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 3 of 66 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
   201. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4401429)
Signalling is part of the primate's social game, son. It just is.


Don't call me son. I'm a lawyer and an officer in the United States Navy. And you're under arrest, you son of a b!!ch.
   202. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4401430)
(Points for the first one who can identify that quote without cheating.)
   203. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4401432)
A few Good men?
   204. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:05 PM (#4401438)
Don't call me son. I'm a lawyer and an officer in the United States Navy. And you're under arrest, you son of a b!!ch.


Nonetheless, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall, Ray.
   205. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4401446)
Johnny is awarded 30 points.
   206. Steve Treder Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:12 PM (#4401447)
But can Ray handle the truth?
   207. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:18 PM (#4401449)
But can Ray handle the truth?


Maybe, maybe not. But at least I know what the truth is, Steve, re the fact that there is no meaningful difference between the Ds and the Rs. I can understand why that simple truth is inconvenient for you to comprehend, as it puts you uncomfortably in bed with the same people you claim to be holier than.
   208. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4401453)
But at least I know what the truth is, Steve, re the fact that there is no meaningful difference between the Ds and the Rs.


If you're gay are lesbian, there's a pretty notable difference.
   209. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4401458)
If you're gay are lesbian, there's a pretty notable difference.


As I said, both parties are headed to the same place. That's in fact one data point in the clear argument that the country is moving left. 15-20 years ago, the idea that same-sex marriage would be an actual thing wasn't on radar.
   210. Steve Treder Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4401460)
the fact that there is no meaningful difference between the Ds and the Rs

First of all, that wouldn't be a fact. It would be an opinion, and a trite, shallow, and altogether weightless one at that.

   211. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4401467)
Ray, if there's no difference, why are you never giving any R or conservative a hard time on the site?
   212. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4401469)
As I said, both parties are headed to the same place.
The GOP is only "headed to the same place" because it's losing on the issue. I don't know if that counts.
   213. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4401473)
First of all, that wouldn't be a fact. It would be an opinion, and a trite, shallow, and altogether weightless one at that.


And an opinion that is correct is a fact.

This isn't that difficult.
   214. Morty Causa Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4401478)
Book 'em, Danno.
   215. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4401479)
Ray, if there's no difference, why are you never giving any R or conservative a hard time on the site?


? I flat disagreed with Snapper in the Steubenville thread, and gave him a fairly hard time over some of his views as expressed there. I've disagreed with Joe K plenty.

But your general question has been asked and answered ad nauseum: the liberals outnumber the conservatives by a large amount in the OT Politics discussions. That's why the high-fiving and circle-jerking you folks engage in is always noted. And that's why it appears that those of us with a libertarian bent are in the conservative camp.
   216. Nasty Nate Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4401481)
If you're gay are lesbian, there's a pretty notable difference.




As I said, both parties are headed to the same place.


If you are directly affected, the speed at which they are moving to that place makes a difference.
   217. spike Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4401487)
The GOP is only "headed to the same place" because it's losing on the issue. I don't know if that counts.

And while the national GOP establishment may be "heading" that way, there are plenty of state members that are anything but.

While GOP Elites Soften On Gay Marriage, Local Leaders Haven’t Gotten The Message

But in better news, Bill Kristol is opposed to the idea, which means it's inevitable

Bill Kristol Dismisses Gay Marriage: ‘Pathetic’ To ‘Embrace Views Of Some 26-Year-Old Who Doesn’t Know Anything’
   218. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4401501)
Kristol lamented how some of the party’s leaders believe it necessary to take on the “fashionable” position of being okay with gay marriage.


He's right about this; again, people are labeled as bigots for not being in favor of gay marriage - that's where the discussion is right now. So at this point there's no sense in swimming back against the tide.

UPDATE: A reader points out that Kristol has been wrong on same-sex marriage before. Back in the ’90s, Kristol predicted that 1993 would be the “high water mark” of the gay rights movement, and that it was “all downhill from there.” Kind of amazing that Kristol is considered an expert predictor on much of anything, eh?


Expert predictor? He wasn't predicting much of anything in the column; rather, he was lamenting that people in his party were taking the "fashionable" position of being for gay marriage.
   219. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4401507)
the fact that there is no meaningful difference between the Ds and the Rs.

Unless you want an abortion. If the girl's natural semen deflecting abilities fail and she is pregnant from a legitimate rape, God help you if you live in a red state.
   220. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4401513)
? I flat disagreed with Snapper in the Steubenville thread, and gave him a fairly hard time over some of his views as expressed there

-GUFFAW- Because he was holding the position liberals held! Nice one.


I've disagreed with Joe K plenty.

To quote him, LOL. On what?


But your general question has been asked and answered ad nauseum: the liberals outnumber the conservatives by a large amount in the OT Politics discussions.

What a freaking cop-out this one is. I'll go so far as to call it cowardly. If I list the conservatives you could have disagreed with, on anything, you'll go all ROBINRED LOL on me. No matter the outnumbering, there are plenty of conservatives and Republicans you could disagree with, but you don't, because you don't.


That's why the high-fiving and circle-jerking you folks engage in is always noted.

Sad. Seriously.


And that's why it appears that those of us with a libertarian bent are in the conservative camp.

The trouble is not the audience. Also, "bent"? Are you admitting you aren't even a libertarian?


He's right about this; again, people are labeled as bigots for not being in favor of gay marriage - that's where the discussion is right now.

I forget, were those against interracial marriage actually bigots, or just labeled bigots?
   221. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:21 PM (#4401518)
Because he was holding the position liberals held!


? Last I checked, Sam is a liberal, and I agreed with his point about educating women re not putting themselves in situations (such as blackout drunk at high school parties) that increased the chance they would be raped. That point was a central part of the ensuing firestorm.
   222. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:31 PM (#4401525)
? Last I checked, Sam is a liberal,


I do not think common labels such as liberal/conservative/libertarian even glibertarian apply to Sam...

Sam is... not any of the above so to speak
   223. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4401529)
I disagree; Sam is a liberal.
   224. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4401530)
I disagree; Sam is a liberal.


"We" don't want him.


   225. Steve Treder Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4401531)
Not only do the vast majority of observers conclude that there are, in practical reality, meaningful differences between the two dominant U.S. parties, it might even be worth perceiving that there are meaningful differences between prominent conservative opinionators, and indeed within the factions of the conservative movement itself.

