myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Occupy Wall Street The new Democrat Party?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 26, 27, 28  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3449

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the sixties superficial stuff seemed to be all that mattered. If you wore the right costume and had the right skin color you were welcome.
If not, you were sent out to sleep in the yard. The content of your character in the words of M L King was of much less importance than the price of your clothes. Educated young suburban white people wanted a life where you had to be a worthy person to get our respect, and rejected the idea that respectability was for sale in expensive clothing stores.
Some who insulted our bell bottoms actually called us traitors to our face at times. It helped us see who was not worth our time to bother with.
In a short time you began to see guys like Johnny Carson and other public figures adopting vests and flared jeans. suddenly we were respectable again to useless fools.
Many of us still feel that way. I dont have an opinion on ALL of the Occupy folks because I have not spoken to any of them.
Though I have seen them often on the news, I can honestly say that I do not remember how they were dressed.
I only recall the ideas they expressed.The ones interviewed on CNN made some sense to me. The ones chosen by Fox were all idiots.
Check out Einsteins rumpled wardrobe sometime to see if he doesnt look like a Bowery bum. If Jesus appears to us among the OWS folks at that holy site, someone should explain to him about tear gas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5883

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Appearances? Is it that simple to know about what you're looking at at first glance? Looks are always skin deep.

I've had the good fortune to know George Greenough. For those who might not know who he is, he is arguably the consummate waterman of our time, and an esoteric genius all rolled together in a unseemly package. Definitely not your Laird Hamilton type in appearances. If you saw him at the beach, you could easily think he was a bum. Always unkempt in appearance and barefoot, and he drove around in older, kind of beat-up vehicles. Actually though, he is a multi-millionaire from old money.

When it comes to surfing, windsurfing, and film, George has made incredible contributions. He is an outrageous out-of-the-box thinker and builder, but at first glance some of the things he has made could be viewed as a bit crude in execution. However, if you looked at the design and the stuff that really mattered, everything always reflected high precision and exactness. It's hard to communicate just how advanced he has been in his ideas. In windsurfing, we can thank George for designing and handbuilding the first RDM masts. Ultimately he gave the idea to NoLimitz with no strings attached. His innovative fin designs go back to the 50s. Not surprisingly, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his accomplishments.

The main point here is quite simple. You can't always judge a book by its cover.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
windoggie



Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2406

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've always loved this shot of George on his translucent kneeboard from the ...late sixties? early seventies? Much of what he did ushered in the short board revolution.
_________________
/w\
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1363

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I stated that, 'We all KNOW that appearances can be deceptive, and a few moments of initial contact and conversation can correct any false impression, but the fact remains that if you wish to define what you stand for, you ACT (including dress) accordingly.'

For the sake of brevity I did not add that - some people do NOT act in accordance with their appearance, although many others do.- That was implicit, surely.

The fact that a person looks like a bum does not automatically make him one. Einstein sometimes looked scruffy probably because, like many an absent minded professor, he didn't care about appearances. That is completely different to someone dressing in a particular way to create an image.

I do not doubt that the content of a persons character is much more important than the clothes they wear, whatever the cost, which I never mentioned. (For the record, since retirement I wear jeans, sweaters and anoracks, and my suits, shirts and ties are relegated to the loft since I no longer have to attend formal functions.)

My take on the St Pauls protesters is that, over the period of time they have been there, they have defined themselves in the eyes of the public by their actions.

As for Jesus, many say that he must have appeared as a tramp, but I don't believe that. Had he been seen so I can't see how he could have recruited Peter and the others, who were hard working fishermen, presumably with the work ethic. (I don't believe in the miracles, which means he must have persuaded them with his vision and character, so I don't see why he would want to appear as a tramp.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3449

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cant speak for Jesus but my guess is that he didnt dress to impress for the same reason as Einstein.
There is no dress code in his line of work.
I often wear a wetsuit to school or shorts and no shoes in case the wind starts blowing and I need to head for the launch in a hurry.
In the nuke business at meetings discussing weighty matters it was easy to spot the most important people in the room. The flunkies and two bit politicians wore power ties with three piece suits.
The key people, mostly engineers and techs, wore whatever casual clothes they had on anyway.If the computer geniuses were invited they wore Grateful Dead tee shirts and shorts with black socks and sandals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5351

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some just don't get it. I note the following whine: "these aimless malcontents, typically young and well educated, whine about getting their fair share." There do appear to be some important issues of fundamental fairness in the banking business. Like:

