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

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, 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 59 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 > 
   5801. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4223956)
While it's true that minimum wage retail job would not be worth taking at that income level, if you were an unskilled worker making that little to begin with you would never qualify for $366 per week.

OK, now add in the value of housing subsidies, healthcare, food stamps, heating assistance, free cell phone, subsidized internet, etc., etc.

The current system creates massive disincentives to work low-skill, low-pay jobs, since every dollar earned often costs the person a dollar in benefits.
   5802. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4223958)
Sure ... but the problems are more fundamental than that. Like Snapper said, too many people on the dole and the country rots.


I seem have missed the "why" of this statement along the way. Recap? Holding onto your already slanted terminologies just for fidelity's sake, what exactly about "too many people on the dole" makes the country "rot?"
   5803. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4223961)
OK, now add in the value of housing subsidies, healthcare, food stamps, heating assistance, free cell phone, subsidized internet, etc., etc.


That stuff doesn't go away automatically just because you get a job. Plenty of low wage working people get food stamps, housing assistance, etc. Yeah, some benefits would go down, and expenses would go up, but in your hypothetical, you're still looking at a couple hundred more in cash per week.
   5804. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4223964)
That stuff doesn't go away automatically just because you get a job. Plenty of low wage working people get food stamps, housing assistance, etc. Yeah, some benefits would go down, and expenses would go up, but in your hypothetical, you're still looking at a couple hundred more in cash per week.

And yet, there's no stampede to fill low-wage jobs, despite 10 percent unemployment. Strange, no?
   5805. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4223966)

And yet, there's no stampede to fill low-wage jobs, despite 10 percent unemployment. Strange, no?


Joe's right. We need to raise the minimum wage.
   5806. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4223970)
Joe's right. We need to raise the minimum wage.

Why would we need to raise the minimum wage? According to 'Misirlou,' minimum-wage jobs already pay a lot more than sitting at home collecting government benefits.
   5807. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4223972)
And yet, there's no stampede to fill low-wage jobs, despite 10 percent unemployment. Strange, no?


Of course there is. You just don't want to see it because it interferes with your preferred narrative. You see stories all the time about some hotel advertising 20 openings for maids and bellhops, and there are hundreds lined up around the block to apply. We had that thread here a few weeks ago about the Padres job fair and how many people paid $500 a pop for a better chance at a low wage job.
   5808. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4223975)
Why would we need to raise the minimum wage? According to 'Misirlou,' minimum-wage jobs already pay a lot more than sitting at home collecting government benefits.


Bullshit. I never said that. Why are you such a congenital liar? I was responding to your hypothetical that one would be better collecting $500 a week in welfare than working 40 hours for $600. $600 per week is well above minimum wage. It's $15/hour.
   5809. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4223977)
I seem have missed the "why" of this statement along the way. Recap? Holding onto your already slanted terminologies just for fidelity's sake, what exactly about "too many people on the dole" makes the country "rot?"

I would hope we would have agreement on this principle -- that it is better for people and society for people to work for $20 an hour than be given $20 an hour on the dole. If we don't, I'm not sure there's much point in bickering over the more controversial parts.

If your vision of society is GE, McDonalds, WalMart, Google, Apple, Goldman Sachs and the other bulge brackets, and the US Federal Government running everything while everyone else lobbies and otherwise prostrates themselves to them, and bickers over their leftovers, we have fundamentally incompatible visions.
   5810. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4223981)
Of course there is. You just don't want to see it because it interferes with your preferred narrative. You see stories all the time about some hotel advertising 20 openings for maids and bellhops, and there are hundreds lined up around the block to apply.

We're going in circles here. This discussion got started because 'hokieneer' claimed that low-skill jobs are going unfilled, with employers advertising "higher than minimum wage."

We had that thread here a few weeks ago about the Padres job fair and how many people paid $500 a pop for a better chance at a low wage job.

That was a story about young people (foolishly) paying $500 for a chance to get a (bad) job in an industry that's perceived to be glamorous. It's not really an applicable example to the discussion about working at McDonald's vs. collecting gov't benefits.
   5811. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4223985)
I would hope we would have agreement on this principle -- that it is better for people and society for people to work for $20 an hour than be given $20 an hour on the dole.


I would have too, and I'm surprised at the Republicans in this thread (Joe, Good Face) readily admitting that they'd rather sit at home and cash government checks than work for the same amount of (or even MORE) money. I thought those were the types of people that Republicans hated, not the types of people that Republicans are.
   5812. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4223986)
########. I never said that. Why are you such a congenital liar? I was responding to your hypothetical that one would be better collecting $500 a week in welfare than working 40 hours for $600. $600 per week is well above minimum wage. It's $15/hour.

Are you nuts? In #5803, barely 15 minutes ago, you said:

That stuff doesn't go away automatically just because you get a job. Plenty of low wage working people get food stamps, housing assistance, etc. Yeah, some benefits would go down, and expenses would go up, but in your hypothetical, you're still looking at a couple hundred more in cash per week.

My hypothetical provided exactly $100 in extra cash per week, before a long list of expenses related to working (daycare, commuting costs, taxes, etc.). I also never used the word "welfare." Government benefits have gone way beyond simple welfare checks.
   5813. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4223987)
I would hope we would have agreement on this principle -- that it is better for people and society for people to work for $20 an hour than be given $20 an hour on the dole. If we don't, I'm not sure there's much point in bickering over the more controversial parts.


