Definitions by mlhiss
LOBS
monsteen
When I took my little monsteen's phone away from her she went on ballistic rampage and started yelling rape in the car. When we got to our home the SWAT team greeted us with full show of force, including a police helicopter.
Anonymous Extraordinary
People of exception talent that make major contributions to the work of great leaders, but who remain largely unknown for the work they do. The credit for major movements often goes to single iconic individuals, ignoring or making light the incredible contributions of those around them.
While Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is given credit for the civil rights movement, it is the work of the army of the Anonymous Extraordinary that made it happen, and succeed.
Anonymous Extraordinary by mlhiss November 23, 2011
Fencing
Fencing is the actions of the go between for a thief and buyer of the thief's stolen goods. The buyer may unwittingly buy stolen goods from a fence in yard sales, flea markets, through classified ads, or other traditional markets. A shrewed form of fencing is when the fencer poses as a fence for stolen goods and sells cheap illegal imitations of name brand goods at high prices under the pretence that they are more expensive legit versions.
gooning for the 1%
Brutal and more subtle strategies and tactics by the politicians, police, courts, corporations, and the 1% to suppress the right to free speech and the right to public assembly with regards to social, economic, and political justice. This is often done in the form shooting war veterans in the face with rubber bullets, tear gassing and beating and arresting defenceless bystanders, woman, children, protesters and the press with clubs and military like assaults. The beatings and violence suppression tactics are purported to be for public health and safety purposes (of the 1%).
This is often in contrast to the suppressors efforts to accommodate a small minority within the 1% (.0001% that destroyed the economy) by failing to enforce laws, writing new laws to make illegal activities legal, and providing perverse incentives, perverse subsidies, perverse bonuses, perverse tax breaks, perverse corporate transfer of wealth from the shareholders to the top management that increase social and economic injustice and destroy the economy for the 99%. The brutal tactics are supplemented by much more repressive tactics governmental by goons of the 1% that write laws and self-regulate their activities, since these methods are more pervasive and detrimental to the 99.9%
This is often in contrast to the suppressors efforts to accommodate a small minority within the 1% (.0001% that destroyed the economy) by failing to enforce laws, writing new laws to make illegal activities legal, and providing perverse incentives, perverse subsidies, perverse bonuses, perverse tax breaks, perverse corporate transfer of wealth from the shareholders to the top management that increase social and economic injustice and destroy the economy for the 99%. The brutal tactics are supplemented by much more repressive tactics governmental by goons of the 1% that write laws and self-regulate their activities, since these methods are more pervasive and detrimental to the 99.9%
Someone should talk to the Koch Brothers about sponsoring a tea party for the Mayors and Governors to discuss improved methods for "gooning for the 1%". These Occupy Wall Street people are getting to be a public nuisance, and want to slow the transfer of wealth and power from the poor to the rich. The Occupiers also want to criminalize illegal activities of the 1%.
gooning for the 1% by mlhiss November 15, 2011
Too big to be saved
An Institution that is too big of a risk to save. The institution is often viral and perpetuates big failures to their benefit and to their constituents detriment. Their philosophy is basically: Heads I win, Tails you loose.
The failing Institution has a neg trend, that will continue since policy changes don't achieve recovery goals even when successful. For those affected there is extreme vulnerability and risk of saving it, and little to gain.
If success occurs it benefits those that caused the failure. Those most negatively impacted continue to pay the costs, and suffer.
The group saving the institution may have little control over the outcome and benefit stream, but is responsible for all the costs and liability. However, the group saving may have an agenda and be able to transfer the cost to others. And may do so at a very high price.
The group doing the saving may be walking the fine line of being an empowerer or enabler.
Sometimes as an enabler in collusion with the institution to keep the those people affected by the institution in a constant struggle for survival.
Saving the institution creates moral hazard. Failing institutions point to the negative "domino effect", where their failure will create catastrophic failure. Others argue the "domino effect" is the solution since it destroys institutions that perpetuate disasters, and end subsidized failure.
The failing Institution has a neg trend, that will continue since policy changes don't achieve recovery goals even when successful. For those affected there is extreme vulnerability and risk of saving it, and little to gain.
If success occurs it benefits those that caused the failure. Those most negatively impacted continue to pay the costs, and suffer.
The group saving the institution may have little control over the outcome and benefit stream, but is responsible for all the costs and liability. However, the group saving may have an agenda and be able to transfer the cost to others. And may do so at a very high price.
The group doing the saving may be walking the fine line of being an empowerer or enabler.
Sometimes as an enabler in collusion with the institution to keep the those people affected by the institution in a constant struggle for survival.
Saving the institution creates moral hazard. Failing institutions point to the negative "domino effect", where their failure will create catastrophic failure. Others argue the "domino effect" is the solution since it destroys institutions that perpetuate disasters, and end subsidized failure.
Wall Street is is "Too big to be saved".
Why would Wall Street want to be saved anyway. By most accounts it planned the failure. And bet against it's success. It would be against their free market principles to save Big Failure. And they could grab the assets up for a few cents on the $.
Italy is not "Too big to be saved". However, the Italian gov is too big a failure to save. Italy is a beautiful country and will be easy to save when the gov that perpetuated the disater is removed.
Measures to save the institition may cause more suffering than letting it fail. Saving the institution may not save the positive attributes of the institution, which may not have any to begin with, especially when those most responsible for the failure have the most to gain, and profit.
Why would Wall Street want to be saved anyway. By most accounts it planned the failure. And bet against it's success. It would be against their free market principles to save Big Failure. And they could grab the assets up for a few cents on the $.
Italy is not "Too big to be saved". However, the Italian gov is too big a failure to save. Italy is a beautiful country and will be easy to save when the gov that perpetuated the disater is removed.
Measures to save the institition may cause more suffering than letting it fail. Saving the institution may not save the positive attributes of the institution, which may not have any to begin with, especially when those most responsible for the failure have the most to gain, and profit.
Too big to be saved by mlhiss November 8, 2011