#Defending | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nicklloydnow · 1 year ago

Text

“In 1932, Adolf A. Berle Jr. and Gardner C. Means wrote a book entitled The Modern Corporation and Private Property. A critique of corporate management for being aloof and complacent, out of touch with the consumer and irresponsible to the stockholder, this volume became the bible of Marxists, left wing intellectuals and interventionist politicians. Under the banner of separation of ownership and control, the Berle-Means thesis led to an attack on the corporate structure from which today's top executives are still reeling.

With this background, one would have thought that the people urging a greater role for the public sector would have welcomed the advent of the corporate raider. For this new breed of capitalist has sent shivers down the spines of the denizens of the boardroom. Swooping down, launching "unfriendly" or "hostile" takeover bids, these corporate raiders have succeeded in replacing management from coast to coast in dozens of industries, and in frightening thousands of other out-of-touch chief executive officers into greater responsibility.

At least under the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," it might have been expected that critics of the marketplace, noticeably the followers of Berle and Means, would have rallied `round the cause of the corporate raider.

In the event, however, this expectation has remained unfulfilled. Not only has the activity of the corporate raider been deprecated by the champions of government interference in the marketplace, but it has been roundly condemned by practically all pundits and commentators on public policy. In 1987, the left-leaning film director Oliver Stone distilled the common image of the corporate raider into the supposedly loathsome Gordon Gekko, brilliantly portrayed in an Oscar-winning performance by Michael Douglas. And this is the image of Gekko under which the corporate raider must labor in the present day.

Yet, despite this all-but-universal criticism, the unfriendly takeover bid has benefited consumers and stockholders, and served notice on complacent management across the board. In one celebrated case that unfolded shortly before Stone's film Wall Street was released, corporate guerrilla Carl Icahn put in a bid for a block of shares of Phillips Petroleum. Stung by Icahn's bid, Phillips' executives offered to improve a recapitalization plan they had been forced to put forth in response to an earlier planned takeover, this one by T. Boone Pickens. As a result, Icahn walked away with a cool $50 million, Pickens registered a profit of $89 million on a resale of his holdings to the company, all Phillips' shareholders gained from the better offer, and the oil firm itself was left far leaner and meaner than before.

Needless to say, neither Icahn nor Pickens nor any of the other masterminds of "the 1980s takeover boom," were publicly thanked for the good they had done. On the contrary: both men were not only mocked by Oliver Stone, they were also robbed of the opportunity to do any more such good by a rash of anti-takeover statutes adopted late in the decade. Henry Manne reported that hostile takeovers had "declined to four percent from fourteen percent of all mergers."

The conventional wisdom holds that this outcome is a good one for investors, but the facts show otherwise. No story of the corporate raider can ignore the role of the heroic Michael Milken. Assume there was a hotel worth $20 million as a present discounted capital value. Given an interest rate of 5%, this concern should throw off roughly $1 million to its owners. But stipulate that due to inefficiency, or general avarice, or to the fact that the CEO salary was far higher than justified, or a combination of all such phenomena, the owners were earning far less than that in dividends. And, guess what? The stock was trading at a lower value than might have prevailed, had these tape worm factors not been in operation.

Enter the "evil" Michael Milken. He swoops in, purchases enough of the stock in this corporation to kick out the old board and replace it with his own nominees. This is considered a "hostile" takeover by a corporate "raider." From whence springs the hostility? All Milken did was buy up a mess of stocks. Did he threaten any of these stock owners that they would walk the plank if they did not sell to him? No, of course not; we are talking arm's-length stock market deals here. We can logically infer that the owners of these stocks preferred the price offered them by the "raider," otherwise they would not have sold out. No, the "hostility," instead, stems from the CEO and his cronies who were mismanaging this hotel into the ground.

The Milkins of the world are akin to the canary in the mine; they are the Distant Early Warning Line for the economy.

When they get active, it is in response to something rotten that is going on. And what was the public reaction to this corporate raider? Instead of hoisting him up on their shoulders and holding ticker tape parades in his honor, he was given the back of the public's hand to his face. To wit, he was prosecuted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading, violations of U.S. Securities Laws and other financial felonies. He pled guilty only after the authorities threatened to go after his ailing brother. For shame.” - Walter Block, ‘Defending the Undefendable II’ (2013) [p. 41 - 44]

8 notes · View notes

thelilreddragon · 1 year ago

Note

Would James Potter kill a death eater(despite it being dark magic, which he despises) to save either Lily or Sirius?