I take very, very few agreements "on principle." I tend to ask why. It's sort of my schtick. I realize it's an article of faith in most of America that the "protestant work ethic" is sacrosanct and that humanity is somehow lessened if it's not spending its finite breath in this cosmos performing "productive work," but I'd like to see a good explanation of why that is the case. If Wil Wheaton shows up with a replicator tomorrow and can magically turn out food, clothing and all the goods necessary for human existence by the wave of the singularity's magic wand, why exactly would humanity need to "work" instead of living a life of communal liesure?

If your vision of society is GE, McDonalds, WalMart, Google, Apple, Goldman Sachs and the other bulge brackets, and the US Federal Government running everything while everyone else lobbies and otherwise prostrates themselves to them, and bickers over their leftovers, we have fundamentally incompatible visions.


I have not proposed a vision of society so far. I've asked you to provide some sort of argumentative heft to support your assumptions about work and the value of human life.
   5814. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4223989)
I would have too, and I'm surprised at the Republicans in this thread (Joe, Good Face) readily admitting that they'd rather sit at home and cash government checks than work for the same amount of (or even MORE) money. I thought those were the types of people that Republicans hated, not the types of people that Republicans are.

Neither Republicans nor libertarians "hate" people who make rational decisions.
   5815. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4223991)
My hypothetical provided exactly $100 in extra cash per week,


And excluded $100 per week in EITC.

edit: And as was pointed out, the maximum unemployment benefit is $336 per week. So, 700-336-some additional expenses = a couple hundred more cash per week.
   5816. formerly dp Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4223994)
If working a minimum-wage job paid more than the panoply of government benefits available to the unemployed, people would be getting into fistfights every time McDonald's or Starbucks posted a job opening.


Someone pointed out that there are help wanted signs up, and that becomes "evidence" to you that being on government assistance is a better deal than working.

Unemployment benefits are temporary, they're capped, and they're determined based on your previous earnings.

It is hard finding work out there right now. Where I live, when a Walmart hires, there are people lined up to apply for that job. There's a glut of people willing to work for free, employers are abusing/circumventing internship regulations, so you have people literally working for free doing jobs someone should be getting paid for, all for the promise of a job that isn't there.

You make up numbers and then use them to inform your opinions on the choices unemployed people have to make. This is not a worldview informed by empirical evidence, but by fantasy.
   5817. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4223998)
And excluded $100 per week in EITC.

EITC creates a work disincentive at $1,000/month. Since $600/week yields more than $1,000/mo., I don't see how this was a "gotcha."

Of course, coming from someone who, two weeks ago, didn't know people had to qualify for Social Security and Medicare, this isn't very surprising.
   5818. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4223999)
I take very, very few agreements "on principle." I tend to ask why. It's sort of my schtick. I realize it's an article of faith in most of America that the "protestant work ethic" is sacrosanct and that humanity is somehow lessened if it's not spending its finite breath in this cosmos performing "productive work," but I'd like to see a good explanation of why that is the case.

At the very least, so that everyone has a fundamentally similar stake in the society. Some people would still want to work even if the replicator came out -- people run marathons and triathlons for free when they could sit on their ass instead (and stay fit and healthy with much a much smaller investment in time and effort). TR's Strenuous Life appeals to a lot of people, as it should.

The reasons people strive and work extend far beyond need and necessity.

(As an aside, these things have really nothing to do with the Bible, protestantism, and religion in general -- at least not essentially. You throw that strawman up consistently.)
   5819. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4224001)
edit: And as was pointed out, the maximum unemployment benefit is $336 per week. So, 700-336-some additional expenses = a couple hundred more cash per week.

Good grief. The maximum unemployment benefit is $336/week. Now add in the value of housing subsidies, healthcare, food stamps, heating assistance, free cell phone, subsidized internet, etc., etc.

Add $336 plus the value of all of the above and you don't get "a couple hundred more cash per week" by working a low-paying job.
   5820. formerly dp Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4224004)
Good grief. The maximum unemployment benefit is $336/week. Now add in the value of housing subsidies, healthcare, food stamps, heating assistance, free cell phone, subsidized internet, etc., etc.


I'm beginning to think that, like most people who ##### about people on public assistance, Joe doesn't actually know any.

OMG TEH WELFARE QUEENZ
   5821. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4224005)
At the very least, so that everyone has a fundamentally similar stake in the society. Some people would still want to work even if the replicator came out -- people run marathons and triathlons for free when they could sit on their ass instead (and stay fit and healthy with much a much smaller investment in time and effort). TR's Strenuous Life appeals to a lot of people, as it should.


That's a good argument for not refusing to let people work if they so desired. Of course, at that point I'd say they were more artisans than workers, and the activity more art than work, but if you want to hold the term work, fine. I run and lift and do CrossFit routines. I play softball and occasionally try to remind myself what the guitars hanging on the wall are for. In a post-replicator world, how is that activity notably different from "work" for people who's hobbies and fun happen to be...I don't know..spreadsheets* or something?

*We'll call these post-scarcity, post-necessity spreadsheet workers "Szymborskis"
   5822. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4224007)
That's a good argument for not refusing to let people work if they so desired.

And what's to be done with the product of their effort? Do they get to keep it post-Replicator?

In a post-replicator world, how is that activity notably different from "work" for people who's hobbies and fun happen to be...I don't know..spreadsheets* or something?

