Its almost as if the believe that the wild is an easier place for animals to live. Perhaps PETA was founded by someone corrupted by the view of nature that Disney provides.

Nowhere does PETA say that pets would have easier lives if they lived in the wild. The claim is that they would have more full lives. If you lived in a cage and were fed thrice daily, your life would be easier too, but probably not more enjoyable.

2) It may well be true that pet stores do not offer ideal, or even very good conditions for animals; however, a short-lived protest over stadium naming rights is hardly likely to ignite a groundswell of protest over pet store abuse. Remember how far Native American activist groups got by protesting the Braves, Indians and Redskins?

Remember the Stanford Indians? I'm pretty sure other colleges have changed their offensive names as well. As for the professional teams, I believe that the "failed" campaigns made many people aware of the fact that these names are offensive to Native Americans. That in itself is a huge step forward. Did the first sit-in provoke the Civil Rights Act? No, persistence is necessary for groups that represent minority interests.

There's a big difference between opposing Pet stores that keep animals in poor conditions, but from puppy mills, and are downright evil (Okay, I just put that in because I needed a third reason). If PETA wants to protest that, then I'm 100% behind them. But the idea of abolishing pets is stupid. Responsible pet ownership - and it is ownership, not guardianship, or whatever they want to make in it San Francisco - is something that benefits humans and animals alike.

Nowhere does PETA say that pets would have easier lives if they lived in the wild. The claim is that they would have more full lives. If you lived in a cage and were fed thrice daily, your life would be easier too, but probably not more enjoyable.

My dog wouldn't have lasted 3 days if forced to live in the wild. And interestingly enough, we never kept any of our pets in a cage.

Dogs have beend domesticated for thousands of years, and while some breeds have retained their natural instincts, I think the idea of returning dogs to the wild is just about one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, especially when you consider just how little "wild" there is left.

One thing's for sure... the timing of all this was awfully bad for Petco.

I hadn't heard anything about these complaints until the naming rights thing, and now it's all over the place.

Tony Gwynn is arguably the best hitter who ever lived.

Depends on how you define hitter. If we are defining it as the best offensive force at the plate, then Gwynn is surely lacking. If we are defining it as batting average, then I would agree with ESPN.

You need to say you "own" the animal, while Peta needs to call your animal a "companion."

If I'm going to refer to a pet as my companion, I expect to receive a tax deduction. :-)

You need to say you "own" the animal, while Peta needs to call your animal a "companion." Fine. That strikes me as a fairly minor disagreement.

Well, I don't need to do anything to make myself feel better as a pet owner, but I've heard much better arguments from the AKC than I have anywhere else:

1) Use of the term "guardian" may eliminate the legal rights and obligations that individuals have as owners to keep, nurture and protect their animals.

Cruelty? Don't tell PETA about the minor leagues, they'll be picketing - Terrmel Sledge, Nook Logan, Choo Freeman, Stubby Clapp, Calvin Reese Jr. (is Pokey any better?), Gookie Dawkins, Noochie Varner, Chase Utley, Irwin Centeno, Arlington Murray, Jemel Spearman, Jentry Beckstead, Judson Songster, Prince Fielder, Esix Snead...

Do they even still use rats in cancer research anymore, I thought they stopped that when they realised rats get cancer if you look at them funny.

"Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."

I'm fairly neutral in my opinion of PETA, but I believe this is one of the truest statements ever spoken.

"Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."

Sounds like self-loathing to me.

---"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."

I'm almost left speechless by her lack of sensitivity. Couldn't she find a better analogy?

"Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."

Sounds like self-loathing to me.

Sounds like the truth to me.

Well Neil, dsm, Crispix, if that is the way you feel, you can always do something about it.

You can have yourself sterilized.

From what I've seen, the benefit to the gene pool would be well worth it.

I can't even begin to express how demented that Holocaust-broiler chicken analogy is. I'm having a fit just thinking about it, but I'll try to explain anyway...

I don't think she means to say that the slaughter of broiler chickens is *worse* than the Holocaust, but that "but" in her statement definitely makes it possible for people to understand it that way, and she's obviously playing with the shock value of both sides of the statement in a discomfiting way.

I didn't interpret her words to mean that slaughtering boiler chickens was worse than the Holocaust, but equally wrong. This is still offensive.

"Depends on the rabbit," she said.

