Tom Delay: People Are Unemployed Because They Want to Be

Politics • Views: 2,037

Amazing.

Oh, don’t get me wrong; it’s not amazing that people like Tom Delay think like this. It’s amazing that he actually said it in public: Tom Delay: People Are Unemployed Because They Want To Be.

“You know,” Delay said, “there is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits keeps people from going and finding jobs. In fact there are some studies that have been done that show people stay on unemployment compensation and they don’t look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out.”

Host Candy Crowley: Congressman, that’s a hard sell, isn’t it?

Delay: it’s the truth.

Crowley: People are unemployed because they want to be?

Delay: well, it is the truth. and people in the real world know it. And they have friends and they know it. Sure, we ought to be helping people that are unemployed find a job, but we also have budget considerations that are incredibly important, especially now that Obama is spending monies that we don’t have.

This one goes in the “Republican March to Irrelevance” category.

(Hat tip: marjorie.)

Jump to bottom

369 comments
1 Kragar (Antichrist )  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:50:28am

Go fuck yourself Delay.

2 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:51:14am

What breathtaking stupidity.

3 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:51:15am

Delay searching for a sweet note in populist relevance sounds a bit off key….

4 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:53:30am

I know lots of people out of work.

I don’t know a single person who has waited until their benefits were about to run out to look for a job.

So, no, Mr. Delay, I have no clue what you’re talking about. I do know a lot of people who have never stopped looking for work and are going to be literally homeless if their unemployment runs out, though.

5 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:53:35am

Yeah, chief (Tom), I’m unemployed because I want to be.
Idiot.

6 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:54:37am

Tom where are all the jobs in Detroit that people don’t want? I will gladly apply.

7 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:55:32am

The study groups find that this statement :

Delay: well, it is the truth. and people in the real world know it. And they have friends and they know it. Sure, we ought to be helping people that are unemployed find a job, but we also have budget considerations that are incredibly important, especially now that Obama is spending monies that we don’t have.

Polls well within the all-important sovereign citizen demographic along with appealing to fears of the UN stationing a soldier in every household.

9 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:56:41am

Meanwhile, Tom’s unemployed by the House since he’s corrupt and helped create the bigass deficit that he’s railing against.

10 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:56:44am

Unemployment benefits, after all, are fat city. Who wants to work?

I do. In fact I just got a translation gig. It’s a one-off, only thirty pages, but it will help. And I will take a job pumping gas at a country store if Albusteve will really let me live in the bunkhouse until I find a used meth shack for my very own.

11 MandyManners  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:57:36am

He’s competing with Biden for the Foot-in-Mouth Award.

12 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:57:39am

re: #9 Thanos

Meanwhile, Tom’s unemployed by the House since he’s corrupt and helped create the bigass deficit that he’s railing against.

The ZING heard ‘round the world!
:)

13 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:57:55am

DeLay isn’t the only GOPer who has said stupid things about unemployment recently, sadly:

Two weeks ago, Rep. Dean Heller (R) of Nevada expressed concern that the government is “creating hobos” by extending unemployment benefits. Around the same time, Rep. Steve King, a right-wing Republican from Iowa, explained his opposition to extended unemployment benefits: “We shouldn’t turn the ‘safety net’ into a hammock.”

Last week, Senate Minority Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate’s #2 Republican, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting “because people are being paid even though they’re not working.” And this, of course, coincided with Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-Ky.) crusade against extending benefits.

Money (ha) quote from WM:

And as a matter of politics, who, exactly, is going to be impressed by Republicans attacking the unemployed as lazy? Since when is “screw struggling families, let’s worry about corporate tax cuts and the estate tax” an effective election-year message during difficult economic times?
14 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:00:19am

So Tom Delay holds office, er, I forget. What office does he hold?

15 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:00:51am

Put this one on after “if you feed stray animals they reproduce” (I paraphrase) on the next episode of of “Republicans say the darndest things”

16 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:00:52am

Oooo muchas gracias, mi amor!! :)

17 MandyManners  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:01:20am

re: #14 cliffster

So Tom Delay holds office, er, I forget. What office does he hold?

Dog house.

18 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:01:46am

Here’s the thing - continued extension of unemployment benefits does what exactly for the economy at large - it grows a safety net that keeps getting expanded because the economy continues lumbering along at a horrific pace.

For those on unemployment, that’s the difference between possibly having a place to live or not. It’s meant to be a temporary measure, not a permanent situation.

When the government continues extending unemployment benefits that are set to expire, it may undermine the economy in the long term if you believe that those unemployed aren’t looking because they are on unemployment versus waiting until they lose their benefits before resuming a job search. I don’t buy into that having done the unemployment thing years ago - I never stopped looking though I was discouraged at more than a few points because of lagging job prospects.

No, the real problem isn’t the unemployment benefits and their extension of benefits on a temporary basis, but that jobs aren’t getting created and the saved part is pretty dubious too.

Businesses aren’t rushing to create new job opportunities and people aren’t rushing to create new small businesses to fill the void. Until that core problem is addressed, unemployment will continue to be an issue at its current rates (at or above 10% or much higher if per the U6 BLS rate).

19 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:01:48am

re: #11 MandyManners

re: #14 cliffster

Aah, defending the brand :D

20 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:03:11am

re: #17 MandyManners

Dog house.

Yeah, boy I hope they vote that Tom Delay guy out of office.

21 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:03:51am

re: #20 cliffster

What about Heller, King, and Kyl?

22 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:03:58am

Heh, I see what ya did there!
:P

23 Opal  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:04:52am

Yeah…he’s right. Who wants to work anyway when one can leach a huge $410/week maximum benefit from the state (mine is Maryland)? Living large on $1640 minus taxes is the American dream. (sarcasm intended)

24 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:04:52am

Does this asshole have any idea how fricken impossible it is to find a job if you’re over 50?

25 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:05:17am

re: #8 recusancy

OT: Good AGW diary at dkos

Also: Palin hopped the border to get socialist death-panel healthcare as a kid

Please let that Palin thing about going to Canada for Helathcare be true, please let it be true, please let it be true, please let us find out exactly what she was getting treated for there….

Because you see Sarah, most of your supporters live in states that aren’t anywhere near Canada, or even Mexico for that matter!

26 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:05:52am

re: #24 Alouette

Independantly wealthy politicians always know the real world better than real workers, always!

27 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:05:53am

re: #4 Obdicut

I know lots of people out of work.

I don’t know a single person who has waited until their benefits were about to run out to look for a job.

So, no, Mr. Delay, I have no clue what you’re talking about. I do know a lot of people who have never stopped looking for work and are going to be literally homeless if their unemployment runs out, though.

Well in my experience I think I’ve known perhaps one or two people that somewhat fit that description. Morons and idiots. However if I based my opinion on those one or two morons and idiots I’d be discounting the multitudes of other people I’ve known that aren’t like that, including myself. I’d be discounting the reality of the absolutely majority Regardless of any system whether it’s a social service or private system that gets put in place there are always going to be a small percentage of people who are morons and/or take advantage of whatever it is.

Welcome to life in human society. I fully support the notion of doing things that help cut down on the ability of morons and those that take advantage to act that way but I live in the real world and understand that nothing is going to completely make that sort of thing disappear completely. Some people are just going to suck no matter what you do and I’d rather focus on making sure that that systems are in place for the majority of people that don’t suck.

28 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:06:20am

re: #24 Alouette

Does this asshole have any idea how fricken impossible it is to find a job if you’re over 50?

/Tom Delay was born in 1947 so that makes him 63 or 62 and yet somehow he manages….

29 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:06:42am

Why does unemployment expire? They had to vote to extend unemployment. Why is that? Why was there an expiration date to begin with?

30 Randy W. Weeks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:07:32am

What a nasty, mean-spirited little man Delay is.

31 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:07:37am

re: #29 cliffster

Why does unemployment expire? They had to vote to extend unemployment. Why is that? Why was there an expiration date to begin with?

So the slackers will get off their welfare-king asses and look for work. Losing your houses is also an incentive.

32 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:07:38am

re: #28 jamesfirecat

/Tom Delay was born in 1947 so that makes him 63 or 62 and yet somehow he manages…

But he doesn’t have a real job.

33 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:08:00am

re: #21 Obdicut

What about Heller, King, and Kyl?

What about them?

34 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:08:01am

re: #27 Jadespring

In fairness on that point, I know a fair number (of admittedly already loserish already) people who kind of half-ass their job search until they have no choice. Altho’, in both the cases I’m thinking of, not only did they have to lose their unemployment to really start looking, they also had to get kicked out by their roommates >>

35 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:08:05am

It ties into the old rightwing meme that only losers and layabouts use welfare, even though unemployment benefits are not welfare. The fact that there are no jobs doesn’t enter into Delay’s equation (although it is picking up a bit). What gives him the right to judge anyone?

36 American-African  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:08:10am

The Stupid is strong with this one.

37 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:08:59am

re: #32 Alouette

But he doesn’t have a real job.

Hence the sarcasm tag.

38 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:09:17am

re: #35 marjoriemoon

Also ties into the theme of the more ugly ‘christian’ sects that say worldly success is God’s reward for being righteous. Clearly the poor are bad people, and are also being punished. Or that’s the argument.

39 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:09:21am

This kind of bullshit reminds me why (among many other reasons) I stopped posting at Free Republic. “If you’re unemployed you just a lazy bum! Get a job shoveling snow!”

40 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:09:44am

re: #35 marjoriemoon

It ties into the old rightwing meme that only losers and layabouts use welfare, even though unemployment benefits are not welfare. The fact that there are no jobs doesn’t enter into Delay’s equation (although it is picking up a bit). What gives him the right to judge anyone?

Frankly, it’s a callback to Reagan’s tales about Welfare Queens and ‘young bucks’.

41 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:10:08am

re: #18 lawhawk

Hi lawhawk. Great point on the U6 rate. I’ve never quite understood the use of that many levels - mostly because it allows pols to “cherry-pick” the BLS rate they want to use to make political points.

From wiki, but they are the official rates:

U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.

U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.

U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.

U4: U3 + “discouraged workers”, or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.

U5: U4 + other “marginally attached workers”, or “loosely attached workers”, or those who “would like” and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.

U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

If the official rate (U3) is at 10%, I shudder to think what the U6 rate is. (Could probably find it with a search I suppose.)

42 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:10:23am

re: #29 cliffster

The question that you should be answering is ‘why are they extending it this time?’

The answer being “Because its especially hard for people who ARE looking to get jobs right now, because the economy is still in the crapper.”

43 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:10:27am

re: #33 cliffster


Do you hope that they get voted out of office? This is in reference to you bringing up that Delay does not currently hold an office. I’m pointing out the other people, from Iceweasel’s link, who have made statements closely similar.

44 MandyManners  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:10:29am

re: #29 cliffster

Why does unemployment expire? They had to vote to extend unemployment. Why is that? Why was there an expiration date to begin with?

Because it’s intended to be a temporary safety-net.

45 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:10:58am

re: #40 iceweasel

Frankly, it’s a callback to Reagan’s tales about Welfare Queens and ‘young bucks’.

During the Reagan administration there were actual jobs to apply for.

46 MandyManners  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:11:23am

re: #36 American-African

The Stupid is strong with this one.

He’s eaten up with it!

47 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:12:35am

re: #40 iceweasel

Frankly, it’s a callback to Reagan’s tales about Welfare Queens and ‘young bucks’.

Yeah. It’s not the ‘unemployment slackers’.

I know far more ‘working class’ people who go through long periods of collection unemployment than I do middle class people. That’s what makes this attack particularly repellent to me. Class warfare isn’t just one-way.

48 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:12:47am

re: #45 Alouette

In general there are always more people looking than there are jobs. Its just worse now.

/unless you’re saying everyone unemployed in the ’80s just didnt’ want to work, but I’m assuming you’re not ;)

49 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:13:45am

re: #15 jamesfirecat

Put this one on after “if you feed stray animals they reproduce” (I paraphrase) on the next episode of of “Republicans say the darndest things”

Ah yes. That would be the Lt Gov of SC:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that.”

And a little more info on him here:
Bauer said he’s been poor, unlike most S.C. politicians. Bauer is a child of divorce. As a result, he and his sister qualified for reduced-price lunches in the Irmo school system, something that was obvious to other kids because of the different color lunch ticket he was given.

Well, well.

50 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:13:59am

re: #4 Obdicut

I know lots of people out of work.

I don’t know a single person who has waited until their benefits were about to run out to look for a job.

So, no, Mr. Delay, I have no clue what you’re talking about. I do know a lot of people who have never stopped looking for work and are going to be literally homeless if their unemployment runs out, though.

In Canada it is a national pastime among seasonal workers.

51 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:14:19am

re: #31 Cato the Elder

ΠΙΜΦ: Losing your house.

Delay could probably loses two or more houses and not even notice.

52 recusancy  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:14:51am

re: #45 Alouette

During the Reagan administration there were actual jobs to apply for.

Unemployment was around near 10% until his 3rd year in office.

53 Firstinla  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:15:00am

And he can’t dance either.

54 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:15:09am

re: #43 Obdicut

Do you hope that they get voted out of office? This is in reference to you bringing up that Delay does not currently hold an office. I’m pointing out the other people, from Iceweasel’s link, who have made statements closely similar.

The benefits have to expire eventually, or they don’t. The wording may have been unfortunate, but the fact is that you have to pick a timespan, or be prepared to have the taxpayers (and indirectly, former employers) pay unemployment indefinitely. This is not sustainable. It’s not a pretty fact, but it’s a fact.

55 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:16:02am

re: #53 Firstinla

And he can’t dance either.

LOL Actually, that’s the only time I actually watched him for any great length of time. No, he can’t dance, but I’d rather see him dancing then running his mouth.

56 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:16:23am

re: #52 recusancy

Unemployment was around near 10% until his 3rd year in office.

The Reagan remarks about welfare I’m referring to were, IIRC, made while he was campaigning.

57 MichaelJ  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:16:44am

What an ass. While this may be true for a small minority of the unemployed, this is a stunningly thick headed and sweeping generalization to make when unemployment rates are the highest they’ve been since WW2.

58 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:17:15am

re: #42 windsagio

The question that you should be answering is ‘why are they extending it this time?’

The answer being “Because its especially hard for people who ARE looking to get jobs right now, because the economy is still in the crapper.”

Do you think there are any situations where a person is unable to get a job in their field, but do not take a job in a different field but rather they remain unemployed? Or does that not ever happen?

59 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:17:16am

re: #56 iceweasel

“Blame the Poor” is unfortunately a tried and true tactic with one of our political parties, which will remain unnamed :p

60 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:17:19am

re: #49 iceweasel

And a little more info on him here:
Bauer said he’s been poor, unlike most S.C. politicians. Bauer is a child of divorce. As a result, he and his sister qualified for reduced-price lunches in the Irmo school system, something that was obvious to other kids because of the different color lunch ticket he was given.

Well, well.

Knowing that just makes this all the more juicy. I’m sure he wanted to pay full price for his meal like a good upstanding citizen but the evil bureaucrats wouldn’t allow him so he was forced to hurl his unwanted allowance money at school windows….

61 harrylook  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:17:28am

I guess this is why Delay isn’t back on DWTS this season - just not into it. :)

62 uncah91  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:17:40am

re: #54 cliffster

The benefits have to expire eventually, or they don’t. The wording may have been unfortunate, but the fact is that you have to pick a timespan, or be prepared to have the taxpayers (and indirectly, former employers) pay unemployment indefinitely. This is not sustainable. It’s not a pretty fact, but it’s a fact.