That was just an example. Post-Replicator there would still be Steve Jobs types and Bill Gates types and they'd strive to create. They didn't strive to create pre-Replicator because of need or necessity.
   5823. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4224009)
I'm beginning to think that, like most people who ##### about people on public assistance, Joe doesn't actually know any.


Isn't Kehoskie on record living in Mexico. He has no idea what he's talking about outside of what the cartels pay him to mule #### across the borders.
   5824. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4224012)
And what's to be done with the product of their effort? Do they get to keep it post-Replicator?


Why wouldn't they get to keep it? Hell, they could even sell it on a "artisan made" crafts fair circuit or something. Or they could shoot it into a star somewhere. Doesn't matter. They want to make something, *make something.* The point is that in a future society where production is mechanized to the point where *human labor is not required to create the essentials of human survival* there is no reason for people who DON'T want to work to have to work. They could go fishing. Or meditate in the high desert in a peyote induced haze. Or sell bottle-cap art on Etsy. Why would that be a bad thing?
   5825. hokieneer Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4224014)
I take very, very few agreements "on principle." I tend to ask why. It's sort of my schtick. I realize it's an article of faith in most of America that the "protestant work ethic" is sacrosanct and that humanity is somehow lessened if it's not spending its finite breath in this cosmos performing "productive work," but I'd like to see a good explanation of why that is the case. If Wil Wheaton shows up with a replicator tomorrow and can magically turn out food, clothing and all the goods necessary for human existence by the wave of the singularity's magic wand, why exactly would humanity need to "work" instead of living a life of communal liesure?

Yeah I agree. If I could hypothetically get a no strings attached "basket of goods" equivalent to the amount I could purchase/produce in a 40 hour work week, and it was enough where my family and I could live on, and hypothetically there was no way I could acquire more skills/education/training to eventually earn a bigger basket of goods, then why ####### waste my life working? The thought of having all that time to explore my own interests, passions, hobbies, etc is intoxicating. Of course the realistic key here is not being able to acquire more skill/education. Most people who enter the workforce at low-wages with no skills or experience, move up from there, which in turn increases their lifestyle.

I have worked at least part time since I was 16, full/part time during college, and 40-50 hour weeks since, and I really like my current job. Before I was 16, I would routinely spend my summers working around the house and neighborhood on lawn/garden care & projects, usually for next to nothing pay. I have no qualms about work, and I enjoy it at times, but there are lots of greater things I could be doing with my limited existence.

EDIT: I probably should have framed my response in the post-replicator example, not the handouts example, but the same principle applies.
   5826. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4224015)
That was just an example. Post-Replicator there would still be Steve Jobs types and Bill Gates types and they'd strive to create. They didn't strive to create pre-Replicator because of need or necessity.


Sure. I have no idea how the existence of post-scarcity and post-need would make "strive to create" folks less. They just don't get to charge anything but the value of their art when they create.
   5827. The Good Face Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4224016)
I would have too, and I'm surprised at the Republicans in this thread (Joe, Good Face) readily admitting that they'd rather sit at home and cash government checks than work for the same amount of (or even MORE) money. I thought those were the types of people that Republicans hated, not the types of people that Republicans are.

Neither Republicans nor libertarians "hate" people who make rational decisions.


Indeed. Although just to clarify, my sitting at home cashing gummint checks was predicated on me being in essentially the same situation as the guy I know. Since I'm not actually in his situation, I personally would try to find another job as quickly as possible.
   5828. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4224018)
Neither Republicans nor libertarians "hate" people who make rational decisions.


No, they just pretend they exist.
   5829. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4224020)
The point is that in a future society where production is mechanized to the point where *human labor is not required to create the essentials of human survival* there is no reason for people who DON'T want to work to have to work.

The Replicator is, I'm sorry to report, sinking swifly into a boggy morass of irrelevancy.

Very little human labor is "required to create the essentials of human survival" now. We passed the point where people had to work to survive a long, long time ago.

Why wouldn't they get to keep it?

Then they should get to keep it pre-Replicator. You could even make an exception for providing everyone a baseline "essentials of human survival" and still have plenty left over from the current tax haul.





   5830. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4224021)
Indeed. Although just to clarify, my sitting at home cashing gummint checks was predicated on me being in essentially the same situation as the guy I know. Since I'm not actually in his situation, I personally would try to find another job as quickly as possible.

Same for me with my hypothetical on the last page. I was only talking about the choices facing low-skilled workers in an economy that values them less and less and with a government that often makes the choice to work less and less rational.
   5831. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4224023)
Yeah I agree. If I could hypothetically get a no strings attached "basket of goods" equivalent to the amount I could purchase/produce in a 40 hour work week, and it was enough where my family and I could live on, and hypothetically there was no way I could acquire more skills/education/training to eventually earn a bigger basket of goods, then why ####### waste my life working? The thought of having all that time to explore my own interests, passions, hobbies, etc is intoxicating. Of course the realistic key here is not being able to acquire more skill/education. Most people who enter the workforce at low-wages with no skills or experience, move up from there, which in turn increases their lifestyle.


Here's an interesting idea. Modern Americans* already live in a post-scarcity environment. That's why the markets are so desperate to keep us believing we have to have the next bright shiny bauble in order to be complete. Sure, you can feed you and your kids, but you're not a real man without an iPhone 5.

Capitalism.

