Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 17 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›
   1601. McCoy Posted: April 09, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4408564)
I believe your forecast is 100% wrong. The US had high tariffs all throughout our period of most rapid growth (Civil War through WWI). We attracted capital and labor like crazy, and had rapid income growth across the whole wage spectrum.

The US had a high period of growth becuase it was the era of the Industrial Revolution, huge amounts of foreign capital flooded in, and our goods were cheaper in foreign markets than the local counterparts. None of those things would be true nowadays if we enacted huge protective tariffs. Our economy grew during the gilded age in spite of the tariffs not because of them.

Europe wouldn't buy our goods because Europe would get their goods from China.

Also bilateral free trade pacts would mean foreign car companies could pull the jobs they were forced to bring here back out of the country.
   1602. The Good Face Posted: April 09, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4408565)
And Gore wasn't just slammed becuase he wasted a lot of fossil fuel via air travel. He basically did virtually zero conservation of energy and sacrificed almost nothing while preaching to the world that we need to start conserving and sacrificing.


Mmm. To me, the hypocrisy issue relates to how accepted the premise is. If I go around telling people it's a terrible idea to smoke and they should never, ever do it, and then I get caught smoking, people will view me as a hypocrite, but they'll also probably still buy into my original premise. Turns out that smoking really IS a pretty bad idea.

If I run around telling people that they need to lower their carbon footprint or OMG teh ends of teh world!, and then it comes to light that I have a massive carbon footprint and have done little to reduce it, people will start to doubt the validity of my premise because of my hypocrisy.
   1603. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4408571)
Your vision would destroy America economically and create rampant corruption.


In other words, 2013.
   1604. zonk Posted: April 09, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4408580)
Other than as a handout why would anyone want to use unionized labor in America?

Because you know they're being paid a fair wage and given benefits?


I suppose it depends on the field -- but at least in the building trades, non-union contractors have higher jobsite injury rates than union contractors... I know that sounds like an employee benefit - but if you're dealing with a large commercial development, time is money -- and some jobsite injuries mean lost days as OSHA or local oversight boards aren't shy about shutting down sites.

I'm quite sure comparisons I've seen behind cost overruns and quality of work in building trades are studies commissioned by unions - but at least anecdotally, when I was working out of a Local Union hall over summers -- I spent all of one summer on a big shopping center where the original mechanical contractor had been non-union, but had been horrifically behind schedule and also had a structural collapse that made the local news... the restart was done with a union contractor.

I'm YMMV depending on location and industry -- but at least in the building trades where the unions have a significant presence -- the best pipefitters, electricians, plumbers, masons, et al tend to be with the local for the simple reason that unless you're starting your own shop, you're simply better off getting with the union benefits and pay scale. Even if you're looking to start your own shop -- most of the 'union contractor' shops were actually started by experienced journeymen who at least at one time, were card-carrying tradesmen.

In effect, the unionized shops are still private businesses -- they just contract with the local to provide the labor pool (in effect, the contractor wins a bid -- he puts in a call to the Locals and gets the people for the duration of the job... once completed, the contractor might plug some of those people into other jobs, or, they get released back into the pool).
   1605. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: April 09, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4408604)
I've got no issue with unions as long as, like other parties, they do business on the basis of freely agreed contracts between consenting parties. So I'm against right-to-work laws -- if a business wants to make a specific provider its exclusive source of employee services, that's none of my business. But I'm also against laws that allow unions (or any kind of business) exclusivity or things like forced arbitration for the same reason. Again, if Domino's Pizza wants to have no part of International Pizza Workers, it's none of my business if they seek instead to negotiate with Brotherhood of Pizzamania or individuals that have chosen to market their services outside the structure of pizza employment services.
   1606. spike Posted: April 09, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4408609)
Society rightly ridicules the Newt Gingriches and Mark Sanfords of the world

I realize that while you and I consider re-election to congress after committing adultery on the taxpayers nickel a form of ridicule, it will be lost on most.
   1607. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: April 09, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4408610)
Europe wouldn't buy our goods because Europe would get their goods from China.

Also bilateral free trade pacts would mean foreign car companies could pull the jobs they were forced to bring here back out of the country.


Most trade protectionists have this belief that they can essentially legislate making other countries pay us tribute.

There's nothing special or magical about the United States. We have a fairly open economic system, but there's no divine law that states that we get to have the most, and best, stuff. Fact is, a lot of our wealth is due to some historical accidents of the last century, not some contest of merit in which American ingenuity came out on top or something. The world becomes more global every day and as time goes on, nation-states will have less de facto "ownership" of their citizens.
   1608. zonk Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4408623)
There's nothing special or magical about the United States. We have a fairly open economic system, but there's no divine law that states that we get to have the most, and best, stuff. Fact is, a lot of our wealth is due to some historical accidents of the last century, not some contest of merit in which American ingenuity came out on top or something. The world becomes more global every day and as time goes on, nation-states will have less de facto "ownership" of their citizens.


I hate to sound like a radical, but the real concern to me is a lot less the fall of the 'nation' than it is the rise of the corporation... for all its faults, I'll still take a nation-state over a corporation 'owning'me.
   1609. zenbitz Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4408627)
Unskilled and low-skilled jobs are increasingly disappearing


I thought I already demonstrated that this is untrue - at least w.r.t to "skills you learn in college" for the vast majority of white-collar professions. I guess making powerpoint slides and ordering office supplies off the internet are technically "skills".

I am a big fan of redistributing wealth from the rich to those who need it, but I don't think that amounts to a hill of beans when it comes to the actual global economy. And it's the global economy in the tank that is driving unemployment. Not the low cost of iPhones.
   1610. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4408635)
for all its faults, I'll still take a nation-state over a corporation 'owning'me.


+1
   1611. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4408636)
Mmm. To me, the hypocrisy issue relates to how accepted the premise is. If I go around telling people it's a terrible idea to smoke and they should never, ever do it, and then I get caught smoking, people will view me as a hypocrite, but they'll also probably still buy into my original premise. Turns out that smoking really IS a pretty bad idea.

If I run around telling people that they need to lower their carbon footprint or OMG teh ends of teh world!, and then it comes to light that I have a massive carbon footprint and have done little to reduce it, people will start to doubt the validity of my premise because of my hypocrisy.


Gore is to be commended. He played the climate change chicken littles for the fools that they are and separated them from their money. Via his film; via his various business interests; etc. That is praiseworthy.
   1612. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4408646)
There's nothing special or magical about the United States. We have a fairly open economic system, but there's no divine law that states that we get to have the most, and best, stuff. Fact is, a lot of our wealth is due to some historical accidents of the last century, not some contest of merit in which American ingenuity came out on top or something.