Unless the rabbit was from Night of the Lepus, I have a feeling that Ingrid would be serving hasenpfeffer for dinner. :-)

It's too bad that animals have to suffer for cancer and similar research. And apes should only be used in the rare case that it is absolutely necessary. But still, better that animals animals suffer than people.

Why?

"It's too bad that animals have to suffer for cancer and similar research. And apes should only be used in the rare case that it is absolutely necessary. But still, better that animals animals suffer than people. "

'Why?'

Because people are worth more than other animals. I challenge anybody here to honestly say that they would favor an animal's life over another human being's. I for one would not hesitate to eat thjat rabbit, btw. That doesn't make me blood-thirsty; it means I am a part of nature and that I am doing what any other species would do in the same instance.

Because people are worth more than other animals.

Why?

Because people are worth more than other animals. I challenge anybody here to honestly say that they would favor an animal's life over another human being's.

That's not the question. We're not talking about choosing between saving a human and saving an animal. We're talking about intentionally killing animals in order to possibly save a far lower number of human lives.

What if humans had never started experimenting on animals in the first place? What if, the first time it came up, and every time since, people just said "Are you insane? That's unbelievably cruel! We will find another method to do our tests, you sick bastard!"

Might humans have come up with better, more humane testing methods?

One more thing, please explain the difference between Buchenwald and a slaughter house, from the victim's point of view.

To us, people are worth more than animals because we're people. We look out for our own species; it's as simple as that.

"One more thing, please explain the difference between Buchenwald and a slaughter house, from the victim's point of view."

This is exactly my point. You can't know the animals' point of view. But from an outside point of view, a slaughterhouse takes chickens that were raised with human labor and resources and makes food which we need to sustain us, and unless you're the type that thinks people are vermin, that's a good thing. Buchenwald, on the other hand, served no constructive purpose, unless you think a world free of Jews is a better world. And if I hear this comparison one more time, I might go ballistic, because as a Jew, being compared to a broiler chicken is pretty offensive. So cut it out.

One more thing, please explain the difference between Buchenwald and a slaughter house, from the victim's point of view.

Darren:

If any evolutionary biologist would post on a baseball board, it would be Gould. :)

Agent Smith-

If PETA or any Vegan's worldview ever became mainstream, you know that eventually somewhere down the line we stupid humans would seriously start considering whether or not it is right to eat vegetables.

Let me just say this about post #44: if that poster and Retardo were running for the same office, I'd actually vote for Retardo.

I might slit my wrists afterwards, though.

If PETA or any Vegan's worldview ever became mainstream, you know that eventually somewhere down the line we stupid humans would seriously start considering whether or not it is right to eat vegetables.

Since some of these Vegans are antihuman, I'm surprised they don't promote Soylent Green. :-)

David:

Some of the "best" scientific research ever done was that done on the Jews in Germany and the syphilis studies of Blacks in America, simply because it was done on humans. We - and all other countries - will not even look at that research because of the way in which it was conducted. And that's the way it should be.

Agreed.

That is not totally true about the German research. Much of what the Nazis learned concerning hypothermia and pressure changes has been utilized by at the very least the United States. Those experiments were as gruesome as they come.

I've known many Vegans in my life. Not a one has been antihuman.

I was referring to the ones that consider humans as cancers of the world.

Well, that's one Primer feud down.

As for Retardo's comment about veal, I'll once again defer to <a hre=http://www.brunching.com/dairy.html>Lore Sjöberg</a> on this one:

"I don't want to be a bummer here, but it's interesting that the whole baby cow thing is heavily played up in the veal realm, and yet virtually ignored in the cheese realm. It's called rennet, folks, it comes from baby cows, and getting it from the baby cows in question is not an outpatient procedure, if you follow me. But I'm sure the calves all had happy and fulfilling lives before they were slaughtered for your Kraft singles, right?"

Oops, the link didn't come through. Here it is. By the way, Cheese only got a B.

Blair,

I don't take anything from PETA seriously. Why should I? They lack credibility based on the *many* foolish statements and positions they've adopted in the past. The stance they've taken in this particular instance simply reinforces my opinion that they shouldn't be taken seriously.

Sorry I made any comment at all. What a bunch of ignorant ######## are posting on this thread.

Gee, do you think we hurt Darren's widdle feelings? :-)

This is what I get for posting before I do my research. I'm as Vince Maasy said I am,

Paul Mazukiewicz, you're clueless.

