897:

That is a good TED talk. Highly recommended.

And if more of the black people had guns, they probably wouldn't have needed to wait so long for — and rely so much on — the intervention of white people with guns.

yeah, again, the society that you're envisioning here bears a very strong resemblance to the world in mad max.

It wasn't really a straw man (which, incidentally, is quickly catching up to "troll" as perhaps the most overused word on BBTF). The lefties here have no problem with compulsory taxation and redistribution, and they showed us last week that they had little problem with the government's use of guns in Waco. But when I mention that guns might have accelerated the end of some odious human and civil rights violations, the lefties turn into a bunch of pacifists. Very strange.

yeah, that martin luther king was a terrible leader and strategist, and a complete detriment to his cause.

if only he'd have been as strong a leader as dick cheney or donald rumsfeld or paul wolfowitz, the jim crow era would have been over before he was even born and we'd have an unending supply of cheap fossil fuel.

In an age in which not wanting to pay for Sandra Fluke's morning-after pills constitutes a "war on women,"

i'm not quite sure what's worse. the socons whose beliefs seem to boil down to "life begins at conception and concern for it ends after birth", or people like you whose beliefs seem to boil down to "if i had a dollar for every time someone asked me for change, i'd still say no".

I'll second Morty on the TED talk. Good stuff.

Voxter calling me "Eichmann" a couple weeks ago

Didn't see it, and I would need to see the full context of the quote in any case. Sounds like it was out of line, although obviously hyperbolic and different than the post in question, — robinred

Didn't see it? That's convenient. You never seem to miss my (alleged) transgressions.

Anyway, it's funny to see you defending Voxter's comment — without seeing the "full context" [*], as you just claimed was necessary — as "obviously hyperbolic" and "different" while not assuming likewise about The Good Face's comment, which Sam obviously saw within minutes (if not seconds) and to which Sam could simply have posted a reply/correction without running to Jim.

(* As if there was any context in which comparing me to a mass murderer of Jews was likely to be reasonable.)

but as is generally the case, you (and others who get snark) draw snark with your own words and attitude. Doesn't mean that Voxter was right to say that, and maybe he should have gotten disciplined for it.

Ah, the old "you get what you give" theory. I knew that one was coming. It's funny how you don't seem to apply that concept to Sam's behavior here. If you did, you'd be busy lecturing Sam about how he should literally be the last person on BBTF to complain about a Terms of Service violation — especially since you're awesomely non-"tribalist" and all.

Sam is transparent here, as his linking to his own FB page shows, but you might consider the fact that he is not posting under his name anymore, and the fact that some other guys have made that decision recently as well. You have made the opposite choice in that regard,

What does this have to do with anything?

but instead of making every issue about "BTF Liberals" or making this issue about your dislike for me, you might also consider what Sam said about it, the difference in the words and the phrasing, and why Furtado reacted the way he did.

You want me to "consider" Sam's ludicrous #679, which was so silly, shameless, and hypocritical that words can't describe it? That's funny.

In almost 20 years on the internet, Sam Hutcheson is one of the nastiest people I've ever run across. Seeing Sam run to Jim — who is kind enough to allow us to have these politics threads despite apparently not liking them at all — after a single example of something Sam's done countless times himself was the height of hilarity, and is deserving of nothing but mockery and disdain.

if only he'd have been as strong a leader as dick cheney or donald rumsfeld or paul wolfowitz, the jim crow era would have been over before he was even born and we'd have an unending supply of cheap fossil fuel.

You were too clever by half. Say what you want about Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, but guns helped them achieve their objectives a hell of a lot faster than non-violence ended slavery or Jim Crow. (A few hundred years faster, just as a ballpark number.)

You were too clever by half. Say what you want about Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, but guns helped them achieve their objectives a hell of a lot faster than non-violence ended slavery or Jim Crow. (A few hundred years faster, just as a ballpark number.)

what exactly were those objectives in iraq that they achieved a few hundred years faster than would have been possible with non-violence?

because, if their objective was simply to kill saddam hussein, i would think they could have done that for a hell of a lot less money than they actually spent.

and if their objective was to create a functional democracy in the arab world, then A, they didn't do that, and B, non-violence seems to have gone much further in egypt and libya and tunesia where non-violent protest was much more widespread than wonton violence.

and if their objective was to siphon large volumes of iraq's natural resources back to america, i'm not sure that even that has been successfully achieved.


although, if their objective was to siphon money from american taxpayers to the pockets of their political supporters, that would seem to have been achieved a hell of a lot faster than if they had pursued a policy of non-violence.

what exactly were those objectives in iraq that they achieved a few hundred years faster than would have been possible with non-violence?

Their objective was to depose Saddam Hussein, which was accomplished a lot quicker with guns than it was via non-violence (sanctions, etc.).

Their objective was to depose Saddam Hussein, which was accomplished a lot quicker with guns than it was via non-violence (sanctions, etc.).

was that worth the $800 billion that has been spent in iraq, in your opinion?


i mean 10 posts back, you were complaining about having to pay $10 for someone else's birth control pill (or, at least 1/300,000,000th of someone else's birth control pill), so i would imagine that there would be an extremely high bar to clear for you to approve of such a massive expenditure.

was that worth the $800 billion that has been spent in iraq, in your opinion?

We weren't debating cost; we were debating the efficacy of using guns to achieve an objective vs. using non-violent means.

i mean 10 posts back, you were complaining about having to pay $10 for someone else's birth control pill (or, at least 1/300,000,000th of someone else's birth control pill), so i would imagine that there would be an extremely high bar to clear for you to approve of such a massive expenditure.

Cost aside, deposing a brutal dictator seems like more of a moral imperative than providing non-emergency contraceptives to 30-year-old college students.

Regarding China, I can't believe I forgot to mention demographics as an issue. Yes that is a big one also. Oops.

I'm the "Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF" because you assume I'll try to backtrack from a comment from which I've made no attempt to backtrack? That's funny.

Joe, given what you've written since you posted that comment at 1:49 AM, I apologize and retract that "Artfullest Dodger" comment, since you've instead chosen to keep plugging away at perhaps the stupidest argument in the history of BTF. I will give you credit for persistence, however.

And BTW I never have, nor would I ever compare you to Eichmann, Hitler, or anyone like that, since you're obviously a decent sort of guy. A chicken with his head cut off running around in a barnyard looking for his corn bin would be a more apt comparision.

The "clear implication" I referred to was the implication in that comment of yours I just quoted that the southern freedom movement would have been wise to have taken up arms against the whites who threatened it with violence. If you want to seriously defend that proposition, I'll gladly retract the "weaseling" comment, although I might want to nominate you for the looney bin instead.

