And exactly how does this expand it's brand by associating itself with the racist hypocrite Spike Lee? He who ranted against gentrification in Bed Stuy last spring while living in the Toni upper white east side of manhattan? Encouraging residents to fight back against white gentrification. How does this help their brand? Or Apple's?
Another clueless knee jerk response. Check again, he's not against them moving in, he just doesn't care for their sense of entitlement that they can now dicate what can and can't go on in the neighborhood.
Another clueless knee jerk response. Check again, he's not against them moving in, he just doesn't care for their sense of entitlement that they can now dicate what can and can't go on in the neighborhood.
And that response is both naive and/or foolish if you think those with the money (power) shouldn't control those decisions now that they've brought to the neighborhood CHANGE.
And if he cares so much about Bed Stuy why did he move out? And to the upper East Side! Instead of stirring the pot back there and race baiting?
And that response is both naive and/or foolish if you think those with the money (power) shouldn't control those decisions now that they've brought to the neighborhood CHANGE.
And if he cares so much about Bed Stuy why did he move out? And to the upper East Side! Instead of stirring the pot back there and race baiting?
I've spoken to business owners in the area. The new residents are not spending money in the neighborhood, so they're taking their 'power' elsewhere.
Another clueless knee jerk response. Check again, he's not against them moving in, he just doesn't care for their sense of entitlement that they can now dicate what can and can't go on in the neighborhood.
Ya poor helpless little (in more than one meaning of the word) Lee, who has a record of saying stupid things like this, is just a misunderstood wordsmith right?
Sorry but you don't get to play both "person looking for intelligent discussion on race and politics" and "thug to impress the peeps" all at the same time. If a white guy said the same about (insert minority here) people would be rending their clothes. Would they too be misunderstood or would they be a racist? People in this discussion have said far less but labeled far worse...
(In homage to the thug culture, drops the mic and walks off stage....)
And that response is both naive and/or foolish if you think those with the money (power) shouldn't control those decisions now that they've brought to the neighborhood CHANGE.
Steve had it right when he ran Apple. Apple's MO is making great products. That's all the company should about.
Indeed. It seems like Cook, the world's best COO and nothing else, is openly crazy about doing everything he can to enable a certain "minority" agenda within Apple (just the opposite of what SJ has always done) - in the meantime, little to no innovation is given to the public.
That movie was actually good to watch - however, Mr Lee continues to be the ridiculous racist he has always been; the only difference is that he is on a side where he can say whatever he wants and nothing happens. His hatred for all things "white" is terrifying, particularly for those who had nothing to do with slavery or its effects. In fact, the big problem with the US of A is that it has NEVER left behind its one-drop rule and de facto segregation; it's all about "black neighborhoods" and "white neighborhoods". Now deal with it.
As for the pathetic Beats purchase, it is most probably the FIRST time in Apple's history where a company is bought for its alleged "cool" factor instead of its technology - Apple has ALWAYS been the epitome of "cool", the benchmark against which everyone else is measured...until Beats, that is.
Quite the opposite. It couldn't be more democratic because they voted for this (sometimes twice or more in the same election). When an entire community begins to vote with the mindset of freebies from the government, they become slaves to that government and completely incapable of doing anything for themselves. Once the officials know they have their unconditional vote, services begin to get redirected to new areas of conquest. (People of X community I'm from the government and here to help you!)
As the property now begins to devalue people with means see an opportunity to acquire relatively cheap land and begin to move in. Government officials realize now they have to actually do something in order to stay in office, and begin to restore services (with money taken from somewhere else).
Here in Pittsburgh there is a huge outcry concerning the August Wilson Center. People like Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, could care less what happens to the center. It needs money, immediately. The above mentioned could payoff the debts and be heroes, but it would only be to a select few. Most people of whom the center should benefit have no intentions of ever setting foot in there. Bad return on investment for them...
Quite the opposite. It couldn't be more democratic because they voted for this (sometimes twice or more in the same election). When an entire community begins to vote with the mindset of freebies from the government, they become slaves to that government and completely incapable of doing anything for themselves. Once the officials know they have their unconditional vote, services begin to get redirected to new areas of conquest. (People of X community I'm from the government and here to help you!)