I'd make one exception to that, in that we were the only nation to encourage large scale immigration, which meant that we were gradually forced to become not quite as inbred in our thinking as other countries. During much of that period we were like the late 20th century Major Leagues competing against the Jim Crow Majors, with side skirmishes against the Negro Leagues, the Japanese Leagues and the Caribbean Leagues of the pre-modern era. Collectively their skills may have topped ours, but since they were so often fighting among themselves we had the built-in upper hand.

And just to make it personal in a non-snarky way, how many people posting here have American born ancestors on both sides of their family tree that go back before 1848?
   1613. The Good Face Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4408652)
Gore is to be commended. He played the climate change chicken littles for the fools that they are and separated them from their money. Via his film; via his various companies; etc. That is praiseworthy.


Yeah, he's basically a Televangelist for the SWPL crowd. It's a pity the irony is lost on the folks who can't believe anybody would be stupid enough to give money to the Jimmy Swaggerts and Oral Roberts of the world. There's something beautiful about a good con. Which reminds me, has anybody clicked on that "Lose 20 lbs in 4 Weeks?" ad that's constantly on this site?
   1614. Mefisto Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:29 PM (#4408653)
And just to make it personal in a non-snarky way, how many people posting here have American born ancestors on both sides of their family tree that go back before 1848?


Raises hand.
   1615. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4408655)
Which reminds me, has anybody clicked on that "Lose 20 lbs in 4 Weeks?" ad that's constantly on this site?


Not me, I'm too busy working from home and making $7,397 a month!
   1616. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4408656)
has anybody clicked on that "Lose 20 lbs in 4 Weeks?" ad that's constantly on this site?


No, but the one on B-R with those cougs with big jugs has tempted me.....
   1617. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4408661)
And just to make it personal in a non-snarky way, how many people posting here have American born ancestors on both sides of their family tree that go back before 1848?


My direct patrilineal ancestor came to Nova Scotia in 1765 from Ireland, and the first on my mother's patrilineal side was in North America by 1850 at the latest (haven't gone back farther than that).
   1618. zonk Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4408664)
Gore is to be commended. He played the climate change chicken littles for the fools that they are and separated them from their money. Via his film; via his various business interests; etc. That is praiseworthy.


My impression is that most of Gore's "business interests" simply haven't done all that well... Al Gore is rich - and remains rich - because Al Gore's family was extraordinarily wealthy and thus, when he became an adult - he was entered in the 'family business' of being extraordinarily wealthy. No different than plenty of other patrician families -- the Bushes, the Kennedys, etc...

I mean - if you trace back the family trees, it seems to me that you see very few 'praiseworthy' (in the real or dubiously cynical sense) businessmen/entrepreneurs after that first successful generation centuries past... you see little more than the tried and true idea that if you're born very rich -- it's awfully, awfully, awfully hard to die poor no matter how stupid you are.
   1619. zonk Posted: April 09, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4408671)
And just to make it personal in a non-snarky way, how many people posting here have American born ancestors on both sides of their family tree that go back before 1848?



My direct patrilineal ancestor came to Nova Scotia in 1765 from Ireland, and the first on my mother's patrilineal side was in North America by 1850 at the latest (haven't gone back farther than that).


On my mom's side -- grandparents were the first generation born in the US (1915 and 1925). On my dad's great-grandparents (1890s). Mom's side both emigrated from Poland... Dad's from Poland and Russia.
   1620. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4408691)
My impression is that most of Gore's "business interests" simply haven't done all that well... Al Gore is rich - and remains rich - because Al Gore's family was extraordinarily wealthy and thus, when he became an adult - he was entered in the 'family business' of being extraordinarily wealthy. No different than plenty of other patrician families -- the Bushes, the Kennedys, etc...

I mean - if you trace back the family trees, it seems to me that you see very few 'praiseworthy' (in the real or dubiously cynical sense) businessmen/entrepreneurs after that first successful generation centuries past... you see little more than the tried and true idea that if you're born very rich -- it's awfully, awfully, awfully hard to die poor no matter how stupid you are
.


What is the point of a BS answer like this? Forbes and Money Magazine have both commented on Gore's net worth. He has earned plenty from his various business interests. Should I listen to Forbes/Money who have looked at the issue, or to some random liberal chicken little on BBTF? Because here is what Money/Forbes have said:

A lot has changed for former Vice President Al Gore, who left the White House with a reported $1.9 million net worth.

With an estimated $100 million gross profit from the sale of his Current TV to pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera [Note that the $100 million is pure profit to Gore as he owned 20% of the network and it sold for $500 million - RDP], Gore is now worth more than $300 million, according to an estimate from Forbes.com.

That puts his net worth well ahead of that of former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has an estimated fortune of $230 million and was often mocked for being out of touch with ordinary Americans during the election.

Gore's wealth accumulation began soon after he left the White House in 2001. Apple (AAPL) tapped him in 2003 to serve on its board, and the former vice president held more than 100,000 shares and options in the tech company as of Dec. 17, according to a regulatory filing. That makes Gore's stake worth more than $56 million, based on Apple's recent trading price.

Google hired Gore to serve as a senior adviser on environmental issues in 2001, a role he held for three years....

Gore also has his hand in a global investment company called Generation Investment Management, which he founded in 2004 with ex-Goldman Sachs (GS +1.86%) executive David Blood. Together, Blood and Gore have reportedly built a company with assets under management of more than $6 billion.

...Take a look at former President Bill Clinton, who since leaving the White House has built a net worth of about $38 million, helped by income as an author and public speaker. He's able to command speaking fees of more than $700,000, although more typically he is paid in the $500,000 range for his public events, reports CNN.com.

Still, Gore's new wealth may strike some people as being at odds with his image as an environmental do-gooder.

Conservative television host Bill O'Reilly condemned Gore as a hypocrite, citing a report that he wanted to sell Current TV to Al-Jazeera before higher taxes kicked in on Jan. 1.

Other people have pointed out that Current's sale to Al-Jazeera, which is backed by Qatar, "reeks of irony," given Qatar's oil-based economy, which might not jibe with Gore's environmental message from "An Inconvenient Truth."

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=8c2e441c-d512-4c88-8d16-d17d5d27c012


And note that the $270-300 million in net worth Gore has accumulated since leaving the White House is not the norm for former vice presidents - or even presidents. Yes they'll earn fees on the lecture circuit, but compare Gore's net worth to that of Clinton who, as noted above, has earned an estimated $38 million since leaving the WH.
   1621. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4408694)
Society rightly ridicules the Newt Gingriches and Mark Sanfords of the world



John Edwards is basically a social leper (and rightly so), Gingrich *should* be, but for some reason or another is not

Sanford's not even in their ball park, he's just a garden variety adulterer... his behavior was really only noticed for disapearing and "hiking the Appalachians" while governor

Edwards' and Gingrich's behavior was just really super scuzzy, Sanford's just a typical flawed male, those two are complete and utter scumbags
   1622. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4408700)
John Edwards is basically a social leper (and rightly so),


Most of us could see this before the Rielle Hunter thing exploded, could see that Edwards was nothing more than a two-faced charlatan. Not liberals, though; liberals couldn't see this, god bless 'em.