No, I have no interest in retracting that statement. How long should oppressed people wage a non-violent campaign to win the "admiration" of their oppressors?

Still distorting what I meant by "admiration", and still doubling down on the "Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King should have taken up guns" bit. That's so insane and ahistorical a thought that I doubt if even Ray or Nieporent would try to cover your back on this one, but since your knowledge of the civil rights movement was apparently picked up from an NRA comic book, there's not much point in trying to talk you out of it. It's hard to compete with the cool and shiny vision of John Lewis and Fannie Lou Hamer using Bushmasters to blast their way to freedom.

The oppressed class, and those that wax lyrical about them, their plight and their glorious surmounting of that plight, want to pretend that they did it all by their lonesome, when the truth is that they needed defections from the oppressing class (short of war or force by a nation or outside group on their behalf, something other than their resources), or they would never have obtain that freedom. If the white people in the United States were concertedly and monolithically determined to oppress that oppressed class, it would have stayed oppressed—as long as they were so determined, anyway. Of course, that doesn't satisfy our craving for casting all conflict in good v. evil, white hat/black hat, terms. So ideal, mythic, even romantic, narratives arose.

I have mentioned before that morally, the slaves of the South would have been well within their "natural" rights to drive all whites out of the southern states and start their own country. I also know such an attempt would have been suicidal from their standpoint. So if the southern slaves wanted to remain alive and produce offspring, the best strategies were escape or hunkering down and either waiting for better times or working towards them through slower processes. Decisions made in the face of reality can't always be reflected in strong emotional statements or pithy slogans.

Regarding discriminstion, I think folks kind of got lost in the example, but here are the main points.

* Most people (even many Libertarians) accept that governments have within their sphere of influence correction of externalities.
* Discrimination is an externality. There is a strong economic cost to it, and not one that the markets can address completely (market solutions to the issue are less efficient than the market would be without discrimination.
* Thus discrimination is a legitimate arena for governments to be in, even for many Libertarians.

The pottery example is an effort to show the second point, because I thinkit is the one that is least transparent. Obviously if it were pottery alone where discrimination took place it would not be a big deal. But it was most aspects of the economy, taking buses, where to live, where to eat, getting a loan, getting a job, stores to buy things and so on. In each instance there was a small inefficiency and in total it was a huge cost.

In one sense Andy is right, so what? This is not the reason Jim Crow was put in place and it is not the reason it fell. However I think it both helpful to argue with Libertarians and useful to explore the idea that there is more than a moral component to Jim Crow. There were very real economic costs that were paid by all of society. The situation is an example that we are not individuals only, we are all all members in a society and actions and decisions impact everyone around us.

Ayway on to some specific economic points raised.

There were plenty of cases under Jim Crow where it would have been "economically inefficient" for a restaurant owner to serve (the black) 10% of the population within his geographical base, because for every black customer he served he might well have lost two white ones.

This speaks to market profitability of an individual engaging in discrimination. My example speaks to the societal cost due in large part to the inefficiency that can't be corrected by market forces. There are certainly individual actors behaving rationaly and maximizing profits under discrimination, but the economy as a whole is less efficient.

Well, it depends on how you define "productive".

The economic definition of productive which is pretty clear and non-controversial. I can explain it if you like.

If the discriminating potter has a choice between the "proper demand" of 90% production serving 90% of the population, isn't his profit margin worse than the "extra demand" of 90% production serving 100% of the population? It seems to me that he's paying a very direct personal cost because he can't charge as much due to the artificially low demand. In that sense, he is bearing the cost of his behavior.

Yes the dicriminator can pay a cost (or not as Andy's example above described. However the market cost they pay is less than the cost that the economy as a whole suffers from. That is what makes it an externality.

I don't see that as a particularly fixable problem. If I can afford to write off a whole segment of the population because they're poor and don't affect my profit margin, then forcing me to integrate doesn't really help poor minorities. I can price them out of my business if my customers really want to pay a premium to be free from them.

Again we are talking societal deadweight cost and economic inefficiency. Clearly the south was able to "afford" Jim Crow, just like they afforded slavery, but there was a economic (and moral and other) costs associated with it. That dosn't mean the cost was not there. The other flaw is not all of the minorities are the poorest of the poor. In a market economy one expects the poor to be able to afford less (duh), but what discrimination does is says that no matter what your resources are you don't get to participate in society on an equal footing. So the ambitious lower middle class black with a great business plan and plenty of motivation faced huge barriers to starting their own business (for example), this hurts the black potential business man but it also hurts everyone because there are fewer such businesses. Economies thrive from innovation and by making it harder for x% of the [population to innovate the economy is shooting itself in the foot.

No, I have no interest in retracting that statement. How long should oppressed people wage a non-violent campaign to win the "admiration" of their oppressors?
We weren't debating cost; we were debating the efficacy of using guns to achieve an objective vs. using non-violent means.

So Joe thinks that Jim Crow should have been fought with guns. That Gandhi was wrong and they should have used guns. And that South Africa is a failure post aparteid because they did not use enough guns and everythign would have gone better if only they had not dabbled in trying to get the admiration of the oppressors?

As hard as I try I just can't believe this is a serious opinion. Joe if you honestly believe all that then please affirm and I will discuss, otherwise I am going with either minor stroke or trolling.

On to more sane opinions ...

If the white people in the United States were concertedly and monolithically determined to oppress that oppressed class, it would have stayed oppressed—as long as they were so determined, anyway. Of course, that doesn't satisfy our craving for casting all conflict in good v. evil, white hat/black hat, terms. So ideal, mythic, even romantic, narratives arose.

Well yeah. I think I said (and if I didn't, I should have) that non-violence really only works if there is a moral high ground to take. Basically when the ideals of a society can be shown to be in conflict with the reality of that society. Violence ruins that message, which is why it is critical that it be non-violent protest.

If society is unified across its ideals and the reality then such protest will get no where fast (in other words if the US as a whole really did think slavery was a good idea we would still have slavery).

As for me though it fits in very well with my ideals of good vs. evil. There are plenty of white hats to be handed out to those who were oppressed and those of the oppressors who broke with their race and supported them. However, I don't think it crazy to give the loudest accolades to those on the front lines, those who took the greatest risks and the bravest stands - hence my admiration for MLK.

what exactly were those objectives in iraq that they achieved a few hundred years faster than would have been possible with non-violence?

A presidential photo-op on an aircraft carrier. Mission Accomplished!

A presidential photo-op on an aircraft carrier. Mission Accomplished!

Hey now that photo op was like totally non-violent dude (use sufer dude voice).

EDIT: Sorry, misread that as delivery. I don't tip anything for take-out unless the service is exceptional.