There are various ways to describe the civil war rising inside the Republican Party: insiders versus outsiders, pragmatists versus true-believers, establishment versus Tea Party. Here’s another: Bill O’Reilly conservatives versus Rush Limbaugh conservatives.

...

You can see the difference in the way the two men respond to people perceived as right-wing extremists. Limbaugh embraces them; O’Reilly disses them. After 2008 O’Reilly peddled nasty reports from former John McCain staffers about Sarah Palin. This enraged Limbaugh, who asked, “Why’s Fox allowing itself to be used like this?” and defended Palin as “the one person in this campaign that brought the Republican base back into the fold, that fired them up, that inspired them.” Similarly, this February, O’Reilly criticized Michele Bachmann for claiming that President Obama has been living extravagantly in the White House. Calling Bachmann’s charges “trivial,” O’Reilly used her to triangulate between liberals and conservatives, declaring that “it’s long past time for partisans, on both the right and the left, to cut the nonsense and look at things clearly.”

It’s hard to imagine Limbaugh going in for this sensible center stuff, because he’s more comfortable championing a brand of conservatism that many—even most—Americans oppose. Unlike O’Reilly, who has responded to Romney’s defeat by softening his views on gay rights and immigration, Limbaugh has mocked the claim that the GOP “can alienate their evangelical base and replace those voters by becoming more hip, modern, with it ... They are not going to be able to do that,” because pro–gay rights and pro-immigration voters will vote Democratic no matter what.

O’Reilly and Limbaugh are both conservative; they both idealize an older, pre-lapsarian America that they believe leftists want to destroy in the name of progress. The difference is that Limbaugh’s conservative vision is more static and more personal. For O’Reilly, traditional morality is not an abstract, coherent set of beliefs; it’s the folk wisdom of ordinary people at any given moment, and it can change.

Like Reagan, O’Reilly has a gift for quietly making peace with progressive advances he formerly opposed while excoriating (and often caricaturing) those leftist innovations that can still be dismissed as fringe. If I were a GOP presidential aspirant, I’d watch O’Reilly closely over the next few years, because the Republican candidate who best articulates his brand of conservatism will be the candidate best able to regain the White House in 2016.
   226. Poster Nutbag Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:36 PM (#4401534)
"The puppet on the left shares my beliefs.
The puppet on the right shares my beliefs.
Oh sh!t! There's just one guy, holding both puppets!"

RIP Bill
   227. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:41 PM (#4401541)
Not only do the vast majority of observers conclude that there are, in practical reality, meaningful differences between the two dominant U.S. parties,


Is this kind of like a "consensus"?

Anyway, since the "vast majority of observers" are from one of the two major parties, their collective "observation" is meaningless. I mean, gee, "observers" with a vested interest in defining themselves differently from the other party conclude that there are meaningful differences between the two parties?

Shocking.
   228. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 06:56 PM (#4401555)
Look at it this way: if you're standing in one party and looking at the other, or standing between the two parties, you will see a lot of difference. But if you're standing away from the two parties, giving you a better frame of reference, you will see little difference.

An analogy is Albert Pujols and Lyle Overbay. Sure, relative to the average major leaguer, there is a huge difference between them. But relative to the average Joe Schmoe on the street, there is virtually no difference.

The problem comes because each party is so wrapped up in the silliness of painting the other as evil that they fail to see that the differences between them aren't that large. An example of a large difference would be: "Let's slash the federal budget by 70%; slash federal offices; do away with large swathes of the federal government and various agencies." But in reality, the difference is "Oh, let's increase spending by 5% instead of 6%" (or whatever). That is not a meaningful difference.
   229. Steve Treder Posted: April 01, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4401562)
Look at it this way: if you're standing in one party and looking at the other, or standing between the two parties, you will see a lot of difference. But if you're standing away from the two parties, giving you a better frame of reference, you will see little difference.

Yes, viewed from deepest outer space, there is little visible difference between Republicans and Democrats, or between the United States and Bulgaria, or for that matter between Earth and Neptune. We get it.

However, we also get that it's a trite and shallow observation that most of us long ago unburdened ourselves of believing to be insightful or useful. In practical terms that have substantive importance in political analysis, engagement, and consequence, the differences between the Rs and Ds matter.
   230. Mefisto Posted: April 01, 2013 at 07:15 PM (#4401565)
But if you're standing away from the two parties, giving you a better frame of reference, you will see little difference.


When you're in the dark, all cats are gray.
   231. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2013 at 07:22 PM (#4401567)
? Last I checked, Sam is a liberal, and I agreed with his point about educating women re not putting themselves in situations (such as blackout drunk at high school parties) that increased the chance they would be raped. That point was a central part of the ensuing firestorm.

This is great, but we were talking about snapper, so your inability to address what I wrote is noted.


An analogy is Albert Pujols and Lyle Overbay. Sure, relative to the average major leaguer, there is a huge difference between them. But relative to the average Joe Schmoe on the street, there is virtually no difference.

This is sincerely one of the weirdest things you've ever written.
   232. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 07:35 PM (#4401582)
? I flat disagreed with Snapper in the Steubenville thread, and gave him a fairly hard time over some of his views as expressed there

-GUFFAW- Because he was holding the position liberals held! Nice one.


I would just like to point out my position is in no way "liberal". It is old-fashioned law and order conservatism.

Criminals are 100% responsible for their crimes, and deserve harsh punishment.
   233. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:23 PM (#4401611)
This is sincerely one of the weirdest things you've ever written.


And yet, you don't explain why. Why are you having trouble with the analogy?
   234. Shibal Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4401617)
Unless you want an abortion. If the girl's natural semen deflecting abilities fail and she is pregnant from a legitimate rape, God help you if you live in a red state.


Or unless you getting raped. Some states don't care about a woman's right to defend herself if it means her having a gun.

The abortion industry will be there to clean up part of the mess though. Hurrah for Planned Parenthood!
   235. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:39 PM (#4401620)
Really? You've never heard anyone use the term "partner"?


Gah, I hate that limp word. Twenty years ago I was heading to another state and a beautiful, progressive woman I knew somewhat was saying goodbye. She had been talking about her greenhouse business but then looked at me so wistfully I thought we were about to experience a sea-change in our relationship. Then she said what she was really, really, really looking for was a partner, and I just assumed she really, really, really wanted someone to partner her greenhouse business.