Oh my goodness. Unemployment benefits shouldn’t go on forever, but in economic downturns they get extended by an act of congress because it is harder and takes longer to find work.

Different economic times call for different measures. That shouldn’t be controversial.

63 recusancy  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:18:11am

re: #56 iceweasel

The Reagan remarks about welfare I’m referring to were, IIRC, made while he was campaigning.

I know. I was just making the counter point to the people who look back on his time with rose colored glasses.

64 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:18:31am

re: #62 uncah91

Oh my goodness. Unemployment benefits shouldn’t go on forever, but in economic downturns they get extended by an act of congress because it is harder and takes longer to find work.

Different economic times call for different measures. That shouldn’t be controversial.

Oh my goodness, but you do agree there has to be a line somewhere.

65 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:18:47am

re: #48 windsagio

In general there are always more people looking than there are jobs. Its just worse now.

/unless you’re saying everyone unemployed in the ’80s just didnt’ want to work, but I’m assuming you’re not ;)

In the ‘80’s I did not have to spend as much time job hunting as I do now, and I was just out of college with little experience.

66 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:19:13am

re: #58 cliffster

Of course it happens, but ask a 45 year old ex-unix engineer how easy it is for him/her to get hired at a McDonalds. Let alone, after 50.

… Or ask a 45 year old ANYTHING how hard it is to get ANY new job.

67 Political Atheist  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:19:29am

re: #52 recusancy

Reagan oversaw a return to solid growth. Lets see if we get that this time.

68 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:19:53am

So apart from DeLay,— I knew we’d immediately have the usual suspects gabbling that he isn’t in office— we have elected Republicans comparing the poor/the unemployed to stray animals who will just mindlessly overbreed if we feed them, to hobos, claiming the safety net is a ‘hammock’, and more.

Anyone want to claim there ISN’T a huge problem in the GOP w/r/t this? Because you have some ‘splainin’ to do.

69 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:20:03am

re: #50 Spare O’Lake

In Canada it is a national pastime among seasonal workers.

Different set of issues there.

70 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:20:36am

re: #54 cliffster

The benefits have to expire eventually, or they don’t. The wording may have been unfortunate, but the fact is that you have to pick a timespan, or be prepared to have the taxpayers (and indirectly, former employers) pay unemployment indefinitely. This is not sustainable. It’s not a pretty fact, but it’s a fact.

What is very not sustainable is large numbers of people becoming homeless, defaulting on mortgages, unable to pay their bills, due to their unemployment insurance drying up.

When people’s unemployment insurance ends, they don’t vanish, you know. They’re still here. Do you want them to just move on to welfare?

What is the actual solution you have in mind?

71 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:20:53am

I remember years ago, I got into a discussion in the lounge here about welfare and unemployment. Of course, as a supporter of social services, I wasn’t on the popular side, until a couple lizards confessed they were or had been on welfare. And here I thought welfare was just for Democrat slobs…

Actually, I felt at the time that my talking about welfare in a positive way encouraged them to admit it. Otherwise, they felt shamed by their peers which I thought was equally awful.

72 wrenchwench  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:21:25am

So what if they do wait until a few weeks before the benefits run out to look for a job? I’ve done that. I was young, with few responsibilities, and never needed more than a few hours to land a job. Unemployment in Oregon kept getting extended. Others needed the few jobs out there more than I did.

Just another reason he shouldn’t have said this.

73 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:21:35am

re: #63 recusancy

I know. I was just making the counter point to the people who look back on his time with rose colored glasses.

Oh I know and it was a GREAT point!

74 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:21:48am

re: #70 Obdicut

also they end up putting more pressure on our health system again, homeless people tend to be very unhealthy.

75 recusancy  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:21:50am

re: #71 marjoriemoon

I remember years ago, I got into a discussion in the lounge here about welfare and unemployment. Of course, as a supporter of social services, I wasn’t on the popular side, until a couple lizards confessed they were or had been on welfare. And here I thought welfare was just for Democrat slobs…

Actually, I felt at the time that my talking about welfare in a positive way encouraged them to admit it. Otherwise, they felt shamed by their peers which I thought was equally awful.

Then there are people like Walter who think their a special case.

76 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:22:53am

re: #70 Obdicut

What is very not sustainable is large numbers of people becoming homeless, defaulting on mortgages, unable to pay their bills, due to their unemployment insurance drying up.

When people’s unemployment insurance ends, they don’t vanish, you know. They’re still here. Do you want them to just move on to welfare?

What is the actual solution you have in mind?

So you don’t think unemployment should expire?

77 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:23:10am

re: #70 Obdicut

What is very not sustainable is large numbers of people becoming homeless, defaulting on mortgages, unable to pay their bills, due to their unemployment insurance drying up.

When people’s unemployment insurance ends, they don’t vanish, you know. They’re still here. Do you want them to just move on to welfare?

What is the actual solution you have in mind?

My solution which seems obvious to me is as follows.

We’ve got a great deal of unemployed people, we seem to be paying for their unemployment benefits….

Lets think up a few more “shovel ready” government employment projects and get to work on them. If we’re gonna pay them either way, at least this way we get something out of it…..

78 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:23:22am

re: #66 windsagio

Of course it happens, but ask a 45 year old ex-unix engineer how easy it is for him/her to get hired at a McDonalds. Let alone, after 50.

… Or ask a 45 year old ANYTHING how hard it is to get ANY new job.

There is certainly a good case for “ageism,” probably always had, but it seems to me to be more pronounced, maybe that’s because I am 57 and have not been able to find full time employment in my career in the last six years and I am more acute to the problem.

Either way, it’s a problem. I have had professional recruiters tell me off the record that it’s my age, has nothing to do with my qualifications.

79 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:23:28am

re: #75 recusancy

Then there are people like Walter who think their a special case.

There is no doubt in my mind that Walter is special :)

80 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:24:00am

Ack, I gotta go. Wish I could stay. Will try to be back!

81 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:24:00am

If you want to stay on unemployment, it’s important to have a friend pretend they’re Vandelay Industries, and you recently had an interview with them.

82 MrSilverDragon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:24:21am

I’ve said some stupid things in my life, and I’m sure I’m not done saying stupid things, but I don’t think anything compares to Delay’s… (not a)musings.

83 hickph  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:25:27am

My brother has been out of work for more than a year. He worked as a sales rep for a cabinet manufacturer that sells to Lowe’s, Home Depot, etc. When housing and home improvement cratered, he was let go. It was a great gig that paid him a decent base, not to mention sizable commissions.

He’s sent out resumes and engaged in interviews, but the only positions possibly available would cause his income vs. unemployment to drop to the point where he and his wife would be unable to make their mortgage payment on an $80,000 condo. She works for a local credit union, but by having him on her insurance, the money isn’t exactly rolling in.

Does Delay want to cut people off and exacerbate the housing crisis that continues in many parts of the country? Our newspaper pages remain filled each day with legal notices of foreclosures.

Delay has some nerve, considering the sweet federal benefits he receives from his years in Congress. Have him stop suckling at the teat of Uncle Sam, then maybe someone would listen.

84 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:25:34am

People who have, frequently have a number of conceits.

One of them, is that because of their money, they are somehow better than others. The foolishly assume that their wealth or material possessions are some indicator that they are harder working and more deserving than others.

Does anyone for a moment, think that the person picking your fruit in a field, works less hard than a cube dwelling wage slave? While we are at it, does anyone think that the reports and memos churned out by the cube dwelling wage slave are any less mindless than picking fruit.

In fact, if they had the same salary, picking fruit and being in the sun strikes me as much more fulfilling than writing pointless memos.

But that dose of reality is not the point.

The point is about the meme that the right has of blaming the poor for all things.

Just as it is unfair and wrong to assume that everything is society’s fault and hence exhonorate a poor person for their bad free will choices, it is savage, callous, heartless, cruel and ignorant for some fat GOP bastard who has never known hardship, to perpetuate an unfair system, profit from that system and then claim that those who are on the short end of that stick are the ones to blame.

This is made all the more ironic since bastards like Delay claim to be followers of Jesus.

Last I checked, Jesus had some very strong views on the meek being the ones to inherit and fat rich bastards like Delay having a hard time getting into heaven.

85 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:25:56am

re: #71 marjoriemoon

I remember years ago, I got into a discussion in the lounge here about welfare and unemployment. Of course, as a supporter of social services, I wasn’t on the popular side, until a couple lizards confessed they were or had been on welfare. And here I thought welfare was just for Democrat slobs…

Actually, I felt at the time that my talking about welfare in a positive way encouraged them to admit it. Otherwise, they felt shamed by their peers which I thought was equally awful.

I’ve had similar experiences in various settings.
NYT had an article late last year about the outreach programs for food stamps and the like. There’s a tremendous stigma still attached to such programs, and shame prevents many people from taking advantage of them or admitting that they have been helped by them. This shouldn’t be the case, but it is.

86 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:25:59am

re: #78 Walter L. Newton

If they tell you that at all, and you have the motivation you can generally nail ‘em. Oh wait, recruiters… yeah can’t really screw the messenger.

It’s worse now because the employment model has changed. We’re a long ways from ‘stay at one place until you retire’, so there are more middle-aged people on the market. Makes the discrimination more obvious.

87 Lidane  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:28:09am

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Go fuck yourself Delay.

Yeah, this.

The guy’s an asshole. Always has been. This is just more proof of it.

88 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:28:13am

re: #76 cliffster

So you don’t think unemployment should expire?

How about actually answering a question at some point, Cliffster?

I’d love to see an experiment where we didn’t have unemployment expire, and see if it actually disinhibited anyone from going out and finding work— and if we could effectively clave off that behavior and address it.

I know, pragmatically, that other people’s economic woes affect me. That’s why people are worried about the ‘economy’ in general. I know that if my neighbor is out of work, I’m paying for it in one way or another anyway.

I know more freeloaders who are employed than I do freeloaders who are unemployed. Not to mention those people who occupy jobs that produce nothing, add nothing of value to the world.

89 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:28:20am

re: #84 LudwigVanQuixote

Reminds me of someone talking on here a few weeks back about how the slave society in the south led to that kind of thinking, and a general disdain for the lower classes/poor.

90 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:28:24am

re: #52 recusancy

Unemployment was around near 10% until his 3rd year in office.

True, though that wasn’t Reagan’s fault. Paul Volkner was killing the inflation that torments the US back in the 70’s. That’s the same reason interest rate are going to go up later this year. It’s the only way to prevent crippling inflation.

91 davesax  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:29:54am

The real problem is that unemployment laws - at least in NYC - have not been modified to accommodate modern working life.

I’ve been on unemployment. And it’s a bitch to get off of, partly due to the unemployment system itself.

If you receive full unemployment in NYC - which comes out to something like $360 after taxes (a total joke) - you cannot work a part time job, temp job, or freelance job and still receive benefits.

So, if you have a strong work ethic but simply cannot find full time employment, you’re in a bind. You may get some sort of two day a week temporary position, but the system will cut off your benefits totally and it will take weeks to get them turned back on. And that two day position will pay less than the 360 you are eligible for on unemployment. Sure, the law claims you may a few days or something, but you are not allowed to earn over the maximum 360 or whatever dollars, and once they turn you off off it really is a nightmare to get them turned back on. Even if the job was just for a week.

So, you are being penalized for working at something that is not a full time job. With this system, you’re better off staying home waiting it out, especially in an economy such as this, where full time jobs are really hard to come by.

Another thing is that the unemployment office is terrible and their “job assistance” is a joke. They simply post job listings you can find anywhere else. They don’t have competent social workers or anyone else on staff to really assist with the emotional factors and every day grind that come with finding work. They don’t provide innovative job search support.

Delay is a jerk, but really, all the politicians are to blame for this. When was the last time you heard any of them push for modifying unemployment laws? For better job search assistance?

I vaguely remember Hillary trying when she was a senator, but congress shot her down.

92 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:30:29am

re: #89 windsagio

Reminds me of someone talking on here a few weeks back about how the slave society in the south led to that kind of thinking, and a general disdain for the lower classes/poor.

And the states most likely to agree with Delay are? Just saying…

93 syrius  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:30:29am

I’m a small business owner with less than 20 employees. Let’s say I decide to lay off a few of my workers because of the economic slowdown there’s less revenue to support 20 employees. They file unemployment claims and seek employment elsewhere. The unemployment benefits keep those employees from losing their food and shelter. They want to work. They want to be employed. Since I let go a few employees means I’m not hiring. Which means a lot of businesses are not hiring.Currently, my employees are thankful for their jobs. Next time some dumb ass conservative/republican/racist like Delay says something stupid- remind him, no one can hear him with his head shoved up his ass.

94 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:31:24am

I’m reading a lot of the same argument on this thread that we heard during the welfare reform debate. Those arguments are old and already dis-proven.

I’m certain anyone here who is unemployed would love to have a job but you can’t deny there is a certain percentage of the population that are going to sit on their asses as long as they have someone else paying their bills.

95 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:31:46am

re: #89 windsagio

Reminds me of someone talking on here a few weeks back about how the slave society in the south led to that kind of thinking, and a general disdain for the lower classes/poor.

There’s also a quasi-religious component to it, by which I mean lingering vestiges of Calvinism, Puritanism, etc. The idea that the poor are deservedly poor, the rich are rewarded by God.
You can see it even now with stuff like the prosperity gospel imo.

96 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:32:06am

re: #92 LudwigVanQuixote

Heh thats a subject maybe we shoudln’t get started on, I’m a little regionalist (just between you and me :P)

97 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:32:39am

re: #94 RogueOne

I’m reading a lot of the same argument on this thread that we heard during the welfare reform debate. Those arguments are old and already dis-proven.

I’m certain anyone here who is unemployed would love to have a job but you can’t deny there is a certain percentage of the population that are going to sit on their asses as long as they have someone else paying their bills.

Nobody can ‘deny’ that. What I can deny is that that number is very large at all, or that that number can be in any way lessened by cutting off unemployment benefits.

98 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:33:09am

re: #95 iceweasel

There’s also a quasi-religious component to it, by which I mean lingering vestiges of Calvinism, Puritanism, etc. The idea that the poor are deservedly poor, the rich are rewarded by God.
You can see it even now with stuff like the prosperity gospel imo.

“Prosperity gospel” is that what they’re calling Atlas Shrugged these days?

99 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:33:37am

re: #87 Lidane

Yeah, this.

The guy’s an asshole. Always has been. This is just more proof of it.

Yeah, but he was an effective asshole as House Majority Leader, a post that often requires an asshole. Until the GOP let the Congress drift after Bush’s Social Security rebuff in 2005. After that and Katrina, Delay’s days in power were numbered.

100 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:33:50am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

Cue Bioshock reference in 5….4….3….


~~


:p

101 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:34:41am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

more seriously, a branch of my family is tied up with those people. They’re all kinds of messed up. And SO empathetic!

102 reine.de.tout  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:35:36am

re: #2 Alouette

What breathtaking stupidity.

Absolutely.
There is the occasional horror story for every benefit offered.
But most people are not trying to play the system.

103 sffilk  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:35:42am

My sister has been out of work for 3 years now. She has been trying all these years to get full-time work. She even took some time to get retrained into a new field, but was told that she needed to have experience in order to get a job in that new field.

She has been temping now for about the last year or so in her old field, and from what she’s told me, her present situation is nowhere near perfect. The thing, though, is she’s working, and she’s glad for it. She’s not glad for the 2+ years she kept looking and sending resumes and looking and getting retrained and finding out that she couldn’t find a job in her new field.