Sorry guys, you can all go home now.

P.S. It's always bad when you misspell your own name to boot.

Darren-

Ian McCulloch is cooler than you

Truer words have never been spoken on Primer. Mac is indeed the "King of Cool." And he has a solo album coming out in the couple of months. To learn more, visit www.ianmcculloch.com

Are PETA memebers into beastiality behind closed doors?

Sheesh.

Singer is a twisted man. I like this perspective on him:

Re: PETA and beastiality

Wow. I guess truth is stranger than fiction.

If PETCO is mistreating animals, then it should be protested. The problem is that it's PETA doing the protesting. Most of the outrage in this thread has been about PETA's extremist, anti-human viewpoint. Obviously the fate of pet shop animals has little to do with human lives. It's just that PETA hurts the credibility of its cause when it mixes in support of bestiality and terrorism (which is what the blowing up of mink farms comes down to, really) with legitimate causes like the PETCO thing.

We law-abiding people call graffiti vandalism. We call egging a house vandalism. We call blowing it up terrorism, even if they're lucky enough not to hurt someone.

RossCW,

I wasn't aware of that case. From the facts you presented, this guy sounds like he is a less deserving candidate for a pardon than the infamous Marc Rich.

As an attorney, Anne Coulter should know that "it is a crime to fire a rifle at communist freighters headed to Cuba," unless it is done under color of law. No such claim is made in these facts.

Of course, having watched Ms. Coulter on TV for the last few years (which is not an aesthetically unapealing activity), it is obvious that she is either very stupid (unlikely), or has problems with facts.

RossCW,

One more point on the pardon: The Bush brothers will do anything to preserve Florida for Dubya's "re-election" in 2004. The election is likely to again come down to which candidate wins the state.

If Al Gore had chosen Sen. Bob Graham as his running mate in 2000, he would undoubtedly be the POTUS today.

""Meat" isn't farmed - its butchered. Cattle for instance are raised and fed grain that is grown in fields. As are hogs, chickens and turkeys. Fish are farmed I guess. Dairy farms mostly grow grain, not cows. Food directly grown for humans is a pretty small part of industrial agriculture. Harvesting many of them like lettuce, asparagus, oranges, grapes, tomatoes etc does not involve the use of large machinery which indiscriminately kills animals that live in the crops."

The magic word is pesticide. Sure, a few rodents are squashed by combine's tires, but wholesale slaughter of bugs and worms and fungi is an everyday part of a farmer's job. Boll weevils in cotton, worms in tobacco, maize, wheat, and soybeans. Fungi in rice and wheat. Plenty of wholesale killing.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that most dairys are actually grain farms. This isn't the case of the few dairys I've seen, though I can't say anything here with certainty, because my part of the country hasn't many dairy cows.

Much of the pro-vegan argument is laced with land use efficiency issues. The claim is that ranching or dairying is less-efficient than traditional argiculture. But what ranching actually does, for the most part, is use land that's WORTHLESS for traditional crop purposes. If the meat-haters had their way, and all ranching was discontinued, grazing land would just go unused; there would be no magic corn crops or soybean farms appearing on former grazing lands, it's not possible. Obviously, there are exceptions, but not many.

Of course, having watched Ms. Coulter on TV for the last few years (which is not an aesthetically unapealing activity), it is obvious that she is either very stupid (unlikely), or has problems with facts.

Closer to the latter. She's essentially a troll. She's not stupid, at least not academically. She just deliberately says inflammatory things to get attention. Classic troll behavior.

I am sure the Nazis and Vichy considered the French resistance in World War II to be terrorists, as well as Tito's partisans in Yugoslavia.

Ah, but that wasn't the question. The question is whether they were terrorists -- not what the Nazis "considered" them to be.

John, you should at least provide a link for the people who weren't here in May.

Re: Termites -- Am I the only one who pictures termites as little guys riding motorcycles with circular saws for wheels while wearing WWII style hats?

Thanks a lot, Shredder. I'd almost managed to forget about that...

It's greatly comforting to me to know that if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, my chief posting legacy will consist of introducing the concept of dendrophilia to a baseball blog.

. Practically everyone who thinks that they're right about an issue, even when they know they are in the minority, wants the government to enforce laws that support their beliefs. That doesn't make them some sort of fascist.

