What do the Wall St occupiers want?

The Occupy Wall St movement is doing an admirable job of galvanizing people from around the world, but it's struggling. Unless it changes direction it's doomed and within a matter of weeks it will begin fizzing out towards an inglorious and anticlimactic end.

Why? One reason: It has no obvious set of demands. Despite being modelled on the Arab Spring, the Arab movement is a completely different ballgame because the protesters know exactly what they want and so does everyone else. Their demands are simple, clear and obvious – their leaders should stand down and hold democratic elections. Anyone can understand that and everyone knows what needs to happen.

The Occupy protesters have nothing of the sort. I've seen the banners - they say things like "End Corporate Greed". Fair enough, that's a sentiment most of us share, but exactly how should we do that? Who do you want to act and exactly what action do you want them to take? It's unlikely that corporations will change their greedy practices just because you ask them to, so maybe you want politicians to introduce some new laws to force them to give up greed? If so, exactly what new laws do you want?

I visited occupywallst.org, scrolled down the entire home page and couldn't see a single clear demand for anything. All I saw was advice on how to be a nuisance, and a bunch of complaints about the economy that are so vague it's just noise. This is worse than pointless, it makes the protesters look like a motley gathering of whiners who can't decide what they want.

Speaking of how the protesters look, it doesn't help when some people hijack the cause to promote their own agendas such as drug law reform. Although I'm inclined to agree with those of you asking for such reform, please take those issues elsewhere and don't taint the Occupy movement. Remember, not all the occupiers agree with you and it's not fair to make it seem that they do.

By the way, I know some people portray the Occupy movement as constructive rather than protest-oriented, which would be nice if it was realistic (don't get me started on the viability of an alternative currency), but the fact is that it's perceived as a protest by most of those involved and pretty much everyone else. And that's fine – its best chance of success is to use the protest model, assuming it can get the critical mass needed to sway public and political opinion.

So the real task for the occupiers is to create a clearer message and, most importantly, a list of reasonable demands that the public will support and politicians will find difficult to ignore.

I don't have all the answers but here's one suggestion to get the ball rolling:

• "No employee of any company shall receive an income more than 10 times the income of that company's lowest-paid employee."

Call it The Ten Times Rule or The 10% Rule to make it catchy. Although the devil would be in the details, the principle of the rule is quite clear and would be seen as fair by most rational people. It's a demand you can present to politicians. It's even an issue that could get corporate buy-in; for example, compliant companies could advertise "We support the 10% Rule". Search for exectitive pay to learn more about this issue.

I'm sure all you creative and knowledgeable people out there can come up with half a dozen similarly simple rules to cover the main problems with capitalism. I'm thinking of issues like:

• Legal tax evasion.
• Shonky manufacturing, including obsolescence-by-design.
• Excessive profit from non-productive activity (e.g. automated sharemarket transactions, patent trolling, etc).
• Corporate influence in government elections.

We need a list of the most important issues that need fixing, with nice catchy headings. Put this list on the occupywallst.org home page and change all the feel-good-but-ultimately-meaningless banners to point to this list.

A revolution needs a well-defined goal. Vagueness is the enemy. To the occupiers I say: Your demands need clarity and simplicity – it's too easy for politicians to ignore you when it's not clear what you're asking them to do. We need you to clarify your demands and champion them on behalf of those of us who can't be there. Change the message from "We're unhappy" to "This is what we want to happen."

Good luck. We need it.

Seen Avatar 3D? I need your help.

I'm currently writing a series of articles about 3D and I'd like to hear from people who have seen Avatar or any other 3D movie recently. I'd like to know:

Where did you see it? (so I know which system it was - RealD, Dolby, Imax 3D)
How did you find the 3D effect?
Did it make you uncomfortable, nauseous, etc?
Do you prefer 3D or 2D?

Please either comment here or contact me at mediacollege.com. Thanks.

Where's my flying car? (with answer)

It's 2010 - Where's my flying car? It's not a new question but a it's good time to repeat it. 2010 ("twenty-ten") is a semi-notable new year and we've got a new generation of adults who grew up with rapidly-improving technology that affected their everyday lives. Many of them are disappointed that technology hasn't progressed further by now.

For as long as I can remember, two things have symbolizing the future of personal technology: Video phones and flying cars. From the promises made to my generation in its youth, both technologies have gone on to become icons of an undelivered future.

So what happened? The technology for video phones has been around for decades. It was never really a case of not being possible, it was a case of public apathy. It turned out that very few people actually wanted to make themselves available for viewing at any time of day or night. The technology was there but the market wasn't.

As it happens I think we're getting ready for video phones now - cellphones are taking us where landlines alone couldn't. The real issue is of course flying cars.

I think it's a similar situation. There are plenty of flying cars out there and if the market was ready, one or more of them would take off (pun intended). The problem is in the market. How many people actually want to fly to their common destinations? How exactly would it work anyway if we just moved our roads up into the air? There are so many ways for that to turn nasty - it's hard to justify the risk of letting the general population loose in aircars rather than finding better ground-based transport systems. We'd have to limit personal flight in some way - most likely to occasional recreational flights and/or longer journeys in strictly controlled air-roads.

