suffer from unemployment. Perhaps as a way of displaying their continued prosperity in the face of nationwide suffering (or of trying to show up their social equals who may have been hit harder by the crash) many among the upper classes began to flaunt their wealth more than ever. Working class Americans, many of whom were thrown out of work by the Depression (which they often correctly blamed upon the reckless financial dealings of the upper classes) were shocked and angered by this ostentatious display of wealth.

The upper classes, on the other hand, began to resent their social inferiors (as they saw the lower classes) even more than ever, particularly after the institution of the a number of New Deal programs which were paid for out of taxes on those who still had an income. They often viewed such programs as hand outs, which, as can be seen in this cover, were not somethign which the upper classes felt was their responsibility to provide. They were further angered by the actions of President Roosevelt, who catered to the mass of Americans while largely ignoring the interests of the upper classes. These factors served to heigten class tensions during a period when many Americans (both rich and poor) were already tense over their financial futures.

Amid this tension, class conflicts often became very visible and even violent, especially in cases of worker strikes. New Deal regulations helped foster significant unionization and these unions would often run into conflict with company hired police forces. Such conflicts, like the Memorial Day Massacre in Chicago, often left people dead on both sides. Upper class Americans, sensitized by the Russian Revolution not two decades before, feared that a class war might be on the horizon as a number of workers joined the Communist party. While these violent conflicts never reached such a boiling point (thanks largely to the New Deal programs which many among the upper classes opposed) fears of this sort helped contribute to a general suspicion on both sides for the entire decade of the thirties.

[abbey1227]

Sept 19, 2022 3:06:35 GMT merh said:

Relations of Class in the Great Depression

Despite the fact that nearly everyone in the country was hurt to some degree by onset of the Depression, the 1930's was a period of exacerbted class conflict. One possible reason for this was the divergent responses which upper and lower class individuals had to the crisis. While many of the richest people in America lost money when the stock market crashed, the upper classes as a whole still retained much of the wealth which they had held before the Depression and in most cases did not suffer from unemployment. Perhaps as a way of displaying their continued prosperity in the face of nationwide suffering (or of trying to show up their social equals who may have been hit harder by the crash) many among the upper classes began to flaunt their wealth more than ever. Working class Americans, many of whom were thrown out of work by the Depression (which they often correctly blamed upon the reckless financial dealings of the upper classes) were shocked and angered by this ostentatious display of wealth.

The upper classes, on the other hand, began to resent their social inferiors (as they saw the lower classes) even more than ever, particularly after the institution of the a number of New Deal programs which were paid for out of taxes on those who still had an income. They often viewed such programs as hand outs, which, as can be seen in this cover, were not somethign which the upper classes felt was their responsibility to provide. They were further angered by the actions of President Roosevelt, who catered to the mass of Americans while largely ignoring the interests of the upper classes. These factors served to heigten class tensions during a period when many Americans (both rich and poor) were already tense over their financial futures.

Amid this tension, class conflicts often became very visible and even violent, especially in cases of worker strikes. New Deal regulations helped foster significant unionization and these unions would often run into conflict with company hired police forces. Such conflicts, like the Memorial Day Massacre in Chicago, often left people dead on both sides. Upper class Americans, sensitized by the Russian Revolution not two decades before, feared that a class war might be on the horizon as a number of workers joined the Communist party. While these violent conflicts never reached such a boiling point (thanks largely to the New Deal programs which many among the upper classes opposed) fears of this sort helped contribute to a general suspicion on both sides for the entire decade of the thirties.

So the situation was made worse by the creation of ever more handouts

[merh]

Aug 28, 2022 18:39:25 GMT abbey1227 said:

Aug 28, 2022 16:01:18 GMT merh said:

Really,?

Prometheus?

Never read the comic.
Didnt like the movie

He doesn't strike you as an overly rational type that is highly intelligent and feels what's best for humanity as a whole is the most important goal?