(This is sad. I’ll make up for it in happy, I promise!)

Sweat stuck to his forehead as he dodged curse after curse. His legs were exhausted, after duelling for so long, but they were so close!

“You bloody fuck!” He screamed at the death eater, and tried to hold him off. James watched as the Death Eater’s mask flew off in his effort, and saw the stone cold face of Lucius Malfoy staring back at him.

“I’ll make you stop keeping up on me, Potter.” A wicked grin formed on his face, he turned on his heel and Disapparated.

James got nervous. It had been a few moments since the Death Eater disappeared, when he came back. A second pop sounded, following the arrival of the first, and James’s face fell.

Rather than being on his own, Lucius Malfoy returned holding Sirius Orion Black against his chest with a knife to her throat. To his right, stood Bellatrix Lestrange with her own captive, Lily Evans Potter.

“Give up the location of the boy, or they both get it.” James held up his wand higher, and gripped it tighter in his fist.

“James, don’t say anything!” Lily screamed and Bellatrix pushed the knife further against her throat.

“Shut up, Mudblood!”

“Fuck off, Bella!” Sirius screeched, and then spluttered.

“Quiet, the both of you!”

During the whole exchange, James was weighing his options. He could Disapparate and reappear behind them, but the sound would be too loud. He could also dart around them, with his wand drawn, and plow them over, but that would increase the risk of them killing Sirius and Lily.

He only had one option. “Expelliarmus!” He bellowed, as the knives flew from their fists. “Avada Kedavra! Avada Kedavra!”

Both bodies fell to the ground behind their victims.

“You Avada Kedavraed that bitch.” Sirius grinned and skipped over to hug James.

“I Avada Kedavraed two bitches…” tears prickled at his eyes, and he tried to cough to make them less prominent, but Lily noticed.

“Would the guilt of letting them leave be greater than the guilt of sending them to hell?”

“Letting them leave.”

“We’ve all done horrible things, mate. Rules leave, when the war starts.”

#harry potter #james x lily #death eaters #defending #sirius and lily #mauraders #drabble #thanks anon!

8 notes · View notes

aressida · 9 months ago

Text

my entry: "Defending for Truth in a world of Deception." - Aressida. 10.10.24.

I can hardly wrap my head around the overwhelming number of deaths that have occurred since 2019, and what is even more unsettling is how so many people seem indifferent to it.

Why is it discouraged to seek the truth for yourself? Why are we told not to dig deeper and question things? What part of this do not you understand?

The government, the very institution that is supposed to protect us, is hiding behind shields of immunity, proven time and time again to be riddled with corruption. Yet, most would rather cling to the comforting lies than face the harsh truth.

Do you truly believe that doctors and nurses always know what is best for you? They only know what they have been taught to say, what they have been conditioned to push. Sometimes, they do not insist on certain treatments because it is right for you, but because it is what they have been trained to do.

You need to ask yourself, who does this system really serve?

When will you finally see that you have been under the spell of multi-billion-dollar industries, bombarded by ads designed to manipulate, while they spin their own science and push a narrative that profits them, not you?

Are you angry yet, or are you still in denial?

Look around.

And here in Australia, we are fast approaching a time where we will not even be able to criticize the government's actions. They will decide what information is 'safe' for us to hear, all while bushfire season is looming. Pay close attention to the rising volume on this so-called 'misinformation' narrative.

Notice how it is growing louder the closer we get to major truths being exposed. They can sense it, and they are trying to silence it before it all unravels.

As a digital soldier, let me be frank, being fooled does not make us weak or stupid. The real failure lies in choosing to stay blind when the truth is staring us in the face. Every time we comply without question, we help build the walls of the prison that will one day trap our children. Do not allow that to happen. To dismiss something as a conspiracy without looking into the facts is an act of cowardice. It is a slap in the face to those raising the alarm, all to avoid the discomfort of facing what might be true.

Here is what I know: A true believer is never at peace with sin. We are called to stand against it.

Remember, freedom is not a gift handed down by the powerful, it is something we must fight for every day, with discernment and courage. We stand at the precipice of truth, and it is up to each of us to rise up, question what we have been told, and seek the light in the darkness.