Sure, liberals were quick to cut him loose after he became damaged goods, and now they act all "Yo, good riddance, he is a social leper" -- but they simply didn't see before the Hunter thing came crashing down on him that there was no moral fiber to the man.

Either that, or they pretended not to.

For starters, you cannot lecture other people about Two Americas while living in a mansion and expect to be taken seriously by serious people. His signature schtick was a fraud.

If memory serves from reading Andrew Young's book -- it's been a few years -- sadly, Elizabeth Edwards went along with him even though she knew of the affair - because she too was obsessed with making it to the White House.
   1623. McCoy Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:26 PM (#4408702)
Not liberals, though; liberals couldn't see this, god bless 'em.

Um, did Edwards ever win the presidential nomination?
   1624. spike Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:30 PM (#4408707)
Sanford's just a typical flawed male

Perhaps, but at least the other two didn't include malfeasance of office like Sanford did. Repeated trips to Argentina on the taxpayer nickel, as well as lying about his whereabouts and activities while on the public payroll. His impending restoration to office gives the lie to the idea of "values voters".
   1625. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4408709)
Most trade protectionists have this belief that they can essentially legislate making other countries pay us tribute.

There's nothing special or magical about the United States. We have a fairly open economic system, but there's no divine law that states that we get to have the most, and best, stuff. Fact is, a lot of our wealth is due to some historical accidents of the last century, not some contest of merit in which American ingenuity came out on top or something. The world becomes more global every day and as time goes on, nation-states will have less de facto "ownership" of their citizens.


We provide a security umbrella for most of the world; damn right they should pay us tribute. Hell, we should levy a tax on every good that crosses the ocean. They only do so safely because of the US Navy.

And just because there is no divine law doesn't mean the job of the U.S. Government isn't to make sure we have the most and the best stuff.

There is zero reason globalization has to undermine the influence of the nation state. It's simply a policy choice to let it happen.

Just like there is zero reason half our manufacturing jobs had to move to China. Again, simply a policy choice that cheap smart phones and big screen TVs for the white collar class was more important than decent jobs for the blue collar class.
   1626. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4408716)
Sanford's just a typical flawed male, those two are complete and utter scumbags

Every man who cheats on his wife (and wife that cheats on her husband) is some kind of scumbag. If you want out, divorce is easy in the good ole USA.
   1627. McCoy Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4408721)
We provide a security umbrella for most of the world; damn right they should pay us tribute.

I didn't realize that US supremacy was optional for other countries.

Who are we protecting and from what exactly?

Your blue collar class wanted cheap sneakers, big screen TVs, vacation homes, a second car, and so on which is why cheap manufacturing moved out of the country. The masses wanted cheaper goods.
   1628. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:40 PM (#4408724)
Every man who cheats on their wife (and wife that cheats on her husband) is some kind of scumbag. If you want out, divorce is easy in the good ole USA.


I basically agree, but it's not quite so simple.

It is not natural for a man to go decades sleeping with the same woman. People pretend that it is, both on a societal level and on an individual one, but the issue is responsible for a great many unhappy marriages and/or divorces. Yet, nobody really wants to have an honest discussion about it.
   1629. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:42 PM (#4408730)
Since 99% of our work around the house is done by me or my wife, what you must mean by that is that I don't play Sheriff Arpaio and demand to see the papers of people I've hired to cut down trees, nor do I judge their citizenship by their accents. But I can pretty much guarantee you that the highest estimates I got for tree removal were from companies that were no more unionized than McDonald's or Wal-Mart. For work like that, the question of union labor is a moot point.

This is funny, Andy. I guess, in your world, the only explanation for the companies quoting higher prices was greed rather than illegal-immigrant labor.

You fit right in with Gore and Edwards. You talk a big game but then look out for No. 1 as soon as your "principles" might cost a little money or convenience.
   1630. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4408731)
Most of us could see this before the Rielle Hunter thing exploded, could see that Edwards was nothing more than a two-faced charlatan. Not liberals, though; liberals couldn't see this, god bless 'em.


Not true. A lot of liberals/Democrats objected to him being chosen to run with Gore. Lawrence O'Donnell for one, who is pretty well-connected, made a ruckus about it. I thought Edwards performance on the Larry King show with Cheney was particularly sad. Several issues were tee'd up for him to hit right out of the park while nailing Cheney to the wall and he just flubbed them.
   1631. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:44 PM (#4408734)
I thought Edwards performance on the Larry King show with Cheney was particularly sad. Several issues were tee'd up for him to hit right out of the park while nailing Cheney to the wall and he just flubbed them.


Flubbed them? That's an understatement. Cheney wiped the turf with him.
   1632. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:47 PM (#4408736)
He played the climate change chicken littles for the fools that they are


I'm assuming, by using the chicken little analogy, that you don't believe the climate is changing, Ray?
   1633. zonk Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4408737)

Most of us could see this before the Rielle Hunter thing exploded, could see that Edwards was nothing more than a two-faced charlatan. Not liberals, though; liberals couldn't see this, god bless 'em.

Sure, liberals were quick to cut him loose after he became damaged goods, and now they act all "Yo, good riddance, he is a social leper" -- but they simply didn't see before the Hunter thing came crashing down on him that there was no moral fiber to the man.

Either that, or they pretended not to.

For starters, you cannot lecture other people about Two Americas while living in a mansion and expect to be taken seriously by serious people. His signature schtick was a fraud.

If memory serves from reading Andrew Young's book -- it's been a few years -- sadly, Elizabeth Edwards went along with him even though she knew of the affair - because she too was obsessed with making it to the White House.


This is revisionist history...

Having been deeply mired in the primary wars, I can tell you that virtually ALL of the arguments while all three were in the race came down to platforms.... sure, sure - there were seeds of the Hillaristas, there were star struck Obamabots, and yes - there were also Edwardsphiles in love with the aww shucks drawl....

But most of the arguments centered around two basic things: 1) their comparative platforms, and 2)their ability/trustworthiness to actually implement the platforms.

There very much WERE differences - with specifics - on most of the platform line items. On health care, for example -- there wasn't a lot of daylight between Hillary and Obama (the big difference is that Hillary's plan included a mandate... Obama's did not), but Edwards most definitely staked out a left-side position (his health care plan was essentially HillaryCare rewritten).