I never even heard of the comics. But I loved that movie. So gritty and accurate in regards to the way people really are. imo

Alan Moore (born 18 November 1953) is an English writer known primarily for his work in comic books including Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The Ballad of Halo Jones, Swamp Thing, Batman: The Killing Joke and From Hell. He is widely recognised among his peers and critics as one of the best comic book writers in the English language. Moore has occasionally used such pseudonyms as Curt Vile, Jill de Ray, Brilburn Logue, and Translucia Baboon; also, reprints of some of his work have been credited to The Original Writer when Moore requested that his name be removed

He's pretty eclectic 

Moore is an occultist, ceremonial magician, and anarchist, and has featured such themes in works including Promethea, From Hell, and V for Vendetta, as well as performing avant-garde spoken word occult "workings" with The Moon and Serpent Grand Egyptian Theatre of Marvels, some of which have been released on CD.

Despite his objections, Moore's works have provided the basis for several Hollywood films, including From Hell (2001), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003), V for Vendetta (2005), and Watchmen (2009). Moore has also been referenced in popular culture and has been recognised as an influence on a variety of literary and television figures including Neil Gaiman, and Damon Lindelof. He has lived a significant portion of his life in Northampton, England, and he has said in various interviews that his stories draw heavily from his experiences living there.

[merh]

Where were we discussing Weinstein?

Kevin Smith Explains How Harvey Weinstein Is Holding ‘Dogma’ Hostage: ‘My Movie About Heaven Is in Limbo’
The ”Clerks III“ director tells TheWrap the wild story behind why you can’t stream or buy his 1999 film

Drew Taylor | September 16, 2022 @ 3:35 PM




dogma-matt-damon-ben-affleck
Weinstein/Lionsgate

If the opening of “Clerks III” this week has you feeling nostalgic about the earlier films of writer/director Kevin Smith, you’ll hit a dead-end when searching for one of his greatest accomplishments – 1999’s religious satire “Dogma.”

“Dogma,” which stars Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Alan Rickman and Chris Rock, is currently not available to stream anywhere or buy digitally, and the out-of-print Blu-ray frequently sells for around $100 on the secondary market. While religious groups were bent out of shape by the movie, it was warmly received by critics (Roger Ebert gave it three-and-a-half out of four stars) and made $44 million at the box office (it only cost $10 million). The success of “Dogma” makes its obscurity even more puzzling.


When I asked Smith why, he said it was a “great question.” “In order to tell the story unfortunately, I’m gonna have to say the name that nobody wants to hear anymore. But of course, Harvey Weinstein figures into the story,” Smith said.

According to Smith, Weinstein was told by then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner to “not make ‘Dogma.’”

“He was like, ‘It’s too hot button. It’s a religious picture. Catholics get weird, you can’t do this movie.’ And Harvey said, ‘Okay,’ and then he made the movie anyway,” Smith said. (In Eisner’s defense he had just weathered the fallout of Martin Scorsese’s Tibetan epic “Kundun,” which angered China to the point that they threatened to discontinue any business relations with the Walt Disney Company forever. So while it wasn’t the best move, he was still licking his wounds from a similar religious debacle.)

‘Clerks III’ Film Review: Kevin Smith Tackles Aging and Mortality, But Also Weed Jokes, in Nimble Threequel
Also Read:
‘Clerks III’ Film Review: Kevin Smith Tackles Aging and Mortality, But Also Weed Jokes, in Nimble Threequel
The script for “Dogma” was “getting attention from the Catholic League” even before the movie had entered production, based off an early version of the script. “They were saying shit, like, ‘This movie contends that the apostles had sex and I’m guessing not with their wives.’ And I was like, ‘Well, that would have been a great idea. Where were you when I was writing this f–king thing?’” Smith joked.

After production on “Dogma” had wrapped, Eisner once again began pressuring Weinstein to “sell it off.” This wasn’t totally without precedent. As Smith noted, a similar arrangement had been made when Weinstein produced Harmony Korine’s movie “Kids.” Weinstein sold the movie to himself and then released the movie through a company called Shining Excalibur.


Smith contends that Weinstein made “Dogma” knowing that he could “do a Shining Excalibur with it at the end of the day.” “And since Disney paid for it whether or not he had to pay them back, it would behoove him to make the movie and deal with the consequences later on,” Smith explained.