*duly noted that due to a lot of complex currents of history, race, cultural and religious assumptions, the United States is aghast at the idea of admitting we're in a post-scarcity moment and distributing the basics to everyone without having them "work for it."
   5832. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4224024)
Then they should get to keep it pre-Replicator. You could even make an exception for providing everyone a baseline "essentials of human survival" and still have plenty left over from the current tax haul.


You set up a system where baseline food, clothing and shelter is provided by the common purse, for the common good and you'll see a lot of people line up to support your "no taxes but the ones that pay for these common baselines."
   5833. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4224025)
Here's an interesting idea. Modern Americans* already live in a post-scarcity environment. That's why the markets are so desperate to keep us believing we have to have the next bright shiny bauble in order to be complete. Sure, you can feed you and your kids, but you're not a real man without an iPhone 5.

Capitalism.


This is axiomatic. JK Galbreath ("The Affluent Society") covered this territory 55 years ago. Capitalism manufactures the needs and desires for its output. Why do we put up with it? So people can be employed.
   5834. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4224026)
This is axiomatic. JK Galbreath ("The Affluent Society") covered this territory 55 years ago. Capitalism manufactures the needs and desires for its output. Why do we put up with it? So people can be employed.


And why must people be employed. To buy "needs and desires" with the coin of the realm.

Convenient.
   5835. The Good Face Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4224027)
Neither Republicans nor libertarians "hate" people who make rational decisions.


No, they just pretend they exist.


Of course rational decisions exist. Would you rather be savagely beaten to death with a tire iron in the next five minutes or eat a delicious cookie?

Humans are nowhere near wholly rational creatures, but we have our moments. Depending on the circumstances, it's perfectly rational to choose to collect (x) and not have to work as opposed to collecting (x)*(y%) and having to work.
   5836. Lassus Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4224031)
My favorite general from the Revolutionary War is Nathaniel Greene.

General Herkimer FTW.


Would you rather be savagely beaten to death with a tire iron in the next five minutes or eat a delicious cookie?

What kind of cookie? Because some of those ones with the nuts and cranberries and seriously awful, and I'd have to consider the tire iron.
   5837. McCoy Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4224033)
So is the goal to get tariff protected low skilled jobs back to America and then pay labor enough so that natives will actually take the job? $30 an hour to polish a fob on an iphone is really the answer here folks? Aren't we already grousing about teachers and their pensions and health care?
   5838. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4224037)
Aren't we already grousing about teachers and their pensions and health care?


I am not part of any "we" so grousing. I love teachers and think they deserve every penny they get. The fact that your kids are unteachable, self-centered idiots isn't their fault.
   5839. McCoy Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4224038)
It ain't my fault either. I have no kids.
   5840. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4224039)
It ain't my fault either. I have no kids.


Gaelan's going to yell at you.
   5841. McCoy Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4224043)
Gaelan's going to yell at you.

He can't, he might just leave UK high and dry.
   5842. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4224046)
Good grief. The maximum unemployment benefit is $336/week.

Not in NY. I've collected $455/wk. And you can get over $500 in NJ and CT.
   5843. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4224047)
General Herkimer FTW.

Way to show that Mohawk Valley pride!

***
Not in NY. I've collected $455/wk. And you can get over $500 in NJ and CT.

That's what I get for taking their numbers at face value. I should have borrowed a page from their book and demanded a citation.
   5844. Langer Monk Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4224049)
$500 a week in welfare


Most TANF grants are less than that per month (35 of 50 states for a family of three).

Adding in SNAP (food stamps), gets a family of 3 to less than 80% of Federal Poverty Line (18,530/year).

Other than that, sure, I bet a lot of people get $500/week in welfare.
   5845. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4224052)
Here's an interesting idea. Modern Americans* already live in a post-scarcity environment. That's why the markets are so desperate to keep us believing we have to have the next bright shiny bauble in order to be complete. Sure, you can feed you and your kids, but you're not a real man without an iPhone 5.


Not possible. Human nature means there's never enough. We always strive to have more than the next guy.

That's why we have 5000 sq ft houses, and $10,000 watches and $100,000 cars. No one needs those things, but people always want something better to show their status.
   5846. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4224054)
Modern Americans* already live in a post-scarcity environment. That's why the markets are so desperate to keep us believing we have to have the next bright shiny bauble in order to be complete. Sure, you can feed you and your kids, but you're not a real man without an iPhone 5.

My business consists of providing pieces of archival paper covered with images of old football program covers and other visual ephemera that nobody had previously thought of converting into posters. If people only bought what they really need I'd be living off dividends and Social Security.

The genius of capitalism is developing "needs" that were previously unrecognized, and the scourge of capitalism is when "needs" become inflated to the point where they become an addiction that puts people who couldn't really afford those "needs" in permanent debt. Finding the proper line between those two equally true propositions is the trick.
   5847. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4224055)
Other than that, sure, I bet a lot of people get $500/week in welfare.

The only person who said anything about "$500/week in welfare" was 'Misirlou,' when he misrepresented my earlier hypothetical.

***
(EDITED to remove a friendly joke re: #5846 that was liable to turn into another 500-comment copyright discussion.)
   5848. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4224056)
Not possible. Human nature means there's never enough. We always strive to have more than the next guy.