No one doubted that Edwards presented the most "liberal" (defining "liberal" as the classic New Dealer liberal) platform... but there were plenty of arguments over whether Edwards was truly invested in his own platform. The arguments often centered NOT around whether Edwards was smarmy or trustworthy -- but based on his Senate voting record, which WAS very blue doggish. The one thing Edwards did have over Obama/Clinton was that his stable of policy wonks were more of the true believers. Ultimately - the people that stuck with Edwards did so because even if they didn't trust Edwards to carry out his plan, it's a pretty good and safe assumption to believe that the people surrounding a candidate and crafting policy proposals and platforms are going to be the people that end up serving in the cabinet and act as advisers... Thus - regardless of how unreliable and untrustworthy Edwards himself was/is - it really didn't matter because it was going to be people like David Bonior or Krugman who would be calling the policy shots.

Edwards was a vehicle to most of those who supported him, not a savior... His job was to win the election, then use his pretty boy face and charm to sell the policies that people like Bonior, Krugman, Robert Reich, et al would be crafting.
   1634. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4408739)
Most of us could see this before the Rielle Hunter thing exploded, could see that Edwards was nothing more than a two-faced charlatan. Not liberals, though; liberals couldn't see this, god bless 'em.

Sure, liberals were quick to cut him loose after he became damaged goods, and now they act all "Yo, good riddance, he is a social leper" -- but they simply didn't see before the Hunter thing came crashing down on him that there was no moral fiber to the man.

Either that, or they pretended not to.


Pure BS, sure some liberals were taken by Edwards, but he's pretty much a complete pariah on the left now

not so Newtie- who is STILL accepted in some conservative circles and able to pull down some votes on a GOP primary-

absolute evidence of liberal moral superiority over conservatives, and yet you see Newt and Edwards in the same sentence and use Edwards to kick liberals, your partisan tunnel vision blindness is amazing.
   1635. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:49 PM (#4408740)
I'm assuming, by using the chicken little analogy, that you don't believe the climate is changing, Ray?


Watch out, Ray can get real cute on this topic.
   1636. zonk Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:53 PM (#4408743)
BTW - regarding Edwards...

It ought to be noted that most of the former Edwards lovers didn't toss him over the side because he became a punchline... they did so because Elizabeth Edwards had a ton of love and fans on the left - and even if we lived in a world where a smarmy dude could step out on his cancer-stricken wife so callously without polite society ramifications, I very much suspect the portion of liberals that remained loyal would have turned on him like no tomorrow specifically and only because he had truly liked, even from afar, Elizabeth Edwards.

   1637. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:57 PM (#4408746)
I'm assuming, by using the chicken little analogy, that you don't believe the climate is changing, Ray?

Don't be silly. Everyone knows the Earth is getting cooler.

No, wait — it's getting warmer.

No, wait — it's no longer getting warmer, but it did get warmer at a faster rate than prior modeling might have suggested.

Yup, that last one is it ... for now.
   1638. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4408747)
I'm assuming, by using the chicken little analogy, that you don't believe the climate is changing, Ray?


Quite to the contrary. I most certainly _do_ believe the climate is changing, because the climate is always changing, because that's what "the" freaking "climate" does, because that is completely natural, which was the reason the name was changed from "global warming": it's a win-win because now no matter how the climate changes -- warmer, cooler, more hurricanes, fewer hurriances -- it means There Is A Problem.

Indeed, if the climate didn't "change," the same people would be screaming that there is a problem, just as they screamed in the '70s of a Cooling World which was seen as... wait for it... a problem.

Everything is a Problem, you see. Nothing is not a problem.

---

I basically think that even if the theory being pimped by the people pushing fear on this topic is even partially correct, there is no need to adopt their set of Approved Solutions for it.

Of course, what they're really after is to get the keys to the economy anyway, and this is just another vehicle for that, so.... no sense adopting their solutions which are proffered under a cloak of either deception or stupidity.

   1639. The Good Face Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4408748)
I basically agree, but it's not quite so simple.

It is not natural for a man to go decades sleeping with the same woman. People pretend that it is, both on a societal level and on an individual one, but the issue is responsible for a great many unhappy marriages and/or divorces. Yet, nobody really wants to have an honest discussion about it.


Pairing one man, one woman, one time is a useful fiction that we need to maintain in order for society as we know it to function. Otherwise you get the most dominant men monopolizing the attentions of the most desireable 50% of women, leaving the masses of other men to fight over the scraps.

For a modern society to flourish, you need the buy-in and participation of all the guys who are NOT Alpha males, and one of the best ways to accomplish this is to give men who are not extremely rich, powerful, handsome, etc. a good chance to get a mate and have a family. Take away that incentive and you're going to get people opting out of society to the extent they can get away with it.
   1640. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4408754)
Edwards was a vehicle to most of those who supported him, not a savior... His job was to win the election, then use his pretty boy face and charm to sell the policies that people like Bonior, Krugman, Robert Reich, et al would be crafting.


Not a good idea then. Isn't that what the Republicans basically did by making W the candidate?
   1641. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:03 PM (#4408759)
I basically agree, but it's not quite so simple.

It is not natural for a man to go decades sleeping with the same woman. People pretend that it is, both on a societal level and on an individual one, but the issue is responsible for a great many unhappy marriages and/or divorces. Yet, nobody really wants to have an honest discussion about it.


It's not natural for me not to club to death people who annoy me. Nature's a cruel #####; best to ignore her whenever possible.
   1642. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:04 PM (#4408760)
Quite to the contrary. I most certainly _do_ believe the climate is changing, because the climate is always changing, because that's what "the" freaking "climate" does, because that is completely natural, which was the reason the name was changed from "global warming"


So, what does all the extra CO2 that mankind creates do when it becomes part of the atmosphere? You seem to be saying nothing. And if you say nothing, then you must not believe in the laws of physics.

Oh, and by the way, it was a API that engineered that Orwellian language change. It doesn't have anything to do with reality though. Let's try to call a donut a donut in order to have an honest debate.
   1643. McCoy Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:04 PM (#4408761)
Considering how long it takes for a human being to become self sufficient or even how long it takes to get out of the womb I think nature intended male and female humans to mate for a very long time if not for life when you consider how long your typical human lived for most of our history.
   1644. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:05 PM (#4408763)
Isn't that what the Republicans basically did by making W the candidate?


Yes.

Edwards was a bad idea from day one, but I'l go further

Dubya was someone I believe, who wanted to do what was right, he may not have always known what was right, and he had some bad advisers (Cheney, Rummy etc., the better people the Powells and the Ashcrofts got run out of the Administration early)

Edwards was, well, what Ray says he was.