No one will do it for us. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and to future generations to resist deception, stand firm in our beliefs, and be warriors for truth in a world drowning in delusions.

The time to act is now. Will you stand with us?

#aressida #blog #10.10.24 #defending #truth

4 notes · View notes

kpchrs · 2 years ago

Note

warren is creepy though. he thinks snuff films are funny. he says to max's face that he's disappointed she won't have sex with him within 3 weeks of knowing him. he plays max and brooke off each other by lying about the tickets for the drive in. he knows how to build pipe bombs. he almost beat nathan to death because he was angry.

I was so surprised seeing this LOL I didn't know that that reached people because I thought my hashtags never worked. Not that I expected it to or that I'm great at writing them down either tho. (Turned out seeing the few likes, it did reach people lol). But, well, obviously I didn't go to law school, Anon, you haven't given me time to do it (heh, and also because obviously that's a joke).

I read this on the day you sent the ask to me btw (which was months ago), but it took me a long time to write this because I got distracted so BADLY. So, sorry for the wait... if you are waiting xD I won’t expect anyone, even you, Anon, to read this. I genuinely don’t give a shit if no one reads this, but I still want to try to argue back. My mindset throughout this eSsAy will be as open and fair as I can.

1. "he thinks snuff films are funny."

Okay, let's pull up the script.

Warren: Haha. Make sure you watch Cannibal Holocaust. Max: No fucking way will I watch that. My mind is twisted enough... Warren: I laughed my ass off. (Episode 1: Crystallis)

Okay, first off, Cannibal Holocaust is not a snuff. That’s false. It is a cult classic horror film. It’s one because it’s (one of?) the first of its kind. Also, while it IS controversial and violent and there ARE something inside that are SO BAD WHYDIDTHEYHAVETODOIT, the film actually has an interesting and legit message. I think it’s not weird if Warren, being a fan of disturbing films or obscure films in general, will be interested in watching the so-called “cult classics”.

So regarding why he laughs, a possibility is that he laughs to pretend/show off to Max that he is tough. I mean, he literally shows off his car in that scene, to impress her. Weird flex but okay, bro.

Another possibility which is more probable is it’s because Warren has a dark sense of humour. Max knows this the day she meets him for the first time, that “he’s dark”. You can read it from her diary.

I think he has a higher tolerance than the average person after getting desensitised watching too much horror, which is why he laughs. Because he sees the comedy somewhere. And I think I have an idea where it is. Hint: It’s connected to the message of the film.

The message is the irony of how fast the characters adapt to savagery and exploit the tribe and their culture for the media, which raises the question: “So which one is the savage one? The tribe who people think should have been the ‘uncivilised’ or the characters who should have been the ‘civilised’ ones?” That twist can be funny with a dark sense of humour. Or it can be as simple as how the climax is satisfying/amusing with the characters getting what they deserve after all they have done fucking with the tribe. Hell, if you want to be meta and look into the background story of the filming, you can laugh too at the hypocrisy between the message and the film’s status as an exploitation film.

2. "he says to max's face that he's disappointed she won't have sex with him within 3 weeks of knowing him."

Hmm, that got filtered by your interpretation so let's go back to the root again aka the script to be objective.

Max: So you're sensitive... Warren: Ouch... That sounds awful the way you say it. Max: How so? Warren: Sensitive usually means "won't be having sex with you." Max: Oh, gawd! You need a sensitive woman to kick your ass. (Episode 1: Crystallis)

I want to confess. I had to think hard about what this means, maybe because I didn’t get the reference, because I’m not a native, or just because it’s a bad dialogue. I mean, of course, it sounded bad but I didn’t know EXACTLY what it meant. It took me 6 months to get it… somewhat… From my understanding, he means that “sensitive/nice guys finish last”, no? So the concern is about Nice Guys™?

I won’t wave this off, Anon, it’s still a distasteful comment to say, I admit. But I believe it’s a bad joke made by Warren, an awkward kid, who tries to hit on the girl he got a crush on. The whole scene is about him trying to be smooth, but failing miserably because (1) as I said, he’s awkward, you are not smooth enough, bro; (2) that’s the wrong thing to say, bro; (3) Max is not interested in you, bro (unless you make her be, I guess).