I tip about the same as you on delivery, and I tip take-out about the same as delivery. Someone took the order on the phone. Someone was working front-of-the-house expo and bagged it up. The bartender took time away from his seated customers to ring me out. None of them were getting page wage/hour, and half of them must tip out the kitchen at the end of the night.

I have mentioned before that morally, the slaves of the South would have been well within their "natural" rights to drive all whites out of the southern states and start their own country. I also know such an attempt would have been suicidal from their standpoint. So if the southern slaves wanted to remain alive and produce offspring, the best strategies were escape or hunkering down and either waiting for better times or working towards them through slower processes. Decisions made in the face of reality can't always be reflected in strong emotional statements or pithy slogans.

Yes, of course. Guns work great when you have the vast majority of them, and alright when you have an equalish amount. They're #### when you have a handful and the people opposing you have truckfuls. In the last ~50 years, that hasn't been so true. But if the black people in the south took up arms Haiti-style, anytime before WWII, they'd have either been successful, or much more likely, all been massacred. The strategy they pursued was probably the most effective one they could have, if they valued not being slaughtered (which most people do).

Sam is transparent here, as his linking to his own FB page shows, but you might consider the fact that he is not posting under his name anymore, and the fact that some other guys have made that decision recently as well.

Quite a few of the regulars, myself and Dan included, have changed our screen names to eliminate Google search results that point to these threads as first links, etc. It's a simple decision to manage some semblance of what is left of "online privacy." I make no secret of who I really am, and most people here call me "Sam" more than they call me "Rickey" because they've interacted with "Sam" for decades. I have no problem with that, which is why I refer to Ray as "Ray" and Dan as "Dan," etc.

Quite a few of the Loungers are Loungers exclusively because the Lounge is non-Googlable.

What I took issue with, and what Jim agreed with and took action to reverse, was TGF's use of my full legal name in direct line with the slur of "antisemitism." That action was taken quite clearly as an attempt to link my legal name with the term "antisemitism" explicitly to connect the two via web searches. It was crude, vile, an outright lie about my character, and out of line with the Terms of Service for this website.

I am no stranger to throwing and taking punches in these trenches. I get and I give, both in political threads and in threads about how much the Mets totally suck. TGF's post was out of line and unacceptable, which is why Jim took no time in eliminating the attempt from his website.

I have mentioned before that morally, the slaves of the South would have been well within their "natural" rights to drive all whites out of the southern states and start their own country. I also know such an attempt would have been suicidal from their standpoint.

Are we back to Palestine again?

To the extent that Joe has a point about the value of guns in the Jim Crow era, it would be that in isolated rural areas and self-contained black neighborhoods, without the presence of guns for self-defense there almost certainly would have been more instances of white vigilantes staging raids and terrorizing the inhabitants. I saw that first hand in Cambridge (MD) in 1963, when a group of armed whites drove down Pine Street (the main street in the black ward) and started firing away, in the wake of a demonstration. They were immediately greeted with return volleys and got the hell out of there fast.

In that sort of case, guns for self-protection were not only a moral right, but a practical necessity. But this has about as much to do with Joe's musings on the Freedom Riders as a Little Leaguer's batting average has to do with his ability to hit R. A. Dickey's knuckleball. To conflate the two scenarios is a sign of utter ignorance and confusion.

To the extent that Joe has a point about the value of guns in the Jim Crow era, it would be that in isolated rural areas and self-contained black neighborhoods, without the presence of guns for self-defense there almost certainly would have been more instances of white vigilantes staging raids and terrorizing the inhabitants.

Guns are very useful on the fringes of a society. They're very useful on the "frontier," where by definition you're leagues away from the closest "official law." Guns, in numbers, would would useful in a situation like Jim Crow, where the "official law" was not merely part of the problem, but the fundamental element of the problem. This is also why you see a lot more support for gun control in denser, more urban sectors, than you do in rural sectors.

I agree with 921, but would suggest that while the guns are useful in this case (and others I admit) they don't really solve the problem they merely address a symptom. The problem was solved (in so much as it has been solved) through non-violence. And I would suggest that violence would never have solved the problem (unless genocide is a solution, which I would suggest it is not).

Note: Regarding 919 this is the exact reason I don't post under my name (that and my name is Joe and there are too many Joe's here, it would only breed confusion). As an independent contractor I would prefer not to have my name explicitly linked, just from a financial/career perspective. If anyone cares to know who I am, I am not hidden and will respond to messages and such.

Why don't we combine the guns discussion and the HOF discussion by coming up with a new way for the nominees to get elected Hunger Games style? We take the nominees and drop them in a area that has guns hidden in certain areas. Last man standing gets nominated. It eliminates the BWAA and makes the voting process more entertaining!

924, I like it, but it makes old timer days much more sparesly populated. And hey if this comes to pass can we all agree Pete Rose really does belong?

Why don't we combine the guns discussion and the HOF discussion by coming up with a new way for the nominees to get elected Hunger Games style? We take the nominees and drop them in a area that has guns hidden in certain areas. Last man standing gets nominated eliminated via the character clause.

FTFY

I like it, but it makes old timer days much more sparesly populated.

They could do it *at* old timer games.

If you're been following the Herbalife current saga,

Kim Rory, representing Lieberman Research Worldwide, said distributors she surveyed had joined Herbalife because they wanted to get a discount on the products for personal use. Few signed up because they thought they'd make a large amount of money, and about two-thirds would recommend being a distributor to friends, she said.

Anne Coughlan, a professor at the Kellogg School of Management, defended Herbalife's marketing structure and disputed the allegation that it is a pyramid scheme.

"I didn't even see a scintilla of evidence that would suggest to me any hint that this company is running anything but a legitimate multi-level marketing program," she said.

Perhaps the most personal attacks came from Herbalife President Des Walsh, who said he was "highly offended" by Ackman's portrayal of Herbalife's nutrition clubs and defended the company for bringing nutritional products to poor neighborhoods.

After showing a video featuring happy distributors in crowded nutrition clubs, Walsh suggested that Ackman was out of touch with real America.

"This doesn't look like a country club in Westchester, Connecticut, but let me tell you, inside this club is real America," he said. (Earlier in the presentation, Walsh explained that people come to the club for a hug, adding, "the world needs more hugs.")

His comments echo a note sent out last week by D.A. Davidson analyst Ramey, who has a "buy" rating on Herbalife.

"Perhaps where Mr. Ackman lives he never sees a car with the 'Lose weight, ask me how' message across the rear window," he wrote. "I can tell Mr. Ackman that in my hometown, which is not quite Chappaqua, Herbalife is an iconic and widely recognized brand."

Scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam......

a legitimate multi-level marketing program

Your first clue that something is up is that it is a multi-level marketing program. Legal? Sure. Good idea? Almost never.