   1645. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4408764)
Pairing one man, one woman, one time is a useful fiction that we need to maintain in order for society as we know it to function. Otherwise you get the most dominant men monopolizing the attentions of the most desireable 50% of women, leaving the masses of other men to fight over the scraps.

For a modern society to flourish, you need the buy-in and participation of all the guys who are NOT Alpha males, and one of the best ways to accomplish this is to give men who are not extremely rich, powerful, handsome, etc. a good chance to get a mate and have a family. Take away that incentive and you're going to get people opting out of society to the extent they can get away with it.


You'll have a revolution, eventually, or will be conquered by a monogamous society.

Monogamous societies have a natural advantage over polygamous ones; a much higher percentage of their male population has a stake in defending society. If 80% of Country A's men have a wife and family to defend, and only 30% of Country B's do, Country B is going to get trounced. Hell, a large portion of Country B's men will help the invader.
   1646. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4408765)
I basically think that even if the theory being pimped by the people pushing fear on this topic is even partially correct, there is no need to adopt their set of Approved Solutions for it.


DO you have a list? If you do, it's the first I've heard of it. All I know is that folks are thinking about ways to substitute fossil fuels with other kinds that minimize the production of CO2. How could you be against that? It will be good for our economy, not bad.
   1647. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4408766)
Considering how long it takes for a human being to become self sufficient or even how long it takes to get out of the womb I think nature intended male and female humans to mate for a very long time if not for life when you consider how long your typical human lived for most of our history.

Not to mention monogamy is a more efficient system. Constant competition for new mates, or to keep your old mate, is a complete waste of time and effort, societally. Resources that could be spent on raising the next generation, or building up the capital stock are spent wooing new partners.
   1648. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:09 PM (#4408767)
Let's try to call a donut a donut in order to have an honest debate.


You are not going to have one with Ray on climate change, as far as he's concerned AGW is a lefty hoax.talking point designed as a trojan horse to infiltrate lefty economic/political ideas.

   1649. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4408769)
Monogamous societies have a natural advantage over polygamous ones; a much higher percentage of their male population has a stake in defending society. If 80% of Country A's men have a wife and family to defend, and only 30% of Country B's do, Country B is going to get trounced. Hell, a large portion of Country B's men will help the invader.


OTOH, and with the risk of engaging in armchair sociobiologics, it incentivizes societies with the unbalanced mate ratios to invade neighboring countries and steal their wives as war booty.
   1650. Greg K Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4408770)
I'd make one exception to that, in that we were the only nation to encourage large scale immigration, which meant that we were gradually forced to become not quite as inbred in our thinking as other countries.

Except of course all those Germans, Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans who arrived in Canada in the 19th century by virtue of extensive advertising throughout Europe.
   1651. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4408773)
I basically think that even if the theory being pimped by the people pushing fear


SOS, Ray. It's not a theory.
   1652. Greg K Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4408774)
And since family history is fun:

Mom's side, came to New England from Wales some time in the late 17th/early 18th century, moved to New Brunswick as Loyalists when the good guys lost the Revolutionary War.

Dad's side, German Mennonite immigrants to America in the late 18th/early 19th century, moved to southern Ontario some time in the 19th century.
   1653. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4408776)
Mom's side, came to New England some time in the late 17th/early 18th century, moved to New Brunswick as Loyalists when the good guys lost the Revolutionary War.


So, you come from a long line of fascists huh, G?
   1654. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4408778)
You are not going to have one with Ray on climate change, as far as he's concerned AGW is a lefty hoax.talking point designed as a trojan horse to infiltrate lefty economic/political ideas.


Thanks. I forgot. Ray's a member in good standing of the Party of Stupid.
   1655. Greg K Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4408780)
Actually, I don't know much about the patrilineal side. This official looking site I randomly googled suggests my ancestors were "Wave 3" Mennonite immigrants (1815-1860 from Alsace, Bavaria, and Hesse) as one of our surviving documents is a letter from 1848 that a cousin in Strasbourg wrote to the family in America, which mentions strange doin's a-transpiring in Paris that year.
   1656. Greg K Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4408781)
So, you come from a long line of fascists huh, G?

We prefer Loyalists, or perhaps Royalists.

How you people manage to get through the day without having the Queen tell you what to have for breakfast, or which shirt to wear is beyond me!
   1657. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4408786)
I basically agree, but it's not quite so simple.

It is not natural for a man to go decades sleeping with the same woman. People pretend that it is, both on a societal level and on an individual one, but the issue is responsible for a great many unhappy marriages and/or divorces. Yet, nobody really wants to have an honest discussion about it.


It's not natural for me not to club to death people who annoy me. Nature's a cruel #####; best to ignore her whenever possible.


So you're going with the "Let's continue to ignore it," then.

Ignoring it may be the best practical route for society. Another route might be to have an open marriage, or do what Buzz Bissinger's wife was practical enough to tell him to do: basically, yes, we've lost the sexual desire for each other; go ahead and step out on me if it means we can continue to be married.

Continuing the marriage works for a whole host of reasons, because keeping a family unit together is good. Many husbands decide that they will see a woman on the side -- no-strings-attached -- and justify it that in so doing, while they are breaking their wife's trust, they are doing an ultimate good of keeping the marriage intact.

(And no, I'm not married and haven't been yet so I don't speak from personal experience -- but I do have plenty of anecdotal evidence from friends that has helped form my conclusion.)
   1658. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4408791)
Just like there is zero reason half our manufacturing jobs had to move to China. Again, simply a policy choice that cheap smart phones and big screen TVs for the white collar class was more important than decent jobs for the blue collar class.


And huge, massive gains in salary and other compensation for the senior managerial class who were able to "cut costs" and run their companies more "efficiently," and misappopriate all the gains. They're the ones that finance the campaigns and the soft money warchests.

The bread-and-butter labor/capital issues were taken off the table by the elites, who'd reached their self-interested consensus on them, deeming them a product of the old days and old ways unfit for the modern, "post-ideological" world. The attention of the masses was deflected, and their loyalties divided, by the almost entirely bogus "culture wars."

Entirely, 100%, policy choices.
   1659. zenbitz Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4408792)
I think there are some on Dad's side pre 1848... bucha germans though, it's probably pretty close.

And it's pretty obvious the earth is warming up, and that anthropogenic CO2 emissions is responsible for "some" or even "lots" of it. Just because LIBRUL spin doctors and media drones don't understand variance and have to rebrand a 200 warming trend as "climate change" doesn't change the facts on the ground.