It was the first big Lionsgate theatrical release (“Pre-Katniss Everdeen and the vampires that sparkle,” Smith added) and their biggest release at the time; Smith remembers a two-page Variety spread where the studio touted its success. Columbia/TriStar got the home video rights but for a limited amount of time. They made an impressive special edition DVD that then became an equally impressive Blu-ray. And Smith thinks it streamed at one point because he has a digital copy. “But then the rights lapsed,” Smith said.

We now jump to a few years later. The Weinstein Company is, after a shaky start, rebounding with “The Artist” and a string of other hits. “They were rebuilding and doing the almost Miramax version of the Weinstein Company without us. And I think we were complete afterthought,” Smith said. “I mean, honestly, not even a thought. I don’t think he realized that he still owned that movie. I don’t think he realized that it went out of public distribution or anything like that.” (Smith points out that the last movie Smith made with Weinstein was 2008’s “Zack and Miri Make a Porno.”)

Here’s where things get dicey. “It is going to be gross and everyone needs to clench again,” Smith warns.

Dogma
Weinstein/Lionsgate
At this point it’s 2017. “I’ve been out of Miramax for almost 10 years at that point and hadn’t worked with the Weinsteins since then,” Smith said. That’s when he gets a call “out of the blue” from Harvey Weinstein, “when that was still a good thing.”


On this call, Weinstein talked about “Dogma” and asked if Smith was still interested in doing anything with the project. “As if that’s not all I’ve thought about ever since we finished it like people ask me all the time,” Smith said. (The filmmaker would tell people it would require another deal like the one Weinstein made with Lionsgate and Sony back for the first movie to get a sequel off the ground.) Still, this phone call was encouraging – a follow-up could finally become a reality.

“All the people that were in it are still around, so we can we can make a pretty good sequel or series even better,” Smith said. “And I got really excited because I was like, ‘Oh my God, for the first time. The dude remembered me. Like, after a decade he remembered that I was part of the Miramax family.’ And he remembered that he had ‘Dogma’ and had a cool cast and I don’t know, I felt like wow, that’s, that’s cool.”

Did Zack Snyder Stans Rig the Oscar ‘Fan Favorite’ Vote With Online Bots? (Exclusive)
Also Read:
Did Zack Snyder Stans Rig the Oscar ‘Fan Favorite’ Vote With Online Bots? (Exclusive)
Part of what made Smith feel good was the fact that Weinstein’s call was so unexpected. “I didn’t have to do anything,” Smith said. “And then he was like, ‘Alright, I’ll get in touch with you.’ And then he hung up.”

A week after their conversation, the New York Times story about Weinstein’s horrid behavior broke. Smith remembers being shocked and sickened; he had no idea about the rape allegations. “Rapists don’t openly act out in public. That’s something that you keep hidden,” Smith said. “We knew that the guy cheated on his wife, that was always the big rumor. But we didn’t know anything about this shit.” Smith said he felt “guilt by association.”

But it wasn’t until he talked to John Gordon, a former Miramax exec and producer for Smith, that things crystallized. “I was like, ‘Did you see this New York Times? Because I can’t f–king believe it.’ And I said to him, ‘I don’t know how to say this but he called me like a week ago, out of the blue, to talk about ‘Dogma’ and making a ‘Dogma’ series and I got real excited now I’m reading this and I feel gross and disgusting,” Smith said. Gordon told Smith, “He called everyone because he knew the story was coming. And he wanted to find out who spoke [to the New York Times].” “I was like, ‘That makes perfect sense.’ I’m guileless, I don’t see all the angles,” Smith said. “He was calling not because he wanted to do anything with ‘Dogma.’ He wanted to see if I was one of the people who had spoken to the New York Times. I hadn’t, because I didn’t know any of that stuff.”

Years later, Smith was told that a new “Dogma” DVD was coming out. That’s when Smith found out that Weinstein was trying to sell the rights to “Dogma” to somebody. “I found out that he was trying to sell the rights to the movie,” Smith said. Weinstein was asking for $5 million, which Smith admitted was “overvaluing.” Smith found out that Weinstein was also trying to sell the rights by suggesting that Smith would be involved in the new release. (This was all through lawyers, as Smith hasn’t talked to him since that phone call.)