Was this linked yet?

I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history," Ward said.

I don't think Ward realizes just how expensive guns are. You think they cost a lot today, try buying one in Colonialism times.

926. Fancy Pants Handle Posted: January 11, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4344970)

Why don't we combine the guns discussion and the HOF discussion by coming up with a new way for the nominees to get elected Hunger Games style? We take the nominees and drop them in a area that has guns hidden in certain areas. Last man standing gets nominated eliminated via the character clause.


FTFY

Thank you as that made more sense with the change. I should have had some caffeine beforehand.

Guess what, California's state budget is now in surplus.

I agree with 921, but would suggest that while the guns are useful in this case (and others I admit) they don't really solve the problem they merely address a symptom. The problem was solved (in so much as it has been solved) through non-violence. And I would suggest that violence would never have solved the problem (unless genocide is a solution, which I would suggest it is not).

We're not disagreeing on anything here. There are two distinct "problems". The first is the limited one of personal self-defense in situations like the Cambridge one I described in #921, where without guns in the hands of black residents, a massacre would likely have occurred. The other is the much broader question of ending Jim Crow, and in that case bringing guns to public demonstrations, or to actions like the Freedom Rides, would have been a disaster of tragic proportions. No serious person would ever have suggested such an idea. But then there's people like this character....

I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history," [Larry] Ward [of "Gun Appreciation Day"] said.

So we finally learn the identity of Joe's intellectual guru. Big surprise.

933. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4344995)
Guess what, California's state budget is now in surplus.

Not so fast, the current California budget still has the Federal estate tax portion fixed in. Until the Obama administration, the feds shared the estate tax with the state of where the property is. The Fed keeps all of it now, but California still budgeted it as they would received it.

"Gun Appreciation Day"?

The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month.

After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.

“Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”

“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I’m not ####### putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

Link

Well I hope Obama does something small under executive order just to see if this guy keeps his word or not.

I don't know: if blacks had had guns back then, there might not be any blacks in this country. It’s like asserting yourself against a bully. You better make sure he’s a blowhard, who also doesn’t have guns, especially when the bullies outnumber you. You better be also sure that the legal/political system will support you, or at least not support the bullies. That was not so during the slave period or during most of the Jim Crow period.

For a minority to assert itself in that way, violently, or at least with the bluster of possible violence, the movement for its recognition has to have reached a point acceptable to the dominant class. It had by the late '60s, late 1960s, that is, when it became obvious that the dominant class wasn't going to use overwhelming force to suppress its nonviolent protest. That meant its civil disobedient ways and methods could develop. (Hey, not all Indians were Gandhians—not by a long shot.) That made it easier for extreme elements in the civil rights movement to (at least verbally) push the envelope to see what would happen. What happened was that there was a lot of unorganized return bluster talk, but no one set out to eat civil rights movement members on a social and political scale.

“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it.

You ain't doing ####. Sit down and shut up before someone with an adult penis slaps the stupid out of your mouth.

The argument that repressing a minority section of one’s people isn’t economically sustainable in a market sense isn’t supported by history. The market, like biological evolution, only seeks instant gratification in the present, and particular interests and players in any system at given time can have an overweening influence, and of course disproportionately prosper. The free enterprise system doesn’t seek to make everyone equal.

There have always been slave and Jim Crow-type societies. And they’re not for the benefit of the slaves except to an incremental sufficiency—a sufficiency just enough for others more powerful to prosper. The United States didn’t invent that. As works and studies like Time On The Cross have shown, the South’s antebellum slave system was thriving. It was not a moribund system. Force from outside had to be exerted to do away with it on grounds other than economic. It was not nearly ready to collapse on itself. Saying that making slaves of some of the laborers is bad for the economic whole because buying power is reduced assumes that everyone in a market system flourishes or is meant to flourish. They don’t; they aren’t. For the market to work as to the Plantation system you didn’t have to slaves with more money to give you their money. That came from places like England. That economic system (and the subsequent Jim Crow one) was not a closed system. You might as well argue like the creationists do about evolution—that it can't be true because it violates a law of thermodynamics.

I don't know: if blacks had had guns back then, there might not be any blacks in this country.

Well, the statement is so ignorant of historical reality that it doesn't really help to break it down. One could point out that 25% of the Continental Army was composed of blacks in the later years of the Revolution, fat lot of good it did them when the Constitution was written.

The argument that repressing a minority section of one’s people isn’t economically sustainable in a market sense isn’t supported by history.

But that isn't the argument being made. The argument being made (by me at least) is that there is a cost to discrimination. There are no perfect economies, and plenty of them do just fine, even with large dead weight costs. That does not mean those costs don't exist and should not be considered by the society in question.

Put another way, do you think the Saudi society with its massive discrimination is really as efficient as it would be if they allowed women an equal place at the table? Do you think that sort of discrimination is cost free to a society?

You ain't doing ####. Sit down and shut up before someone with an adult penis slaps the stupid out of your mouth.

As we can all see from your pantsless appearance, that person won't be you.

I wonder what kind of food that guy will pack. You don't want Tom Colicchio emptying a mag into your backpack because you used canned oysters in badly cooked risotto.

But that isn't the argument being made. The argument being made (by me at least) is that there is a cost to discrimination. There are no perfect economies, and plenty of them do just fine, even with large dead weight costs. That does not mean those costs don't exist and should not be considered by the society in question.

Yes, do that, but those actually participating in the system will not be so theoretical. There's a cost to anything, and there's a benefit to that cost to some, but those making the argument about the cost of discrimination don't consider the benefits of discrimination, and the argument about the costs of discrimination pretends that the system is a closed one and that it sees into the future and makes decisions in the present based on that.

Well, the statement is so ignorant of historical reality that it doesn't really help to break it down. One could point out that 25% of the Continental Army was composed of blacks in the later years of the Revolution, fat lot of good it did them when the Constitution was written.

Blacks with guns in the Revolutionary War were fighting the White Colonists?

If you think things couldn't have been worse...? Well, maybe you can start by just considering where they came from.

One person was sexually assaulted and another was stabbed in the neck during a hostage situation at a Southern California shopping center that ended early Friday after Los Angeles Police Department SWAT members entered a Nordstrom Rack and escorted at least 14 people from the building. -NBC-4

If you've got an alibi, now's the time...

I don't know: if blacks had had guns back then, there might not be any blacks in this country.

We know exactly what armed resistance by the slave populations would have looked like. Ask the ####### Cherokee. Ask the Arapaho. Ask the Navajo.

Again we are talking societal deadweight cost and economic inefficiency. Clearly the south was able to "afford" Jim Crow, just like they afforded slavery, but there was a economic (and moral and other) costs associated with it. That dosn't mean the cost was not there.