Thinking I had misjudged the situation, I left half an hour later. A decade after I started hearing 'partner' a lot more often wrt romantic references. I gave her a call at some point and felt her out about the situation and she allowed as how she had in fact suggested we get involved that night, but I didn't seem interested.

"Partner". Ack.
   236. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4401622)
jack

what young man isn't looking to canoodle at the slightest hint much less a 'really, really..."?

because I know you couldn't have been that dense. (ha, ha)
   237. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4401623)
Snapper is probably best understood to be Falange. (I swear I don't mean that as an insult, chief.)

I am an Anarcho-Syndicalist, with a bit of Red Tory thrown in for the nose.
   238. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:45 PM (#4401627)
I gave her a call at some point and felt her out about the situation and she allowed as how she had in fact suggested we get involved that night, but I didn't seem interested.


The only wrong way to say "let's ####\" is to not say "let's ####."
   239. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4401633)
Snapper is probably best understood to be Falange. (I swear I don't mean that as an insult, chief.)

I am an Anarcho-Syndicalist, with a bit of Red Tory thrown in for the nose.


Nah, see this quote from Wiki.

Unlike other members of the Spanish right, the Falange was republican, avant-gardist and modernist


If you want to identify me with a Spanish Civil War party, I'm probably closest to the Carlists, without the Monarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlism
   240. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:49 PM (#4401634)
Gah, I hate that limp word. Twenty years ago I was heading to another state and a beautiful, progressive woman I knew somewhat was saying goodbye. She had been talking about her greenhouse business but then looked at me so wistfully I thought we were about to experience a sea-change in our relationship. Then she said what she was really, really, really looking for was a partner, and I just assumed she really, really, really wanted someone to partner her greenhouse business.

Thinking I had misjudged the situation, I left half an hour later. A decade after I started hearing 'partner' a lot more often wrt romantic references. I gave her a call at some point and felt her out about the situation and she allowed as how she had in fact suggested we get involved that night, but I didn't seem interested.

"Partner". Ack.


I can't believe you didn't try and kiss her. I didn't know whether my wife liked me or not until I kissed her.
   241. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:50 PM (#4401636)
If you want to identify me with a Spanish Civil War party, I'm probably closest to the Carlists, without the Monarchism.


That's fair. Should have gone that way now that you mention it.
   242. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:51 PM (#4401637)
That's fair. Should have gone that way now that you mention it.

Yeah, Facism is just socialism with better taste in clothes.

Edit: Ironically, the 2nd closest group is probably the Basques, who were very similar to the Carlists (very Catholic, socially conservative, etc.), except they fell out with the Facists over regional autonomy, and sided with the left.
   243. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:54 PM (#4401639)
Yeah, Facism is just socialism with better taste in clothes.


Well. No. But whatev. You're more of a Carlist. The point is valid.
   244. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 08:59 PM (#4401645)
You're not cool enough to be a Basque revolutionary.
   245. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:02 PM (#4401649)
I can't believe you didn't try and kiss her.


#cultureofrape
   246. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:03 PM (#4401651)
Well. No. But whatev. You're more of a Carlist. The point is valid.

C'mon. Hitler was a much sharper dresser than Stalin.
   247. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:08 PM (#4401659)
C'mon. Hitler was a much sharper dresser than Stalin.


Stalin had a better 'stache.
   248. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:20 PM (#4401666)
Oh Sam, did you really ever imagine yourself so predictable?
   249. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:20 PM (#4401667)
I disagree; Sam is a liberal.

"We" don't want him.


That's right. Lest I forget, you lot are as bad as Republicans at times when it comes to excommunicating anyone who dares veer from the Holy Writ on such as "rape culture".

Not only do the vast majority of observers conclude that there are, in practical reality, meaningful differences between the two dominant U.S. parties, it might even be worth perceiving that there are meaningful differences between prominent conservative opinionators, and indeed within the factions of the conservative movement itself.


Hmm. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater even if he's doing so. There's a fruitful point to be made, that while there are numerous meaningful differences between the parties, in some brutal ways both are very, very beholden to the wealthy, which creates real problems for the rest of us.

Perhaps instead of yes there are, no there aren't, ad nauseum, the discussion can turn more fruitfully to the problems created by what similarities exist between the parties, and what we might do about it.
   250. Publius Publicola Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:26 PM (#4401675)
204. Rickey is not some random link-pimper Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:05 PM (#4401438)

Don't call me son. I'm a lawyer and an officer in the United States Navy. And you're under arrest, you son of a b!!ch.



Nonetheless, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall, Ray.
205. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4401446)
Johnny is awarded 30 points.
206. Steve Treder Posted: April 01, 2013 at 05:12 PM (#4401447)
But can Ray handle the truth?


You ####### people.
   251. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:31 PM (#4401677)

Stalin had a better 'stache.


True.
   252. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:43 PM (#4401685)
I'm probably closest to the Carlists, without the Monarchism.


That's sort of being like the IRA without the Catholicism.
   253. Publius Publicola Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:45 PM (#4401688)
That's sort of being like the IRA without the Catholicism.


Joyce was a republican and an atheist. Nationalism and religion do not necessarily equate.
   254. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 01, 2013 at 09:58 PM (#4401698)
"Partner". Ack.

I can't believe you didn't try and kiss her. I didn't know whether my wife liked me or not until I kissed her.


Dude, she was one of those highly intelligent, extremely reserved hippie chicks, who might shed her shirt while the two of you were hoeing potatoes, but still not say a word all that afternoon. Believe me, if she had sent out any useful signals I would have made a move. She was a fine boned blonde, and if I have a type, that's my type. Small, but not petite. Sturdy and smart enough to do some serious gardening, but nicely curved. I'd say, 5'-3, 120. She was also staggering towards the finish line of a decade long relationship, which gave me pause, for both our sakes.

Yeah, Facism is just socialism with better taste in clothes.
Pffft. I've lived in a successful socialist community (not to mention two successful socialist countries) and there's no relation between those and corporatist statism. Beside, socialist babes can wear minis. Huge! difference.
   255. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:02 PM (#4401700)
? I flat disagreed with Snapper in the Steubenville thread, and gave him a fairly hard time over some of his views as expressed there

-GUFFAW- Because he was holding the position liberals held! Nice one.