"Human nature" is whatever people did last generation, repeated to their children as if that's the only thing that's ever happened in the history of the world.
   5849. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4224059)
The genius of capitalism is developing "needs" that were previously unrecognized


If it was previously unrecognized, it was not a need. The genius of capitalism is prodding the lizard brain into eating everything in sight, and then convincing the monkey brain that you can't eat all of that without paying for it first.
   5850. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4224060)

"Human nature" is whatever people did last generation, repeated to their children as if that's the only thing that's ever happened in the history of the world.


People have been striving for status for 100,000 years. It's innate.
   5851. formerly dp Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4224061)
Not possible. Human nature means there's never enough. We always strive to have more than the next guy.


That's not human nature-- it's capitalist anthropology masquerading as such. Herbert Marcuse made Sam's point in An Essay on Liberation in 1971.
   5852. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4224064)
That's not human nature-- it's capitalist anthropology masquerading as such. Herbert Marcuse made Sam's point in An Essay on Liberation in 1971.

It was true long before capitalism was even an idea.

Man has been trying to accumulate more land/wives/cattle/whatever since the dawn of time.
   5853. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4224067)
People have been striving for status for 100,000 years. It's innate.


If you say three times the witch comes out of the mirror and kills you?
   5854. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4224069)
Man has been trying to accumulate more land/wives/cattle/whatever since the dawn of time


Yahtzee!

Don't let the well documented anthropological record that shows that your assumptions are ingrained and cultural rather than natural and animalistic get in the way of your article of faith there, buddy.
   5855. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4224070)
Man has been trying to accumulate more land/wives/cattle/whatever since the dawn of time.

That's because accumulation and consumption have typically been linked with status. They don't have to be, and there are areas of American life where they aren't -- academia, e.g.

It is true that the quest for status is innate to human nature.
   5856. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4224071)
It is true that the quest for status is innate to human nature.


No.
   5857. formerly dp Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4224072)
Man has been trying to accumulate more land/wives/cattle/whatever since the dawn of time.


You're just making stuff up. Some men, in some societies, under some conditions. It's not a universal human trait to want to have more than your neighbor. If it was, no one would ever voluntarily give things to their needy neighbors. Capitalistic anthropology privileges evidence that suggests human are fundamentally competitive, because it suits the capitalist worldview. Another anthropological view can select different evidence to suggest that man is fundamentally cooperative, rather than competitive. Both are wrong, because they're universal accounts of human nature that ignore the specifics of the conditions where those traits manifest.
   5858. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4224073)
If it was, no one would ever voluntarily give things to their needy neighbors.

Giving it away signifies that they have it to give away. Many people are quite showy and insecure about this signal, and thus quite showy in their alms-giving. Thus, the names on buildings, endowments, etc.
   5859. formerly dp Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4224074)
Giving it away signifies that they have it to give away.


It can-- if they exist in a society that accords value to the individual for conspicuous acts of charity. That's not a universal feature of human societies. The expectation that one gives away surplus can simply be engrained in the social structure, without affixing a reward to the action. You can just as easily negatively stigmatize the signification of accumulation.

It wasn't that long ago that the working class rejected signs of conspicuous consumption.
   5860. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4224075)
You're just making stuff up. Some men, in some societies, under some conditions. It's not a universal human trait to want to have more than your neighbor. If it was, no one would ever voluntarily give things to their needy neighbors. Capitalistic anthropology privileges evidence that suggests human are fundamentally competitive, because it suits the capitalist worldview. Another anthropological view can select different evidence to suggest that man is fundamentally cooperative, rather than competitive. Both are wrong, because they're universal accounts of human nature that ignore the specifics of the conditions where those traits manifest.

Oh, c'mon. It's evolutionary. The guy who strove to have more stuff was able to support more kids, and make sure those kids didn't starve during famines, etc.

The "pre-modern slacker" who sat around his hut, doing just enough to survive in good times, died when there were bad times, and his kids died too.

Humans evolved in a world where death was one bad harvest away.
   5861. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4224077)
Oh, c'mon. It's evolutionary. The guy who strove to have more stuff was able to support more kids, and make sure those kids didn't starve during famines, etc.

The "pre-modern slacker" who sat around his hut, doing just enough to survive in good times, died when there were bad times, and his kids died too.


That you think of these as the primary options is very telling.
   5862. formerly dp Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4224079)
Oh, c'mon. It's evolutionary. The guy who strove to have more stuff was able to support more kids, and make sure those kids didn't starve during famines, etc.


Social Darwinism? I'm not surprised, but that's the best you've got?
   5863. formerly dp Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4224080)
The "pre-modern slacker" who sat around his hut, doing just enough to survive in good times, died when there were bad times, and his kids died too.


Grasshoppers and ants. I remember that fable...
   5864. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4224086)
You can just as easily negatively stigmatize the signification of accumulation.

Then why has it never been the primary ethos of any society that has survived?

Sure, we can imagine it happening -- it just never happens.
   5865. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4224090)
The only person who said anything about "$500/week in welfare" was 'Misirlou,' when he misrepresented my earlier hypothetical.


My intention was not to misrepresent, but I used "welfare" as a shorthand catch all phrase to encompass all the government benefits you were claiming this hypothetical unemployed person would get. If you felt slighted, I apologize. But I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to the $500/week someone would receive in benefits regardless of how it is categorized and sub-divided.

EITC creates a work disincentive at $1,000/month. Since $600/week yields more than $1,000/mo., I don't see how this was a "gotcha."


You're partially correct here, and I'm partially wrong. I was assuming they would get the maximum benefit of $5100, when in reality, they get only $3100, or $60/week. For a family of 4 to get the maximum benefit, they could make up to $21,800 per year.