All of this is true, and I understand where you're coming from, but this not the sort of problem that I think it appropriate for government to solve. Let's not forget that all government action has its own set of economic and moral costs to society. Part of properly advancing is facing the consequences for your inefficiency. Children learn this when they are forced to balance their own budgets and handle their own responsibilities. If the inefficiency and resultant cost to the individuals in society is too great, then individuals will do something to change the situation.

If you want to make the argument that without government intervention, it would have been impossible to prevent a revolution and society would have collapsed, then I can entertain the idea that government intervention was necessary and therefore appropriate. The negligence and sometimes direct participation by state and local authority in discriminatory policy is itself bad government that demanded a correction. But I maintain that a better solution would have been to provide for the basic needs of Southern blacks and ensure their right to participate in the political process, and then let the market sort out the rest. Access to a lunch counter is not a basic need.

Yes, do that, but those actually participating in the system will not be so theoretical. There's a cost to anything, and there's a benefit to that cost to some, but those making the argument about the cost of discrimination don't consider the benefits of discrimination, and the argument about the costs of discrimination pretends that the system is a closed one and that it sees into the future and makes decisions in the present based on that.

I guess I am not seeing the point of this, sorry. I have already stated that discrimination does not always merit societal action. I have said that the whole argument is theoretical and in reality it was moral considerations that caused the change and not economic ones. None of that counters my point at all.

As to the benefit side, there is no societal benefit. Full stop. There are individual actors that may gain benefit and I think that is the benefit you are speaking about, but from an aggregate perspective the society that discriminates will operate less efficiently than an identical one that does not.

When making an economic societal evaluation of discrimination it is expected that there are winners and losers. And from a political/economic standpoint it is pretty obvious that those with political influence will accrue most of the economic gains and thus be relative winners, but so what? That explains why it perpetuates itself, not whether there is a societal cost.

Well yeah. I think I said (and if I didn't, I should have) that non-violence really only works if there is a moral high ground to take. Basically when the ideals of a society can be shown to be in conflict with the reality of that society. Violence ruins that message, which is why it is critical that it be non-violent protest.

This is absolutely correct, and why it is hard for me to generate much sympathy for the Palestinians. Once you engage in suicide bombing, you have completely lost the moral high ground.

Violence is pretty much only a legitimate solution if you're strong enough to win.

All of this is true, and I understand where you're coming from, but this not the sort of problem that I think it appropriate for government to solve. Let's not forget that all government action has its own set of economic and moral costs to society. Part of properly advancing is facing the consequences for your inefficiency. Children learn this when they are forced to balance their own budgets and handle their own responsibilities. If the inefficiency and resultant cost to the individuals in society is too great, then individuals will do something to change the situation.

But earlier you agreed me me (I thought it was you) that correcting for economic externalities (like pollution) was part of the appropriate sphere of influence for a government. Well discrimination is an economic externality like pollution, and short term market actions don't fix it (like with pollution).

You could argue it is not a large enough externality, but that is not what you are saying it seems to me.

I tip about the same as you on delivery, and I tip take-out about the same as delivery. Someone took the order on the phone. Someone was working front-of-the-house expo and bagged it up. The bartender took time away from his seated customers to ring me out. None of them were getting page wage/hour, and half of them must tip out the kitchen at the end of the night.

That's fair, although the only take-out I really do is "over the counter" take-out. I don't tip the person at Jamba Juice for making my smoothie.

If it's a restaurant without a designated take-out counter, I either sit down or get things delivered. It is a luxury to live in Manhattan where there are over 30 options for delivery at 4AM on a Tuesday.

We know exactly what armed resistance by the slave populations would have looked like. Ask the ####### Cherokee. Ask the Arapaho. Ask the Navajo.

Yes, I don't know why that didn't occur to me.

Also, it's existential, not just some artificial, termporary aberrancy that the economic system can or will correct. Those Native Americans were fighting economic battles among themselves before the evil Euros showed up. As were the evil Euros in the places they came from.

And that applies to the places where those Blacks were taken from. The idea that there can be a perfect economic system that of itself will benefit everyone equally and perfectly is a delusion. Optimality is not necessarily justice, especially when what's optimal is considered in the "long term."

This is absolutely correct, and why it is hard for me to generate much sympathy for the Palestinians. Once you engage in suicide bombing, you have completely lost the moral high ground.

Violence is pretty much only a legitimate solution if you're strong enough to win.

So the actions of a few, the suicide bombers and those that enable them, taint everyone irredeemably? Sorry but not for me. Both sides have engaged in immoral violent behavior, and as I have stated before I don't give a #### who started it or who is more guilty. People on both sides are dying, suffering, and harming themselves and others through violence. It should stop, and the only way I can see to do that is through non-violence.

Violence is legitimate in a moral sense when there is no other option, and even then it is dicey. Violence is legitimate politically and legally much more often, depending on the circumstances. In any event, legit or not, violence is not going to solve the problem with the Palestinians.

That's fair, although the only take-out I really do is "over the counter" take-out. I don't tip the person at Jamba Juice for making my smoothie.

That's fair. I don't consider Jamba Juice "takeout." I usually tip a dollar at Starbucks or other coffee shops. I rarely tip for, like, WhatABurger or Subway.

If it's a restaurant without a designated take-out counter, I either sit down or get things delivered. It is a luxury to live in Manhattan where there are over 30 options for delivery at 4AM on a Tuesday

Well yes. Manhattan, it does not work the way the rest of the nation works, generally speaking.

The idea that there can be a perfect economic system that of itself will benefit everyone equally and perfectly is a delusion.

And when someone suggests there is I will join you in suggesting they are delusional.

Violence is pretty much only a legitimate solution if you're strong enough to win.

That's an odd thing to say, "legitimate solution"

violence is a solution if it is in fact a "solution" to your problem-

also what do you mean by "strong enough to win"

the "weaker" side can win by violence if they make the stronger side say, "I give up, I quit, I'm leaving, this isn't worth it"


What the Pales have not seemed to figure out is that Jewish Israel, a nation of holocaust survivors, a people with a centuries long obsession with that particular piece of land, are never ever ever, gonna throw up their hands and say, "this isn't worth it, we're leaving"- instead of confronting that many Pales have instead engaged in Holocaust denialism as well as denialism that Jews were ever in the Levant prior to 1947...

The Pales may make the "Jews" leave most of the West Bank, but of remaining Israeli land, nope, never ever gonna happen, even if the Pales/Arabs one day had the upperhand militarily, you think you are giving the Israelis grief as they occupy you- Israel is an armed camp- if you somehow one day beat the IDF and occupied Tel Aviv - that occupation would be a hellish nightmare for you, many times worse than what you've done to Israeli occupiers (Or the Taliban is doing to the US in Afghanistan, etc, etc.)