I would just like to point out my position is in no way "liberal". It is old-fashioned law and order conservatism.

Criminals are 100% responsible for their crimes, and deserve harsh punishment.


Point to snapper.

jack

what young man isn't looking to canoodle at the slightest hint much less a 'really, really..."?

because I know you couldn't have been that dense. (ha, ha)


hw--

in the language of the time, "partner" (to me, anyway) meant "business partner". She'd just been talking about her greenhouse business so I had no chance at all of making the connection to romance. Looking back, the term, in the sense of romantic partner, was probably less than a year old; one of those damnable hippie words that sucks the juice out of language in a desperate effort to eliminate any historical, disparaging overtones given to "husband" or "wife"... I suppose "partner" wrt a relationship is meant to sound more co-operative than conventional words like "boyfriend" or "girlfriend", but back then it just sounded business oriented to my ears.
   256. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:07 PM (#4401702)
Oh Sam, did you really ever imagine yourself so predictable?


Low hanging fruit is *delicious.*
   257. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:10 PM (#4401704)
Just to add, she was apparently one of those very prim women who don't and don't and don't and suddenly DO tell you they're interested. Except when it came out it was in the obscurantist hippie-speak of the day. Sigh.

I imagine at some point, quite a while back, a man said to a woman for the first time, meaning something new, "I'd really like to give you the business", and she said, "No thanks, I'm not interested in widgets."
   258. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:18 PM (#4401710)

Or unless you getting raped. Some states don't care about a woman's right to defend herself if it means her having a gun.

The abortion industry will be there to clean up part of the mess though. Hurrah for Planned Parenthood!


Wow this was fun. A new level of delusion. You guys never disappoint.
   259. tshipman Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:28 PM (#4401714)
The problem comes because each party is so wrapped up in the silliness of painting the other as evil that they fail to see that the differences between them aren't that large. An example of a large difference would be: "Let's slash the federal budget by 70%; slash federal offices; do away with large swathes of the federal government and various agencies." But in reality, the difference is "Oh, let's increase spending by 5% instead of 6%" (or whatever). That is not a meaningful difference.


The differences between the Ryan and Murray budgets are quite striking.

The Ryan budget calls for approximately 13% less spending over the next ten years with almost all of that savings coming from spending on Medicaid and Obamacare. For the most part, current old people are untouched, and the tax code would become less progressive than it is at current.

The Murray budget calls for around 3% less spending over the next ten years, with most of the savings coming from a reduction in tax expenditures on the wealthy. Current budget allotments are mostly untouched, and military spending is restored to pre-sequester levels. It also includes approximately 100 billion in stimulus spending.

The two budgets are very different from each other, and they represent the best statement of the two parties' beliefs. One party wants to reduce spending on poor people and lower taxes. The other party wants to continue current law spending on poor people and make the tax code more progressive.
   260. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:29 PM (#4401715)
Dude, she was one of those highly intelligent, extremely reserved hippie chicks, who might shed her shirt while the two of you were hoeing potatoes, but still not say a word all that afternoon. Believe me, if she had sent out any useful signals I would have made a move. She was a fine boned blonde, and if I have a type, that's my type. Small, but not petite. Sturdy and smart enough to do some serious gardening, but nicely curved. I'd say, 5'-3, 120. She was also staggering towards the finish line of a decade long relationship, which gave me pause, for both our sakes.

What was your downside? A slap?
   261. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:51 PM (#4401719)
The Murray budget calls for around 3% less spending over the next ten years, with most of the savings coming from a reduction in tax expenditures on the wealthy.

What are "tax expenditures on the wealthy"?

I'm fine with tax increase for the truly wealthy (maybe >$1M, not the $250K the Dems define as rich), but call it what it is.
   262. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:54 PM (#4401720)
What was your downside? A slap?


Her feelings, actually. We had been friendly, had some nice talks, but I had the impression she would take an unwanted pass badly. Some women don't, but some definitely do. She was in an awkward place, and was the sort of person who is so careful with their personal space it's essentially impossible to get a reading of them.

I'm good at the nuance of getting involved--things like, sitting a little close, touching her arm or shoulder briefly in conversation, getting her something from the bar, taking something out of her hand if she's carrying a heavy load without bothering to ask (presuming I know her at least a little, of course)***, but time and situations hadn't and weren't going to permit many of those opportunities.

In short, up until then she hadn't given me any signs at all beyond being friendly before saying "I'm really, really, really looking for a [boyfriend]." Heckfire, maybe I am a little too conservative in this regard, but I like a little something before making a move. I've had to tell female friends on occasion, "C'mon, Merlinda, if you like him, help him out a little bit. Smile at him twice within ten minutes. Sit down next to him or at least at the same table in the cafeteria. You don't have to strip--just give him a little something to work with."

***There was an awesomely beautiful woman***** in the Toastmasters meeting I went to a few times, and in the parking lot before the meeting she was getting out of her car, carrying a half dozen things for her talk. I went over, said "Gimme" and took a couple of things from her. That night we got involved, and she said that had a lot to do with it. Masculine without being obnoxious. Presumptuous, but in a nice way.

*****The sort that maybe you don't notice right away. Medium height, nice figure but not flamboyant. Shortish hair. I sat next to her at my first meeting and it took me five minutes to start looking at her and noticing, Holy ####, she's perfect. Even down to the little whirls in her ears, the wings of her nose, her complexion, the grain of her skin... Oof.
   263. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 10:56 PM (#4401722)
Her feelings, actually. We had been friendly, had some nice talks, but I had the impression she would take an unwanted pass badly. Some women don't, but some definitely do. She was in an awkward place, and was the sort of person who is so careful with their personal space it's essentially impossible to get a reading of them.

I've never experienced, or even heard of a woman being particularly miffed that a guy tried to kiss her.

I was being facetious about the slap. I think that went out in 1940, unless you get really paw-y when trying to kiss her.
   264. tshipman Posted: April 01, 2013 at 11:03 PM (#4401726)
What are "tax expenditures on the wealthy"?

I'm fine with tax increase for the truly wealthy (maybe >$1M, not the $250K the Dems define as rich), but call it what it is.