Warren is cringey. I have facepalmed a lot of times listening to him or reading his texts to Max, but we are all cringey in our teenage years. I don’t want to elaborate on my cringey-ness but I want to at least tell you that I did have a Warren, Anon. I rejected him hard and harshly (which I regret but I was also a teenage kid). But he was ultimately a good kid and we are still close friends. He’s matured and thriving now and I have no doubt if Warren were real, he would mature and thrive too now.

3. "he plays max and brooke off each other by lying about the tickets for the drive in."

Okay, let’s search for those.

Warren: BTW, the drive-in is actually popular so I'm buying the tix now. Warren: I'll have an extra one. In case you change your mind. [Wed; morning] (Warren’s text messages in Episode 3: The Chaos Theory if you decline the invitation.)

Warren does talk about two tickets but the drive-in charges per car, not per person (based on the poster). What’s the subtext of this dialogue? It’s saying that Warren still hopes that Max comes with him. Even deeper is Warren nudging Max to convince her subtly to go with him. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I don’t know why these inconsistencies happen, but inconsistencies are not uncommon in the game. So let’s rewrite the text message dialogues to remove the inconsistency, but keep the subtext.

Warren: BTW, the drive-in is actually popular so I'm buying the tix now. Warren: I’ll keep your spot open. In case you change your mind.

Nothing is different. The subtext is still the same. So if his narrative is to… I don’t know, to manipulate Max to go with him, I don’t see why he has to lie in the first place. Because my rewrite does the same job of the subtext. Maybe it is a development mistake.

These are the dialogues that are relevant, right after Max accepts or declines the invitation:

If Max accepts: Warren: I have to tell Brooke I'm going with you to the movies instead. I'll text you later? If Max declines: Warren: Uh, I have to see if Brooke wants to go to the drive-in, Max. Maybe I'll see you later. [Tue; morning] (Episode 2: Out of Time)

Okay, the first one sounds like Warren has invited Brooke first before Max with that “instead” and the second one sounds like Warren hasn’t invited Brooke at all. Weird, isn’t it? This is why people say Warren is playing off both girls. But there’s this dialogue:

Brooke: That's so ironic that Warren asked Max to the drive-in. Brooke: It's not like I don't own all the original "Apes" films. Brooke: Maybe I should've asked Warren to go... [Thu; afternoon] (Episode 4: Dark Room) [Max accepts Warren’s invitation route]

“Maybe I should’ve asked Warren to go”? In the narrative of if like you say, Warren playing them off, this dialogue doesn’t really add up, does it? It sounds like Warren never invites Brooke at all, or at the very least, they talk about wanting to go but never commit to doing it together. Does this make sense?

So what is this? Which one is right? Are these inconsistencies again? Maybe? Am I wrong? Tbh, my head hurts already LOL Tell me what you think. I’m so tired of this game’s inconsistencies.

Brooke is the second choice here. I don’t deny that. She always is even in the alternate universe, poor girl. Even after Warren says that he will ask Brooke instead after Max declines that morning, I think he still procrastinates on that and keeps hoping Max will change her mind until the next day. That’s why later he says: “I’ll have an extra one” (or “keep your spot open” in my rewrite) [Wed; morning].

And then, there’s the scene where Max is dared to kiss or not kiss Chloe [Wed; morning] (Episode 3: Chaos Theory). Regardless of whether Max kisses her or not, Chloe will text Warren later [Thu; morning]. In the route of Max declining Warren’s invitation, it sounds like he finally gets that Max is either not interested in romance or is interested in Chloe. So Warren gives up and he finally invites Brooke to the drive-in (Episode 4: Dark Room) [Thu; afternoon].

Just like Max is not interested in Warren and prioritising Chloe, Warren doesn’t seem to be interested in Brooke and he prioritises Max. Insensitive? Yes lol But, they are teenagers having a crush.

I hope all this makes sense.

4. "he knows how to build pipe bombs."

Because he's a nerd. A nerd who spends his time experimenting with chemistry. Pipe bombs are simple to make too. Max can even make it with his instructions. It's not weird if he knows how to build a lot of stuff. When you are passionate about something, you will want to learn more stuff, right?

Also, Anon, in high school, we begged our chemistry teacher to put potassium inside the water after we heard it would explode. She reluctantly yielded and yeah, it exploded and we screamed and laughed. She immediately regretted her decision. My point is explosion is exciting, Anon. There’s a reason why teenagers like to play with fireworks. Dangerous? Duh. It’s exciting tho, said a lot of teenagers.