Black in the War of 1812

Blacks also fought for both sides during the War of 1812.

a better solution would have been to provide for the basic needs of Southern blacks and ensure their right to participate in the political process, and then let the market sort out the rest. Access to a lunch counter is not a basic need

One of the problems with talking about the "market" in a segregated society (as several here have already noted in different ways) is that segregation itself is not just a neutral matter of social separation; it's an economic weapon. If you can only buy sandwiches through the back door, you are going to pay too much for those sandwiches, and remain in poverty; hence, sitting at the counter is what establishes a free market, symbolic though it seems at first glance.

Riches and poverty are extremely relative things. One of the things that made segregationists cling to segregation is that, even if Mississippi was poorer overall than Michigan, the perceived gap between the socio-economic status of whites and blacks in Mississippi was so great. The abstract wealth and progress of an integrated state didn't impress people who were ultra-privileged in their own states. (In fact a whole rhetoric arose to undercut the greater wealth of the North, including the notion that factory workers suffered alienation, that communities were stronger in the South, that blacks and whites truly cared for one another in Dixie and neither wanted change, and other staples of segregationist argument.)

And when someone suggests there is I will join you in suggesting they are delusional.

Karl Marx

It is a luxury to live in Manhattan where there are over 30 options for delivery at 4AM on a Tuesday

I don't even have 30 options for delivery at 4 PM on a Tuesday.

Just to further emphasize the absurdity of violent resistance by blacks, remember this clause of the Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 4): "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence." My emphasis.

The whole point of this clause was to obligate the federal government, with the army, to intervene in the case of a slave rebellion. Indeed, we see the basic issue played out in ghetto riots. What's the first thing that happens? They call out the National Guard. And violent resistance doesn't work well in those situations. See Detroit. See Newark. See Watts.

The whole history of slavery shows virtually no long-term successful slave revolts (Mameluks; Haiti, depending on how you see it). Even in days when the slaves could obtain equal arms (Spartacus), the larger society almost always won. The slaves weren't slaves any more, but only because they were dead.

I guess I am not seeing the point of this, sorry. I have already stated that discrimination does not always merit societal action. I have said that the whole argument is theoretical and in reality it was moral considerations that caused the change and not economic ones. None of that counters my point at all.

As to the benefit side, there is no societal benefit. Full stop. There are individual actors that may gain benefit and I think that is the benefit you are speaking about, but from an aggregate perspective the society that discriminates will operate less efficiently than an identical one that does not.

When making an economic societal evaluation of discrimination it is expected that there are winners and losers. And from a political/economic standpoint it is pretty obvious that those with political influence will accrue most of the economic gains and thus be relative winners, but so what? That explains why it perpetuates itself, not whether there is a societal cost.

First, everything I write is not with what you wrote in mind.

Even if what you say in paragraph two is so, the economic system has no conscious (no conscience either). It doesn’t have this urge to optimize itself. It’s about individuals and groups of individuals. It always has been ever since people organized in clans and bands and tribes.

Societal cost depends on comparison—in your mind to an ideal. But it’s not about ideals, it’s about what is possible. At any certain points in time particular economic possibilities because of other concerns. All this stuff about quotas, preferences, for the holy grail of diversity (which means giving one group a leg up it otherwise wouldn’t have), consumer laws, etc., has costs, too. Looking at it just from a system’s standpoint, does it make the whole better or worse? Do you care when you look at it that way?

Even in days when the slaves could obtain equal arms (Spartacus), the larger society almost always won

Well who would you rather follow, Kirk Douglass or Sir Lawrence Olivier?

Even if what you say in paragraph two is so, the economic system has no conscious (no conscience either). It doesn’t have this urge to optimize itself. It’s about individuals and groups of individuals. It always has been ever since people organized in clans and bands and tribes.

Societal cost depends on comparison—in your mind to an ideal. But it’s not about ideals, it’s about what is possible. At any certain points in time particular economic possibilities because of other concerns. All this stuff about quotas, preferences, for the holy grail of diversity (which means giving one group a leg up it otherwise wouldn’t have), consumer laws, etc., has costs, too. Looking at it just from a system’s standpoint, does it make the whole better or worse? Do you care when you look at it that way?

I honestly have no idea what your point is, I am sorry. The only part I think I understand "in your mind to an ideal" is incorrect. I am talking about economies from an economics standpoint, using terms like cost and efficiency. I am speaking to relative economic costs and productivity. I am not talking about a platonic ideal.

I have no idea what "Looking at it just from a system’s standpoint, does it make the whole better or worse? Do you care when you look at it that way?" means, so I have no clue if that is what I am doing. I am speaking about economies in aggregate, but how else do you talk about externalities?

Anyway I am not talking about a society optimizing itself, but (I thought pretty clearly) members in a society doing the thinking and altering that society. But yes I am abstracting the problem, because the sub-point regarding discrimination I am making is somewhat abstract.

If I responded to something you wrote and you think I should not have, because it was not written to me, well it is a public board and discussion is the point, so I don't feel bad about it unless I misunderstood the point you were making.

In any event feel free to explain to me what you are getting at, because as I said I am not understanding what you are trying to say, sorry.

Just catching up on the thread, but Joe in #898 you completely miss the point of what I was saying so I will try to be clearer:

You don't know? In an age in which not wanting to pay for Sandra Fluke's morning-after pills constitutes a "war on women," you're saying "you don't know" if black people should have tolerated Jim Crow for another 90 years on top of the first 90?

You act as if oppressed people only have two options, (1) "tolerate" it without resistance, or (2) violently resist. There is a third option, which is non-violent resistance or civil disobedience. I think it is more effective than armed resistance in many circumstances, although it is not without its costs, and it requires significant organization and discipline. Blacks under Jim Crow is a great example of where non-violent resistance worked.

Also, the "far fewer than 90 years" claim is a stretch. Even if we mark the end of Jim Crow at 1955, that means it existed for about 90 years. (My initial number was off by 10 years — i.e., 1865 to 1965 is 100 years.)

"Admiration" is probably the wrong word for it. But not frightening white people, and rather forcing them to confront the full logical implications of their segregated system, proved to be a winning strategy.

Sure, after hundreds of years of slavery and then 80 or 90 years of Jim Crow.

While there were examples of civil disobedience before 1955, as an organized movement 1955 is generally attributed as the starting point. Regardless of when you think Jim Crow ended, it took a lot less than 90 years of civil disobedience to effect that change. That was my point.

The idea that the use of guns is "certainly less effective than civil disobedience has proven to be" is a claim rather than a fact. Peacefully agitating against slavery didn't seem to get anyone very far.