But the bottom line is, when the global economy is a dumpster fire, you ain't going to get much support for energy conservation. Maybe human race gets lucky and improves solar / fusion energy production before the global T warms up 15 deg C (which is what you get when you convert all the tar sands and coal into gas)
   1660. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4408797)
Thanks. I forgot. Ray's a member in good standing of the Party of Stupid.


As Lassus might say, I'll try not to lose many nights of sleep over this remark. But, ooh, it burns. Yes it does.

(No, I didn't expect the Climate Change Cult to sign off on my statements, what with all the fear mongering and economy shifting still to be done.)
   1661. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4408806)
You didn't answer the question, Ray. Does the manmade CO2 that gets into the atmosphere trap sunlight, and does some of this trapped sunlight get converted to heat or not? A simple yes or no answer will do.
   1662. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4408810)
(And no, I'm not married and haven't been yet so I don't speak from personal experience -- but I do have plenty of anecdotal evidence from friends that has helped form my conclusion.)
That pretty much goes without saying.

Many husbands decide that they will see a woman on the side -- no-strings-attached -- and justify it that in so doing, while they are breaking their wife's trust, they are doing an ultimate good of keeping the marriage intact.
Yeah, I like to call those people "terrible humans who lie to themselves." If you're intent on breaking your spouse's trust, then keeping the marriage intact really isn't high on your list of priorities. It's just rationalizing getting something on the side.
   1663. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4408813)
Family history?

On my father's side, an Irish guy who arrived in the U.S. probably around 1850, or maybe a bit earlier.

On my mother's, Irish who made it to the U.S. at some point earlier than that. My mother's father was Jewish, but I haven't the vaguest idea of who came over from where, & when they did so (though I know they pretty much settled in Haddonfield, N.J.) I don't know of anyone who might know, offhand; that side of the family is one of those doomed lines that pretty much played out after only a couple of generatons. (My maternal grandmother was one of 7 children, of whom 3 never married; 1 married but never had children; 1 married but had only one child, who died at 13; 1 married & had 3 kids, 1 of whom married but had no kids, 1 of whom never married & 1 of whom I know nothing about, as he was bad to drink & wasn't ever really talked about. And then my grandmother, who had 1 child, my mother, who had 2 children, 1 of whom is me, who's childess, & 1 of whom is my sister, who's Down syndrome.)

Whereas on my father's side, I've got something like 20 living first cousins, plus another 4 or 5 who've died.

   1664. Steve Treder Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:13 PM (#4408815)
Wait, what?

"At over 90 miles per hour, he had his penis out [the window]... he was masturbating... and that's when it got really, really bad. I wouldn't look over any more, and I wrote his tag number down on my hand, which I believe he noticed, and he exited very quickly," Street said.


How exactly is it that one has Mr. Happy out the car window while driving at all, let alone at 90 MPH? Whatever kind of perv this yahoo is, he's also one hell of a contortionist.
   1665. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4408816)
Yeah, I like to call those people "terrible humans who lie to themselves."


Okay. Maybe so.

If you're intent on breaking your spouse's trust, then keeping the marriage intact really isn't high on your list of priorities. It's just rationalizing getting something on the side.


So do you think a divorce would be better? It's a serious question. Because for these men, staying faithful is not in the cards. It's "get some on the side" or "get divorced."
   1666. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4408817)
Because for these men, staying faithful is not in the cards. It's "get some on the side" or "get divorced."

That's why God invented porn.
   1667. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:18 PM (#4408818)
That's why God invented porn.


I'm not sure God has taken credit for that :-)

EDIT: Although I did read that someone at the Vatican was downloading porn recently, per the IP addresses. It was partly of the transexual variety, FWIW.
   1668. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4408820)
How you people manage to get through the day without having the Queen tell you what to have for breakfast, or which shirt to wear is beyond me!


I can assure you that we Americans do not suffer unduly for want of a monarchy.
   1669. Greg K Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4408821)
So do you think a divorce would be better? It's a serious question. Because for these men, staying faithful is not in the cards. It's "get some on the side" or "get divorced."

There's the third option of not getting married to begin with if you're one of these men.
   1670. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:22 PM (#4408822)
Ah. Here's the link. The Porn That's Watched In Vatican City.
   1671. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:23 PM (#4408823)
There's the third option of not getting married to begin with if you're one of these men.


Take a look with your binoculars. That ship. It's left the port.
   1672. Publius Publicola Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4408826)
We should all note that Ray is avoiding the question of basic geophysics that I set before him. This means he does either not understand the question (possible, I suppose but unlikely), doesn't believe in the mass balance of nature (perhaps doesn't understand what mass balance is) or, most likely, knows the answer but can't say it because he will then be forced to disagree with himself and his head might blow up.
   1673. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4408827)
You didn't answer the question, Ray. Does the manmade CO2 that gets into the atmosphere trap sunlight, and does some of this trapped sunlight get converted to heat or not? A simple yes or no answer will do.


I won't pretend to speak for Ray, but while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it and the others (CO, methane, etc) only constitute 5% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapour, which is ignored by the models, constitutes the other 95%. And there's not a GD thing we can do to affect that.

To make this a baseball analogy, worrying about the effect CO2 has on temperature while ignoring water vapour would be like worrying about the effects of pitch framing and then drafting a bunch of pitchers who could only throw 40 miles an hour. Yes, pitch framing makes a difference, but that difference is completely moot if you can't pitch worth #### in the first place.
   1674. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4408828)
Not to mention monogamy is a more efficient system. Constant competition for new mates, or to keep your old mate, is a complete waste of time and effort, societally. Resources that could be spent on raising the next generation, or building up the capital stock are spent wooing new partners.


What is most "efficient" in a passing your DNA on to future generations sense for men is:

Live with and support as many women and their/your children as you can handle (while keeping other males from impregnating said women)(for the vast majority of men = 1 woman) and impregnate as many women on the side that you can.

that behavior is likely what is most strongly "selected for" in an evolutionary sense, it's also common among many birds...



   1675. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4408829)
That puts his [Al Gore's] net worth well ahead of that of former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has an estimated fortune of $230 million and was often mocked for being out of touch with ordinary Americans during the election.

Gore was mocked just as much for being out of touch with ordinary Americans. He was a wooden robot who could never know the touch of the hu-man, remember? You live by the "who'd ya rather have a beer with?" premise, eventually you die by it.

Also, Gore is only ahead of Romney's reported wealth. Those tax returns are still in an undisclosed location. And Gore sold a company that he helped build up, not one he took apart. In either case, and many others, I don't think there's much dispute that the sons of political daddies don't deserve the kinds of financial opportunities they're handed by people repaying old favors.