It does when you disagree with them. :)

Meat" isn't farmed - its butchered. Cattle for instance are raised and fed grain that is grown in fields.

Actually, some cattle that will ultimately be slaughtered for meat are fed the remains of cattle previously slaughtered. This fattens the cattle and eventually yields more meat for the slaughterhouse.

This, among other reasons, represent why I have pretty much stopped eating red meat. I don't preach to others about it. I hate when other people try to force their beliefs upon me.

What group of people that thinks it's right doesn't try to impose its beliefs on the rest of society?

Do I really have to answer that one? The group that Retardo hates most.

In regards to whether blowing up mink farms is vandalism or terrorism...I think I would not vote for either word (unless I was from Florida, then I'd just get confused). The word that comes to my mind is arson.

Dave (and others opposed to extremists): I'm with you on PETA--I'm an animal wefarist (not for animal rights per se), I don't want to see eating meat banned (even though I don't do it--a feat I'm able to pull off without even being a libertarian), and I'd like to see more support mobilized behind a campaign to improve conditions in slaughterhouses. I think there is a lot of moderate support out there for such a position, waiting to be tapped by the right politically savvy group (not PETA).

My moderate defense of PETA, and anti-abortion extremists, is this: their principled position demands an extreme political position. Anything less would be inconsistent. If a fetus is a person, killing it is (premeditated) murder. Both the doctor and the mother should go away for a long time. Any anti-abortion position that equivicates on this issue is inconsistent to the point of absurdity. Ditto for animals--if you beleive they have moral rights equivilent to humans, to suggest we should simply be nicer to them before they kill them for food is grotesque pandering to the morally bankrupt. It would be like telling an abolishionist in 1830 that slavery isn't going away, so why don't they just try to get people to beat their slaves a little less. The posibility of compromise is negated by the nature of the position behind the political action.

<i> I watched a pretty cool show on either TLC or the Discovery

<i>"I watched a pretty cool show on either TLC or the Discovery

Vlad,

If it's any consolation, I would never have remembered that was you. Damn, that thread even had a Thane Peterson reference. We haven't had a Thane Peterson reference in a while. Some day that guy's going to do a google search for his name and he's going to wonder what the hell we were talking about.

They think that the pet stores are immoral because of the way they operate, so they take the extreme position of opposing pet ownership because they feel it's the only way of stopping the abuses at pet stores.

Ah, but I think that position is related to their conception of animals as rights-bearing subjects akin with pets. If we attempted to place some class or gender of humans in the social role that pets currently occupy, that would be appalling, no? Ergo, pet ownership is appalling (tabling for the moment the devious subversion of our dominance by the felines). PETCO may be among the worst of the bunch, perhaps, but if animals are rights-bearers akin to humans, the whole practice is barbaric, especially when you consider that animals are incapable of giving legal consent.

(Now, it would be a different thing altogether if PETA were arguing for animal rights, but of a fundamentally different nature and scope of those accorded to humans. If this were the case, a certain set of rules regarding pet 'stewardship' would become legal or at least moral imperatives, but the practice could possibly still be salvaged. But, I've always understood the PETA concept of animal rights as placing them in the same category of humans, which, IMHO, is a mistake on philosophical grounds as well as practical ones.)

I think where PETA becomes a bit inconsistent is on the question of whether they wish to apply rights in the absolutist sense, regardless of outcomes or consequences, or whether they are, with Bentham, utilitarians who think animals pain/pleasure should count in our calculus. They rhetorically gesture toward both these positions, which would have wildly different consequences in practical terms. They seem to favor the first position, but don't seem to demonstrate an understanding that it's a profoundly anti-consequentialist position.

<i> but I can definitely picture cats deciding en masse that they no longer wished to be domesticated, and purposefully marching out the door.

<i> but I can definitely picture cats deciding en masse that they no longer wished to be domesticated, and purposefully marching out the door.

Not sure how or why that post just happened again. Don't worry, my cats will punish me for this error.

Dave, fair point. The concept of bargaining positions is crucial to both insider and outsider/activist politics, and PETA may serve that function in some cases. But, if that is their real goal, I think they could do a much better job. Plus, they lose some of that moral consistency.

I'm of the opinion that cats are, in general, capable of doing whatever they damn well please. Of course, when I was little, my family had one that could answer the phone and open doors by turning the doorknob, so I may be biased.