I am calling it what it is. The Murray budget reduces tax expenditures that are mostly taken advantage of by the wealthy. It does not raise the tax level, so calling it a tax increase can be somewhat misleading in that it is a reduction in tax expenditure. That's like calling the Ryan proposal to freeze Medicaid "raising taxes on the poor."
   265. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 01, 2013 at 11:07 PM (#4401727)
Wouldn't "tax expenditures" on the wealthy be things like building new, commercially oriented airports? (One of hundreds of examples.)

I've never experienced, or even heard of a woman being particularly miffed that a guy tried to kiss her.


Getting upset at a pleasant pass would be rare. An actual kiss, though, when it's entirely unwanted and unexpected? I've known more than a couple of women who were deeply put off by that when they definitely weren't interested in the guy. YMMV, of course, and I would imagine the older the woman, the more likely it is she'd take it in stride. Where are you from (and how long have you been married)? Geography may enter into this.

Btw, while there are times when a kiss is clearly the indicated move, or at least the next thing to try, there are a dozen other moves in the progression that tend to come first. Iirc every year some college social sciences program announces there are 55 or 47 or 52 stages in courtship, and kissing is never the first, or in the first ten.
   266. Shibal Posted: April 01, 2013 at 11:38 PM (#4401733)
Well if a college social science program says you have to go through 55 steps in courtship, you best follow every one.

I for one am grateful. While all you "nice guys" are taking weeks to work through those steps, I'm finding out in five minutes if she's interested in me or not.

Note to all: if she isn't attracted to you in five minutes, she probably won't be attracted to you in five days, five weeks, or five years. No matter how well your work through the stages in courtship.
   267. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 01, 2013 at 11:52 PM (#4401739)
The Murray budget reduces tax expenditures that are mostly taken advantage of by the wealthy. It does not raise the tax level, so calling it a tax increase can be somewhat misleading in that it is a reduction in tax expenditure. That's like calling the Ryan proposal to freeze Medicaid "raising taxes on the poor."

This is a good illustration of the problem of getting bogged down by semantic distinctions that are largely meaningless in practice.

The Murray budget will reduce the amount of disposable income that the wealthy currently have, no matter what you call it.

And freezing Medicaid will result in Medicaid patients having less disposable income to spend of things other than health care**, also no matter what you call it.

I realize that the wording is important for reasons of political positioning, but let's not fool ourselves about what's going on. Murray wants the wealthy to pay more in taxes, and Ryan wants Medicaid patients to make do with less.

**Unless, of course, the Medicaid population and the cost of medical care both remain static.

   268. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 01, 2013 at 11:55 PM (#4401742)
...I'm finding out in five minutes if she's interested in me or not.


Yeah, #### dating! Dating is for losers! Because screw personality and all that! I'm looking forward to hearing next about how the pickup artist community has changed your life.

How long have you had autism, btw?
   269. Shibal Posted: April 02, 2013 at 12:12 AM (#4401751)
It is no wonder ol' Jack missed all the signs from this lady.

Jack, here are the first three steps in courtship : I see cute woman. I talk to cute woman. I ask cute woman out. All within five minutes.

If she says yes, we go out on a date. If she says no, we don't. And we both move on.

That's not a "pickup artist community" trick. It's life.

Meanwhile, gentlemen Jack is stuck sitting at his table waiting for a smile from the cute blond sitting alone at the coffee shop.

   270. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 12:17 AM (#4401753)
Yeah. Shyness. That's my problem. Yup.

Loser, please stop babbling. You're just embarrassing yourself. Try reading--it's all right there.

And please don't segue into how negging works for you, followed by a link to a website. I'm asking nicely.



   271. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 12:28 AM (#4401755)
Or unless you getting raped. Some states don't care about a woman's right to defend herself if it means her having a gun.


After Newtown one of the newspapers was publishing a list of gun owners -- like they were sex offenders or something. The paper decided it had to put a stop to it once it realized that some of the gun owners were battered women who had taken out restraining orders on men and were trying to protect themselves.

How about we publish a list of welfare recipients? Any objections?
   272. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 12:30 AM (#4401757)
The Murray budget calls for around 3% less spending over the next ten years, with most of the savings coming from a reduction in tax expenditures on the wealthy.

What are "tax expenditures on the wealthy"?


Unicorns, since the wealthy pay far more in taxes than they get in "tax expenditures."
   273. Steve Treder Posted: April 02, 2013 at 12:37 AM (#4401758)
the wealthy pay far more in taxes than they get in "tax expenditures."

Yes, and in no conceivably operable universe would this ever not be the case.

   274. tshipman Posted: April 02, 2013 at 12:56 AM (#4401760)
Unicorns, since the wealthy pay far more in taxes than they get in "tax expenditures."


Some wealthy people pay X amount of taxes. Some wealthy people pay X-1. Patty Murray's proposal is to have more wealthy people pay X amount of taxes rather than X-1.

Edit: Whatever you want to call it is fine. If you want to call it "raising taxes on the rich" then call it that, but you're only raising taxes on some of the rich. /shrug.
   275. Dan Evensen Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:08 AM (#4401761)
I think "politics as horse racing" has been absolutely disastrous for our country's policy decisions. If getting government out of the marriage business entirely is the right policy, then that should be the favored policy regardless of how popular it is. To say otherwise leads to nowhere good.

I currently live in China, where the "right" policy is often put in to place regardless of how popular it is. Be careful about what you wish for. ;-)

EDIT: This is in response to #76. This thread sure got big in a hurry.
   276. SoSH U at work Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:12 AM (#4401762)
After Newtown one of the newspapers was publishing a list of gun owners -- like they were sex offenders or something. The paper decided it had to put a stop to it once it realized that some of the gun owners were battered women who had taken out restraining orders on men and were trying to protect themselves.


In a vacuum (not necessarily in the chaos that followed Newtown or where some bizarre shaming was the objective, as might have been the case here), what would be the objection the gun owners have to people knowing they own guns? If that battering ex-husband knows that his former punching bag is packing heat, wouldn't that make him less likely to go knocking on her door at 3 a.m., trying to convince her that he's really changed this time, baby? It would be like having one of them ADT signs in your front lawn, only one that fires high-velocity projectiles capable of killing the intruder. Hell, if such a list became common practice, I'd probably just get the permit and eschew the weapon that I'd be exponentially more likely to fire into my own foot than use for effective family-protectin' purposes.
   277. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:21 AM (#4401764)
Some wealthy people pay X amount of taxes. Some wealthy people pay X-1. Patty Murray's proposal is to have more wealthy people pay X amount of taxes rather than X-1.