So to Mr. Delay, I would tell him to get his facts straight and to come apologize for lying about people like my sister.

104 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:35:44am

re: #88 Obdicut

How about actually answering a question at some point, Cliffster?

I’d love to see an experiment where we didn’t have unemployment expire, and see if it actually disinhibited anyone from going out and finding work— and if we could effectively clave off that behavior and address it.

I know, pragmatically, that other people’s economic woes affect me. That’s why people are worried about the ‘economy’ in general. I know that if my neighbor is out of work, I’m paying for it in one way or another anyway.

I know more freeloaders who are employed than I do freeloaders who are unemployed. Not to mention those people who occupy jobs that produce nothing, add nothing of value to the world.

So? I don’t know what to do with the “so-and-so has a job and they don’t deserve it” bit. It’s not yours or anyone else’s business who has the job except for the person giving it to him/her. That is a non-argument.

As for economic woes, people struggle. People have problems. The government can’t keep sending them a check forever. If their problems bother you, and they should, then donate some money. Volunteer your time. They are eventually going to have to find another solution. There are organizations out there to help them out, and there are lower-paying jobs they can take.

105 davesax  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:36:04am

I really can’t side with a government bureaucrat who claims that people are too lazy to get jobs.

The irony is just too rich.

106 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:36:35am

re: #104 cliffster

So is the point “I’m against things like unemployment insurance on principle” ?

107 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:36:45am

re: #97 Obdicut

Nobody can ‘deny’ that. What I can deny is that that number is very large at all, or that that number can be in any way lessened by cutting off unemployment benefits.

That’s the rub, at what percentage of lazy people does it become economically unfeasible to continue to extend unemployment benefits?

Maybe the better question should be “what has our government done to create job growth”? Everyone may think DeLay is a tool but he’s not the guy in charge here. Instead, we’ve twittered away a trillion dollars to protect union employees at the expense of non-union workers while simultaneously spending the last year trying to push through a health care reform package no one wants or gives a crap about right now.

108 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:36:53am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

“Prosperity gospel” is that what they’re calling Atlas Shrugged these days?

No, Atlas Shrugged is called “That nonsensical long-ass novel written by a cold-hearted serial killer groupie”.

109 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:37:05am

re: #91 davesax

Very good points, Dave. Especially about the job-finding stuff. We’re wasting a lot of money on employment programs that don’t work, while continuing to support people who have found at least part-time work that perhaps they can parlay into something more would be much better.

Or, you know, employment programs that worked. That’d be nice too, but it’s a bit harder to do.

110 Lidane  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:37:19am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

“Prosperity gospel” is that what they’re calling Atlas Shrugged these days?

Heh, no. Unless you actually think that Ayn Rand has anything close to a coherent philosophy, or that Atlas Shrugged is readable. =P

If you want to know about the Prosperity Gospel, look no further than Joel Osteen. He’s made millions selling the idea that if you’re faithful enough, God will give you every material thing you could ever want.

111 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:38:03am

re: #48 windsagio

In general there are always more people looking than there are jobs. Its just worse now.

/unless you’re saying everyone unemployed in the ’80s just didnt’ want to work, but I’m assuming you’re not ;)

i’m not having luck remembering it, but there’s a percentage at which we very, very generally assume that the market flips to being “more vacancies than people looking”. I think it’s under 6%, tho.

Still…welfare ≠ unemployment, and any Republican who says otherwise isn’t making any more economic sense than your typical Democrat…

(i kiiid…i kiiid!)

112 davesax  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:38:10am

re: #109 Obdicut

Thanks, Obdicut.

113 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:38:36am

re: #108 Dark_Falcon

No, Atlas Shrugged is called “That nonsensical long-ass novel written by a cold-hearted serial killer groupie”.

Now tell us how you really feel about Ayn Rand and don’t forget “rape fantasizing” in your answer.

114 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:38:59am

re: #107 RogueOne

That’s the rub, at what percentage of lazy people does it become economically unfeasible to continue to extend unemployment benefits?

Maybe the better question should be “what has our government done to create job growth”? Everyone may think DeLay is a tool but he’s not the guy in charge here. Instead, we’ve twittered away a trillion dollars to protect union employees at the expense of non-union workers while simultaneously spending the last year trying to push through a health care reform package no one wants or gives a crap about right now.

Concur. The present Congress knows knows very little about job creation, nor does the President. It’s hard to make the correct decisions when you know very little about economics.

115 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:39:01am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

“Prosperity gospel” is that what they’re calling Atlas Shrugged these days?

You know, we could make a pretty good case that some people treat it as a quasi-religious text that’s a form of the prosperity gospel folks….
I had in mind people like Creflo Dollar.

Prosperity theology (also known as prosperity doctrine, the health and wealth gospel, or the prosperity gospel) is a religious belief found among “tens of millions”[1] of Christians centered on the notion that God provides material prosperity for those he favors.[2] It has been defined by the belief that “Jesus blesses believers with riches”[1] or more specifically as the teaching that “believers have a right to the blessings of health and wealth and that they can obtain these blessings through positive confessions of faith and the ‘sowing of seeds’ through the faithful payments of tithes and offerings.”[3] In the words of journalist Hanna Rosin, the prosperity gospel “is not a clearly defined denomination, but a strain of belief that runs through the Pentecostal Church and a surprising number of mainstream evangelical churches, with varying degrees of intensity.

The converse of these beliefs would be that if you’re poor it’s because you’re not faithful enough, and/or that the unfaithful deserve to be poor. Bottom line: the poor deserve to be poor.

116 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:39:24am

re: #104 cliffster

So? I don’t know what to do with the “so-and-so has a job and they don’t deserve it” bit. It’s not yours or anyone else’s business who has the job except for the person giving it to him/her. That is a non-argument.

It’s a non-argument to note that, as well as people freeloading off of the government, there are people freeloading off of corporations?

You’re saying if I do a job, and the guy next to me slacks all damn day long, it’s none of my business?

You’re wrong as hell.


As for economic woes, people struggle. People have problems. The government can’t keep sending them a check forever. If their problems bother you, and they should, then donate some money. Volunteer your time. They are eventually going to have to find another solution. There are organizations out there to help them out, and there are lower-paying jobs they can take.

Denying the problem is not a solution to the problem. What if they don’t find another solution? What if the lower-paying jobs are taken already? What if the ‘organizations’ are already overwhelmed?

Because that’s where we actually are right now.

117 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:39:26am

re: #111 Aceofwhat?

A lighthearted zinger is good. Also, you have a point.

I’d bet the number is a bit higher right now, tho’.

118 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:39:58am

re: #106 windsagio

So is the point “I’m against things like unemployment insurance on principle” ?

The way it is now, certainly.

119 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:41:06am

re: #95 iceweasel

There’s also a quasi-religious component to it, by which I mean lingering vestiges of Calvinism, Puritanism, etc. The idea that the poor are deservedly poor, the rich are rewarded by God.
You can see it even now with stuff like the prosperity gospel imo.

Yep. The quote “And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” isn’t meant to be taken in isolation, but neither is it meant to be ignored…

I have this odd recollection of Jesus spending a lot of time telling me I ought to be feeding the hungry and clothing the poor. But maybe my memory is a bit faulty…

120 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:41:06am

re: #115 iceweasel

The converse of these beliefs would be that if you’re poor it’s because you’re not faithful enough, and/or that the unfaithful deserve to be poor. Bottom line: the poor deserve to be poor.

Or you’re just fated to be poor, because you’re not one of the elect :p

Or, even better, you don’t tithe enough to your church! I’ve heard pastors argue this >>

121 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:42:39am

re: #96 windsagio

Heh thats a subject maybe we shoudln’t get started on, I’m a little regionalist (just between you and me :P)

Well that may be fair, but I will simply say it and have done with.

The Confederacy’s discussion of State’s rights was smoke and mirrors for the “right” to brutally enslave, abuse, degrade and murder other human beings for profit. At the time of the revolution, the South was the wealthiest part of America, they could have led the way in industrialization. They chose not to.

Slave states always stagnate. If you have slaves to chase mice, you have no need for a better mousetrap.

Of course, Southerners are human too - even they saw the misery their system created and perpetuated. But being the all too human, rather than doing the right thing upon that realization, they found ways to justify it. So slaves become breeding stock and animals, not even people. They developed a twisted perversion of Christianity in which God himself sanctioned this evil.

After all, once you are the elect going to heaven, then what does it matter what you do to those who are not? And I know that Calvinism was not born in the American South, but a Calvinism that sanctioned the brutal enslavement of others certainly was - as were interpretations of Genesis that black people were destined by God to be slaves because they came from the wrong post flood lineage.

So I will just say it. The GOP is the inheritor of the most odious aspects and darkest threads of the American psyche, and for all of their bible banging they should read the bits of it where God gets cranky at abusing His name for the sake of evil.

In fact, I will go even further as a religious man. The South learned full well in 185 what God thinks of such folks who so abuse his Name.

122 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:42:40am

re: #116 Obdicut

It’s a non-argument to note that, as well as people freeloading off of the government, there are people freeloading off of corporations?

You’re saying if I do a job, and the guy next to me slacks all damn day long, it’s none of my business?

You’re wrong as hell.

From the standpoint of someone making policy, it is none of their business. It’s called free market for a reason.

123 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:42:45am

re: #120 windsagio

Here’s the Atlantic article on the Prosperity Gospel. With a hyperbolic headline, but good stuff in there too.

[Link: www.theatlantic.com…]

124 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:43:02am

re: #121 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

Well that may be fair, but I will simply say it and have done with.

The Confederacy’s discussion of State’s rights was smoke and mirrors for the “right” to brutally enslave, abuse, degrade and murder other human beings for profit. At the time of the revolution, the South was the wealthiest part of America, they could have led the way in industrialization. They chose not to.

Slave states always stagnate. If you have slaves to chase mice, you have no need for a better mousetrap.

Of course, Southerners are human too - even they saw the misery their system created and perpetuated. But being the all too human, rather than doing the right thing upon that realization, they found ways to justify it. So slaves become breeding stock and animals, not even people. They developed a twisted perversion of Christianity in which God himself sanctioned this evil.

After all, once you are the elect going to heaven, then what does it matter what you do to those who are not? And I know that Calvinism was not born in the American South, but a Calvinism that sanctioned the brutal enslavement of others certainly was - as were interpretations of Genesis that black people were destined by God to be slaves because they came from the wrong post flood lineage.

So I will just say it. The GOP is the inheritor of the most odious aspects and darkest threads of the American psyche, and for all of their bible banging they should read the bits of it where God gets cranky at abusing His name for the sake of evil.

In fact, I will go even further as a religious man. The South learned full well in 1865 what God thinks of such folks who so abuse his Name.

125 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:43:22am

re: #115 iceweasel

The converse of these beliefs would be that if you’re poor it’s because you’re not faithful enough, and/or that the unfaithful deserve to be poor. Bottom line: the poor deserve to be poor.

Edit: corollary not converse, obv.

126 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:43:39am

re: #113 jamesfirecat

Now tell us how you really feel about Ayn Rand and don’t forget “rape fantasizing” in your answer.

I’ve never fantasied about raping anyone, and you should be ashamed for even thinking I would. That’s not nice, James.

127 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:44:33am

re: #126 Dark_Falcon

I’ve never fantasied about raping anyone, and you should be ashamed for even thinking I would. That’s not nice, James.

There is a semi-rape scene in that book. Probably what he’s referring to.

128 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:44:46am

re: #121 LudwigVanQuixote

I might add (altho I shouldn’t) that taking the Lord’s name in Vain has more to do with that kind of crap than with things like the term ‘goddammit’ ;)

129 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:44:47am

re: #122 cliffster

From the standpoint of someone making policy, it is none of their business. It’s called free market for a reason.

First of all, we don’t have a free market, thank god.

Second of all, again, what is your solution? Your solution is that the market will take care of it. I’m asking you how you can be saying this in the face of the current economic climate.

Are you really saying that the problem is that we have unemployment insurance in the first place, and if we didn’t, the situation would be better for the unemployed?

130 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:44:49am

re: #120 windsagio

Or, even better, you don’t tithe enough to your church! I’ve heard pastors argue this >>

Yeah, that’s way off, too. Seemed obvious to me that those passages specifically single out people who give with (a) no thought of reward and (b) beyond their apparent means.

God will not let you starve because you gave so unselfishly ≠ God will make you richer if you give a little.

It’s so hard to teach Christians who don’t wish to be taught…sigh…

131 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:44:50am

re: #115 iceweasel

The converse of these beliefs would be that if you’re poor it’s because you’re not faithful enough, and/or that the unfaithful deserve to be poor. Bottom line: the poor deserve to be poor.

Some strains of this doctrine are also very anti-charity. I read an article once by a pastor who was explaining the theological reasons of why say things like church based soup kitchen or other programs to ‘help the poor’ were just wrong and going against Gods true words and would do nothing except further the work of demons and Satan.

132 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:45:15am

re: #113 jamesfirecat

Dude, not cool.

133 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:45:30am

re: #126 Dark_Falcon

It wasn’t a slam at you. It was a reference to the fact that every Ayn Rand sex scene is a rape scene.

134 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:45:57am

re: #123 Obdicut

Ok that article is crazy.

135 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:04am

re: #115 iceweasel

The converse of these beliefs would be that if you’re poor it’s because you’re not faithful enough, and/or that the unfaithful deserve to be poor. Bottom line: the poor deserve to be poor.

Its a variation on the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination. The idea being that God chooses the lives people will lead, and he does so for reasons they cannot understand.

136 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:22am

re: #128 windsagio

I might add (altho I shouldn’t) that taking the Lord’s name in Vain has more to do with that kind of crap than with things like the term ‘goddammit’ ;)

you may add it. it’s so true.

137 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:28am
138 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:29am

re: #127 cliffster

There is a semi-rape scene in that book. Probably what he’s referring to.

Oh true— well spotted cliffster. Rand does essentially endorse a rape as courtship in the Fountainhead.
Apologies james if I misread you—

139 uncah91  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:54am

I think cliffster isn’t opposed to unemployment, just extending it forever.

Of course, this is a straw man, since no one is proposing extending it forever.

140 Martinsmithy  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:59am

Believe it or not, DeLay is merely channelling pre-Great Depression economic theory, revived by the likes of Milton Friedman. People would no longer be unemployed if they were willing to work for a lower wage.

Read John Cassidy’s “How Markets Fail” for some insight on this and other free-market economic dogma.

141 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:47:57am

re: #126 Dark_Falcon

I’ve never fantasied about raping anyone, and you should be ashamed for even thinking I would. That’s not nice, James.

I wasn’t trying to imply that you did. I was trying to imply that Ayn Rand herself had some weird ideas about what normal sex should be like. IE “Atlas Shrugged is called ‘That nonsensical long-ass novel written by a cold-hearted, rape fantasizing, serial killer groupie’.”

142 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:48:06am

re: #131 Jadespring

Some strains of this doctrine are also very anti-charity. I read an article once by a pastor who was explaining the theological reasons of why say things like church based soup kitchen or other programs to ‘help the poor’ were just wrong and going against Gods true words and would do nothing except further the work of demons and Satan.

They all seem profoundly unchristian to me, real distortions of my understanding of what christianity and christians are supposed to be about.

143 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:48:12am

re: #129 Obdicut

First of all, we don’t have a free market, thank god.

Second of all, again, what is your solution? Your solution is that the market will take care of it. I’m asking you how you can be saying this in the face of the current economic climate.

Are you really saying that the problem is that we have unemployment insurance in the first place, and if we didn’t, the situation would be better for the unemployed?