I hate PETA.

They sully the name of the animal welfare/rights/whatever movement by their presence. I actually agree with them on some issues.

I think humans really should tread more lightly than they do, and that's why I generally get pissed off at the wasteful lives some people lead...but that doesn't make humanity itself a cancer. It's sort of like saying that because the USA has committed unconstitutional acts, the Constitution doesn't work and we should get rid of it. Of course not!

Same with animal testing. I feel it's usually unnecessary. No one begrudges testing the AIDS vaccine on a cat or whatever. It's shoving shampoo down a dog's throat until it dies that annoys me. No one would really disagree with that and many rational people would want to limit animal testing. But with PETA around, it droves away many supporters (including me).

Flynn--I broadly agree with your assessment of PETA but I don't understand why you (and many many others) get so upset about the human-beings-as-cancer statement. (I'm as appalled as anyone about the broiler chicken/holocaust comment, by the way).

While the statement has a normative connotation, pretend it didn't for a minute. Think about what cancer is--a cell that mutates and starts growing and multiplying really fast and changing size and shape and becoming potentially dangerous (but not necessarily fatal) to the body it is part of. That seems like a pretty good analogy for what our species has done for the last 200 years or so--doesn't it?

Several have responded to this comment with some sort of intimation that it ought to imply a mass suicide for those who believe it. They certainly don't explain the how a comment on a general trend for the species leads to a moral imperative for an individual. This step seems far from obvious to me. My death would not make the species general trend any different, and besides, I'm not responsible for it. Moreover, immediate death is rarely what is called for from those who commit moral wrongs (IMHO, it is never called for). First and foremost, what is called for is doing better in the future.

Humans consume roughly 40% of all energy used by organic matter on the planet now. Such a hegemony by one species is almost entirely unheard of. Now, I place my fellow human's well being above animals and nature in general, so have no reason to accept a misanthropic "solution" to the problem posed by the statement. Through neglect for the rest of nature as well as future generations of humans, we could easily live up to the worst connotations of the statement. Or, we could be a better hegemon--one that respects other forms of life when possible and takes sustainability and the needs of future generations into account in our decision-making. The statement warns us about the former possibility,

God, I wish spring training would start.

Nitpicking here -

"A swift and sure application of the death penalty for certain capital crimes should be the law of the land, but the utmost protections should be in place to prevent erroneous or inequitable convictions (including the severest sanctions to those prosecuters who ignore this tenet)."

OK - which do you want swift application or utmost procections?

OK - which do you want swift application or utmost procections?

I vote for utmost protections and no application.

Anyone see that show Maximum Exposure the other day? Here is a link.

I don't think its necessarily hypocritical to support one and condemn the other, Tony. I do think its hypocritical to call yourself pro-life and also support the death penalty. Anti-abortion maybe, but not pro-life. However, insomuch as pro-life is really more of a term of art now, relating specifically to the abortion issue, its more of a pet peeve than anything.

That's too bad. The organization held a perfectly consistent, rational, pro-life position. I've always felt it was hypocritical to support one and condemn the other, but alas, 90% of politicians (at least) in this country do exactly that (both ways)...

Some people believe that a convicted murderer is a person and a fetus is not. Others believe that a murderer has done something to lose his right to life while a fetus has not. Is that really hypocritical?

"Posted 9:52 p.m., January 27, 2003 (#188) - McCoy

Social Security and Medicare payments = Involuntary

IRA and 401K contributions = Voluntary

Apples, meet Oranges. Now, I'm in favor of just about any tax, since I don't mind paying them (or rather, I like to think that the benefit to society outweighs my burden). But if the government is telling me to give it money, and if I don't have a choice in the matter, I'm going to call it a tax.

you make a dollar a year, you should pay at least a penny.

Yeah, that's a great idea, in theory. For some reason, though, I don't think it makes much sense to pay someone at the IRS $50K/yr to make sure that we've collected that extra couple hundred bucks.

Now, I'm in favor of just about any tax, since I don't mind paying them (or rather, I like to think that the benefit to society outweighs my burden)

Either you have an incredible amount of faith in your elected officials, or you spend a lot of time convincing yourself that your tax money is being well spent. I'm truly stunned by your comment.