There's not enough indication of where the numbers come from, but here's a purported ranking of Presidential wealth.
   1676. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4408831)
So do you think a divorce would be better? It's a serious question. Because for these men, staying faithful is not in the cards. It's "get some on the side" or "get divorced."
Greg got it before me, but the answer is "don't get married." You're not forced to marry someone, but if you choose to do so then you're obligated to take on the responsibilities of marriage. Unless the spouse explicitly agrees to an open marriage, the person stepping out is a liar and makes their marriage a sham.

If being faithful isn't your strong suit, don't get married.
   1677. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4408832)
Water vapour, which is ignored by the models, constitutes the other 95%. And there's not a GD thing we can do to affect that.


Wrong, if we are increasing global temperature by adding CO2 (yes I know people like ray dispute that), then we are simultaneously increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere.


Basically the argument that gee water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect so CO2 is meaningless was brought up by denialist yahoos who didn't quite think that argument through. Denialists should stick with Ray's argument that climate change is being used as a vehicle to advance an unrelated agenda, at leaat that argument cannot be readily scientifically dis-proven
   1678. Greg K Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:37 PM (#4408833)
Live with and support as many women and their/your children as you can handle (while keeping other males from impregnating said women)(for the vast majority of men = 1 woman) and impregnate as many women on the side that you can.

So Craster was on to something.
   1679. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4408835)
Ray's argument that climate change is being used as a vehicle to advance an unrelated agenda


I'm the conspiracy guy, of course this is true. But I'm not going to get into that now.



   1680. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:44 PM (#4408839)
I'm the conspiracy guy, of course this is true. But I'm not going to get into that now.


I'll note that this isn't a "conspiracy" in the sense that there are people in back rooms plotting this in secret. It's simply that the argument about the science being "settled" (*) serves the liberal agenda, so they sign onto it.

Again, we've seen this with The Cooling World.

(*) Whatever the hell that means. Science does not "settle" and is not - re the silly "consensus" gibberish - up for a vote.
   1681. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:47 PM (#4408840)
We should all note that Ray is avoiding the question of basic geophysics that I set before him. This means he does either not understand the question (possible, I suppose but unlikely), doesn't believe in the mass balance of nature (perhaps doesn't understand what mass balance is) or, most likely, knows the answer but can't say it because he will then be forced to disagree with himself and his head might blow up.

If there's a single non-social issue where Ray's position isn't determined by the relative effect it might have on his tax rate, I've yet to discover it.

And if there's a single social issue where Ray's position isn't determined by either (a) figuring out what he thinks liberals believe, and arguing the opposite; or agreeing with the standard liberal position** and yet finding a reason to trash liberals at the same time, I've yet to see an example of that, either.

**case in point: gay marriage
   1682. Greg K Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4408844)

Take a look with your binoculars. That ship. It's left the port.

Mr. Los Angeles already covers a lot of it, but to give a fuller answer:

Once you make the decision to marry you've taken on an obligation to another person. If fulfilling those obligations comes into conflict with who you are as a person, then

A) You probably should have put more thought into taking on the obligation. (This may not be entirely fair to everyone in the situation we're talking about. Not everyone knows who they are, it's entirely possible to enter into a marriage in good faith only to later realize that you're not the kind of person that can be happy in a marriage).

B) Your duty as a spouse is to be honest with your wife/husband. In my opinion the moral thing to do is to tell your spouse what you need for the marriage to work (have a relationship outside the marriage). And if he/she is willing to try that to make the marriage work give it the old college try. If not, divorce.

I'm not a huge fan of blanket statements, but colouring cheating as any kind of morally acceptable choice is just self-delusion and rationalization.
   1683. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:51 PM (#4408845)
I think the UN plots a lot of dastardly #### in secret (oil for food scandal, hanging Romeo Dallaire out to dry in Rwanda are two examples) but that's just me.
   1684. OCF Posted: April 09, 2013 at 06:52 PM (#4408846)
I may be that rare poster that Andy was looking for: as far as I know all of my ancestral lines were in the U.S. before 1848. There might possibly be one more recent than that, but still before 1870. English and German, although I'm not ruling out that a little of what I'm calling English might be Scottish and a little of what I'm calling German might be Alsatian or Dutch. And to me England and Germany are foreign countries, with no sense of "home" at all. My wife's German and Irish ancestors probably mostly arrived between 1880 and 1920. ("Escaping the Prussian draft" comes up as a topic.)

Of course, if you take all the people I interact with on a typical day now and ask what the dates of immigration of ancestors are, the median would probably be about 1990.
   1685. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 09, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4408850)
B) Your duty as a spouse is to be honest with your wife/husband. In my opinion the moral thing to do is to tell your spouse what you need for the marriage to work (have a relationship outside the marriage). And if he/she is willing to try that to make the marriage work give it the old college try. If not, divorce.
Like all of us, I have friends who are the product of divorce. The ones who remain bitter about it, who blame their current lives the unhappiness of having to live through divorce, tell me that they would have preferred that their parents stay together.

I think they're wrong. They don't just want their parents to have stayed together, they want their parents to have stayed together and been happy about it. Simply not getting divorced does not a good household make. Three women friends I know are in their mid-30s/early-40s. All of them have been dating the same guys for many years, but none of them want to get married and have kids. Why? Because all of them had fathers who cheated on their mothers. All of them are scared to end up in marriages where they may be left behind.
   1686. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 07:19 PM (#4408855)

What is most "efficient" in a passing your DNA on to future generations sense for men is:

Live with and support as many women and their/your children as you can handle (while keeping other males from impregnating said women)(for the vast majority of men = 1 woman) and impregnate as many women on the side that you can.

that behavior is likely what is most strongly "selected for" in an evolutionary sense, it's also common among many birds...


Why should we as rational beings care? If an anti-social behavior strongly selected for, that's even more reason to repress it strongly.
   1687. Morty Causa Posted: April 09, 2013 at 07:27 PM (#4408863)
How much science is enough? This seems overwhelming. There's a ton of authority cited here, with links, and the conclusions seem to amount to the unequivocal. Have at it. Maybe Nate Silver could do one of his things on this.

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.


Note: there's a link to those that raise objections, in part mostly, but not always.
   1688. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 07:57 PM (#4408895)
How much science is enough? This seems overwhelming. There's a ton of authority cited here, with links, and the conclusions seem to amount to the unequivocal. Have at it. Maybe Nate Silver could do one of his things on this.


Yeah, why not have The Wet Dream Of All Liberals, Nate Silver, do a thing on this.

Nevermind that this isn't Nate's field. He's a computer scientist -- which is actually the problem with a lot of the cc data: the modeling is being done by computer people.
   1689. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 09, 2013 at 07:58 PM (#4408896)
Same thing with yard service, where the accents may be different among the price ranges but the lack of a union card is common to both.