There’s not always a solution, Obdicut. People have struggles, they have to work to get through them. You can and should help. Everyone should. It’s good for the soul. Working as an envelope-stuffer for the unemployment office does not help the soul, nor does writing a check for your taxes.

144 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:48:19am

re: #131 Jadespring

*sob*

145 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:48:44am

re: #140 Martinsmithy

Its the economic philosophy that’s been predominant in the GOP since… at least the 19teens.

I think one of the advantages of our current problems (if there are any, but I like too look for silver linings) is that it finally outlines the inherent failures of that kind of economic theory.

146 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:50:02am

re: #137 Lib Wingnut

Yes. I’ll tell my brother, an industrial engineer with advanced degrees and certifications who has been out of work for almost two years, that he really only wants to stay home, a home he now has to rent instead of the one he used to own, and wallow in his misery and new found unemployment riches.

I hope Tom Delay dies very, very soon.

eh. updinged and then had to take it back after the last sentence. really?

i think that…hmmm…Luap Nor is wacky wrong, too. I don’t wish his death.

Just sayin.

147 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:50:50am

re: #142 iceweasel

They all seem profoundly unchristian to me, real distortions of my understanding of what christianity and christians are supposed to be about.

you state my position as a Christian quite well, sometimes!

148 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:50:53am

re: #146 Aceofwhat?

Yeah no deathwishing, or glee at death. They’re just creepy :p

149 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:51:00am

re: #146 Aceofwhat?

eh. updinged and then had to take it back after the last sentence. really?

i think that…hmmm…Luap Nor is wacky wrong, too. I don’t wish his death.

Just sayin.

Yeah, I couldn’t upding that either solely because of the last sentence.

150 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:51:32am

re: #147 Aceofwhat?

Which makes me totally incapable of understanding your politics!


/ZING! (I owed you one for before :p)

151 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:51:34am

re: #143 cliffster

There’s not always a solution, Obdicut. People have struggles, they have to work to get through them. You can and should help. Everyone should. It’s good for the soul. Working as an envelope-stuffer for the unemployment office does not help the soul, nor does writing a check for your taxes.

Okay. So your solution the problem really is that there isn’t a solution, not that there isn’t a problem.

Do you also think that there shouldn’t be a minimum wage, to allow companies to offer more lower-paying jobs?

152 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:52:13am

re: #141 jamesfirecat

I wasn’t trying to imply that you did. I was trying to imply that Ayn Rand herself had some weird ideas about what normal sex should be like. IE “Atlas Shrugged is called ‘That nonsensical long-ass novel written by a cold-hearted, rape fantasizing, serial killer groupie’.”

OK, James, that clarification is satisfactory. But you really need to be careful about talking and writing like you did with #113. That post came across very badly. Please be more careful.

153 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:52:33am

re: #151 Obdicut

pff that’s what illegal immigrants are for.

/also waitstaff.

154 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:52:52am

re: #147 Aceofwhat?

you state my position as a Christian quite well, sometimes!

Kewl. I’m not one of these atheists that hates religion or religious people.

155 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:52:57am

re: #151 Obdicut

Okay. So your solution the problem really is that there isn’t a solution, not that there isn’t a problem.

Do you also think that there shouldn’t be a minimum wage, to allow companies to offer more lower-paying jobs?

There actually isn’t a minimum. There are people working everywhere for less than “minimum wage”.

156 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:53:17am

re: #128 windsagio

I might add (altho I shouldn’t) that taking the Lord’s name in Vain has more to do with that kind of crap than with things like the term ‘goddammit’ ;)

Oh you are absolutely correct.

The second commandment - and really, Jewish people should claim some authority here, since this is after all, our book, written by our people in our language, is very much about not misusing G-d’s name.

Yes false oaths and disrespect of the name by imroperly invoking it are part of the injunction, but, this is listed as the only sin that G-d will not forgive.

That seems a little odd, if he could under the right circumstances of repentance, forgive everything else.

I mean it has to be something worse than random cussing if it is spiritually worse than say rape or murder right?

So the answer is, that what unit means is do not do evil in His name and attribute the evil as a service to Him.

A great example of it would be brutally enslaving other human beings and then claiming that God wanted it that way - thus degrading the Name of G-d and usurping His authority to justify evil and therefore leading whole nations into the most hideous sin.

157 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:53:23am

re: #140 Martinsmithy

Believe it or not, DeLay is merely channelling pre-Great Depression economic theory, revived by the likes of Milton Friedman. People would no longer be unemployed if they were willing to work for a lower wage.

Read John Cassidy’s “How Markets Fail” for some insight on this and other free-market economic dogma.

Bah. DeLay is to Friedman as crazy bearded sandwich-board “REPENT” guy is to Aquinas. Attempt to repudiate Friedman if you wish, but please use someone who understands economics during the exercise!

158 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:54:04am

re: #150 windsagio

Which makes me totally incapable of understanding your politics!

/ZING! (I owed you one for before :p)

upding duly returned!

159 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:54:15am

re: #155 cliffster

There actually isn’t a minimum. There are people working everywhere for less than “minimum wage”.

Do you, yourself, support the removal of minimum wage laws?

160 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:54:24am

re: #152 Dark_Falcon

OK, James, that clarification is satisfactory. But you really need to be careful about talking and writing like you did with #113. That post came across very badly. Please be more careful.

Since I’m not you I probably don’t get this… but I don’t see how it did.

You gave a long list about subject X.

I was trying to say jokingly said “now tell us how you really feel about it and add quality Y”

What would have been the correct way to phrase it without insulting anyone or is it impossible to politely make fun of Ayn Rand’s warped view of sex the way we can her views on how to run a nation?

161 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:54:45am

re: #142 iceweasel

They all seem profoundly unchristian to me, real distortions of my understanding of what christianity and christians are supposed to be about.

Yep no kidding. I grew up Christian and for the most part still am though I would say that for now non-practicing. I don’t go to church right now for instance but much of the moral and values are still there. It made me really sick reading that article because it went against pretty much everything that I have personally encountered in my own religious experiences.

162 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:54:54am

re: #156 LudwigVanQuixote

I had a dog…and his name was BINGO!

163 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:54:57am

re: #156 LudwigVanQuixote

Since you bring up the subject, why do you censor ‘G-d’ when its not a name, but rather a general descriptor? That’s bugged me (in the sense of made me wonder) like forever :p

164 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:55:01am

re: #137 Lib Wingnut

Sorry, I have to report that. We don’t wish for people to die like that here.

165 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:55:37am

re: #135 Dark_Falcon

Its a variation on the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination. The idea being that God chooses the lives people will lead, and he does so for reasons they cannot understand.

Absolutely DF, very well stated. I’ll add only that the legacy of Calvinism continues to influence us as a nation and a people in many ways that most people don’t always recognise.

166 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:55:48am

re: #151 Obdicut

Okay. So your solution the problem really is that there isn’t a solution, not that there isn’t a problem.

Do you also think that there shouldn’t be a minimum wage, to allow companies to offer more lower-paying jobs?

Yes, I am saying that you cannot solve every problem. We have very different philosophies about this. People make arguments under the apparent belief that we can make it so that nobody ever suffers, and that’s not true. If you don’t like the suffering, then go do something about it. I do. But I do not believe that the underpinnings of our nation are, “keep suffering to a minimum”. I believe the underpinnings are “keep people free” We are not going to see eye to eye on a lot of issues because of that.

167 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:56:01am

re: #164 Dark_Falcon

Thanks, DF, I skipped the last line.

168 Lib Wingnut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:56:23am

I take back the Tom Delay death comment. May he then find himself in dire financial straits, with two children in college, with nothing but despair and frustration to comfort him. Because right now, God or private industry isn’t doing shit for my brother. Unemployment insurance is.

169 joest73  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:56:36am

While there is some truth in what Delay is saying for a segment of the unemployed, most people will try to find new employment to maintain the living standard that they have set based on the pay they received before they were let go.

I do have family and friends that welcomed a stay on unemployment because
they hated were they work (WalMart) or the primary earner in the family was still working. In both cases there really isn’t that much motivation to go back out and look for another job until near the end of unemployment compensation runs out.

My parents and my wife’s parents were on Food Stamps back in the early 80’s for a short period of time. I was young at the time but I do remember how embarrassing it was for my parents to pull out the funny paper money. Sure the trading of food stamps has been stopped for the most part with the ACCESS Card, but now there is no shame in using an EBT card.

Take away the shame and you take away some of the motivation for some to get away from using government assistance.

170 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:57:11am

re: #135 Dark_Falcon

Its a variation on the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination. The idea being that God chooses the lives people will lead, and he does so for reasons they cannot understand.

Which presents a real problem with the notion of freewill and the fact that free will needs to exist in order for good and evil to exist, and then judgement itself to exist. I don’t mean to bash on Calvinists per se, but this has always struck me as one of the most intensely stupid doctrines - at least as presented by the low brow types who like to get into it.

If there is someone out there who can explain to me how the doctrine is not completely at odds with the Abrahamic world view it claims to be a part of, I would be curious.

Again, if you are predestined to do what you do, you have no free will. If you have no free will, then nothing you do could be considered either good or evil and hence all judgement becomes utterly capricious and unjust.

171 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:57:26am

re: #164 Dark_Falcon

not my place to tell others what to do, but reporting was probably not necessary, he’s been properly flogged for it :P

172 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:58:10am

re: #166 cliffster

People make arguments under the apparent belief that we can make it so that nobody ever suffers,

Who are they? They’re not me.

I believe the underpinnings are “keep people free” We are not going to see eye to eye on a lot of issues because of that.

I believe the underpinnings are ‘keep people free’, as well. I know you don’t believe that, but it’s true.

I’m pointing out that the conditions that led to people letting their children be employed for twelve hours a day in great danger of life and limb, with no education and no chance at an education, were not freedom. Freedom is more than the potential for freedom. All of those mill workers were free to quit, free to go somewhere else.

173 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:58:44am

re: #170 LudwigVanQuixote

well, its a largely obsolete view. Very people really believe it these days (as an example, the main (officially) Calvinist sect in the US, the Presbyterian Church, doesn’t preach predestination at all that I know of.

174 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:58:52am

re: #160 jamesfirecat

Since I’m not you I probably don’t get this… but I don’t see how it did.

You gave a long list about subject X.

I was trying to say jokingly said “now tell us how you really feel about it and add quality Y”

What would have been the correct way to phrase it without insulting anyone or is it impossible to politely make fun of Ayn Rand’s warped view of sex the way we can her views on how to run a nation?

If you’d said, “Tell us how you really feel about Ayn Rand, DF.” and left it at that, it would have been fine. As it was, the way your post was phrased made it seem like I was the one with the rape fantasies. You have to be clear as to who and what you are talking about, that’s all. Your basic point was just fine.

175 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:59:18am

re: #159 Obdicut

Do you, yourself, support the removal of minimum wage laws?

Very tough question, given that minimum wage increases can be statistically tied to job losses at the lowest tier.

Generally speaking, 5 jobs available at $5/hr turn into 3 or 4 jobs if the owner is forced to pay $8/hr.

176 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:59:49am

re: #168 Lib Wingnut

I take back the Tom Delay death comment. May he then find himself in dire financial straits, with two children in college, with nothing but despair and frustration to comfort him. Because right now, God or private industry isn’t doing shit for my brother. Unemployment insurance is.

Yeah death wish a no go. Personally though I don’t have an issue with wishing upon him a curse of long term laryngitis.

177 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:59:51am

re: #174 Dark_Falcon

I got what he meant, and I didn’t get the reference. I just figured she was like that, and that he wouldn’t accuse you of that.

OF course I suspect james and I think alot alike in some ways ;)

178 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:00:07am

re: #160 jamesfirecat

Since I’m not you I probably don’t get this… but I don’t see how it did.

You gave a long list about subject X.

I was trying to say jokingly said “now tell us how you really feel about it and add quality Y”

What would have been the correct way to phrase it without insulting anyone or is it impossible to politely make fun of Ayn Rand’s warped view of sex the way we can her views on how to run a nation?

Just make comments that make it clear that you’re mocking Rand’s excessively warped notions of sex, and not ones that carry the implication that Rand should be raped or that anyone else fantasizes about raping her.
I’d also rather we stuck to either 1) what rand wrote, and 2)where relevant her actual relationships with men —-and we don’t speculate on what Rand’s fantasies were.
/removes feminist boots, for the moment.

179 Lib Wingnut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:01:40am

re: #176 Jadespring

Helplessly watching a loved one suffer the indignities of long term unemployment can make one say inappropriate things. Mea culpa.

180 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:02:31am

re: #178 iceweasel

Just make comments that make it clear that you’re mocking Rand’s excessively warped notions of sex, and not ones that carry the implication that Rand should be raped or that anyone else fantasizes about raping her.
I’d also rather we stuck to either 1) what rand wrote, and 2)where relevant her actual relationships with men —-and we don’t speculate on what Rand’s fantasies were.
/removes feminist boots, for the moment.

Well it is part of what Rand wrote, I mean there’s that scene in the Fountainhead for starters….

And then there’s this….

“Rape is an integral and necessary expression of human nature. Sexual assaults have been present in every society since the dawn of time. It is the drive of man to reproduce, to compete successfully for advantage on the battlefield of life and evolution. In fact, it is this very competition to reproduce that motivates man to do anything productive and worthwhile in the first place. It is this competition that motivates man to aspire to greatness. Can you imagine men striving for greatness were they not motivated by their drive to reproduce by any means? Of course not, because the drive to reproduce is at the very core of mankind’s essence! As long as we disregard silly ‘god’ superstitions and recognize that a man is ultimately responsible to and for himself, we therefore recognize that any measures that attempt to stifle this natural and inherent drive to reproduce by any means are inherently wrong. To stifle sexual assaults is the perverse anti-human dream of the superstitious or a bloated priestly class, or the self-promoted intelligentsia, which of course is both of these at the same time. In fact, no human society has successfully eliminated rape, despite myriad measures designed to curb sexual assaults. If man were only truly free to pursue this integral part of his nature we would walk as the masters of the Earth that we are!”

181 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:02:35am

re: #172 Obdicut

Anti-trust laws are a good example of what would seem to be government intrusion into free market that makes people more free. Of course there are going to have to be things done that would seemingly infringe on my freedoms in the marketplace.

182 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:03:39am

re: #163 windsagio

Since you bring up the subject, why do you censor ‘G-d’ when its not a name, but rather a general descriptor? That’s bugged me (in the sense of made me wonder) like forever :p

It is force of habit that I sometimes slip on myself because I too do not find it necessary.

There are a whole bunch of very deep reasons not to write the Name of God particularly the Tetragrammaton.

The reasons range from, it is literally His name that He told us is His name, and you don’t call your dad or a king by his first name - all the way through a discussion of Goedel’s incompleteness theorem.

The short for being that a Name is a definition and God defines you , not the other way around.

But the actual word “god” is not His name, it isn’t even Hebrew.

So why bother being careful with it?

Because it became habit in the Jewish world to extend the courtesies of Hebrew to English of a reminder of a deeper principle - and I see no reason to quibble with the sentiment behind doing so.

183 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:04:14am

re: #180 jamesfirecat

Can’t upding that, due to the truly offensive quote :p


I will say it has interesting parallels to the school of thought amongst some extremist feminist groups that all heterosexual intercourse is rape no matter what (I’m looking at you, Dworkin!)

184 wrenchwench  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:04:25am

re: #171 windsagio

not my place to tell others what to do, but reporting was probably not necessary, he’s been properly flogged for it :P

“Reporting” a comment is for the purposes of removal, if that is deemed necessary, not for judgment upon the poster.