Well, Robert, prepare to be stunned, because there is an entire party that more or less agrees with me. I do think my tax dollars are being well spent. I like the fact that I have roads on which to drive my car, and that if my apartment catches on fire, there is someone I can call to put it out. And yes, even as a liberal, I like the fact that we have an army to protect us from threats from abroad. I don't think the level at which I'm currently taxed acts as a disincentive to earn money.

Now, I'm in favor of just about any tax, since I don't mind paying them (or rather, I like to think that the benefit to society outweighs my burden)

Perhaps I could have phrased this better, but the point is, I don't feel overtaxed. Is there government waste? Of course. The solution, in my mind, isn't to give less, but rather to eliminate what I think is wasteful spending. That's why I vote. So far that process has worked OK for the last couple hundred years.

Perhaps I could have phrased this better, but the point is, I don't feel overtaxed. Is there government waste? Of course. The solution, in my mind, isn't to give less, but rather to eliminate what I think is wasteful spending. That's why I vote. So far that process has worked OK for the last couple hundred years.

Alright, that's the response I was hoping for. I wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph. I do feel tremendously overtaxed, however. It is not unreasonable to work towards lowering the tax burden while maintaining a high level of service from government agencies. Unfortunately, I haven't heard too many politicians who seem to want to work towards that goal.

Yes, but if you paid no tax, as more and more of us don't, would you care as much or at all about government waste?

Sure. I would want to continue to benefit from government programs, regardless of whether, or how much, I contributed to them. It's still my country. Regardless of whether the resources came from me, it still behooves me to be active in making sure their allocated wisely. But as I've said before, I'm not a big fan of the "my tax dollars" argument.

As for payroll taxes, I'd consider them taxes due to the uncertainty surrounding the future of Social Security, and the fact that you have to live to a certain age just to get any of them back.

Do you have a choice about paying them? They're taxes.

But as I've said before, I'm not a big fan of the "my tax dollars" argument.

Actually your argument is only semantics. You're pretty much saying the same thing everyone else does, but instead of saying "I don't like how they spend my tax dollars, I won't vote for that prick again" you said "If I don't like the way the people in office are spending that [tax] money, I can vote against them. " What's the difference?

What's the difference?

I'll break my self-imposed exile to respond.

You're right. It is semantics. The general point is, stop whining and do something about it. I don't care for the sense of entitlement that people get just because they pay taxes. Most of the time I hear that argument made, its all bark and no bite.

Hopefully this won't be posted twice.

The general point is, stop whining and do something about it.

Well said.

FYI--Ross is basically right. The correlation between paid in and money received, when you look at big aggregate numbers, is not statistically insignificant, but it is very small. I wish I knew where I could access these numbers quickly to show all of you.

Another quick note on social security: the notion that the fund is in trouble is a dirty lie. Currently, with no assistance or changes whatsoever, social security projects to be solvent for 35-40 years. At that point, minor changes may be necessary to keep it going. Those who claim SS is in financial trouble seem to be assuming that the money borrowed from the account will never be paid back. It's bizarre that people would assume the federal government is a deadbeat (although when politicians breezily make that assumption it moves from bizarre to surreal). Last time I checked, bonds were not exactly considered high risk.

Ducksnort--did you look at the NYT chart? Your strange classifications aside, taxes appear to be somewhat flat in this country (I have no idea if IEC is taken into account in that chart, btw--it may be, it may not). Progressive taxes, like federal income, balance out regressive taxes, which are all over. (Here in Washington, for example, poor people pay about 16% of their income in state taxes, the rich pay an average of 4%). If you want to argue that total tax burdens should be completely flat as a percent of income, I suppose I can understand that position. But please, don't say taxes are being paid by fewer and fewer people.

Also, a subtext of your comments on taxes seems to be that the rich are paying taxes that benefit the poor. That is sometimes the case, of course, but it should not be taken as the norm. For example, property taxes, which the rich pay more of, also generally fund local schools, which is of significant benefit to the middle class and above since their kids get much better educations. There are tons of other examples of this sort of thing.

Did I mention I can't wait for spring training?

Look, if you deposit money in a bank and you die, you don't get the money either. That doesn't mean how much you deposit has nothing to do with how much you take out. Same thing for Social Security.