Was snapper serious? I've never heard of 'unionized yard service'. What's the apprenticeship in--raking?

Pretty much all the tradesmen I hire (electrician, plumber, carpenter) are union; I like to patronize individuals who do the work themselves (not big companies), and they all are union members. Hell, even my father-in-law, who did our kitchen floor is a member of the construction unions.


I'm happy to put my neck on the block here. I won't be hiring union workers for sawing and nailing boards on my new house this summer any more than Jolly should hire a union worker for raking leaves.

For the construction I'll be the architect, contractor, and in many instances the sub. If I hadn't gotten hurt a few years ago I would have pitched a tent on my land, put my order into the lumber yard and truss fabricator, and spent a happy summer wearing myself out framing and drying the house in with the occasional help of a kid in town. I probably would have subbed out the drywall (which involves screwing sheets to the right studs) but done the taping, mudding, and sanding myself. I don't think I would have farmed out anything requiring any of the skills one learns in a union apprenticeship. The skills I need now are functioning arms and legs.

I specifically look for for guys (or better, women) who want to learn how to build a house. My ideal helper is someone in or just out of high school who really wants to either open their own shop, or head to architecture school with some practical experience under their belt. Or a guy down on his luck who needs to learn some skills. For electrical work I'll run the cables, install fixtures and outlets, and to pass inspection I'll hire a certified electrician (required in my county) to hook cables into the service panel, and will find a union guy for that. I'll be doing the plumbing myself, so that's not an issue, though the kid who helps me wrestle the cast iron drain piping into place won't be a union member.

There's no reason to 'make work' for union people, when you don't need any part of that kind of skill set, and I'm still chuckling over the idea of 'union raking'.

-----

edit: BM, thanks for the considered reply upthread to my question on apportioning economic culpability
   1690. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:02 PM (#4408897)
The liberal position on labor, in a nutshell:

Cut-rate labor for me, but not for thee.
   1691. McCoy Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:20 PM (#4408916)
If I hadn't gotten hurt a few years ago I would have pitched a tent

I specifically look for for guys

My ideal helper is someone in or just out of high school
with some practical experience under their belt. Or a guy down on his luck
   1692. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:23 PM (#4408931)
Cut-rate labor for me, but not for thee.
That's only true if they're looking to be excepted from the laws they're proposing.
   1693. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:23 PM (#4408934)
The liberal position on labor, in a nutshell:

Cut-rate labor for me, but not for thee.


Don't kid yourself, a huge part of the support for high immigration among the upper-middle class is the desire for cheap nannies and gardeners.
   1694. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4408935)
And huge, massive gains in salary and other compensation for the senior managerial class who were able to "cut costs" and run their companies more "efficiently," and misappopriate all the gains. They're the ones that finance the campaigns and the soft money warchests.

The bread-and-butter labor/capital issues were taken off the table by the elites, who'd reached their self-interested consensus on them, deeming them a product of the old days and old ways unfit for the modern, "post-ideological" world. The attention of the masses was deflected, and their loyalties divided, by the almost entirely bogus "culture wars."

Entirely, 100%, policy choices.


Concur 100%
   1695. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4408942)
@1691: McCoy, did you just come out to us? Bravo, man!

And Gore wasn't just slammed becuase he wasted a lot of fossil fuel via air travel. He basically did virtually zero conservation of energy and sacrificed almost nothing while preaching to the world that we need to start conserving and sacrificing.


Yup. He could have easily afforded to make his gigantic house an energy producer rather than an incredible drain. It isn't a case where someone can be criticized no matter what, but rather that he's doing pretty much the opposite of what he's preaching.
   1696. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:31 PM (#4408950)
Cut-rate labor for me, but not for thee.

That's only true if they're looking to be excepted from the laws they're proposing.


Was that Joe?

It's along the lines of, say your education and background make you able to do the metallurgy necessary to making fine jewelry, and what you need is someone to bring the boxes in in the morning and take out the trash. Are you supposed to hire another jeweler to do that work, or is the world better served by hiring someone who would like to learn to be a jeweler in between mundane tasks?
   1697. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:32 PM (#4408954)
That's only true if they're looking to be excepted from the laws they're proposing.

What are you talking about? It's already illegal to hire illegal immigrants, like Andy apparently did for his yard work.

***
Don't kid yourself, a huge part of the support for high immigration among the upper-middle class is the desire for cheap nannies and gardeners.

Sure, but wealthy non-liberals don't go around complaining about declining union membership, stagnant wages, etc. Unlike the hypocritical liberals, hiring cheap nannies doesn't conflict with the political positions they preach.
   1698. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4408968)

It's along the lines of, say your education and background make you able to do the metallurgy necessary to making fine jewelry, and what you need is someone to bring the boxes in in the morning and take out the trash. Are you supposed to hire another jeweler to do that work, or is the world better served by hiring someone who would like to learn to be a jeweler in between mundane tasks?


No. But you should hire someone who is legally eligible to work in the US and pay them a fair wage and benefits (if your company has them). You shouldn't pick up an illegal at Home Depot and pay him $5/hr.
   1699. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:38 PM (#4408971)
Old but true joke:
With capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around.
   1700. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2013 at 08:39 PM (#4408973)

Was snapper serious? I've never heard of 'unionized yard service'. What's the apprenticeship in--raking?


I was talking about building trades. For yard service, you could use a contractor that does part of the work himself, and hires legal workers.
Page 17 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-19-14
(20 - 8:02pm, Sep 19)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3348 - 8:01pm, Sep 19)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(12 - 7:49pm, Sep 19)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogEn Banc Court May Call Foul on Bonds Conviction
(8 - 7:27pm, Sep 19)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogJoe Girardi put Derek Jeter’s farewell tour ahead of the team
(201 - 7:23pm, Sep 19)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-19-2014
(38 - 6:49pm, Sep 19)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(57 - 6:36pm, Sep 19)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-18-2014
(170 - 6:00pm, Sep 19)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(278 - 5:38pm, Sep 19)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogAraton: The Other Side of a Derek Jeter Hustle Play
(30 - 5:26pm, Sep 19)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogUmpire ejects Braves fan for heckling Bryce Harper
(71 - 5:21pm, Sep 19)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogRon Washington Acknowledges Infidelity, Doesn’t Explain Why He Resigned
(50 - 5:17pm, Sep 19)
Last: BDC

NewsblogIt’s quite the turnaround for Angels and General Manager Jerry Dipoto
(13 - 5:16pm, Sep 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogChris Davis Rescues Man Pinned Under Truck
(52 - 4:43pm, Sep 19)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(277 - 4:34pm, Sep 19)
Last: JAHV

Page rendered in 1.1168 seconds
52 querie(s) executed