“Please tell that company that I’ll have nothing to do with it, if he’s still attached to it. I’ll work on a ‘Dogma’ anything, as long as he has no more ties to it,” Smith told his lawyers. Smith and his lawyers even reached out about buying back the rights themselves “which we felt very dirty about because we didn’t want to give him money.” “But at the same time, it’s like my movie and he’s got it,” Smith explained. “He’s holding it hostage. My movie about angels is owned by the devil himself. And if there’s only one way out of this, maybe we could buy it away.”

Smith and his lawyers gave Weinstein an offer and were “scoffed at.” They went back with a higher offer that was “also scoffed at.” Smith feels like Weinstein is holding out for the $5 million. “Look, I love ‘Dogma’ as much as the next guy but a) I don’t have $5 million and b) that’s not what the market bears anymore. We live in a streaming era. The last I heard was from a different company, saying he wouldn’t sell me my movie back,” Smith said. “I thought what else can I do? There’s not much. You can make a public stink, but I don’t think that guy reads the news anymore.”

Two months ago Smith heard that a “new company” has it but he asked his lawyer to find out what this new company was, since Smith has “a sneaking suspicion he just changed the name of the company and maybe sold it to a different shell company.” “My movie about heaven is in limbo,” Smith said.

While it’s a bummer, Smith points out that it’s nothing compared to what Weinstein put his victims through. “What sucks is that he’s also sitting his fat ass on my movie. And the right thing to do would have been to sell it back to me even if you didn’t want to sell for the price that I first said,” Smith said. “Tell us what that price is and sell me my self-expression back.”

Of course.

[abbey1227]

Sept 19, 2022 17:05:29 GMT merh said:

He's pretty eclectic 

Moore is an occultist, ceremonial magician, and anarchist, and has featured such themes in works including Promethea, From Hell, and V for Vendetta, as well as performing avant-garde spoken word occult "workings" with The Moon and Serpent Grand Egyptian Theatre of Marvels, some of which have been released on CD.

Despite his objections, Moore's works have provided the basis for several Hollywood films, including From Hell (2001), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003), V for Vendetta (2005), and Watchmen (2009). Moore has also been referenced in popular culture and has been recognised as an influence on a variety of literary and television figures including Neil Gaiman, and Damon Lindelof. He has lived a significant portion of his life in Northampton, England, and he has said in various interviews that his stories draw heavily from his experiences living there.

objections?   Did he not get paid?

[abbey1227]

Sept 19, 2022 20:18:10 GMT merh said:

Where were we discussing Weinstein?

Kevin Smith Explains How Harvey Weinstein Is Holding ‘Dogma’ Hostage: ‘My Movie About Heaven Is in Limbo’
The ”Clerks III“ director tells TheWrap the wild story behind why you can’t stream or buy his 1999 film

Drew Taylor | September 16, 2022 @ 3:35 PM

Of course.

That movie wasn't anywhere near as controversial as Last Temptation of Christ.........and it was a comedy

I'm not sure I completely buy Smith's assertion that he had no idea about Weinstein, either. 2017?

Entourage came out on HBO in 2004, ffs

[merh]

Sept 20, 2022 3:02:46 GMT abbey1227 said:

Sept 19, 2022 17:05:29 GMT merh said:

He's pretty eclectic 

objections?   Did he not get paid?

Look him up 






Like Wikipedia says

Moore is an occultist, ceremonial magician, and anarchist

That's magician like Aleister Crowley. Occult stuff.

[merh]

Sept 20, 2022 3:09:44 GMT abbey1227 said:

Sept 19, 2022 20:18:10 GMT merh said:

Where were we discussing Weinstein?
Of course.

That movie wasn't anywhere near as controversial as Last Temptation of Christ.........and it was a comedy

I'm not sure I completely buy Smith's assertion that he had no idea about Weinstein, either. 2017?

Entourage came out on HBO in 2004, ffs

One can do one's job & not get into the rumor crap. He said he stayed out of all that. Smith is comic book stuff, not movies in general.