As the property now begins to devalue people with means see an opportunity to acquire relatively cheap land and begin to move in. Government officials realize now they have to actually do something in order to stay in office, and begin to restore services (with money taken from somewhere else).
Here in Pittsburgh there is a huge outcry concerning the August Wilson Center. People like Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, could care less what happens to the center. It needs money, immediately. The above mentioned could payoff the debts and be heroes, but it would only be to a select few. Most people of whom the center should benefit have no intentions of ever setting foot in there. Bad return on investment for them...
I'm struggling to see how your first two sentences are backed up by the following ones, and how this relates back to your original statement.
How is it democratic for "those with the money (power)" to "control... decisions now that they've brought to the neighborhood CHANGE"?
It might be a good thing (you seem to think so), it might not (I'd tend towards this direction, though obviously it can vary), but granting lots of influence to people purely because of their wealth is not democratic.
I'm struggling to see how your first two sentences are backed up by the following ones, and how this relates back to your original statement.
How is it democratic for "those with the money (power)" to "control... decisions now that they've brought to the neighborhood CHANGE"?
It might be a good thing (you seem to think so), it might not (I'd tend towards this direction, though obviously it can vary), but granting lots of influence to people purely because of their wealth is not democratic.
As our sitting president said elections have consequences. The people living Lee's old stomping grounds voted the politicians in who helped make the hood what it was back in the day. Because of the downfall of the neighborhood property became cheap enough that it was worth the risk for those with wealth to buy and attempt to make something out of it. Politicians realized their actually going to have to do some work now to stay in office so garbage, starts getting collected, potholes are filled, etc. Democracy in action!
You're missing the step where there's a vote or any legitimate political pressure to effect that change. The way you're phrasing it now just sounds like the rich folks have more influence over the politicians because they are rich.
If there's a vote, and/or political accountability to the public then that's fine. If it's just the rich throwing their weight and money around, that's not.
You're missing the step where there's a vote or any legitimate political pressure to effect that change. The way you're phrasing it now just sounds like the rich folks have more influence over the politicians because they are rich.
If there's a vote, and/or political accountability to the public then that's fine. If it's just the rich throwing their weight and money around, that's not.
Sure I did, its right in my first post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorpit
... When an entire community begins to vote with the mindset of freebies from the government, they become slaves to that government and completely incapable of doing anything for themselves. Once the officials know they have their unconditional vote, services begin to get redirected to new areas of conquest. ...
Soon the existing residents have no power because the politicians know their vote is all but guaranteed. Sure there might be a few "noisy neighbors" calling for change but they're in the minority. People like Charlie Rangle will talk a good game every election cycle but its the same old same old in between elections. You and I would be in jail for the crimes he committed but he's a hero to his little slice of NY.
Fact, the rich do (and should) have more say when it comes to government. I'd sooner trust a maker telling me what needs to happen to improve a community than a taker any day. Makers have done something with their lives, and have the means to show it (Kardashians excluded). What enlightenment or guidance has a taker ever provided?
Ha ha. No, I wouldn't lump Jesus' and Gandhi in with the Skittles and Ice Tea crowd.
Those two men provided a pathway for man to better "himself" and respect life. Their souls belonged to no one. Far too many people's soul in these troubled areas belong to government. Lee and people like him become enraged when those with means come and show that they do not need to rely on the hand of government to take care of them. They can come up through the system and be self supportive.
And no, I'm not talking about the elderly or the mentally ill. That is not the problem here.
You're right. He's shown he doesn't understand what's happening. In his mind he's mad he split town when he had the chance and "whitey" moved in. End of story.
Soon the existing residents have no power because the politicians know their vote is all but guaranteed. Sure there might be a few "noisy neighbors" calling for change but they're in the minority. People like Charlie Rangle will talk a good game every election cycle but its the same old same old in between elections. You and I would be in jail for the crimes he committed but he's a hero to his little slice of NY.
Fact, the rich do (and should) have more say when it comes to government. I'd sooner trust a maker telling me what needs to happen to improve a community than a taker any day. Makers have done something with their lives, and have the means to show it (Kardashians excluded). What enlightenment or guidance has a taker ever provided?