Quote:
Every now and then, Americans can find a crumb of hope that maybe those who caused the 2008 crash will be held accountable. Monday was one of those days, as a federal judge in New York courageously rejected a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the SEC over allegations of securities fraud. Instead, Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered the parties to prepare for trial next July. The proposed settlement, Rakoff correctly concludes, “is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.” Rakoff – who in 2009 also struck down a $33 million settlement between Bank of America and the SEC – has been one of the lone voices against letting Wall Street off easy for malfeasance in the run up to the 2008 crash; more judges and regulator should follow his example.
The Citigroup case has many echoes of the SEC’s case against Goldman Sachs last year, which ended in a $550 million settlement where the firm did not admit any wrongdoing. As Rakoff’s ruling lays out, Citigroup had grossly misled investors about how a package of investments was put together:
Citigroup's misrepresenting that the Fund's assets were attractive investments rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser, whereas in fact Citigroup had arranged to include in the portfolio a substantial percentage of negative projected assets and had then taken a short position in those very assets it had helped select…Citigroup realized around net profits of around $160 million, whereas the investors, as the S.E.C. later revealed, lost more than $700 million.
Two hundred and eighty five million dollars may sound like a lot of money, but in fact the number amounts to Citigroup ceding the profits plus interest ($190 million) and paying a $95 million fine, one-seventh of the total damages. To put that in perspective, Citigroup made a $3.8 billion profit – that’s $3,800 million – in the third quarter alone; a $95 million fine would be but 2.5 percent of their third quarter profit. As Rakoff writes, such small fines are “frequently viewed, in the business community, as a cost of doing business…rather than as an indicator of where the real truth lies.”
Worse, the settlement would have allowed Citigroup to avoid admitting wrongdoing, depriving private investors of a key asset in recouping their losses. The SEC agreed to this weak settlement despite reams of evidence against Citigroup, and despite the fact that, according to Bloomberg News’s Jonathan Weil, this case is hardly the first time this unit of Citigroup has crossed the line:


And to show that the housing business is certainly not aimless:


Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Wednesday announced the largest residential fair-lending settlement in history, saying that Bank of America had agreed to pay $335 million to settle allegations that its Countrywide Financial unit discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom.
A department investigation concluded that Countrywide loan officers and brokers charged higher fees and rates to more than 200,000 minority borrowers across the country than to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk.


And of course there is protecting public health:

Quote:
Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration has adopted tough new limits on mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, winning praise from environmentalists and public health advocates but sparking warnings from industry groups that contend the new regulations are too expensive and will place dangerous pressure on the nation's electrical grid.


I guess Bard is not alone in standing firm to protect the right of power generators to emit toxic pollutants. But with these matters being debated, it is certainly more important to focus on the appearance of the protestors. Some people really know what is important!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3449

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw something relevant in the Louvre. Paintings on pottery and carvings from the time of Jesus show all the best dressed people were tyrants and despots.
Fishermen and carpenters wore burlap bags with arm and head holes cut out.
The only well dressed Jewish people were the bankers and moneylenders. Jesus was throwing them out of the Temple.
Now they are back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1363

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there are cultural differences Keycocker.

Vicars and bishops over here wear recognisable uniforms, and schools (in my time) generally enforced the wearing of uniforms for pupils, and, by implication, members of staff. We male staff often had to suppress our grins on occasion, when men and boys trooped out of morning assembly, leaving the girls to be sternly lectured on the flouting of their uniform rules. (Regulation 1,053 I used to imagine to myself ... colour of girls knickers, and minimum skirt length!! Laughing )

The serious point though is that children (and religious congregations too for that matter) need authoritative role models to set an example, not best mates or retarded teenagers as mentors. A 'with it 'teacher, far from earning respect, would have invited ridicule from both pupils and parents.

Perhaps if a few more parents themselves set a better leadership example to their offspring society wouldn't be in the youth centred anti social mess it is currently in.

We all know that it is not a given that appearance always defines a person, so those who wear suits and dress neatly are not automatically worthless! They may just be showing a form of respect to their fellow human beings. And no, I don't believe Jesus was a tramp. He was striving to establish a religion, and would have wished to be taken seriously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1363

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote, 'The only well dressed Jewish people were the bankers and money lenders.'

What an extraordinary statement! Shouldn't you have included flunkies and politicians too?

Do I take it that if President Obama turned up at some international gathering in a Mickey Mouse T shirt and baggy shorts (or wet suit) he would be showing his true worth?

You certainly seem to have a bee in your bonnet, but Merry Christmas anyway. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3449

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry GT.I have only the greatest respect for teachers.You are the only hope for mankind.
I was just recounting the images I saw that were closest to the time of Jesus.
quoteWe all know that it is not a given that appearance always defines a person, so those who wear suits and dress neatly are not automatically worthless!

My point was entirely the opposite.The dress of those folks makes no difference to me at all. I would like to believe that we all know that but earlier posters would seem to disagree.
If my senator friend who knows Obama from the old days were to have invited him over to BBQ after the speech in Kansas, my opinion would change not a bit no matter what the President was wearing.
An employer has a reason to require certain dress codes, but camping on the sidewalk over percieved injustice, real or not, has no dress code.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 26, 27, 28  Next
Page 27 of 28

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group