So, to go back to the hypothetical, $500/week to not work, $336 of that is unemployment (cash), and $164 some other sort of aid (is that a better word?). Working for $600/week = $660 cash plus probably a lesser than $164 per week in other aid. Even factoring in some additional expense, that still works out to a couple of hundred more per week for working this hypothetical $15/hr job over not.

   5866. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4224094)
Both are wrong, because they're universal accounts of human nature that ignore the specifics of the conditions where those traits manifest.


Wait, that doesn't seem good enough.

Both are wrong, because they're universal accounts of human nature that ignore the specifics of the conditions where those traits manifest.


Not quite yet.

<font size="12">
Both are wrong, because they're universal accounts of human nature that ignore the specifics of the conditions where those traits manifest.
</font>

...

[font size="24" color="red"]
Both are wrong, because they're universal accounts of human nature that ignore the specifics of the conditions where those traits manifest.
[/font]

*damn you and your dumbed down HTML interface, Furtado
   5867. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4224096)
Then why has it never been the primary ethos of any society that has survived?


So the fact that the Nazis lost means they never existed? Thus fascism is against "human nature?"
   5868. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4224098)
Oh, c'mon. It's evolutionary. The guy who strove to have more stuff was able to support more kids, and make sure those kids didn't starve during famines, etc.


Don't modern stone age level societies like the bushmen and Australian aboriginals have little to no concept of private property? or has Hollywood lied to me again?
   5869. formerly dp Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4224099)
Then why has it never been the primary ethos of any society that has survived?


It was an ethos in our society not that long ago, it just wasn't the ethos of the ruling class. Hell, in a lot of communities conspicuous displays of wealth are still frowned upon, especially if people in the community think that you're displaying the wealth in order to elevate yourself above others.

Projecting the social norms and mores of post-industrial consumer society back onto the whole of human existence is the height of laziness.
   5870. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4224100)
The genius of capitalism is developing "needs" that were previously unrecognized, and the scourge of capitalism is when "needs" become inflated to the point where they become an addiction that puts people who couldn't really afford those "needs" in permanent debt. Finding the proper line between those two equally true propositions is the trick.

If it was previously unrecognized, it was not a need.


Perhaps you didn't see the quotation marks there, but I guess you could reduce our needs to tight pussy, loose shoes, and a warm place to shit. No need to get all fancy about it.

The genius of capitalism is prodding the lizard brain into eating everything in sight, and then convincing the monkey brain that you can't eat all of that without paying for it first.

You're forgetting that it's crackers to slip a rozzer monkey the dropsy in snide. That's elementary zoology that I thought they'd even taught you back in Allbenny.
   5871. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4224102)
Perhaps you didn't see the quotation marks there, but I guess you could reduce our needs to tight #####, loose shoes, and a warm place to ####. No need to get all fancy about it.


Shoes are overrated.
   5872. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4224103)
Shoes are overrated.

Not down there in hookworm country, they ain't.
   5873. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4224114)
Not down there in hookworm country, they ain't.


Down there you're about as likely to find shoes as you are a tight #####.
   5874. Lassus Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4224123)
Not possible. Human nature means there's never enough. We always strive to have more than the next guy. That's why we have 5000 sq ft houses, and $10,000 watches and $100,000 cars. No one needs those things, but people always want something better to show their status.

I know this has already been covered, but this is small-mindedness at its absolute basest. It's also wrong. Even if you said "everyone always wants more than they have", which alone isn't true, the idea that the base reason everyone would want more than what they have is to show up their neighbor is plain ridiculous.
   5875. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:20 PM (#4224129)
My business consists of providing pieces of archival paper covered with images of old football program covers and other visual ephemera that nobody had previously thought of converting into posters.

You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
   5876. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4224134)
You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


I love this talking point. It's like wearing a flag that says "I'm stupid and can't read for comprehension!" It's a good social signifier.
   5877. Lassus Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4224140)
I ONLY found out yesterday that the RNC was basing their whole convention on a bad pause and poor comprehension.
   5878. Jay Z Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4224142)
Oh, c'mon. It's evolutionary. The guy who strove to have more stuff was able to support more kids, and make sure those kids didn't starve during famines, etc.


Guys who could rape and pillage did pretty good, too. That is also striving. But it's coercion!
   5879. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4224143)
I ONLY found out yesterday that the RNC was basing their whole convention on a bad pause and poor comprehension.
Some pundit wrote the Democrats' equivalent would be basing their entire convention around Mitt's "I like firing people" line.
   5880. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4224144)
Guys who could rape and pillage did pretty good, too. That is also striving. But it's coercion!


Women are just another category of "more stuff."
   5881. Tripon Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4224145)
Off topic for the off topic thread. But Cards Against Humanity is back in print, both the original pack, the first expansion. And the new 2nd expansion.
   5882. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4224152)
My business consists of providing pieces of archival paper covered with images of old football program covers and other visual ephemera that nobody had previously thought of converting into posters.

You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


I love this talking point. It's like wearing a flag that says "I'm stupid and can't read for comprehension!" It's a good social signifier.

I'm not sure which wins the prize, its willful ignorance or its complete lack of originality, but it seems to be about the best they can come up with these days.
   5883. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:14 PM (#4224156)
I'm not sure which wins the prize, its willful ignorance or its complete lack of originality, but it seems to be about the best they can come up with these days.