Slave revolts didn't get the slaves very far either. Lincoln and the Republicans, on the other hand, won office peacefully rather than by use of guns. Slavery was ultimately ended via a civil war that took place largely between members of the majority, not via revolt by the oppressed or by non-violence.

Stop talking and go do good in the world.

Karl Marx

When in college I was always amused because all of the various departments tried to push Marx off onto someone else. The econ group insisted Marx was politics or philosophy and not at all economics, and likewise all the departments.

From a pure economics standpoint Marx was wrong. If he believed everything he wrote to its fullest extent (rather than from a philosophical standpoint or whatever) than yeah there was some delusion there.

Question to the crowd. How much has the content of the header article linked to driven the conversation in the thread?

Last month the article was about the debt limit and that was a dominant topic. This month it is Israel and that has been a very strong topic. Does the header article have that much power? Is it a coincidence?

Just curious what people think.

When in college I was always amused because all of the various departments tried to push Marx off onto someone else. The econ group insisted Marx was politics or philosophy and not at all economics, and likewise all the departments.

I think he has ended up in Sociology.

When in college I was always amused because all of the various departments tried to push Marx off onto someone else. The econ group insisted Marx was politics or philosophy and not at all economics, and likewise all the departments.

Then you had bad poli-phil professors. Karl Marx was a moral and political philosopher. His value as such is open to discussion, but the idea that he wasn't primarily a political philosopher is silly.

Marx was primarily a consciousness-raiser. The "labor theory of value" may be erroneous as an economic concept, but the way that production of goods and services moves around the 21st-century globe in search of cheaper and cheaper labor is highly illuminated by reading Capital. Marx may not have known much about markets, but then Darwin knew nothing at all about genetics; people don't still read them or bear the stamp of their influence because of the details.

US Chamber of Commerce to GOP: No hostage-taking.

I've been waiting for the Big Money to chime in. Now let's see if the Repubs listen.

When in college I was always amused because all of the various departments tried to push Marx off onto someone else. The econ group insisted Marx was politics or philosophy and not at all economics, and likewise all the departments.

I think he has ended up in Sociology.

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

Then you had bad poli-phil professors. Karl Marx was a moral and political philosopher. His value as such is open to discussion, but the idea that he wasn't primarily a political philosopher is silly.

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

Marx was primarily a consciousness-raiser.

You guys are all nuts. Everyone I've dealt with knows where Marx wound up. The market has spoken.

Question to the crowd. How much has the content of the header article linked to driven the conversation in the thread?

I've blocked in on my laptop but it's ####### annoying on the iPad and even more so on the phone.

A Republican state lawmaker in Wyoming has introduced legislation to prohibit enforcement of federal gun control measures that Vice President Joe Biden is likely to recommend next week.

State Rep. Kendell Kroeker (R-Evansville) has put forward a bill making it a felony to enforce in Wyoming any federal ban on assault weapons or high-capacity gun magazines, two proposals that Biden's gun control task force is likely to present to President Barack Obama on Tuesday. The task force's recommendations, of course, would have to be passed by Congress and signed by Obama in order to become law.

Kroeker said his bill, which would hit federal agents with up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine for attempting to enforce such bans in Wyoming, is designed to be proactive in preserving gun rights.

"We want to get things ahead of the game," Kroeker said, pointing to opponents of the Bill of Rights two centuries ago who argued that the amendments were not necessary because there was no issue over those rights. "We take the Second Amendment seriously in Wyoming."

Kroeker's bill covers gun bans that the federal government passes after Jan. 1, 2013.

"I take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of Wyoming," said Kroeker, who had previously sponsored legislation to return Wyoming to the gold standard. "I believe it is my duty to take that oath seriously. If the federal government is going to pass laws taking back our rights, it is our right as a state to defend those rights."

Link

978, that is awesome. Making it against the law to enforce possible future federal legislation. Kroeker should have his children's crayon's taken away from him before he writes more such legislation.

Pretty sure what Kendell Kroeker is suggesting would be declared unlawful the minute it is signed by a governor. Of course at the moment its just a flight of fancy of a crazy man.

I personally like the lawmakers who threaten to secede if the Federal Government changes the 2nd admendment. Have they learned nothing?

who had previously sponsored legislation to return Wyoming to the gold standard

OMG, how did I miss this the first time through. That is so great, I want to donate to his campaign as he is clearly a national treasure.

Seriously (which gives this loon too much credit) how on Earth would that work? Would Wyoming issue its own Gold based currency or what?

Seriously (which gives this loon too much credit) how on Earth would that work? Would Wyoming issue its own Gold based currency or what?

They don't think in those terms.

But earlier you agreed me me (I thought it was you) that correcting for economic externalities (like pollution) was part of the appropriate sphere of influence for a government. Well discrimination is an economic externality like pollution, and short term market actions don't fix it (like with pollution).

I don't think these are reasonably analogous problems, particularly within the scope of "is this an externality appropriate for government intervention?" which is the discussion we're having.

In a very broad sense, allowing someone to pollute is allowing someone to assault others or damage their property (or property that belongs equally to all citizens, such as the environment). There's a fundamental right not to be assaulted, and there's a fundamental right not to have your property damaged.

Discrimination harms others by preventing optimal efficiency and reducing opportunity. Allowing discrimination allows people to limit the opportunities of others to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor, and to contribute to a suboptimal economy. Yet there is no fundamental right to enjoy the fruits of another's labor, nor is there a fundamental right to an optimal economy.

You could argue it is not a large enough externality, but that is not what you are saying it seems to me.

These are entirely different costs not only as a matter of degree, but of kind. The first cost would be appropriate for government action; the second is unpleasant but not appropriate for government action. Governments should protect fundamental rights, but not "things that would be better."

Practically every member of every large and modern society acknowledges the rights of bodily autonomy and property. People may disagree over the boundaries of these rights or their intersection with other rights, but practically nobody suggests that you don't have a right not to be assaulted or to ownership of your own property. Those rights are necessary in order to have a society; that's why I would call them "fundamental."

The primary role of good government, as I see it, is to provide adjudication of conflicts between fundamental rights of individuals. The secondary role is to safeguard the stability of the society to allow it to fulfill its primary role. Outside of those roles, government action is occasionally necessary but should be extremely limited.

978, that is awesome. Making it against the law to enforce possible future federal legislation.

A few other states are considering similar measures. I think Montana was the first to put it on the table.

You ain't doing ####. Sit down and shut up before someone with an adult penis slaps the stupid out of your mouth.

As we can all see from your pantsless appearance, that person won't be you.

Awww man :(

But I live in Colorado, it's snowing here! Shrinkage! I demand a recount!