I'm sorry, but this is really a horrendous analogy. There is a huge difference between your scenarios, specifically, the part where you say "if you deposit money in a bank account." That action is completely voluntary. So is contribution into a 401K (at least at the individual level, as oppposed to a firm contribution). I never have to give that money up if I don't want to. How is that even remotely analogous to Social Security?

All but two states in the country have a sales tax

Actully, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon do not currently collect a sales tax.

Yeah, baby. First try! Close those italics, Ross.

Ducksnort, two examples are not representative of the entire population. It doesn't take into account factors like when you retire (postponing retirement from 65 to 70 can almost double your monthly benefit. Also, amounts paid per month, to people the same age, are not the same as "big, aggregate amounts". You're assuming that person A and person B will die on the same day. How long you live past retirement is a much much much more important factor than how much you put in, when calculating how much aggregate money you receive.

If you die it is possible for members of your family to recieve benefits through Social Security. The money doesn't simly vanish.

. I was merely pointing out that the fact that you get nothing if you die doesn't really differentiate the money you have paid into social security from any other money you have earned in your life.

Well, your estate gets the money from bank accounts or 401(k) plans, so they're really not the same as social security. You don't get the money you paid into social security; as Ross said, benefits are calculated based on legislation, not "what you put in". You don't have a social security account, you have "estimated benefits" which may or may not exist in 30 years. It's a tax.

A lot of people say SS won't be around in 20 or 30 years but what I want to know is who is actually going to vote Social Security out of existance? Do you think some congressman is going to alienate such a large chunk of voters? Are the people who are recieving SS or about to going to vote it out? Americans are getting older and living longer everyday so I ask again who is going to pull the plug on Social Security? Does it really matter if the money is there or not? Afterall does our Government (or us citizens for that matter) really have a problem borrowing from the future? Social Security is going to keep rolling on becuase nobody is going to want to make the sacrifice.

I can conjure up theoretical arguments in support of capital punishment, but readily admit that I was actually relieved by the recent commutations by the governor of Illinois.

I am very impressed with Ryan. He commuted these sentences right before he left office so he wouldn't have to deal with opposition outrage. Very "courageous." :-)

Brett,

Just like Presidential pardons

The commutation of a prisoner's sentence is much more serious than a presidential pardon, don't you think?

Not that I disagree with you that it's very cowardly to pardon someone and then leave office.

Letting someone completely out of prison, or shielding them from prosecution isn't as bad as changing someone's sentence from death to life in prison? Are you being serious, John? Ryan didn't let those guys out (except for the four guys who were proven innocent by DNA evidence). They're still locked up. And quite frankly, this isn't something that Ryan just decided to do on a whim at the last minute. He put a moratorium on the death penalty in this state quite a while ago, when he was still planning to seek a second term, and that was courageous.

I'm no Ryan supporter, but I was behind that decision 100%. I have a lot more faith in the motives of a Governor who commutes (not pardons, or grants clemency) the sentences of men who may have been forced into confessions, and who does it rather publicly, than I do in a President who pardons a couple of cronies so that they'll never have to answer questions about a weapons deal, especially when their answers could have been very sticky for that President.

Letting someone completely out of prison, or shielding them from prosecution isn't as bad as changing someone's sentence from death to life in prison?

I'm not articulating my position perfectly, I guess. You're misinterpreting my comments. I was speaking from the prisoner's viewpoint in post #253, not the executive's (president or governor). Sorry for not being clearer.

I think Ryan should have commuted the sentences of the prisoners earlier, instead of slipping off into the night as he did. That is my only argument with him (I'll leave my views on the death penalty to myself). I don't think Ryan came to this decision the night before his declaration. He didn't want to face the firestorm of protest.

Heaven knows I don't agree with RossCW on anything baseball related, since his argument style seems to be "If baseball people think it, don't try to tell me differently. I don't care about evidence."

But he's absolutely right on social security, and Ducksnort et al. are wrong. Social Security is a transfer program, not an investment program. When you put money in a bank, 401K, or IRA, it's your account, it's your money.

Social Security is not. You have no account. You have no vested interest in any of the money. While the government generally gives you more than someone who paid less in SS taxes over the course of his life, there's no requirement they do so. The money you get bears no direct relationship to the money you put in. They don't invest the money and then give you back the proceeds; what you get is related to the political clout of seniors' groups.

And his argument about dying is basically correct. You die before you withdraw your money from the bank or 401k, and it becomes an asset of your estate. You die before you collect SS, and that money isn't yours. Now, your survivors may get some payments, but that again is a political choice, not a property interest.