"Raise taxes on the rich" is not exactly a novel plan.

Oh, "some of" the rich. Yes, what ingenuity!
   278. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:23 AM (#4401765)
How about we publish a list of welfare recipients? Any objections?
Sure. And after you list the Fortune 500, which bunch of millionaires and billionaires should we list next?

The more interesting thing is, what's the purpose of a given list?

If that battering ex-husband knows that his former punching bag is packing heat,..
Is the issue more that now the battering ex- knows where his/her former punching bag currently lives?

-------------------------------

Has anyone here not seen the movie Layer Cake?

edit: "I currently live in China, where the "right" policy is often put in to place regardless of how popular it is. Be careful about what you wish for. ;-)"

Dan, care to list a few? I'm not all that familiar with China's internal affairs.

   279. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:30 AM (#4401767)
How about we publish a list of welfare recipients? Any objections?


I'll start:

- Jeffrey Loria
- David Glass

Let's keep up the flow!
   280. tshipman Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:39 AM (#4401769)
"Raise taxes on the rich" is not exactly a novel plan.

Oh, "some of" the rich. Yes, what ingenuity!


Look, you stated that there wasn't a difference between parties. I pointed out that there was a very large difference. The Republican party thinks we should spend less money, significantly less, on services for poor people, and for old people (in the distant future). Democrats think we should keep on spending the same amount of money as we are now, and pay for it by eliminating tax breaks that predominantly benefit the wealthy.

The fact of the matter is that those are significant differences in vision.
   281. Howie Menckel Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:45 AM (#4401772)

"In a vacuum (not necessarily in the chaos that followed Newtown or where some bizarre shaming was the objective, as might have been the case here), what would be the objection the gun owners have to people knowing they own guns?"

This occurred in wealthy Westchester County, NY, kind of on the way to Newtown.

The objections were divided.
Many were annoyed that criminals might target the homes of those who did not seem to have guns.
Others were upset that they might be more likely to be burglarized once criminals knew they had a chance to steal a gun once inside.

Pretty interesting in the whole debate, I thought.

The angriest group seemed to be the retired cops whose addresses were made easier to find by the people they locked up (which is not hard to find if you know what you are doing, but then if you are that smart, you might not have a criminal record in the first place).

   282. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:46 AM (#4401773)
The fact of the matter is that those are significant differences in vision.


I'll also throw in a complete indifference to policing pollution on one hand, versus an authentic if albeit at times confused concern for the environment on the other. That's another significant difference. And never mind the whole global warming bit, where if the GOP has its way industry will show record profits building oceanfront condos in Tennessee.

It's unfortunate that Bill Clinton pushed for deregulation of the financial industry and Obama has been so indifferent to it. That used to be a huge difference between the parties. I hope it is again. It's too bad Obama failed to understand that just giving corporate titans everything they could possibly want wasn't enough. Failing to publicly fellate them too was enough to get them donating in droves to the GOP. Too bad he wasn't canny enough to figure out the principled thing was also the politically savvy thing.
   283. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:53 AM (#4401774)
"In a vacuum (not necessarily in the chaos that followed Newtown or where some bizarre shaming was the objective, as might have been the case here), what would be the objection the gun owners have to people knowing they own guns?"

This occurred in wealthy Westchester County, NY, kind of on the way to Newtown.

The objections were divided.
Many were annoyed that criminals might target the homes of those who did not seem to have guns.
Others were upset that they might be more likely to be burglarized once criminals knew they had a chance to steal a gun once inside.

Pretty interesting in the whole debate, I thought.

The angriest group seemed to be the retired cops whose addresses were made easier to find by the people they locked up (which is not hard to find if you know what you are doing, but then if you are that smart, you might not have a criminal record in the first place).


Yes. Plus general privacy concerns. People were being "outed" for exercising a constitutional right.

Somehow I think if the paper were to publish a list of women who have had abortions, the same people applauding the paper for publishing the list of gun owners would go into orbit over privacy concerns here.
   284. SteveF Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:55 AM (#4401776)
After Newtown one of the newspapers was publishing a list of gun owners...


A gun owner did the same to the employees of the paper.

There's so much information about us that's publicly available. While it seems innocuous in a scattered form, what happens when someone organizes that publicly available information in a way that we don't particularly care for?

It reminds me of the GirlsAroundMe app that hooked into the foursquare API that would give you a quick rundown of the names, photos, and interests of every girl in your immediate location. All that information was willingly shared by those women, but when organized in that way things get pretty disturbing.

There was that guy who worked for Target who wrote an algorithm to identify pregnant women for targeted marketing campaigns. One teenage girl was "outed" for being pregnant when a coupon flier was sent to her house. Her father was pretty angry that Target would send his teenage daughter coupons for diapers and cribs, but was likely more upset when he learned that Target knew more about his own daughter than he did.
   285. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 01:55 AM (#4401775)
In a vacuum (not necessarily in the chaos that followed Newtown or where some bizarre shaming was the objective, as might have been the case here), what would be the objection the gun owners have to people knowing they own guns? [...] Hell, if such a list became common practice, I'd probably just get the permit and eschew the weapon that I'd be exponentially more likely to fire into my own foot than use for effective family-protectin' purposes.

The latter would render the former moot, so it seems like a big "why bother?" That aside, the obvious problem with publishing a list of gun owners is that unless all of those gun owners are severely agoraphobic, their guns are left unattended while they're at work, school, on vacation, etc., which makes gun thefts all the easier for criminals.

***
Look, you stated that there wasn't a difference between parties. I pointed out that there was a very large difference. The Republican party thinks we should spend less money, significantly less, on services for poor people, and for old people (in the distant future). Democrats think we should keep on spending the same amount of money as we are now, and pay for it by eliminating tax breaks that predominantly benefit the wealthy.

The fact of the matter is that those are significant differences in vision.