So the actions of a few, the suicide bombers and those that enable them, taint everyone irredeemably? Sorry but not for me. Both sides have engaged in immoral violent behavior, and as I have stated before I don't give a #### who started it or who is more guilty. People on both sides are dying, suffering, and harming themselves and others through violence. It should stop, and the only way I can see to do that is through non-violence.

I said it was "hard for me," not impossible. I have tremendous sympathy for individual Palestinians who suffer. I have very little sympathy for their cause. It's not just suicide bombings, but use of civilians as shields, sacrificing children soldiers to appear more sympathetic, and the active or passive support of this behavior.

I'm not pretending that Israel is blameless, but given its position, surrounded by nations and with a substantial internal population that actively seeks the state's destruction, I do admire its restraint. I don't see how Israel can, without essentially ending its existence, do much less in its defense.

And when someone suggests there is I will join you in suggesting they are delusional.

C'mon. It's implicit in a lot of what's been said here, and of course elsewhere.

Marx?

When our ancestor was crawling around searching out vermin to eat and something to copulate with, that was the last time in the history of man that politics didn’t come into play in our lives. Everything since then, from the first simple elemental form of group organization to the complexities of our present systems, is in derogation (or refinement, if you rather) of that. No group allows freedom to the extent that the group is compromised by fear. No tribe ever allowed its members to engage in any sort of commerce, economic and otherwise, without sanctions positive and negative of a social sort coming into play. To allow this much freedom would be being a lamb in a world of lions.

I know you know this, but I also know you think it irrelevant. It isn’t. It’s the nature of things, and if you don't start off right, as Bob Dylan would say, you ain't going nowwhere. That’s why I think libertarianism is such a farce. It’s why I call it a creationist mindset. It doesn’t consider basics, in nature or in what gave rise to social institutions. What it considers basic is young earth creationism. It’s why their views absolutely radiate with one-sided, self-serving moralizing. It always easier to look at things moralistically. You don’t have to know much; you just have to feel superior, and you always do when you feel your welfare is being compromised or you personally are being held back from getting the most out of life.

You can talk about just isolating economic concerns, but no one in reality does this, and no one ever will. No group exercises its public life with the attitude of let’s just figure out how to benefit the whole, to maximize the value of the whole, and we'll be okay. That's the most and hte best we can do. I, of course, wish they would sometimes in some ways, but I know why that’s not gonna happen. Only the dogmatic (those that elevate economics and politics to a religious clown thing philosophy) think it is possible—and they are usually insulated from the negative effects of their idiocies.

Look at MLB with its anti-trust monopolistic niche in our economy. I think that has hurt MLB—and if you hound economists to their rabbit warrens, they’ll probably admit this (unless they're on the Supreme Court). You will never convince me that it is not part of the reason baseball is no longer has the place in our national life that it once had. So, why is it still like this? Why hasn’t change happened if the whole would, and everyone in it, be better off? I think something’s being overlooked in the analysis, that’s why. Somebody is benefiting from that “protection”, in economic terms and in other way, and right now that’s sufficient for their system to prosper. The instant gratification is so good no one cares, or believes, that at some point in the future it will give you cancer.

That's an odd thing to say, "legitimate solution"

I mean "something that works" as opposed to "a plan that will never work but is proposed to solve the problem."

also what do you mean by "strong enough to win"

the "weaker" side can win by violence if they make the stronger side say, "I give up, I quit, I'm leaving, this isn't worth it"

That's winning. You don't have to conquer the opposition and subjugate them, but you need to be capable of bloodying its nose enough to make the opposition make different plans.

What the Pales have not seemed to figure out is that Jewish Israel, a nation of holocaust survivors, a people with a centuries long obsession with that particular piece of land, are never ever ever, gonna throw up their hands and say, "this isn't worth it, we're leaving"- instead of confronting that many Pales have instead engaged in Holocaust denialism as well as denialism that Jews were ever in the Levant prior to 1947...

I think they have figured it out. A large percentage of them are interested in compromise, but not large enough to shut down the percentage of them that think the solution is to force the Jews out.

If you can only buy sandwiches through the back door, you are going to pay too much for those sandwiches, and remain in poverty; hence, sitting at the counter is what establishes a free market, symbolic though it seems at first glance.

I think that's why providing basic needs is important. Once you are guaranteed food, shelter, health care, and education, poverty is not really a significant issue any more. You're not desperate and you can invest energy in improvement for yourself and your family.

Well who would you rather follow, Kirk Douglass or Sir Lawrence Olivier?

Who doesn't like snails and oysters?

or both, when you can get them.

Meanwhile, back in Israel.....

"Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told Jewish leaders in New York on Thursday that President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, is a “decent and fair interlocutor who believes in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States.”

Speaking at a local Chamber of Commerce breakfast on Thursday morning in his home state, Georgia Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey addressed some heavy issues, including the need for gun control in the wake of deadly shootings throughout the country, and former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's controversial comments on the campaign trail last year about rape, saying Akin was "partly right."

...

Gingrey's morning talk was wide-ranging. He also discussed comments made by Akin, in which Akin said victims of "legitimate rape" don't often become pregnant because the woman's body has "ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Gingrey argued that Akin, who may have lost his election because of those comments, was in part right.

“What he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’ That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus nonlegitimate rape," Gingrey, an OB-GYN physician since 1975, said. "I don’t find anything so horrible about that. But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that.”

He continued: “I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight, because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right, wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down, because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart.”

993. Hey, stop posting The Onion articles here.

China's "Little Emperors" — the generations of only-children born under the government's rigid "one child" policy — are living up to their name.

A study published Thursday in the journal Science has found that compared with two groups of people born in the years before China began its harsh population-control policy, those born after were less conscientious, more risk-averse and less inclined to compete with — or cooperate with — others.

In short, a nation forged by collectivism, hard work and deprivation has created a generation of young adults that could be its undoing.

Did China create multiple generations of psychopaths? Find out at 11.

"Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told Jewish leaders in New York on Thursday that President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, is a “decent and fair interlocutor who believes in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States.”

He's just being paid by the Arab lobby to say that.

[994] Even better, I forgot to add that Gingrey is co-chair of the Republicans Doctors Caucus.

Fellow Ga Rep Paul Broun, also a physician, sits on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and believes evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are major underpinnings of mainstream science., and says they are “lies straight from the pit of hell.”

He ran unopposed this term.

Meanwhile rocket scientist Rush Holt has never served on that committee. Congress in a nutshell.

I'm not pretending that Israel is blameless, but given its position, surrounded by nations and with a substantial internal population that actively seeks the state's destruction, I do admire its restraint

Killing 100 Palestinians for every Israeli that dies is evidence of restraint?