 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
Don't underestimate those traders, Aggie 
quote:
Kyoto protest beaten back by inflamed petrol traders
By Laura Peek and Liz Chong
WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.
What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.
“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”
Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”
Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. “The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims,” a spokesman said.
Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. “The violence was instant,” Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said.
“They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.” When a trader left the building shortly before 2pm, using a security swipe card, a protester dropped some coins on the floor and, as he bent down to pick them up, put his boot in the door to keep it open.
Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others.
They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts “open outcry” trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading.
But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. “They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”
Mr Beresford said: “They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”
Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion.
A spokeswoman from IPE said the trading floor reopened at 3.10pm. “The floor was invaded by a small group of protesters,” she said. “Open outcry trading was suspended but electronic trading carried on.”
Eighteen police vans and six police cars surrounded the exchange and at least 27 protesters were arrested. A small band blocked the entrance to the building for the rest of the evening.
Richard Ward, IPE’s chief executive, said that the exchange would review security but denied that protesters had reached the trading floor. However, traders, protesters and press photographers confirmed to The Times that the trading floor had been breached.
Mr Ward would not discuss whether he would press charges, and said he would not know until this morning if there had been any financial loss.
Greenpeace later started a second protest at the annual dinner of the Institute of Petroleum at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Park Lane, in Central London. Greenpeace claimed that five campaigners had got into the Great Hall. About 30 protesters were outside the hotel, some blocking the front entrance by sitting down and locking themselves together, while others sounded klaxons and alarms. Climbers scaled scaffolding to unfurl a banner reading, “Climate change kills, oil industry parties”. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
Late to the party, but one point. The US has had, for a long time, an underclass of illegal immigrants who quietly work for 2 bucks an hour off the record, or so. This isn't news. However, if we want to even have a smidgen of a chance of detecting "terrorists," we just can't have an entire class of people leaving under the law with no official names and no one to notice whether they live or die. It won't matter how draconian our surveillance is if the people they're looking for aren't even on the radar.
If we'd like to fix this problem, perhaps we should lower the minimum wage, but rigidly enforce it- no more casual off the books hiring. Then make certain that these people earning low incomes are on the books and qualify for aid in assisting the poor, which would hopefully solve the worries about living on an "unlivable" wage. Plus make certain OSHA standards and so on are followed. Combine that with immigration reform... well, I'm dreaming now, but just think. We could allow businesses to set whatever they like for wages, which WOULD increase the number of jobs being offered as DanS and elementary economics point out; people would be guarenteed basic workplace rights; and people trying to support families off currently sub-minimum wage jobs could be sure they didn't starve to death. Might be a strain on our welfare budget, but we're cheating it right now by not paying those people, so meh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Mean_Rabbit
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
that doesn't mean we can't strive to make it as fair as possible |
Why make it fair? How far do you go? Communism? Not a good track record...I say govern enough to remove all real barriers, and let Darwinism work out as it does in nature. Evolution has worked well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Mean_Rabbit
|
|
quote:
Self-denial is self-sacrifice. |
Ok.
quote:
I'm perfectly fine, thank you. Pessimism is based on facts: it is taking what evidence is given to you, and reading the most conservative estimate. Generally, that leads you to have a negative outlook, but when things exceed your expectations, you're more likely than not pleased. To be optimistic is to take the most liberal estimate. That also means that almost everything will fail to meet your expectations. |
I didn't say you weren't fine. Defensive? Pessimism is not based off of facts, it's based off of despair and lack of hope. Nothing you mentioned implies a conservative belief, only absolute defeatism.
If that's fine with you, rock on. Personally, I take the realist approach.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Mean_Rabbit
|
|
Azazel,
quote:
IT IS POSSIBLE FOLKS. IF YOU JUST WORK HARDER!
Your repetitive mantra gets kind of boring. I know people who, on the other hand did work, and lost everything, and never managed to get up on their feet, for real. Just scraps. |
Your repetitive ignoring of my other reasons for poverty is proof positive of your lack of desire to have an intellectual discussion. You are more than welcome to argue with a position you create, however. It's entertaining, to say the least.
quote:
Of course, they can only blame themselves, and deserve society's dirt in their faces. |
Why are you being so dramatic? Too much a fan of reality tv? No, they deserve what they EARN. And who said society should throw dirt in their faces? You have a penchant for the dramatic flair, if I say so myself.
quote:
Btw, don't for a moment think that I weep for me: |
*blinks*
quote:
I am well on my way to doing it just great. I won't however think that those that did slightly worse than me, or maybe did better, but weren't as quick on their feet with some opportunities, deserve to live as ****. |
No, they deserve to live as they have earned. Again, very dramatic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Mean_Rabbit
|
|
Shi,
quote:
That doesn't really change my point. You can't have a society made up entirely of entreprenurs, the entrepreneurs are going to need people to work for them. |
Ok, and there are many others in between poor and rich who are not entrepeneurs. I understand the need for all niches in the economy. I am just arguing that no one is trapped forever in a niche. Not for a lifetime.
quote:
Right. We are always going to have some people in the underclass, regardless of how hard people in our society work or how educatec our society gets. Out of a desire to help people, it is good to do things to improve the condition of the people in those classes. |
Underclass or poverty? There is a difference. A person working two jobs that are both on teh bottom end of the food chain isn't in poverty, although hardly financially secure. My aunt is in that category, yet she isn't by any means considered in poverty. And we do have thing that improve the lives of those people already. Section 8 housing, WIC, and many other private ventures. Not all of which I agree *only the gov't ones*, but all better idealy than outright welfare.
We also have a system that financially rewards charity donations. Who cares of the motive in which it is given, as long as it helps people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Mean_Rabbit
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh, when lenders are careful they're accused of redlining and racism. |
LOL! Very nice reply!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Mean_Rabbit
|
|
Snowfire,
Interesting idea. I don't agree with all of it, however, I do agree that this isn't a "fix one thing, fix it all" type of problem. Getting rid of welfare by itself will not do anything. Lowering/raising the min wage will not do anything. This is a societal problem of enabling the weak. We make it so that it doesn't make sense *opportunistically* to get off of welfare to work a 40 hr job making the same amount of money.
There is no carrot/stick approach, only carrot. If you decide to pop out babies before you can afford them, it's ok. Instead of getting what are the obvious consequences, you will make MORE money. For the uneducated, this sounds like an Utopia.
No, solving the poverty problem will require a social change. We have to understand as a society that making them reliant on us ISN'T helping them. It enslaves them to a domesticated animal life. That's really all they are at the moment, except they have NO use to society, just a drain. Where immigrants are working *and obviously living* on very meager wages, they decide to stay on welfare instead. It then turns into a cyclical problem, where they never get off, and the children learn from the parents.
For all of the years we have had welfare, it hasn't solved it. Look at the socialist countries in Europe. If they have very little poverty, their other citizens are footing hte bill in caring for these people, therefore having very little disposable income and being mediocre together with exorbantly high taxes and declining benefits.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-03-2005 03:55
|