SS is a ponzi scheme which would be illegal if it were done by a private company. The payments of new particpants are used to pay older members.

.

Chris: You're thinking of rowinmv

DavidN: Ooh, now you've done it. You've ad hominemed Ross. Prepare to be remonstrated.

Social Security was originally intended, as I understand it, as a national pension plan/relief of last resort. It has grown like topsy and gone through so many changes and had so many bells and whistles added to it, that you can hardly recognize or categorize it, without some exception to an exception thrown in as a qualifier. Think of it as a platypus -- extremely ungainly and equally protected from attack as an endangered species (assuming Australia protects its endangered species).

The problem with trying to reform it, is that it is going to take time, and by the time the reform idea percolates out, something happens to knock the stuffing out. The last big idea, during the Great Tech Stock Exuberance, was we should all go into the stock market. The Great Tech Stock Market Correcton has burned a lot of people, and it will be thrown into the face of anyone who suggests such a thing for the next few years.

I am approaching 50, I have been paying into this Ponzi scheme for 25 years or so. Given the manner in which I have lived, I am pretty sure that the fund will still be there when I exit.

Feel free to abolish it after that.

SS is a ponzi scheme which would be illegal if it were done by a private company.

Umm, about 60% of what government does would be illegal if done by a private company. Owning nuclear wepeaons, imprisoning people, collecting taxes, etc.

<i>Posted 5:09 p.m., January 28, 2003 (#258) - Chris J. / clespider99

So, how 'bout that "Petco Park" name?

fracas, what the hell are you talking about? This is the PETA/Social Security discussion board, right?

I have a problem with Ryan's commutation of sentences. First things first, I'm oppossed to the death penalty.

He's been asked on several occasions why each case wasn't reviewed on an individual basis, rather than commuting them en masse. He is yet to provide a sufficient answer. Ryan even commuted the sentences of several inmates that didn't even petition for this.

While his decision agrees with my personal convictions, I can't say I'd feel the same if it was my wife that was brutally raped and murdered, or innocently shot in a bar while by an insane man screaming, "I'm a natural born killer."

I have a problem with Ryan's commutation of sentences. First things first, I'm oppossed to the death penalty.

He's been asked on several occasions why each case wasn't reviewed on an individual basis, rather than commuting them en masse. He is yet to provide a sufficient answer. Ryan even commuted the sentences of several inmates that didn't even petition for this.

BL--let me try. Ryan uncovered evidence that prosecutors were, for whatever reason, getting scads of innocent people convicted of capital crimes. Because evidence was found to exonerate several of them does not mean it will be immediately forthcoming if someone looks for it in other, potentially innocent cases.

Here's another tack: Ryan found evidence that in addition to that little executing innocent people "problem," Illinois was unable to administer the death penalty fairly (I won't repeat the data on this, regarding rates at which blacks get the death penalty for the same crimes over whites). Until they can figure out a way to fix this problem, allowing the death penalty to exist is some combination of the following: unfair, unethical, unconstitional.

While his decision agrees with my personal convictions, I can't say I'd feel the same if it was my wife that was brutally raped and murdered, or innocently shot in a bar while by an insane man screaming, "I'm a natural born killer."

For all I know, my opposition to the death penalty might waver as well under those circumstances. But I'd rather have a government that reflects on my reasoned, thought-out opinions, rather than a moment when grief, rage, and revenge overcome my capacity for rational thought. If I had done everything I had thought about doing in my angriest and saddest moments, my life (and the world) would be much worse for it.

Spring training? When does it start again?

"Are we really a nation of such neanderthals that this kind of pattern has to be the rule? Why?"

I'm not sure it's true, but if it is, it is depressing. The death penalty and the War on Drugs appear to share this characteristic of being topics upon which politicians dare not even engage in debate.

It's weird. It's safe for politicians to take either side on the abortion question -- even though that's obviously a complex, sensitive, and emotional issue, as a nation we recongize that it's reasonable to debate it. But have a politician come out and say he/she is opposed to the death penalty, or for the legalization of drugs -- hell, even just marijuana -- and they commit political suicide. What's up with that?

<i> "Are we really a nation of such neanderthals that this kind of pattern has to be the rule? Why?"

Jimbo et al,