The Romney-Ryan campaign has completely written off any thought of winning the election by winning the middle. They are fully, completely and ONLY engaged in an attempt to draw out the base in as high of numbers as possible. This is the impetus behind the "no one ever asked if I was born here" joke from Romney. It's the impetus behind the blatant lies underlying the "welfare" ads. It's the impetus behind the convention in its entirety. Team GOP has run the numbers and decided they can't win by tacking back to the center. Their only hope is in drumming up the wings of the GOP and turning out the crazy, the stupid, and the racist.
   5884. Jay Z Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4224160)
Free trade will eventually break down because trade is not really free. It requires police, infrastructure, ports, navies. With concentrated wealth the multinats can play trading sectors off each other and avoid paying their share of the cost of trade. Over time this impoverishes the trading sectors. Eventually, some of them can't sustain the cost of trade and the multinats pull out, which impoverishes those sectors further. Further breakdowns lead to the multinats abandoning trade altogether. Then it's back to feudalism...
   5885. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4224162)
Then it's back to feudalism...


There are no men like me. Only me.

I can hardly wait.
   5886. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4224177)
I ONLY found out yesterday that the RNC was basing their whole convention on a bad pause and poor comprehension.


This amused me.
   5887. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4224180)
Is that picture Photoshopped, or was somebody just dumb?

Google says Photoshopped.
   5888. bobm Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4224181)
[5874]
Not possible. Human nature means there's never enough. We always strive to have more than the next guy. That's why we have 5000 sq ft houses, and $10,000 watches and $100,000 cars. No one needs those things, but people always want something better to show their status.

I know this has already been covered, but this is small-mindedness at its absolute basest. It's also wrong. Even if you said "everyone always wants more than they have", which alone isn't true, the idea that the base reason everyone would want more than what they have is to show up their neighbor is plain ridiculous.


Robert Frank, no conservative by any stretch, has written extensively about this notion of relative wealth versus absolute wealth.

For example:

New York Times
Darwin, the Market Whiz
By ROBERT H. FRANK
Published: September 17, 2011 ...

Darwin understood that individual and group interests sometimes coincide, as in [Adam] Smith’s framework. But Darwin also saw that interests at the two levels often conflict sharply. In those cases, he said, individual interests trump.

A spectacular example from nature illustrates his point. The massive antlers of bull elk are often four feet across and weigh more than 40 pounds. Why so big? Darwin’s explanation began with the observation that bull elk, like males in most vertebrate species, take more than one mate if they can. If some succeed, others end up with no mate at all, making them the ultimate losers in the contest to pass along their genes. So bulls fight bitterly for females, and mutations coded for larger antler size help them win. That arms race has produced the gigantic antlers we see today.

As a group, bulls could better escape from wolves in densely wooded areas if their antlers were smaller, yet any individual bull with relatively small antlers would never win a mate. So bull elk are stuck with unwieldy antlers.

Many 19th-century social Darwinists mistook Darwin’s message to be that whatever emerges from the struggle to survive is morally praiseworthy. But Darwin believed no such thing. He understood that competition often favored traits that brought misery to all, and he knew animals like elk could do nothing about it. But human beings, who face similar conflicts, have better options. ...

The modern marketplace is rife with individual-versus-group conflicts like the one that spawned outsized antlers in bull elk. If you’re one of several qualified applicants seeking an investment banking job, for example, it’s in your interest to look good during your interview. But looking good is a relative concept. If other applicants wear $600 suits, you’ll make a more favorable impression if you wear one costing $1,200.

Trading up is wasteful for the group, however, because the applicants are no more likely to get the positions if they all spend more on suits. But from each individual’s perspective, that’s no reason to regret buying the pricier suit.

When the ability to achieve important goals depends on relative consumption, all bets on the efficacy of Smith’s invisible hand are off. As Darwin saw, many important aspects of life are graded on the curve, and in such cases, individual incentives often lead to mutually offsetting efforts.

MOST parents want to give appropriate gifts, just as they want their children to attend good schools. But “appropriate” and “good” depend on context. When the rich spend more on mansions and gifts, the frames of reference for the near-rich shift, too, causing them to spend more as well, and so on, all the way down.

The median size of a new single-family house in 2007 was over 2,300 square feet, more than 50 percent larger than its counterpart from 1970. That creates a problem for concerned parents, because good schools are usually found in affluent neighborhoods. To send your children to one, you must outbid others for a house in a good school district. Yet when all families increase their bidding for such houses, they succeed only in driving up their prices. No matter how much parents pay, only half of all children can attend schools in the top half.

Much of this waste could be eliminated by a few relatively simple changes in the tax code. Scrapping the current progressive income tax in favor of a more steeply progressive tax on consumption is probably the single most productive change we could make. ... Under a progressive consumption tax, taxpayers would report their incomes, much as they do now. They’d also report their annual savings, much as they do for tax-exempt retirement accounts. The tax would be based on “taxable consumption” — the difference between their income and annual savings, less a standard deduction of, say, $30,000 for a family of four. Rates on additional expenditures would start low and rise gradually with taxable consumption.

Because savings would be tax-exempt, the biggest spenders would save more and spend less on luxury goods, leading to greater investment and economic growth, without any need for government to micromanage anyone’s behavior. Consumers in the tier just below, influenced by those at the top, would also spend less, and so on, all the way down the income ladder. In short, such a tax would attenuate the expenditure cascade that has made life for middle-income families so expensive.