185 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:04:54am

re: #175 Aceofwhat?

Very tough question, given that minimum wage increases can be statistically tied to job losses at the lowest tier.

Generally speaking, 5 jobs available at $5/hr turn into 3 or 4 jobs if the owner is forced to pay $8/hr.

There is no economic consensus on the truth of that. Or much else, for that matter.

I prefer to compare the situation in countries without minimum wage laws, or with very weak ones, with countries with minimum wage laws.

In general, I think that you’ll find that those 5 jobs at $5/hr create workers who need more government support in one way or another. We have a very, very, very weak safety net in the US compared to other first-world countries, but it still exists.

Even public transportation, for example, requires higher subsidies the lower the wages are in the area.

186 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:05:10am

re: #174 Dark_Falcon

If you’d said, “Tell us how you really feel about Ayn Rand, DF.” and left it at that, it would have been fine. As it was, the way your post was phrased made it seem like I was the one with the rape fantasies. You have to be clear as to who and what you are talking about, that’s all. Your basic point was just fine.

I think part of it might have just been the harshness of the term that meant I should have treated it extra carefully.

If I had said “Now tell us how you really feel about Ayn Rand and don’t forget “nicotine endorsing” in your answer.” You probably wouldn’t have thought I was suggesting you work for big Tobacco would you?

187 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:05:11am

re: #182 LudwigVanQuixote

oh I don’t mean to quibble, I was honestly curious.

I love the philosophical reasoning. Thanks for the answer :)

188 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:05:59am

re: #179 Lib Wingnut

Helplessly watching a loved one suffer the indignities of long term unemployment can make one say inappropriate things. Mea culpa.

Hey it’s no prob in my books. Everyone probably has said something extreme at one point or another. I know I have so logs in eyes and all that. The important thing is that you realized it and quickly retracted when it was pointed out. It’s the non retracter types or kicking and screaming retracters that I personally would have an issue with.

189 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:06:06am

re: #178 iceweasel

Just make comments that make it clear that you’re mocking Rand’s excessively warped notions of sex, and not ones that carry the implication that Rand should be raped or that anyone else fantasizes about raping her.
I’d also rather we stuck to either 1) what rand wrote, and 2)where relevant her actual relationships with men —-and we don’t speculate on what Rand’s fantasies were.
/removes feminist boots, for the moment.

It’s pretty funny, really. She was very, very opinionated. And didn’t think much of people who didn’t share the opinion. What’s funny is that that attitude remained when it came to sex. Some women like it like that, apparently she’s one of them. So, naturally, in her head, any woman that doesn’t share her rough, overwhelming sex desire is an inadequate female.

She also didn’t believe that a woman should be president. Her logic there was interesting too.

190 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:06:20am

re: #184 wrenchwench

A while ago Charles chewed everyone out for fighting, and part of the gist I got from it was that people were overreporting stuff.

*also there’s a difference between reporting and saying “I reported you!”

191 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:06:28am

re: #187 windsagio

oh I don’t mean to quibble, I was honestly curious.

I love the philosophical reasoning. Thanks for the answer :)

I didn’t think you were quibbling. I think it is an honest question. I know I asked it myself one or twice for the same reasons you did.

192 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:06:52am

re: #181 cliffster

Okay, well, that’s a rather big shift of topic.

Do you understand what I mean about the freedoms of the mill workers?

Freedom can be interfered with by the government, certainly. It can also be interfered with by private industry. If you are put into a position where you have to accept dangerous working conditions or starve, you are not free.

193 davesax  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:07:05am

After September 11th, I leaned right and voted for a Republican for the first time in my life. That’s when I found LGF.

There are still lots of things I don’t agree with liberals on when it comes to National Security and the middle east, and I realize that all of the politicians in Washington are corrupted by special interests, but Delay’s attitude really irks me and they seem to exemplify current Tea Party right wing thinking. I will never vote republican again.

When I came to NYC in the 90’s as a struggling musician with few credentials for a full time day job, I did whatever I could to pay the rent. I taught myself PowerPoint and Wordprocessing and was able to live off of full time Temp Jobs that paid 20 plus per hour. I was also able to find full time jobs if I wanted.

Do people like Delay really understand what is going on out here? That these jobs - if they are still around - are paying 16 dollars an hour? Administrative survival jobs in NYC are so hard to come by…and they are back to pre-90’s hourly rates.

Is this because people are lazy?

I don’t think so.

194 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:07:11am

re: #183 windsagio

Can’t upding that, due to the truly offensive quote :p

I will say it has interesting parallels to the school of thought amongst some extremist feminist groups that all heterosexual intercourse is rape no matter what (I’m looking at you, Dworkin!)

Not saying I support what’s in the quote, I’m just saying that mocking Rand’s sexual hang ups should be fair game because they worked their way into her written novels rather than just being a part of her private life….

195 Rhino2  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:07:35am

re: #81 Mad Al-Jaffee

If you want to stay on unemployment, it’s important to have a friend pretend they’re Vandelay Industries, and you recently had an interview with them.

This assumes the rules are enforced to any degree. I was unemployed for a year, and didn’t do much during that entire time to find a job, besides checking craigslist now and then. I’m not proud of that fact, but I was young, irresponsible, and it was “free money”. I was on unemployment the whole time, and while the paperwork said that I needed to apply for/interview with 2 jobs a week, I never did, and was never asked to provide any proof that I was. Now I was lucky enough to find a great job in my field soon after, but that was my experience. (And no I don’t assume my experience applies to a majority of those on unemployment, though it may apply to a majority of young people on unemployment).

196 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:08:34am

re: #194 jamesfirecat

OH I know I know :D

just, good lord she’s loathesome!

197 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:08:48am

re: #193 davesax

*OFFENSIVE COMMENT AHEAD, YOU WERE WARNED*

*NO SERIOUSLY!*

Not only Bush, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to the GOP since Bobby Kennedy got shot.

198 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:09:42am

re: #189 cliffster

It’s pretty funny, really. She was very, very opinionated. And didn’t think much of people who didn’t share the opinion. What’s funny is that that attitude remained when it came to sex. Some women like it like that, apparently she’s one of them. So, naturally, in her head, any woman that doesn’t share her rough, overwhelming sex desire is an inadequate female.

She also didn’t believe that a woman should be president. Her logic there was interesting too.

Sex for her was part of her whole system of belief (if we can call it that). All about ‘superior persons’ taking what they want and recognising each other.
Consequently, when her much younger lover and intellectual heir Nathaniel Brandon wanted to end their relationship, she completely lost her shit— it was not just a rejection of their sexual relationship for her, but a rejection of her and all her ideas, all of her as a person, on the most profound level possible.
Pretty damn ugly story, actually. Brandon and Rand were both married as well- to others.

199 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:10:17am

re: #180 jamesfirecat

Well it is part of what Rand wrote, I mean there’s that scene in the Fountainhead for starters…

And then there’s this…

“Rape is an integral and necessary expression of human nature. Sexual assaults have been present in every society since the dawn of time. It is the drive of man to reproduce, to compete successfully for advantage on the battlefield of life and evolution. In fact, it is this very competition to reproduce that motivates man to do anything productive and worthwhile in the first place. It is this competition that motivates man to aspire to greatness. Can you imagine men striving for greatness were they not motivated by their drive to reproduce by any means? Of course not, because the drive to reproduce is at the very core of mankind’s essence! As long as we disregard silly ‘god’ superstitions and recognize that a man is ultimately responsible to and for himself, we therefore recognize that any measures that attempt to stifle this natural and inherent drive to reproduce by any means are inherently wrong. To stifle sexual assaults is the perverse anti-human dream of the superstitious or a bloated priestly class, or the self-promoted intelligentsia, which of course is both of these at the same time. In fact, no human society has successfully eliminated rape, despite myriad measures designed to curb sexual assaults. If man were only truly free to pursue this integral part of his nature we would walk as the masters of the Earth that we are!”

Evil, vile, and utter devoid of understanding of the trauma or rape. By writing that, Rand showed herself devoid of compassion and normal human feeling.

200 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:10:21am

re: #192 Obdicut

Okay, well, that’s a rather big shift of topic.

Do you understand what I mean about the freedoms of the mill workers?

Freedom can be interfered with by the government, certainly. It can also be interfered with by private industry. If you are put into a position where you have to accept dangerous working conditions or starve, you are not free.

It actually wasn’t a shift of topic, it was another example of the point I think you were trying to make. An all-powerful corporation can oppress people in ways that our country’s government is supposed to prevent. The working conditions you speak of are a testament to that.

201 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:10:50am

re: #156 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

Oh you are absolutely correct.

The second commandment - and really, Jewish people should claim some authority here, since this is after all, our book, written by our people, in our language, is very much about not misusing G-d’s name.

Yes false oaths and disrespect of the name by imroperly invoking it are part of the injunction, but, this is listed as the only sin that G-d will not forgive.

That seems a little odd, if he could under the right circumstances of repentance, forgive everything else.

I mean it has to be something worse than random cussing if it is spiritually worse than say rape or murder right?

So the answer is, that what it means is do not do evil in His name and attribute the evil as a service to Him.

A great example of it would be brutally enslaving other human beings and then claiming that God wanted it that way - thus degrading the Name of G-d and usurping His authority to justify evil and therefore leading whole nations into the most hideous sin.

202 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:11:11am

re: #199 Dark_Falcon

Evil, vile, and utter devoid of understanding of the trauma or rape. By writing that, Rand showed herself devoid of compassion and normal human feeling.

Yes, and luckily that would be the only thing Ayn Rand would ever write which would suggest she was devoid of compassion for the common man…..

203 drcordell  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:11:43am

re: #200 cliffster

It actually wasn’t a shift of topic, it was another example of the point I think you were trying to make. An all-powerful corporation can oppress people in ways that our country’s government is supposed to prevent. The working conditions you speak of are a testament to that.

Agreed 100%. The argument that you can “just quit” and find another job is completely specious.

204 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:11:57am

re: #198 iceweasel

I shouldn’t dish, but its just too amazing.

The best part is that she kicked him out of the institute that was named after him!

205 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:12:05am

re: #200 cliffster

Okay. So do you agree that the government preventing companies from coercing people to work in dangerous conditions is upholding, rather than restricting freedoms?

206 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:13:28am

re: #199 Dark_Falcon

Evil, vile, and utter devoid of understanding of the trauma or rape. By writing that, Rand showed herself devoid of compassion and normal human feeling.

The women who posit these sorts of views always consider themselves the lone ‘special’ woman. Of course.

207 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:14:38am

re: #186 jamesfirecat

I think part of it might have just been the harshness of the term that meant I should have treated it extra carefully.

If I had said “Now tell us how you really feel about Ayn Rand and don’t forget “nicotine endorsing” in your answer.” You probably wouldn’t have thought I was suggesting you work for big Tobacco would you?

No, I wouldn’t have minded that.

208 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:14:42am

Last year, at the Solano Street Stroll (huge street faire) in Albany, CA (affluent community just outside Berkeley), there was a table for the local GOP HQ. The women running that booth had the audacity to tell me that the millions of Americans without health insurance were w/o it because they simply didn’t want it or were too lazy to find real work with benefits.

What a terrible thing to say. And they said it with a smile.

I’d like to reiterate post #1: Fuck you Tom Delay.

I’m lucky to have family nearby in case things get too tough for me (laid off in late Jan), and like others, I know folk who are barely surviving. I even have one friend who was considering prostitution to pay the rent and put food on the table. Another one was considering going back to being a ‘street vendor’. Yes, it’s that bad.

*sighs angrily*

209 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:14:57am

re: #204 windsagio

I shouldn’t dish, but its just too amazing.

The best part is that she kicked him out of the institute that was named after him!

I know! And did everything she could to destroy him professionally and personally! Someone posted some of the letters she wrote elsewhere on the web.

Downding me if you must, but this woman says:
Ayn Rand: One Fucked-up Bitch.

210 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:15:16am

re: #205 Obdicut

Okay. So do you agree that the government preventing companies from coercing people to work in dangerous conditions is upholding, rather than restricting freedoms?

Yes, I do. I also think that creates a slippery slope, and that over time people come to believe that they are entitled to more and more. And they are pushed to believe this by corrupt lawmakers looking for votes so they can grab more power.

211 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:15:19am

re: #180 jamesfirecat

“… As long as we … recognize that a man is ultimately responsible to and for himself, we therefore recognize that any measures that attempt to stifle this natural and inherent drive to reproduce [rape being a drive to reproduce in her magic world] by any means are inherently wrong. To stifle sexual assaults is the perverse anti-human dream of the superstitious or a bloated priestly class, or the self-promoted intelligentsia, which of course is both of these at the same time. In fact, no human society has successfully eliminated rape, despite myriad measures designed to curb sexual assaults. If man were only truly free to pursue this integral part of his nature we would walk as the masters of the Earth that we are!”

Is there doubt she had rape fantasies? She thought it was normal behavior of a man.

I’m disgusted by everything she says. Each time I read anything from her, I think she can’t get any worse, and then she manages to drain a little more from the pool. yeesh.

212 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:15:21am

re: #185 Obdicut

There is no economic consensus on the truth of that. Or much else, for that matter.

Gah. This is an excellent analogy to “AGW lacks consensus”. Card and Krueger published a now-discredited study around 1994, IIRC, which purports to show that there is no relationship. Not many other studies tried to disprove the relationship, mostly because it’s so easy to prove.

The minimum wage affects teenage workers the most, anyway. If you’re 40 and working for minimum wage (and expect to remain so for an extended time), then either the economy is waaay broken or you need to make some other changes in your life…


Here there be data.

213 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:16:31am

re: #207 Dark_Falcon

No, I wouldn’t have minded that.

She actually did insist that her followers emulate her chainsmoking, with a lot of gabble about how smoking was a philosophical stance that symbolised man’s relation to fire.

Died alone of non-symbolic lung cancer, btw.

214 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:17:34am

re: #197 windsagio

*OFFENSIVE COMMENT AHEAD, YOU WERE WARNED*

*NO SERIOUSLY!*

Not only Bush, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to the GOP since Bobby Kennedy got shot.

How do you figure? They already had a majority in both houses and the presidency. If anything they should have sent Pres. Clinton a thank-you card 2x a year.

215 drcordell  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:18:12am

re: #212 Aceofwhat?

Gah. This is an excellent analogy to “AGW lacks consensus”. Card and Krueger published a now-discredited study around 1994, IIRC, which purports to show that there is no relationship. Not many other studies tried to disprove the relationship, mostly because it’s so easy to prove.

The minimum wage affects teenage workers the most, anyway. If you’re 40 and working for minimum wage (and expect to remain so for an extended time), then either the economy is waaay broken or you need to make some other changes in your life…


Here there be data.

Correlation does not equal causality. I’d like to see a bit more analysis before I’d fully associate raising the minimum wage with a teenage unemployment rise. Surely the macro-economic conditions at the time have a large degree of relevance here. Who is going to hire a teenager when there is an unemployed, overqualified, 35-year-old competing for the same job?

216 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:18:17am

re: #210 cliffster

A slippery slope is usually used to refer to the fallacy of that line of reasoning. It’s a caution against reasoning in the way that you are, not a caution against the slope actually being slippery.

You have to prove that the slope is slippery, not assume it.

217 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:20:14am

re: #211 marjoriemoon


I’m disgusted by everything she says. Each time I read anything from her, I think she can’t get any worse, and then she manages to drain a little more from the pool. yeesh.