Not really. Aside from the fact that both current spending levels and projected future spending are unsustainable, a difference of 5 or 10 percent between the Dem and GOP budget plans just isn't a big deal. Both parties have the U.S. well on its way to a financial meltdown that makes 2008 seem like a day at the carnival; the Dems' plan just gets the U.S. there a year or two sooner than the GOP's.
   286. SoSH U at work Posted: April 02, 2013 at 02:20 AM (#4401780)
Yes. Plus general privacy concerns. People were being "outed" for exercising a constitutional right.

Somehow I think if the paper were to publish a list of women who have had abortions, the same people applauding the paper for publishing the list of gun owners would go into orbit over privacy concerns here.


Did it occur to you that no one has actually applauded the newspaper for publishing the list of gun owners? Or does that kind of reflection just slow you down? (-:

I think the objections are kind of fascinating, since they seem to run the gamut (non gun owners upset for being outed as non gun onwers, gun owners being outed as gun owners, the homes with guns becoming targets for criminals {since warding off home invaders is a chief reason for owning guns in the first place}, public information being disseminated publicly).

For the record, I'm not in favor of any public listing of xxx, either by media outlets or the government, including the generally accepted registry of sex offenders. And when I was the editor of a paper, I wouldn't do it. That list always seemed like a second round of punishment for the perverts, and didn't sit well with me.

I was just wondering whether, all things considered, gun owners would prefer the general public, including potential criminals, know they possess WSDs* or if that information is best left to the imagination. The various explanations haven't gotten me any closer to that answer, though they have opened other lines of thought I hadn't considered.

* Weapons of Singular Destruction.


   287. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 02:33 AM (#4401784)
I was just wondering whether, all things considered, gun owners would prefer the general public, including potential criminals, know they possess WSDs* or if that information is best left to the imagination.

If a gun owner wants the general public to know such information, he or she is — and has always been — free to post a sign at the edge of their property or outside their door.
   288. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 02:37 AM (#4401787)
Somehow I think if the paper were to publish a list of women who have had abortions, the same people applauding the paper for publishing the list of gun owners would go into orbit over privacy concerns here.


Do women getting abortions have to obtain licenses? How did I miss that...

A gun owner did the same to the employees of the paper.


Smart. Hard for the JN to complain about that one.
   289. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 02, 2013 at 06:16 AM (#4401799)
Maybe the objections to those gun owners' lists could be met by restricting their viewing to all registered law officers----with the names of known mental patients yellow highlighted in large type and bold lettering. That would probably do more to prevent another Newtown than publishing every gun owner's name in a newspaper.
   290. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:17 AM (#4401809)
If a gun owner wants the general public to know such information, he or she is — and has always been — free to post a sign at the edge of their property or outside their door.


The name of the old Memphis punk band Man with Gun Lives Here comes immediately to mind ...
   291. zonk Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:43 AM (#4401819)
Unicorns, since the wealthy pay far more in taxes than they get in "tax expenditures."


Some days I feel like a pragmatist, others I align more with the radicals...

Today, I feel more like a radical so I'll just say that what they "get" in tax expenditures is a relatively stable society where the nanny, the gardener, the doorman, the driver, the busboy, the waiter, and the like are nominally content to do jobs that are hardly anyone's dream for relatively low salaries that simply will not pay for expensive medical operations, down payments on homes near their places of employment, educations for the betterment of their children, and pensions to provide for them in their old age when they can no longer perform those jobs. They further get the armed civilians - police - charged with keeping that peace and stability who, by and large, value the guardianship to which they're entrusted more than that which they guard and a military that not only prevents the sacking of that wealth, but doesn't turn its own greedy eyes inward.

Scoff, but I'm sure the Romanovs in Imperial Russia, the Bourbons in revolutionary France, the Romans who fell to the Visigoths when the slaves threw open the city gates, Chiang's nationalists in China, etc scoffed at one time, too.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you think the teeming masses are lazy ne'er do wells, noble individuals struggling for success against a corrupt system, some combination of both or neither - if a critical mass of them no longer believe in either the justice of the current system or the opiates used to satiate them, another 5 points of taxation that goes to 'someone else' will seem like a pretty sweet deal in retrospect.
   292. Ron J2 Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4401838)
#21 That's really well thought out. Very nice job.
   293. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4401839)
Some days I feel like a pragmatist, others I align more with the radicals...

Today, I feel more like a radical so I'll just say that what they "get" in tax expenditures is a relatively stable society where the nanny, the gardener, the doorman, the driver, the busboy, the waiter, and the like are nominally content to do jobs that are hardly anyone's dream for relatively low salaries that simply will not pay for expensive medical operations, down payments on homes near their places of employment, educations for the betterment of their children, and pensions to provide for them in their old age when they can no longer perform those jobs. They further get the armed civilians - police - charged with keeping that peace and stability who, by and large, value the guardianship to which they're entrusted more than that which they guard and a military that not only prevents the sacking of that wealth, but doesn't turn its own greedy eyes inward.

Scoff, but I'm sure the Romanovs in Imperial Russia, the Bourbons in revolutionary France, the Romans who fell to the Visigoths when the slaves threw open the city gates, Chiang's nationalists in China, etc scoffed at one time, too.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you think the teeming masses are lazy ne'er do wells, noble individuals struggling for success against a corrupt system, some combination of both or neither - if a critical mass of them no longer believe in either the justice of the current system or the opiates used to satiate them, another 5 points of taxation that goes to 'someone else' will seem like a pretty sweet deal in retrospect.


You have a point, and I greatly fear the growing disparity between the rich and working class.

However, you misdiagnose something. Revolutions have never come from the poor. They come from the disenfranchised upper and middle classes.

The poor may riot and cause some damage, but if the upper and middle classes are loyal to the government, that can be control by police/military tactics.

From the American Colonies, to 1790's France, to the 1848 revolutions in Central Europe, to 1917 Russia, the leaders of the revolution were always upper and middle class, often intelligentsia (self-styled or real), and only claimed to be acting on behalf of the "people".
   294. Publius Publicola Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:26 AM (#4401842)
If a gun owner wants the general public to know such information, he or she is — and has always been — free to post a sign at the edge of their property or outside their door.


That's not the usual method though. Most prefer to serve notice by the swath of sanguinity they leave behind.
   295. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:27 AM (#4401844)
However, you misdiagnose something. Revolutions have never come from the poor.