Then there's the environmental impact of air-roads. Flying cars would use a lot of energy, but even if they could be relatively eco-friendly it makes sense to apply the same guidelines as ground-based travel; i.e. pool and use public transport where possible. So instead of developing a huge fleet of personal flying cars, a better solution would be a smaller fleet of flying buses. Guess what - we already have them. They're called planes.

I do foresee a future in personal flight for recreational use but I don't see commuters flying to the office any time soon.

acute film

Okay, this post is nothing but a blatant plug for my mate's website. acute film is a film company owned by Graeme Tuckett who specialises in making documentaries about New Zealand people and issues. His latest project, Shihad: Loud as F**K, promises to be a goody.

Factory Farming in New Zealand

Oops, looks like I created a small monster here. I was unhappy to hear that three companies have applied for consent to start "freestall" dairy farming in the South Island. So I started a Facebook group opposing it (as you do in these situations). It obviously touched a nerve because the group got 3,000 members in the first 24 hours, which is pretty big for New Zealand. Now I'm dealing with the consequences - messages flooding my inbox, dilemmas over childish twats posting garbage on the wall (guilty parties on both sides of the argument), and all the stress that goes with a sudden unexpected job to take care of. An interesting few days ahead it seems.

Maybe next time I'll just post a comment somewhere suggesting that someone else forms a group.

Yet again we ask: Is it art?

When I was a young musician I moved to Palmerston North, attracted by the strong community of original and alternative music. However I soon realised that "alternative" was a euphemism for "talentless". Seriously, the whole scene was dominated by wannabes who couldn't be bothered actually learning an instrument. They simply found an easier way - buy a nasty cheap amp, get wasted and see what strange noises can be produced. Fun, but not music.

I see much the same in contemporary art. The latest example comes courtesy of nearby Waikato Museum which recently awarded top prize in an art competition to a pile of rubbish. Artist Dane Mitchell couldn't be at the competition to enter himself so he left instructions to museum staff: Pilfer rubbish from other contestants and lay it on the floor. That effort netted him $15,000 first prize.

My first surprise was that anyone could think of a pile of rubbish as worthy art. Not because it's rubbish, but because the concept is so hackneyed. Google "rubbish as art" and wade through the ten million results. There's a whole sub-genre of artistic rubbish which may or may not have merit but one thing's for sure - Mitchell's work isn't in any way original. It's a totally weak imitation of far more interesting works dating back years.

While we're discussing tired old cliches, how long are we supposed to wear the argument "It generates discussion and that's the point of art, so we're happy". Really? Even if the discussion is all about what a joke art has become? Art curators must be the only people in the world able to interpret widespread derision as a good result. Face it - this argument is nothing more than a last defense when you've been caught out.

Competition judge Charlotte Huddleston said she was impressed at how Mitchell "responded to his situation" (i.e. being absent and making someone else create the entry). Hmmm. Let's say I want to enter a running race but I can't be there in person to do the actual running part. Should I be allowed to nominate another person to do it for me? I could leave specific instructions: "Go really fast and see if you can get to the end first". Perhaps this isn't a completely fair analogy but it illustrates a fair point - shouldn't the artist who enters a piece actually have made it?

In my opinion Mitchell "responded to his situation" by cheating. He couldn't be there so he found a loophole. Not only is this cheating, it makes it quite clear that there's no real artistic merit in the work. He didn't invent this work to make a statement, he invented it because he needed a convenient way to make a proxy entry. He quite literally asked someone else to scrounge up the leftovers, dump it in a pile and call it art.

I'm suspicious that the title is often the most important feature of an artwork. In this case it's called "Collateral". Ooh, how incisive. Yawn.

The art world is widely believed to consist of self-serving tossers rorting the public purse. This kind of debacle is exactly why. I say it's time people in the art world started laughing at the naked emperor. This crap isn't art. Spare me the snooty BS, just deal with it. Start teaching people how to paint and sculpt instead of selling snake oil.

What happens to your pet after the Rapture?

"The Rapture" is the time when Christian believers will all be raised to Heaven and everyone else gets left behind. The Rapture doesn't get a lot of discussion time in New Zealand but it's quite big in the US where fundamentalist Christian beliefs are more popular.

Yesterday I came across a fascinating business idea called Eternal Earth-Bound Pets which may (or may not) appeal to you if you believe in the Rapture. Business partners Brad and Bart are atheists so they won't be joining you for the ascent to Heaven. Neither will your pets since animals aren't invited. It does seem a bit unfair that your faithful companions will have to fend for themselves in a chaotic post-rapture world but now you don't have to worry — for a modest fee you can arrange to have animal-loving atheists rescue and care for your pets within 24 hours of the Rapture.

I was intrigued so I wrote to Brad and asked a few questions. Here's the situation:
Yes, the business is completely serious and legitimate.
Reactions from the public have been mixed - some think it's a joke while others take it seriously.
Some Christians appreciate the service and have subscribed. Some Christians are openly hostile and can be quite nasty. Says Brad: "We often ask if they kiss Jesus with their filthy mouths."

We don't have a lot of conflict between faiths in NZ and atheism is pretty much the default philosophy. It can be hard to imagine what it's like to live in an area where atheists are seen as evil and anti-Christian. Judging by what I've seen in many "fundy" forums, I'm sure there are plenty of people who see Eternal Earth-Bound Pets as wicked. I just think it's wickedly funny.