I recently found some stuff about her admiration for a rapist, kidnapper, and killer of a child. (also he was a serial killer)

Then after I posted about it here I dug up many more of the actual excerpts from her journals about the guy.
It’s even worse than you would have thought.

218 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:20:39am

re: #214 RogueOne

Err, are you sure you wanna do this? :p

Went from a President that barely won, and was generally considered a do-nothing (or paid brush-cutter, I remember that line), to 90% approval and people like the guy I was replying to voting (R) for the first time, in like forever.

219 lurking faith  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:21:04am

re: #58 cliffster

Do you think there are any situations where a person is unable to get a job in their field, but do not take a job in a different field but rather they remain unemployed? Or does that not ever happen?


Taking a job in a different field usually involves a step down the ladder of income, prestige, and future career opportunities. Sometimes the step down is huge. Often, it’s permanent.

I’ve done it. More than once. And now I cannot get anybody to consider me for positions in either of my first couple of careers - the ones that I actually liked and was really good at.

I have the luxury of an employed spouse and went back to school after getting downsized (out of a job so boring and stressful that I was almost happy to lose it), but I am still having a horrible time finding anything halfway appropriate. People like my resume; they just don’t have any jobs to offer me.

Oh, and employers do not want to hire me for positions obviously far below my education, experience, and accustomed pay. They assume I’d leave as soon as I could find something better. And they’re not wrong.

220 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:21:11am

re: #212 Aceofwhat?

No it is not. Showing that not a lot of people are attacking something is not the same thing in the least. I will grant you easily that amongst Austrian economists it is a consensus that that is causative rather than correlative.

It is trivially true that some jobs will vanish in a minimum wage hike, because the value-added of those jobs is both measured and the hike raises the wage above the level of that job. It is not true that that has been shown to be, in general, a widespread phenomenon.

Here’s a reasonably good article:

[Link: www.epi.org…]

221 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:22:04am

Hi all. Here’s a link to a 1995 Joint Economic Committee (Congress) on the minimum wage issue. I only post it because there’s a pretty comprehensive bibliography on studies performed - at least to that date:

50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage

222 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:22:04am

re: #211 marjoriemoon

“… As long as we … recognize that a man is ultimately responsible to and for himself, we therefore recognize that any measures that attempt to stifle this natural and inherent drive to reproduce [rape being a drive to reproduce in her magic world] by any means are inherently wrong. To stifle sexual assaults is the perverse anti-human dream of the superstitious or a bloated priestly class, or the self-promoted intelligentsia, which of course is both of these at the same time. In fact, no human society has successfully eliminated rape, despite myriad measures designed to curb sexual assaults. If man were only truly free to pursue this integral part of his nature we would walk as the masters of the Earth that we are!”

Is there doubt she had rape fantasies? She thought it was normal behavior of a man.

I’m disgusted by everything she says. Each time I read anything from her, I think she can’t get any worse, and then she manages to drain a little more from the pool. yeesh.

Ohh a couple of thousand updings for that.

I’ll just say it. Ayn Rand is what you get when a psychologically unhealthy sexual submissive projects her sexuality onto her politics as a justification and rationalization for the abuses of her politics. Of course since she thinks this way, everyone else should.

223 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:22:07am

re: #219 lurking faith

I tried for a long time to break into the non-profit field. Ironically, I’ve made too much money for a long time for them to believe that I’d be satisfied with the comparatively lower wage.

224 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:22:53am

re: #212 Aceofwhat?

Gah. This is an excellent analogy to “AGW lacks consensus”. Card and Krueger published a now-discredited study around 1994, IIRC, which purports to show that there is no relationship. Not many other studies tried to disprove the relationship, mostly because it’s so easy to prove.

The minimum wage affects teenage workers the most, anyway. If you’re 40 and working for minimum wage (and expect to remain so for an extended time), then either the economy is waaay broken or you need to make some other changes in your life…


Here there be data.

Good find, Ace. Thanks for the link.

225 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:23:23am

re: #193 davesax

After September 11th, I leaned right and voted for a Republican for the first time in my life. That’s when I found LGF.

There are still lots of things I don’t agree with liberals on when it comes to National Security and the middle east, and I realize that all of the politicians in Washington are corrupted by special interests, but Delay’s attitude really irks me and they seem to exemplify current Tea Party right wing thinking. I will never vote republican again.

When I came to NYC in the 90’s as a struggling musician with few credentials for a full time day job, I did whatever I could to pay the rent. I taught myself PowerPoint and Wordprocessing and was able to live off of full time Temp Jobs that paid 20 plus per hour. I was also able to find full time jobs if I wanted.

Do people like Delay really understand what is going on out here? That these jobs - if they are still around - are paying 16 dollars an hour? Administrative survival jobs in NYC are so hard to come by…and they are back to pre-90’s hourly rates.

Is this because people are lazy?

I don’t think so.

Good post and good point! For those of us working, hardly anyone received cost of living raises or bonus increases last year. I’m not really complaining, because I have a job and a good one at that, but it’s true that everyone is trying to get by with less and less. And yes, employers are paying less, too.

For Delay to make such statements shows what an elitist he truly is. You know, even though we know that only Democrats can be elitist :p

226 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:24:33am

re: #222 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohh a couple of thousand updings for that.

I’ll just say it. Ayn Rand is what you get when a psychologically unhealthy sexual submissive projects her sexuality onto her politics as a justification and rationalization for the abuses of her politics. Of course since she thinks this way, everyone else should.

I thought she was what you got when someone grows up under a repressive communist system and responds to the trauma she suffered by wanting to hump capitalism’s leg.

227 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:24:59am

re: #222 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohh a couple of thousand updings for that.

I’ll just say it. Ayn Rand is what you get when a psychologically unhealthy sexual submissive projects her sexuality onto her politics as a justification and rationalization for the abuses of her politics. Of course since she thinks this way, everyone else should.

There’s a lot of evidence that she was also sadistic though, psychologically if not sexually, in terms of how she treated those close to her and her followers.
Interesting case study in a lot of ways.

228 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:25:06am

re: #226 jamesfirecat

I thought she was what you got when someone grows up under a repressive communist system and responds to the trauma she suffered by wanting to hump capitalism’s leg.

Can’t it be both?

229 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:25:09am

re: #219 lurking faith

Taking a job in a different field usually involves a step down the ladder of income, prestige, and future career opportunities. Sometimes the step down is huge. Often, it’s permanent.

I’ve done it. More than once. And now I cannot get anybody to consider me for positions in either of my first couple of careers - the ones that I actually liked and was really good at.

I have the luxury of an employed spouse and went back to school after getting downsized (out of a job so boring and stressful that I was almost happy to lose it), but I am still having a horrible time finding anything halfway appropriate. People like my resume; they just don’t have any jobs to offer me.

Oh, and employers do not want to hire me for positions obviously far below my education, experience, and accustomed pay. They assume I’d leave as soon as I could find something better. And they’re not wrong.

I do think that is a difficult and unfortunate situation to be in. I wish you the best.

230 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:25:44am

re: #227 iceweasel

alot of people are switches >

231 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:26:00am

re: #225 marjoriemoon


We were just informed we get no raise this year, during a year when all my costs of living have climbed.

232 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:27:01am

re: #231 Obdicut

Same here. They did tell us making our insurance cheaper and worse was “the same as a pay raise” tho’!

233 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:27:03am

Oh, and ace:

Comparing a soft science like economics to a hard science like climate science is not a good thing to do.

234 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:27:19am

re: #219 lurking faith

Oh, and employers do not want to hire me for positions obviously far below my education, experience, and accustomed pay. They assume I’d leave as soon as I could find something better. And they’re not wrong.

Yep I’ve run into that problem before when trying to getting a part-time job when I was upgrading my education. For a time I was stuck in this weird middle world where I wasn’t quite educated enough to get some jobs and too educated to be considered seriously for a whole bunch of others. It was bizzare thing to be told point blank that I was just too smart for a job.

235 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:28:53am

re: #226 jamesfirecat

I thought she was what you got when someone grows up under a repressive communist system and responds to the trauma she suffered by wanting to hump capitalism’s leg.

You do not do, you do not do
Any more, black shoe
In which I have lived like a foot
For thirty years, poor and white,
Barely daring to breathe or Achoo.
[..]
Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.

[..]
And then I knew what to do.
I made a model of you,
A man in black with a Meinkampf look

And a love of the rack and the screw.
And I said I do, I do.
[..]
Rand’s ‘political’ psychology mapped, apologies to Plath.

236 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:29:12am

re: #206 iceweasel

The women who posit these sorts of views always consider themselves the lone ‘special’ woman. Of course.

I would say, however, that Ayn is special for sure. It would be too scary if more people thought like her.

237 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:29:58am

re: #235 iceweasel

aah Poetry.

It gets me right *there*!

238 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:29:58am

re: #215 drcordell

Correlation does not equal causality. I’d like to see a bit more analysis before I’d fully associate raising the minimum wage with a teenage unemployment rise. Surely the macro-economic conditions at the time have a large degree of relevance here. Who is going to hire a teenager when there is an unemployed, overqualified, 35-year-old competing for the same job?

I think you should go fishing for more analysis. It’ll be good for you!

The macroeconomic conditions do have a large degree of relevance. The basic theory, though, is sorta like “more CO2 equals more greenhouse effect”.

Assuming flat income, a larger minimum wage makes an employer more likely to try to do more with fewer employees.

239 drcordell  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:30:10am

re: #236 marjoriemoon

I would say, however, that Ayn is special for sure. It would be too scary if more people thought like her.

Think like her? Probably not too many more.

Exploit a shallow understanding of her ideology for short-term political gain? You bet your sweet ass.

240 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:30:32am

re: #231 Obdicut

We were just informed we get no raise this year, during a year when all my costs of living have climbed.

There might be raises at my job, simply because they’ve not done them for so long and now have to. However, I still may not get one. It’ll likely go mostly to the top performers by metrics, a group I am not part of.

241 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:30:45am

re: #226 jamesfirecat

I thought she was what you got when someone grows up under a repressive communist system and responds to the trauma she suffered by wanting to hump capitalism’s leg.

Interestingly enough, in many ways that is saying the same thing :)

242 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:30:58am

re: #236 marjoriemoon

I would say, however, that Ayn is special for sure. It would be too scary if more people thought like her.

No what’s scary is to think that the guy who used to be running our economy thought like she did…..

243 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:31:11am

re: #237 windsagio

aah Poetry.

It gets me right *there*!

heh. We sometimes do some poetry reference games on the overnight, usually me and Cato and a couple of others. :)

244 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:31:26am

re: #241 LudwigVanQuixote

Interestingly enough, in many ways that is saying the same thing :)

haha— my point exactly!

245 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:31:53am

re: #239 drcordell

Think like her? Probably not too many more.

Exploit a shallow understanding of her ideology for short-term political gain? You bet your sweet ass.

You can tell that when sales of her book about how too much government regulation leads to ruin jump when a crisis occurs because of too little government regulation….

246 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:31:57am

re: #239 drcordell

Think like her? Probably not too many more.

Exploit a shallow understanding of her ideology for short-term political gain? You bet your sweet ass.

I wish I could disagree with that, but I can’t.

247 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:32:29am

re: #242 jamesfirecat

No what’s scary is to think that the guy who used to be running our economy thought like she did…

Well at least he did have a bit of an epiphany in the end in his oops sorry I made a mistake moment.

248 drcordell  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:32:37am

re: #238 Aceofwhat?

I think you should go fishing for more analysis. It’ll be good for you!

The macroeconomic conditions do have a large degree of relevance. The basic theory, though, is sorta like “more CO2 equals more greenhouse effect”.

Assuming flat income, a larger minimum wage makes an employer more likely to try to do more with fewer employees.

You’re assuming that all of a company’s employees would be working at minimum wage, which is a highly unlikely scenario. And ultimately if you’re going to examine the issue, you have to look at overall unemployment and not just teenage unemployment. It’s funny to crack jokes about adults working minimum wage jobs, but there are millions of Americans who ain’t laughing.

249 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:33:23am

re: #240 Dark_Falcon

Ironically, this is the first year at my job I’ve gotten the highest marks on my performance review. So I would, under normal circumstances, have gotten a large raise.

Yay.

Lucky for them I’m not primarily motivated by money.

250 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:34:08am

re: #217 iceweasel

I recently found some stuff about her admiration for a rapist, kidnapper, and killer of a child. (also he was a serial killer)

Then after I posted about it here I dug up many more of the actual excerpts from her journals about the guy.
It’s even worse than you would have thought.

Oh, I saw your post on that and when I googled, I found an author who did a whole write up on her opinions of Hickman, was it? She told her thoughts in her book “Journal”? or “Journals”? Let me see if I can find it again.

251 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:34:27am

re: #238 Aceofwhat?

Ace, you really, really, really should stop comparing climate science to AGW. The hard sciences are very, very different.

252 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:34:49am

re: #251 Obdicut

Ace, you really, really, really should stop comparing climate science to AGW. The hard sciences are very, very different.

AGH. Comparing climate science to economics. Sorry!

253 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:35:17am

re: #217 iceweasel

I recently found some stuff about her admiration for a rapist, kidnapper, and killer of a child. (also he was a serial killer)

Then after I posted about it here I dug up many more of the actual excerpts from her journals about the guy.
It’s even worse than you would have thought.

I’m sorry, Ice. I thought Journals was a published book of hers.

254 Interesting Times  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:35:19am

re: #236 marjoriemoon

I would say, however, that Ayn is special for sure. It would be too scary if more people thought like her.

Taliban mullahs and African militias would *love* her view of sex. And on that note, if this repugnant and disgusting statement were true:

In fact, no human society has successfully eliminated rape, despite myriad measures designed to curb sexual assaults. If man were only truly free to pursue this integral part of his nature we would walk as the masters of the Earth that we are!”

…places like Somalia, the Congo, etc would be the richest, powerful countries on Earth (and of course we know the exact opposite is true - for the most part, economic advancement goes hand-in-glove with the advancement and empowerment of women. Countries that treat women like garbage but are still rich have an easy way out, e.g. Saudi Arabia and oil).

So, not only is Rand a female misogynist, but a myopic moron as well.

255 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:36:14am

re: #254 publicityStunted

Gotta admit I missed the part where the Taliban claimed to be pro-rape >>

256 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:36:38am

re: #254 publicityStunted

…places like Somalia, the Congo, etc would be the richest, powerful countries on Earth (and of course we know the exact opposite is true - for the most part, economic advancement goes hand-in-glove with the advancement and empowerment of women. Countries that treat women like garbage but are still rich have an easy way out, e.g. Saudi Arabia and oil).

So, not only is Rand a female misogynist, but a myopic moron as well.

But on the other hand, to give the devil her due, she did say that a woman should structure her life around the same kind of work men did (even if she did feel that no women should be president) and she felt that abortion was purely a woman’s choice….

257 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:37:02am

re: #218 windsagio

Err, are you sure you wanna do this? :p

Went from a President that barely won, and was generally considered a do-nothing (or paid brush-cutter, I remember that line), to 90% approval and people like the guy I was replying to voting (R) for the first time, in like forever.

gore should have won that election, he lost it thanks to Clinton, and the repubs picked up both houses during the clinton administration. Clinton was a rove plant. 9/11 gave them a temporary boost in their poll numbers but 4 years later they started losing seats at a pretty rapid pace.

258 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:37:16am

re: #222 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohh a couple of thousand updings for that.

I’ll just say it. Ayn Rand is what you get when a psychologically unhealthy sexual submissive projects her sexuality onto her politics as a justification and rationalization for the abuses of her politics. Of course since she thinks this way, everyone else should.