Not exactly. The poor have revolted often over the course of history. But generally speaking, they're poorly armed and have little capital to make it a long term, successful thing. Revolutions that are starving at the beginning are easy to wait out.
   296. formerly dp Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4401846)
David Brooks on the tyranny of marriage...

Before reading Brooks, I did not realize that the SC planned to force homosexuals into marriages.
   297. Publius Publicola Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:34 AM (#4401848)
However, you misdiagnose something. Revolutions have never come from the poor. They come from the disenfranchised upper and middle classes.


This is a poor reading of history. You are mistaking revolutions with coup de tats. If the upper classes are unhappy with the leadership, they stage a coup and replace him. They don't rebel against themselves and upend society. For a genuine revolution to happen, the masses rebel. Two thirds of Americans rose against the British monarchy, for instance.
   298. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:43 AM (#4401851)
David Brooks on the tyranny of marriage...

Before reading Brooks, I did not realize that the SC planned to force homosexuals into marriages.


That's a misreading of Brooks's column. It had nothing to do with "force" in the boogeyman sense that the government is going to require gays to get married. He simply means that with legalized gay marriage on the horizon, gays who choose to get married will voluntarily "force" themselves into accepting the same sort of "freedom"-restricting obligations that straight married couples always (theoretically, at least) have. And being a strong believer in the family unit, Brooks naturally welcomes this development, using pretty much the same (conservative) argument for gay marriage that many gays have been making all along.
   299. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:43 AM (#4401854)
This is a poor reading of history. You are mistaking revolutions with coup de tats. If the upper classes are unhappy with the leadership, they stage a coup and replace him. They don't rebel against themselves and upend society. For a genuine revolution to happen, the masses rebel. Two thirds of Americans rose against the British monarchy, for instance.

Closer to 1/3 rebel, 1/3 loyalist, 1/3 neutral. It wasn't that popular; Washington always had trouble raising troops. The leaders and driving forced behind the American Revolution were almost all upper class, who had substantial political clout pre-war. Even the non-violent revolution against the British raj in India was led by the upper-class. Gandhi was no peasant, despite his dress.

The examples I cited were clearly not coup d'etats. There was not a single actual worker or peasant among the Bolshevik leadership. The French Revolution was led by Lawyers and Merchants in the National Assemby.

Not exactly. The poor have revolted often over the course of history. But generally speaking, they're poorly armed and have little capital to make it a long term, successful thing. Revolutions that are starving at the beginning are easy to wait out.

Violent uprisings that are easily suppressed are generally not termed "Revolutions". Revolt or rebellion is probably a good term.

And usually, true peasant revolts have not aimed at overturning the state. They are simply seeking an amelioration of their condition: lower taxes, cheaper bread, more land. And they quite often got concessions from the rulers in order to end the turmoil cheaply.

For success, or even a close-run failure, you almost always need significant middle and upper class support for the revolt.
   300. zonk Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4401871)
You have a point, and I greatly fear the growing disparity between the rich and working class.

However, you misdiagnose something. Revolutions have never come from the poor. They come from the disenfranchised upper and middle classes.

The poor may riot and cause some damage, but if the upper and middle classes are loyal to the government, that can be control by police/military tactics.

From the American Colonies, to 1790's France, to the 1848 revolutions in Central Europe, to 1917 Russia, the leaders of the revolution were always upper and middle class, often intelligentsia (self-styled or real), and only claimed to be acting on behalf of the "people".


The leaders perhaps, but the foot soldiers are an absolutely required component to shed the blood and storm the Bastille...

I might actually agree that the American revolution was perhaps more rooted than others in the landed gentry -- but I think it's also quite the anomaly in that it was more bloodless and 'orderly' than most such revolutions. What's more - the American revolutionaries on the whole tended to be a lot more conservative in their aims... the few radicals - Paine, for one - were pretty quickly shunted aside once their role was played (IIRC, Paine left the new nation and actually served in the first Convention).

Ironically - I was having this same argument, but from nearly the opposite direction, with a much more reliably radical friend a few years back at the start of the OWS movement... Like most modern revolutionaries -- he wanted to skip straight ahead to arguing over the length of culottes and dispatching those not fully vested in the 'movement' -- we reached a point where he put it plainly: When the barricades go up, which side of them will you be on?

My answer is probably the same today as then -- I'd hope to be straddling it, or in a position to quickly jump to the side that lives... But - despite having a relatively stable income that exceeds the national median, even in a major metropolitan area, working in a private, non-union position... I will say that my heart and my long-term best interests just might lie with the rioters more than with those being looted. It's just that might head, at this point in time, would prevent me from being down in the street with them if I could avoid it.
Page 3 of 66 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3407 - 6:49pm, Jul 28)
Last: spike

NewsblogESPN: Yankee Fan Returns Lost Red Sox World Series Ring
(11 - 6:39pm, Jul 28)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogFormer OF Jason Lane takes loss in first start
(4 - 6:38pm, Jul 28)
Last: JRVJ

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(992 - 6:36pm, Jul 28)
Last: HMS Moses Taylor

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(460 - 6:35pm, Jul 28)
Last: Darkness and the howling fantods

NewsblogDmitri Young explains his amazing weight loss
(27 - 6:33pm, Jul 28)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogFull Count » Mike Carp explains why he requested a trade from Red Sox
(34 - 6:25pm, Jul 28)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogGossage on Bonds, McGwire Hall hopes: ‘Are you f–king kidding?’
(125 - 6:16pm, Jul 28)
Last: Walt Davis

Newsblog2014 Prospect Watch | MLB.com: UPDATED
(9 - 6:09pm, Jul 28)
Last: Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora

NewsblogDodgers and Diamondbacks Triple-A teams involved in wild brawl
(24 - 6:08pm, Jul 28)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogSchoenfield: Why didn't the Braves win more titles?
(87 - 6:01pm, Jul 28)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogHall of Fame Announces Changes to Voting Process for Recently Retired Players, Effective Immediately
(97 - 5:59pm, Jul 28)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-28-2014
(43 - 5:55pm, Jul 28)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogDeadspin: David Ortiz Pissed Off the Rays Again
(51 - 5:48pm, Jul 28)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-28
(21 - 5:32pm, Jul 28)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

Page rendered in 2.5838 seconds
52 querie(s) executed