Adopting a progressive consumption tax would be like creating wealth out of thin air. Its magical quality stems from the fact that luxury spending is strongly context-dependent, just as antlers are. If everyone spends less, you can still have the biggest mansion — or antlers — on the block, but you’ll also be able to do many other useful things. The money saved could help resolve the current fiscal impasse. And it could also be used to fix roads and bridges and support a host of other genuine improvements. ...

In 1997, shortly after publishing an article advocating this kind of tax, I received a warm letter from Milton Friedman, widely hailed as the patron saint of small-government conservatism.

He questioned my claim that additional tax revenue could be put to productive uses in the public sphere. But he added that if the government did need additional revenue, the progressive consumption tax would be by far the best way to raise it. Attached to his letter was a reprint of his article published in the 1943 American Economic Review in which he advocated the progressive consumption tax as the best way to pay for the World War II effort.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html
   5889. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:15 PM (#4224188)
Their only hope is in drumming up the wings of the GOP and turning out the crazy, the stupid, and the racist.


So today I got a flyer in the mail from the NRA in support of Connie Mack IV (son of Senator Connie Mack III and great grandson of the Tall Tactician), who is running for Senator against incumbent Bill Nelson. On the one side, a nice bright picture of a smiling Mack, with the headline "Who can we trust with protecting our freedoms? The answer is clear--Connie mack"

On the other side is a blurry, scowling Bill Nelson tinted in dark blue. He looks a little like Frankenstein's monster. It kind of looks like this picture, the top one, only darker and more sinister. The tag line is "Call Bill Nelson at XXX-XXX-XXXX and ask him why he opposes our constitutional freedoms." Now, I know both sides do this, show distorted pictures of the enemy, but this is the worst I've ever seen. Nelson barely looks human. How could I vote for such a creature?
   5890. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4224191)
Obamacare: Romney built that!
   5891. Lassus Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4224199)
bobm: That's all quite a reach.
   5892. RollingWave Posted: August 31, 2012 at 11:53 PM (#4224227)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html


this is a pretty big reach for quite a few reason...

A. the tax code it suggest manage the near impossible feat of becomming even more complex than the current onces assuming you must differentiate between luxury spending and essential spending.

B. people who make more money are more likely to be able to save more of their money... duhhhhh... so effective tax rate is likely to do the exact opposite of what he article is trying to purpose.

C. a tax code that overly encourage saving does what exactly? I can see that it'll bring down overall consumption which hardly seem like a good marco economics argument.




Personally, the flaw is not as much in the tax code as in the ability to actually enforce it in the way it was meant to be. The solution would be to create a cloud where all your income and expenditure datas can be actively traced and compiled VIA programming, that'll both save a huge deal of useless IRS accessores and leave a very limited margin for evasion.

(however, the inevitable cry against big brother is predicatable. so that is unlikely to work either.)
   5893. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 01, 2012 at 09:30 AM (#4224332)
Restore the more progressive income tax rates, treat investment gains as ordinary income, and quadruple the IRS enforcement budget. You don't need to re-invent the wheel with bureaucratic fixes like the VAT or progressive consumption taxes.
   5894. booond Posted: September 01, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4224351)
Great with numbers, not time

Is there anything he won't lie about?
   5895. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 01, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4224358)
"Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking me about Jim Ryun. I was Jim's Olympics coach, you know."
   5896. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 01, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4224361)
When is this whole BBTF micro-whatever thing starting up?
   5897. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: September 01, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4224363)
Why on earth did Ryan lie about his marathon time? That is an easily verifiable fact.
   5898. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 01, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4224371)

Social Darwinism? I'm not surprised, but that's the best you've got?


No, no, no, actual Darwinism. Survival of the fittest in the 100,000 years man existed pre-civilization.

Now you can strive to better yourself individually, or as a family, or as a clan, or tribe (cooperation and sharing are also a innate part of human sharing) but people who didn't strive and work hard to get more resources for their "group" (however they organized themselves) simply would not survive and reproduce in the same numbers as those who did.
   5899. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 01, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4224467)
Why on earth did Ryan lie about his marathon time? That is an easily verifiable fact.


Same reason John Edwards lied about ####### around.
   5900. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 01, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4224479)
Why on earth did Ryan lie about his marathon time? That is an easily verifiable fact.


Is it? Saying "I ran the 2008 Boston Marathon in 2:59:40" is "easily verifiable", but saying "yeah, I once ran 26.2 miles in a little under 3 hours", doesn't disproving that fall into the "trying to prove a negative"? (which isn't to suggest it wasn't a stupid thing for Ryan to say - if he actually did run a sub-3:00 marathon, he should have just gone ahead and said which one so folks could verify it)
Page 59 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(468 - 11:14pm, Oct 22)
Last: S.F. Giangst

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(8 - 11:11pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3185 - 11:08pm, Oct 22)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(7 - 11:08pm, Oct 22)
Last: Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(343 - 11:01pm, Oct 22)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(29 - 11:00pm, Oct 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(181 - 10:59pm, Oct 22)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(65 - 10:38pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(9 - 10:21pm, Oct 22)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(13 - 10:21pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(5 - 9:58pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(1 - 9:54pm, Oct 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(54 - 7:50pm, Oct 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(43 - 7:45pm, Oct 22)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(39 - 7:10pm, Oct 22)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.6156 seconds
52 querie(s) executed