She was raised in communist Russia? I’m still trying to wrap my head around how she got to be where she was intellectually. I had family raised in communist countries during WWI and didn’t come away with the same philosophy.

259 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:39:03am

re: #236 marjoriemoon

I would say, however, that Ayn is special for sure. It would be too scary if more people thought like her.

As a serious point, who many thousands of novels are avidly read by millions of women that have the following plot elements:

She is a strong willed free spirited and thoughtful girl, in some sort of a class system society.

He is the dashing rogue that at first she hates (but secretly likes, though she can’t justify it).

He finally breaks her will, in the heat of passion, rips off her bodice, tears her knickers (or what ever period appropriate clothing destruction is called for) and ravishes her.

Of course that is a rape fantasy.

It is a cleaned up and voluntary rape fantasy - cleaned up and voluntary being the key words rape fantasy.

This in of itself is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, purple or green, or anything that could have a judgement associated with it. It also transcends gender. There are plenty of men - and I absolutely do not get it, but I can see that they exist - who want a “mean mommy” to put them in their place.

The point is that as soon as someone gets starry eyed about the phrase (s)he swept me off my feet, they are talking a language of surrender and power exchange. This is just human nature. Again, nothing good, bad or right or wrong. It is part of how many, if not most, people think when they do the nasty.

What is a problem is the loss of notions of voluntary. Or the notion that the “rapist” has the “right” to do the raping. That is what the problem with Ayn Rand is.

260 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:39:27am

re: #258 marjoriemoon

Her philosophy is kind of an inversion of Marxism; like Marxism, it says that mankind will be perfected when the ideal economic conditions are met.

But her philosophy is even less real-world-applicable than Marxism.

261 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:39:31am

re: #258 marjoriemoon

My favorite teacher in Highschool was East German. She used to tell stories about how their family would go to Church just to spite the east german (and in their mind, by extensian Soviet) government ;)

That’s a different endpoint from Ms. Rand’s

262 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:41:24am

re: #220 Obdicut

No it is not. Showing that not a lot of people are attacking something is not the same thing in the least. I will grant you easily that amongst Austrian economists it is a consensus that that is causative rather than correlative.

It is trivially true that some jobs will vanish in a minimum wage hike, because the value-added of those jobs is both measured and the hike raises the wage above the level of that job. It is not true that that has been shown to be, in general, a widespread phenomenon.

Here’s a reasonably good article:

[Link: www.epi.org…]

Heh. If you really want to have fun, we have to start qualifying our sentences so that we end up with paragraphs like

“The model we develop should be viewed as complementary to those we have just discussed, though our emphasis is somewhat different. We essentially ignore firm- and individual-specific heterogeneity, which to varying degrees is an important component of the other models, and emphasize match-specific heterogeneity. By treating the match productivity distribution as a primitive and the minimum wage as a side constraint on the bilateral Nash bargaining problem, we feel that we are able to generate an equilibrium wage distribution that captures the features of the data of most concern to us in the analysis of minimum wage effects on labor market equilibrium and welfare. The results of our policy exercise generally agree with those of Eckstein and Wolpin (1990) and van den Berg and Ridder (1998) when the contact rate between searching individuals and firms is endogenously determined. That is, we find the aggregate welfare could have been improved by decreasing the minimum wage of $4.25 in September 1996. However, we find little empirical
support for the endogeneity of the contact rate. When this rate is treated as exogenous, we find that aggregate welfare could have been significantly increased by doubling the minimum wage. As a result, we do not come to a firm conclusion regarding the “optimal” minimum wage in the labor market we study.

So i’ll qualify a little bit…there are points at which the minimum wage appears to provide the best balance of benefit to both employer and employee…but when i hear “let’s increase the minimum wage” from politicians, I don’t see articles like this attached to demonstrate where they’re trying to go in the existing market…

263 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:42:48am

re: #260 Obdicut

Her philosophy is kind of an inversion of Marxism; like Marxism, it says that mankind will be perfected when the ideal economic conditions are met.

But her philosophy is even less real-world-applicable than Marxism.

Now that is an interesting point I hadn’t considered before…. (the first one at last)

264 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:43:01am

re: #233 Obdicut

Oh, and ace:

Comparing a soft science like economics to a hard science like climate science is not a good thing to do.

You’re right. Climatologists could learn a lot of good probability theory at the University of Chicago.

265 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:43:27am

re: #231 Obdicut

We were just informed we get no raise this year, during a year when all my costs of living have climbed.

I sometimes wonder if employers are using this as an excuse to cut costs.

Get this, we actually got reviewed even though they couldn’t tell us whether we’ll got raises/bonsues this year. How’s that for a kick in the patoot! LOL

266 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:43:37am

re: #95 iceweasel

There’s also a quasi-religious component to it, by which I mean lingering vestiges of Calvinism, Puritanism, etc. The idea that the poor are deservedly poor, the rich are rewarded by God.
You can see it even now with stuff like the prosperity gospel imo.

The elect are prosperous.

Speaking of which, my husband is supposed to go and ask for a job today putting flyers on cars. Pray that he gets it, and also that he doesn’t decide to take a nap instead of going and asking. (The unemployment depression is setting in.)

267 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:44:20am

re: #266 SanFranciscoZionist

(The unemployment depression is setting in.)

That’s another element that deserves attention.

268 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:45:17am

One problem, potentially, with a minimum wage is if it is set at a level that discourages employment (not that it simply exists). For example, let’s say I own a dry cleaner and have two shirt presses.

I’ve done my homework, and have recognized that the labor component of my overall cost for a shirt (based on the price I can charge for it) is 10%. And, let’s say the price I can charge is $1.00 per shirt (heh, I know, I know - ain’t no such dry cleaner but bear with me).

I have an employee, Sarah, who can press 100 shirts per hour, and I pay her $10.00/hour. Her wage is within the labor cost component of the product.

I also have Dave. He’s relatively inexperienced, but has a good attitude and is trying. He can press 50 shirts per hour, and I pay him $5.00 per hour. So, he too is within the labor cost component.

I suppose I could let Dave go, and find someone more experienced to maximize the use of my second shirt machine, but it makes sense to me to give Dave the opportunity, because of attitude and willingness to develop his skills.

Now, the government tells me that I must pay a “minimum” wage of $8.00 per hour. Sarah’s still fine, but Dave is a problem, and I begin to lose money on Dave’s work, as his labor component cost is higher than I can charge for the product.

Reluctantly, I am now at a point where I must find someone who can press at least 80 shirts per hour, and I have to let Dave go.

This isn’t to say that the idea of a minimum wage is completely unreasonable, but it does point out the potential unintended consequences of a policy originally designed to be helpful. It can end up hurting the very people it was intended to help.

And many of the studies in the link I posted above have come to that conclusion.

269 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:45:34am

re: #262 Aceofwhat?

I rarely see politicians adjusting things based on actual studies, anyway.

I’m just pointing out that there is a large chance of there being a confounding factor with minimum wage hikes.

I personally favor a larger safety net, rather than increased regulation of business— including minimum wage hikes. My general economic philosophy is that using the government to bludgeon corporations into acting responsibly is very often a waste of time. That doesn’t end the government’s responsibility, though, since the behavior of the corporations (and other business entities) is still occurring under the aegis of the government.

270 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:46:27am

re: #260 Obdicut

Her philosophy is kind of an inversion of Marxism; like Marxism, it says that mankind will be perfected when the ideal economic conditions are met.

But her philosophy is even less real-world-applicable than Marxism.

I really like that post. Very well said.

271 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:46:43am

re: #264 Aceofwhat?

The Chicago school of economics is kind of hurting at the moment.

And no, I don’t think that climatologists are weak on probability theory. Why do you think they are?

272 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:47:28am

re: #240 Dark_Falcon

There might be raises at my job, simply because they’ve not done them for so long and now have to. However, I still may not get one. It’ll likely go mostly to the top performers by metrics, a group I am not part of.

What makes you think they have to? They certainly don’t. I’ve consistently enjoyed good raises, bonsues and benefits for many, many years. Everything was cut last year. All of it. Insurance payments have been increasing for about 5 years so that was certainly expected.

273 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:47:39am

re: #264 Aceofwhat?

You’re right. Climatologists could learn a lot of good probability theory at the University of Chicago.

Yeah but be careful. There is a difference between kosher probability and statistics that is clearly defined and has clearly defined probability spaces and economics, which does not.

274 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:48:20am

re: #110 Lidane

Heh, no. Unless you actually think that Ayn Rand has anything close to a coherent philosophy, or that Atlas Shrugged is readable. =P

If you want to know about the Prosperity Gospel, look no further than Joel Osteen. He’s made millions selling the idea that if you’re faithful enough, God will give you every material thing you could ever want.

He might as well just go door to door through all the little ghetto churches in the neighborhood around my school, and slap all the litle grandmas in the face.

Not that I would recommend this. Some of the grandchildren are armed, and even those that aren’t would take a dim view of some random preacher telling Grandma that if she believed, she’d be rich.

275 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:49:01am

re: #270 LudwigVanQuixote

I like it for two reason:

1) I sincerely believe that it’s true, that she really absorbed from Marxism the idea that the state of man most depended on economic conditions, and that property rights— the use of capital— is the center of all human rights.

and

2) It causes Randites to see red, and no, matter how reasonable they were trying to be, slip their masks and attack like rabid shrews.

276 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:49:22am

re: #242 jamesfirecat

No what’s scary is to think that the guy who used to be running our economy thought like she did…

Who?

277 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:49:40am

re: #269 Obdicut

I rarely see politicians adjusting things based on actual studies, anyway.

I’m just pointing out that there is a large chance of there being a confounding factor with minimum wage hikes.

I personally favor a larger safety net, rather than increased regulation of business— including minimum wage hikes. My general economic philosophy is that using the government to bludgeon corporations into acting responsibly is very often a waste of time. That doesn’t end the government’s responsibility, though, since the behavior of the corporations (and other business entities) is still occurring under the aegis of the government.

Hi Obdicut! Don’t mean to butt in here, but gotta upding your post because it makes a great deal of sense. I think there’s a role government does need to play - particularly in areas of workplace safety, etc.

278 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:50:19am

re: #276 marjoriemoon

Who?

Greenspan.

279 mkelly  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:50:20am

From Paul Krugman’s book on macroeconomics:

“Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect… . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

This could be what Delay is referring to. Delay should never rely on people from NYT for quidance.

I am not supporting Delay just pointing out classical econ does have this as a idea.

280 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:50:30am

re: #276 marjoriemoon

I’d imagine its a reference to Greenspan. If I recall correctly he was way into Objectivism.

281 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:50:40am

BBL

282 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:50:57am

re: #276 marjoriemoon

Who?

Alan Greenspan.

283 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:51:21am

re: #275 Obdicut

I like it for two reason:

1) I sincerely believe that it’s true, that she really absorbed from Marxism the idea that the state of man most depended on economic conditions, and that property rights— the use of capital— is the center of all human rights.

and

2) It causes Randites to see red, and no, matter how reasonable they were trying to be, slip their masks and attack like rabid shrews.

Would you believe I like it for the same reasons? That and, it is simple and profoundly accurate.

284 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:51:30am

re: #277 subsailor68

Feel free to butt, Sub. LGF is a very butt-inducing place.

285 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:52:08am

re: #271 Obdicut

The Chicago school of economics is kind of hurting at the moment.

And no, I don’t think that climatologists are weak on probability theory. Why do you think they are?

I don’t, really. I’d call them equivalent. To me “soft science” = the method through which one approaches a topic.

So, for instance, economics vs. sociology. Or climatology vs. ecology.

Economics is a hard science. So is climatology.

286 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:52:49am

re: #279 mkelly

From Paul Krugman’s book on macroeconomics:

“Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect… . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

This could be what Delay is referring to. Delay should never rely on people from NYT for quidance.

I am not supporting Delay just pointing out classical econ does have this as a idea.

My friend, since the last thread dissolved, for the record, if you slow down heat loss - which is what an insulator does, but you heat at teh same rate, you are out of equilibrium and must heat as a result.

This is exactly what insulation (or lack of it) does to your heating bill in winter.

287 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:52:51am

re: #284 Obdicut

Feel free to butt, Sub. LGF is a very butt-inducing place.

LOL! Ouch! That’s a mental image I’d like to scrub!

;-)

288 garhighway  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:53:14am

re: #166 cliffster

People make arguments under the apparent belief that we can make it so that nobody ever suffers…

I would be interested to see where someone at LGF advanced that position.

289 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:53:18am

re: #285 Aceofwhat?

I think Economics wants to be a hard science.

We’d all be better off it if actually was >>

290 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:53:38am

re: #254 publicityStunted

…places like Somalia, the Congo, etc would be the richest, powerful countries on Earth (and of course we know the exact opposite is true - for the most part, economic advancement goes hand-in-glove with the advancement and empowerment of women. Countries that treat women like garbage but are still rich have an easy way out, e.g. Saudi Arabia and oil).

So, not only is Rand a female misogynist, but a myopic moron as well.

LOL

So I guess it’s Might Makes Right? The more cruel you are to another, more brutal, more physical, the more you get your way and since right and wrong do not seem to matter in her world, only getting your way, than brutality is a virtue.

Like that? I’m guessing…

291 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:53:57am

re: #273 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah but be careful. There is a difference between kosher probability and statistics that is clearly defined and has clearly defined probability spaces and economics, which does not.

I’m fine with that statement. I disagree that Econ is not a ‘hard’ science.

“Soft” = qualitative approach. Econ is far more related to Climatology than, say, anthropology…even though Econ does need to account for some behavioral items.

I stand by very general analogies (VERY general) to climate science as not being an insult to climate science.

292 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:54:13am

Good stuff on Rand and Greenspan:

Mr. Greenspan met Rand when he was 25 and working as an economic forecaster. She was already renowned as the author of “The Fountainhead,” a novel about an architect true to his principles. Mr. Greenspan had married a member of Rand’s inner circle, known as the Collective, that met every Saturday night in her New York apartment. Rand did not pay much attention to Mr. Greenspan until he began praising drafts of “Atlas,” which she read aloud to her disciples, according to Jeff Britting, the archivist of Ayn Rand’s papers. He was attracted, Mr. Britting said, to “her moral defense of capitalism.”

Rand’s free-market philosophy was hard won. She was born in 1905 in Russia. Her life changed overnight when the Bolsheviks broke into her father’s pharmacy and declared his livelihood the property of the state. She fled the Soviet Union in 1926 and arrived later that year in Hollywood, where she peered through a gate at the set where the director Cecil B. DeMille was filming a silent movie, “King of Kings.”

He offered her a ride to the set, then a job as an extra on the film and later a position as a junior screenwriter. She sold several screenplays and intermittently wrote novels that were commercial failures, until 1943, when fans of “The Fountainhead” began a word-of-mouth campaign that helped sales immensely.

Shortly after “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, Mr. Greenspan wrote a letter to The New York Times to counter a critic’s comment that “the book was written out of hate.” Mr. Greenspan wrote: “ ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should.”

293 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:54:28am

re: #285 Aceofwhat?

I don’t, really. I’d call them equivalent. To me “soft science” = the method through which one approaches a topic.

So, for instance, economics vs. sociology. Or climatology vs. ecology.

Economics is a hard science. So is climatology.

Economics is not a hard science, no, not at all. Especially Austrian economics.

Ludwig, I don’t think I can really do justice to describing what makes something a ‘hard’ science— do you have it in you right now?