What makes you think any of them are 'takers'? The current residents were not given their brownstones, they all purchased them years ago, and most were kept where little restoration or none was needed. While the neighborhood does have its share of crime, the majority of the residents are hard working, and law abiding citizens that have that neighborhood good enough that 'whitey' would want to move in.
The Beats deal was a real steal, for what, "street creed"? Apple could have built their own streaming music service without buying Beats baggage. You can't buy cool, but you can get hustled.
Comments
Another clueless knee jerk response. Check again, he's not against them moving in, he just doesn't care for their sense of entitlement that they can now dicate what can and can't go on in the neighborhood.
And that response is both naive and/or foolish if you think those with the money (power) shouldn't control those decisions now that they've brought to the neighborhood CHANGE.
And if he cares so much about Bed Stuy why did he move out? And to the upper East Side! Instead of stirring the pot back there and race baiting?
I've spoken to business owners in the area. The new residents are not spending money in the neighborhood, so they're taking their 'power' elsewhere.
Another clueless knee jerk response. Check again, he's not against them moving in, he just doesn't care for their sense of entitlement that they can now dicate what can and can't go on in the neighborhood.
"Let me just kill you right now," Lee, the "Do The Right Thing" director, told D.K. Smith, a Brooklyn homeowner and tech start-up director, at the speech when Smith brought up the subject of the "other side" of gentrification.
Ya poor helpless little (in more than one meaning of the word) Lee, who has a record of saying stupid things like this, is just a misunderstood wordsmith right?
Sorry but you don't get to play both "person looking for intelligent discussion on race and politics" and "thug to impress the peeps" all at the same time. If a white guy said the same about (insert minority here) people would be rending their clothes. Would they too be misunderstood or would they be a racist? People in this discussion have said far less but labeled far worse...
(In homage to the thug culture, drops the mic and walks off stage....)
And that response is both naive and/or foolish if you think those with the money (power) shouldn't control those decisions now that they've brought to the neighborhood CHANGE.
Shouldn't? That's rather undemocratic.
Steve had it right when he ran Apple. Apple's MO is making great products. That's all the company should about.
Indeed. It seems like Cook, the world's best COO and nothing else, is openly crazy about doing everything he can to enable a certain "minority" agenda within Apple (just the opposite of what SJ has always done) - in the meantime, little to no innovation is given to the public.
That movie was actually good to watch - however, Mr Lee continues to be the ridiculous racist he has always been; the only difference is that he is on a side where he can say whatever he wants and nothing happens. His hatred for all things "white" is terrifying, particularly for those who had nothing to do with slavery or its effects. In fact, the big problem with the US of A is that it has NEVER left behind its one-drop rule and de facto segregation; it's all about "black neighborhoods" and "white neighborhoods". Now deal with it.
As for the pathetic Beats purchase, it is most probably the FIRST time in Apple's history where a company is bought for its alleged "cool" factor instead of its technology - Apple has ALWAYS been the epitome of "cool", the benchmark against which everyone else is measured...until Beats, that is.
Shouldn't? That's rather undemocratic.
Quite the opposite. It couldn't be more democratic because they voted for this (sometimes twice or more in the same election). When an entire community begins to vote with the mindset of freebies from the government, they become slaves to that government and completely incapable of doing anything for themselves. Once the officials know they have their unconditional vote, services begin to get redirected to new areas of conquest. (People of X community I'm from the government and here to help you!)
As the property now begins to devalue people with means see an opportunity to acquire relatively cheap land and begin to move in. Government officials realize now they have to actually do something in order to stay in office, and begin to restore services (with money taken from somewhere else).
Here in Pittsburgh there is a huge outcry concerning the August Wilson Center. People like Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, could care less what happens to the center. It needs money, immediately. The above mentioned could payoff the debts and be heroes, but it would only be to a select few. Most people of whom the center should benefit have no intentions of ever setting foot in there. Bad return on investment for them...
Quite the opposite. It couldn't be more democratic because they voted for this (sometimes twice or more in the same election). When an entire community begins to vote with the mindset of freebies from the government, they become slaves to that government and completely incapable of doing anything for themselves. Once the officials know they have their unconditional vote, services begin to get redirected to new areas of conquest. (People of X community I'm from the government and here to help you!)