God knows I got knowledge on weird stuff just because of some morbid curiosity or because one of my interests gets me interested in researching weird stuff. But my point is, it’s the same with Warren in this case. It’s not weird at all that a science nerd knows how to build a pipe bomb.

5. "he almost beat nathan to death because he was angry."

This, is my favourite point you made. Because despite all the people who decided to let Warren beat up Nathan, you use this point to imply that this isn't right, which weirdly makes me happy to see that it's acknowledged. Because it IS not right! Sorry, I'm just a Nathan trash (who wants to punch him too ironically but of course, I wouldn’t do it lol Sorry, Nate). Of course, you may say this with the intention of “there is something wrong with Warren based on this scene, some anger issues or something which is… dangerous.” Well…

You know, Anon, the thing with Warren is, the game subtly told us that he is bullied. And I was spending time trying to find evidence but I’m frankly so tired of combing the Wikia HAHAHA Turned out, someone has talked about it already.

There’s no confirmation on who bullies him (eh), but my guess is having a room across the kInG oF bLaCkWeLl's (I hate that dumb cheesy nickname lol) is not a good time for him. People can interpret it as him being angry because his crush is getting attacked by Nathan again, but I don't really see that tbh. Maybe it starts off as that, but later it explodes because of the pent-up anger he feels inside after all the bullying he has experienced. That’s the first time he beats up someone. He doesn’t even know he could do that.

Of course, this is just a different interpretation. Some people choose to interpret something from this side of the spectrum and there are people who choose to do it from the other side of the spectrum. I chose “this side of the spectrum” to give you a different interpretation to ponder upon.

People could scoff and say, “Now you are just being biased.” Well… That’s what Warren haters do too. Being biased. Because Warren has so many positive things too, you know? It’s just the same as how Chloe haters are biased and ridiculously bash her hard outside of the fandom, when she has so many positive things.

People could scoff again and say, “You are using ‘him being a teenager’ too much as an excuse.” I believe we are too hard on teenagers. Yes, even the 18-year-old kids. You don’t magically mature and know everything about yourself or the world once you are 18 years old (or 19), even if society deems them as young adults. I sure didn’t when I was 18 (or 19). I only knew what my favourite colours are in my 20s! (Answer: the shades of pink, red-purple, and true red.) Everyone has their own pace. Warren is approximately a month before 17.

Also, I believe in mental growth. If people love the idea of flawed Warren as a character and then they write a fanfiction about him maturing and growing as a person and Max is in the picture, is that a bad thing? Of course not, it’s just them believing in the potential inside a character and character dynamic and using it as a creative outlet. Characters in “Life is Strange” are created to be in the grey shades. From the almost-white (like Kate and Samuel maybe) to the almost-black (like Jefferson). Max is grey. Chloe is grey. Rachel is grey. Warren is also grey. It’s not a bad thing to love fictional grey characters or even villains.

Lastly, let this be a reminder, not only for Anon, but for people in general, that… you don’t know why someone loves something. They may have nuanced reasons that they can’t explain fully if they don’t write long-ass essays and even if they do write one, sometimes people don’t even care about reading it. But if you keep an open mind and listen, maybe you won’t agree, but at least you understand a little bit and respect the opinion. Like, for example, hell, if I hear someone seriously loves Jefferson I will be so baffled (I hate him), but I will be so interested in hearing it and I'll still be so baffled but I’ll respect that, you know? Maybe I'll laugh a lot but only because I’m entertained and happy that they explain it to me. (I’m seriously interested so hit me up if any lol)

But that’s only me and my mindset. The general rule is just please be respectful.

Maybe after this, more people will come to my inbox and point out more things to argue. While… um, okay, I did say I claim to be Warren’s personal lawyer (and I was obviously joking) but until when will you people do this? xD Okay, I can’t stop it, or I can but I don’t want to block the few anonymous asks to my inbox, but since my lawyering is not paid by Warren, whether I will write an essay like this again or not will depend on my time and mood hehehehe xD

Thank you for the ask. I enjoy writing this! For Warren sympathisers, I hope I do him justice. If not, I’m sorry, but let’s hear it.

I'm shocked if someone is actually reading this, but if so, thanks for reading.

Kris

#defending #warren graham #life is strange #grahamfield #kris got asks

33 notes · View notes