As the property now begins to devalue people with means see an opportunity to acquire relatively cheap land and begin to move in. Government officials realize now they have to actually do something in order to stay in office, and begin to restore services (with money taken from somewhere else).
Here in Pittsburgh there is a huge outcry concerning the August Wilson Center. People like Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, could care less what happens to the center. It needs money, immediately. The above mentioned could payoff the debts and be heroes, but it would only be to a select few. Most people of whom the center should benefit have no intentions of ever setting foot in there. Bad return on investment for them...
I'm struggling to see how your first two sentences are backed up by the following ones, and how this relates back to your original statement.
How is it democratic for "those with the money (power)" to "control... decisions now that they've brought to the neighborhood CHANGE"?
It might be a good thing (you seem to think so), it might not (I'd tend towards this direction, though obviously it can vary), but granting lots of influence to people purely because of their wealth is not democratic.
As our sitting president said elections have consequences. The people living Lee's old stomping grounds voted the politicians in who helped make the hood what it was back in the day. Because of the downfall of the neighborhood property became cheap enough that it was worth the risk for those with wealth to buy and attempt to make something out of it. Politicians realized their actually going to have to do some work now to stay in office so garbage, starts getting collected, potholes are filled, etc. Democracy in action!
You're missing the step where there's a vote or any legitimate political pressure to effect that change. The way you're phrasing it now just sounds like the rich folks have more influence over the politicians because they are rich.
If there's a vote, and/or political accountability to the public then that's fine. If it's just the rich throwing their weight and money around, that's not.
You're missing the step where there's a vote or any legitimate political pressure to effect that change. The way you're phrasing it now just sounds like the rich folks have more influence over the politicians because they are rich.
If there's a vote, and/or political accountability to the public then that's fine. If it's just the rich throwing their weight and money around, that's not.
Sure I did, its right in my first post...
... When an entire community begins to vote with the mindset of freebies from the government, they become slaves to that government and completely incapable of doing anything for themselves. Once the officials know they have their unconditional vote, services begin to get redirected to new areas of conquest. ...
Soon the existing residents have no power because the politicians know their vote is all but guaranteed. Sure there might be a few "noisy neighbors" calling for change but they're in the minority. People like Charlie Rangle will talk a good game every election cycle but its the same old same old in between elections. You and I would be in jail for the crimes he committed but he's a hero to his little slice of NY.
Fact, the rich do (and should) have more say when it comes to government. I'd sooner trust a maker telling me what needs to happen to improve a community than a taker any day. Makers have done something with their lives, and have the means to show it (Kardashians excluded). What enlightenment or guidance has a taker ever provided?
Was Gandhi a taker? Was Jesus?
And lots of great men with great ideas died poor.
And again, I'd say what you're saying isn't at all democratic. Though that's not necessarily a criticism, depending on your worldview.
Those two men provided a pathway for man to better "himself" and respect life. Their souls belonged to no one. Far too many people's soul in these troubled areas belong to government. Lee and people like him become enraged when those with means come and show that they do not need to rely on the hand of government to take care of them. They can come up through the system and be self supportive.
And no, I'm not talking about the elderly or the mentally ill. That is not the problem here.
I don't really think that's what Lee is angry about, but whatever.
You're right. He's shown he doesn't understand what's happening. In his mind he's mad he split town when he had the chance and "whitey" moved in. End of story.
What makes you think any of them are 'takers'? The current residents were not given their brownstones, they all purchased them years ago, and most were kept where little restoration or none was needed. While the neighborhood does have its share of crime, the majority of the residents are hard working, and law abiding citizens that have that neighborhood good enough that 'whitey' would want to move in.
That champion of justice, Spike Lee is at it again, hoping for violence in Ferguson: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/19/Spike-Lee-I-Hope-Things-Will-Really-Blow-Up-if-Ferguson-Police-Officer-Acquitted
The Beats deal was a real steal, for what, "street creed"? Apple could have built their own streaming music service without buying Beats baggage. You can't buy cool, but you can get hustled.