294 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:55:17am

re: #256 jamesfirecat

But on the other hand, to give the devil her due, she did say that a woman should structure her life around the same kind of work men did (even if she did feel that no women should be president) and she felt that abortion was purely a woman’s choice…

NO way! Really? Gads, I adore her now!!!!! LOL That just changed it all for me!! All Hail Rand!!! lol

295 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:55:53am

re: #273 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah but be careful. There is a difference between kosher probability and statistics that is clearly defined and has clearly defined probability spaces and economics, which does not.

heh. ‘kosher probability’. updinged.

296 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:56:46am

re: #285 Aceofwhat?

I don’t, really. I’d call them equivalent. To me “soft science” = the method through which one approaches a topic.

So, for instance, economics vs. sociology. Or climatology vs. ecology.

Economics is a hard science. So is climatology.

Economists in general don’t even call it a hard science. Heck they spend a whole lot of time arguing with each other about whether it’s a more a science or more an art.

297 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:57:21am

re: #258 marjoriemoon

She was raised in communist Russia? I’m still trying to wrap my head around how she got to be where she was intellectually. I had family raised in communist countries during WWI and didn’t come away with the same philosophy.

That would be most like because:

1. They were not crazy.

2. They had those odd persistent and very Hebrew notions of justice applying to all people.

3. They had the cultural memory of always being excluded from the top, and therefore were mosr sensitive to the hurts inflicted on the bottom.

298 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:58:11am

re: #297 LudwigVanQuixote

So wait, Rand wouldn’t have been Rand if she were Jewish?

Dunno about that man :P

299 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:58:41am

re: #293 Obdicut

Economics is not a hard science, no, not at all. Especially Austrian economics.

Ludwig, I don’t think I can really do justice to describing what makes something a ‘hard’ science— do you have it in you right now?

The short version is that the social sciences are soft sciences.

300 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:00:03am

re: #299 iceweasel

The short version is that the social sciences are soft sciences.

The short version is that “hard” means quantitative approach and “soft” means qualitative approach.

301 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:00:05am

re: #299 iceweasel

Yeah. I’m at a loss to find any aspect of economics that doesn’t depend on a qualitative analysis.

Even deciding what metrics you’re measuring is qualitative.

302 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:01:18am

re: #291 Aceofwhat?

I’m fine with that statement. I disagree that Econ is not a ‘hard’ science.

“Soft” = qualitative approach. Econ is far more related to Climatology than, say, anthropology…even though Econ does need to account for some behavioral items.

I stand by very general analogies (VERY general) to climate science as not being an insult to climate science.

I don’t think you were trying to insult climate science.

I was however trying to insult many who make economic arguments.

And note that the many who make economic arguments are not the sum total of economics.

Economics in terms of mathematical models has its place and it is quantitative as far as the initial assumptions of the models are accurate.

However, all economic models I know of that are popular are based on the following major flaws:

1. They assume infinite growth is possible on a finite planet with finite resources. This is not just false, but simply insane.

2. They assume that people will buy and sell in their own best interests. This too is patently false and simply insane to posit.

303 jamesfirecat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:01:48am

re: #298 windsagio

So wait, Rand wouldn’t have been Rand if she were Jewish?

Dunno about that man :P

Especially given that to start with (according to Wikipedia at least) her family was Jewish….

304 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:02:35am

re: #301 Obdicut

Yeah. I’m at a loss to find any aspect of economics that doesn’t depend on a qualitative analysis.

Even deciding what metrics you’re measuring is qualitative.

Exactly. To be honest, that’s the real issue. The soft sciences are soft because they rely more than the hard do on a qualitative decision about what to measure, even if they then go on to imploy quantitative analysis.

305 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:04:59am

re: #304 iceweasel

And they all deal with human nature, game theory, and the process of decision-making. All of which involve qualitative assumptions, as well.

Economics has difficulty with the ineffable, and much of human economic activity is permeated by the ineffable.

306 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:05:49am

re: #304 iceweasel

Exactly. To be honest, that’s the real issue. The soft sciences are soft because they rely more than the hard do on a qualitative decision about what to measure, even if they then go on to imploy quantitative analysis.

Which is why one would use regression analysis to isolate the variables that have a significant impact on the output…

307 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:07:00am

re: #305 Obdicut

And they all deal with human nature, game theory, and the process of decision-making. All of which involve qualitative assumptions, as well.

Economics has difficulty with the ineffable, and much of human economic activity is permeated by the ineffable.

FTFY

308 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:08:55am

re: #298 windsagio

So wait, Rand wouldn’t have been Rand if she were Jewish?

Dunno about that man :P

I hear your point and it is not quite what I was driving for.

So let me answer it in several different ways:

1. OF course and unfortunately there are some Jews who have bought into essentially everything that the right wingnut GOP says. They are a tragic example of someone getting as far from the values of their culture as could ever be seen. We really are big on things like charity, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, helping the poor, educating the masses, rejection of materialism (which is different from rejecting owning good things all together) and taking care of the environment. While we are at it, we are really clear that the color of your skin is not something that alters your value as a human being. We are incredibly clear that workers have rights. We are incredibly clear that humans have rights just for being human. We are very very clear that the government does not have the right to infringe those God given rights.


2. The hard core biblical values of Judaism are actually what most people would call liberal - see above for a very short list. The same statement applies to the early Christians for obvious reasons. This may be a semi-humorous way of putting it, but seriously, Jesus with all of that talk of meek people inheriting the Earth and rich people having a hard time getting to heaven - well come on now, is that a Democrat talking or a Republican?

3. These Jewish values, not surprisingly are and were held by most Jews. Go figure. As a block, we tend to be liberal.

309 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:09:01am

re: #307 Aceofwhat?

Yes. And all human activity can be said to be economic.

The activity of a climate system, however, does not depend on anything that needs qualitative analysis. The only way that climate science softens is when we start analyzing how humans are likely to affect the climate in the future. But analysis of the climate itself, in the current state, is not qualitative.

310 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:09:15am

re: #306 Aceofwhat?

Which is why one would use regression analysis to isolate the variables that have a significant impact on the output…

You can do that only after you’ve made the prior subjective determination about what you’re measuring and how you’re measuring.
That’s why they’re soft sciences.

311 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:09:56am

re: #302 LudwigVanQuixote

fair. i agree that #1 is insane, but most papers are considering questions far too limited for it to be an item under consideration. it’s certainly insane insofar as such a conclusion may have incorrectly distorted climatological conclusions (which i suspect may have heightened your sensitivity to it!)

#2 is, i think, a fallacy that many who misunderstand economics will fall into but not something you see in specific, quantitative papers.

312 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:10:06am

re: #303 jamesfirecat

Especially given that to start with (according to Wikipedia at least) her family was Jewish…

Which only makes it more sad.

Alas and alak. WE too have our share of morons. We just don’t like to talk about it :)

313 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:10:47am

re: #310 iceweasel

You can do that only after you’ve made the prior subjective determination about what you’re measuring and how you’re measuring.
That’s why they’re soft sciences.

This will trigger a philosophy of science 101 objection that ‘all science does that’.
It doesn’t, not in the same way. Cf. Obdi-won’s comment re climate.

314 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:10:50am

re: #308 LudwigVanQuixote

I’d add the caveat that I think we Jews tend to be anti-authoritarian above all other traits, and that that, historically, has something that’s put us at odds with Christian hierarchies. Even ancient rabbinical tradition had huge protections for the individual under the law.

315 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:11:41am

re: #309 Obdicut

Yes. And all human activity can be said to be economic.

The activity of a climate system, however, does not depend on anything that needs qualitative analysis. The only way that climate science softens is when we start analyzing how humans are likely to affect the climate in the future. But analysis of the climate itself, in the current state, is not qualitative.

We are not talking about climate in its current state. We are talking about the dire future, the prediction of which requires highly qualitative input related to human behavior.

316 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:13:16am

re: #308 LudwigVanQuixote

You’re overcomplicating it.

I suspect that you’re assigning too much value/influence to ethnicity :p

/of course I’m on the outside, so my view is pretty different.

317 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:13:39am

re: #314 Obdicut

I’d add the caveat that I think we Jews tend to be anti-authoritarian above all other traits, and that that, historically, has something that’s put us at odds with Christian hierarchies. Even ancient rabbinical tradition had huge protections for the individual under the law.

I think that is true, but incomplete.

We have as cultural heroes, people who have the chutzpah to debate with God.

If we can question Him, we can certainly question if mere men are doing the right things.

318 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:14:17am

re: #310 iceweasel

You can do that only after you’ve made the prior subjective determination about what you’re measuring and how you’re measuring.
That’s why they’re soft sciences.

Meh. The inability to cast a wide enough net (before quantitatively paring down the list of possible variables to the list of significant variables ) is a weakness that precludes most from even attempting, much less attaining, a serious education in Economics.

319 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:15:50am

re: #313 iceweasel

This will trigger a philosophy of science 101 objection that ‘all science does that’.
It doesn’t, not in the same way. Cf. Obdi-won’s comment re climate.

Ha! I did my best to drive around that cone…I figured we didn’t need to go back there-

320 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:16:20am

re: #316 windsagio

I should add, especially since the situation was substantially different ~100 years ago, which is what we’re talking about with Rand.

321 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:17:12am

re: #316 windsagio

You’re overcomplicating it.

I suspect that you’re assigning too much value/influence to ethnicity :p

/of course I’m on the outside, so my view is pretty different.

I get what you are saying and I am not arguing with you.

I do however think that it is equally false to discount cultural heritage or ethnicity when discussing politics. The different groups have historical and cultural reasons for their outlooks.

You would not expect poling results from an Irish Catholic part of Boston to always be the same as those found in a Black community from Louisiana on all issues.

Now of course people are individuals and there will always be those who stand out from their backgrounds, whatever they may be.

Of course that is true.

Wingnut Jews are a great example of that.

322 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:18:11am

re: #321 LudwigVanQuixote

Fair enough, there’s some balance in there somewhere I’m sure :p

323 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:18:29am

Ah yes. Tom Delay, 24th Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives. Republican Majority Leader. The kicker is that he’s half as crazy (and stupid) now.

In other wingnut news it looks like Drudge found a sale on red ink in his last ditch effort to create wingnut hysteria regarding health care legislation by way of demonizing Rahm Emanuel — which seems to be the latest sport in DC.

Also on Drudge is this little bit of paranoia that John Bedell would have found interesting: NEW WORLD ORDER: IMF suggests how to raise ‘climate change’ cash…

Yep, New World Order conspiracies which act as a bookend to Drudge linking to Inforwars. John Bedell would approve of the wingnut favortite, The Drudge Report.

324 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:20:52am

re: #259 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes, there is “to rape” and there is “to ravage” and I think they are very different. Maybe instead of rape fantasy, it should be a ravage fantasy. And I would also point out, I don’ t think this starts and stops with women :)

Rand’s interrpretation also mentioned something about rape and procreation. Anyway, it must be very cold and lonely (and painful) in her world.

325 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:21:19am

re: #315 Aceofwhat?

No, it doesn’t— that’s where you’re off-base. The predictions are always, “Given this assumption, this outcome to the climate is this amount of probable”.

The predictions are very clear that what they’re based off of are assumptions extrapolated from current activity. If you want to see the prediction with other assumptions you can do that, easily.

The predictions are based on a certain amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, based on the assumption that humans will emit a certain amount of CO2. They always establish, in any prediction, upper and lower bounds of possibility/probability. But if that assumption comes true— that X CO2 enters the atmosphere, than then model was quantitatively accurate. And since the model can adjust for any given amount of CO2, it is overall, qualitatively accurate.

To put it another way: Physics cannot model what will happen to a billiard ball after seven bounces off the felt, but it can establish bounds for what will and won’t happen, and can be certain that there are no other massively confounding problems. Economics never, ever, ever has a situation where the inputs are actually known.

This is why Austrian economics is so attractive to many, since it’s untestable; many mistake that for an acknowledgement of the inherent limitations of economics.

326 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:21:59am

re: #324 marjoriemoon

Yes, there is “to rape” and there is “to ravage” and I think they are very different. Maybe instead of rape fantasy, it should be a ravage fantasy. And I would also point out, I don’ t think this starts and stops with women :)

Rand’s interrpretation also mentioned something about rape and procreation. Anyway, it must be very cold and lonely (and painful) in her world.

Her world is a little wooden box 6 feet under ground, so yeah probably ;)

327 windsagio  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:22:32am

re: #324 marjoriemoon

In Hell’s Angels, Hunter Thompson has a fascinating (and controversial) bit on rape fantasy. Even if you don’t agree with it, its worth a read.

328 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:23:59am

re: #324 marjoriemoon

Yes, there is “to rape” and there is “to ravage” and I think they are very different. Maybe instead of rape fantasy, it should be a ravage fantasy. And I would also point out, I don’ t think this starts and stops with women :)

Rand’s interrpretation also mentioned something about rape and procreation. Anyway, it must be very cold and lonely (and painful) in her world.

I had thought I was clear about the distinction when I said “cleaned up and voluntary.”

The issue is that it is a voluntary power exchange fantasy.

It crosses the line when you remove the aspect of voluntary and assume that some people are better than others and have certain rights to take that others do not have the right to resist.

As far as ravage is concerned, this is one of those little twists where the archaic form of a word is somehow more classy than the more modern word even though it means the same thing.

To ravage a woman is to rape her. That is what it has always meant.

329 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:24:34am

re: #324 marjoriemoon

Yes, there is “to rape” and there is “to ravage” and I think they are very different. Maybe instead of rape fantasy, it should be a ravage fantasy. And I would also point out, I don’ t think this starts and stops with women :)

Rand’s interrpretation also mentioned something about rape and procreation. Anyway, it must be very cold and lonely (and painful) in her world.

I was also clear that this tye of fantasy transcends gender and that many men have it too.

330 webevintage  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:25:35am

re: #13 iceweasel

DeLay isn’t the only GOPer who has said stupid things about unemployment recently, sadly: “Two weeks ago, Rep. Dean Heller (R) of Nevada expressed concern that the government is “creating hobos” by extending unemployment benefits.”

Hobo ninjas…

331 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:27:29am

re: #298 windsagio

So wait, Rand wouldn’t have been Rand if she were Jewish?

Dunno about that man :P

We don’t really know, do we, but I think if one were to draw that conclusion from what he said, then they would be correct.

332 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:29:14am

re: #303 jamesfirecat

Especially given that to start with (according to Wikipedia at least) her family was Jewish…

Well there ya go…

333 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:37:08am

re: #328 LudwigVanQuixote

I had thought I was clear about the distinction when I said “cleaned up and voluntary.”

The issue is that it is a voluntary power exchange fantasy.

It crosses the line when you remove the aspect of voluntary and assume that some people are better than others and have certain rights to take that others do not have the right to resist.

As far as ravage is concerned, this is one of those little twists where the archaic form of a word is somehow more classy than the more modern word even though it means the same thing.

To ravage a woman is to rape her. That is what it has always meant.

Yep yep, the voluntarily/involuntarily is the difference. So what’s wrong with “ravage?” If we are voluntarily agreeing with our partner to… em… role play, I’d feel a lot better using the term. No?

334 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:37:39am

I read way too slow. Every notice that?

335 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:42:16am

re: #333 marjoriemoon

Yep yep, the voluntarily/involuntarily is the difference. So what’s wrong with “ravage?” If we are voluntarily agreeing with our partner to… em… role play, I’d feel a lot better using the term. No?

Ohh there is nothing wrong with it. Again, I thought I was clear when I said:

This in of itself is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, purple or green, or anything that could have a judgement associated with it. It also transcends gender. There are plenty of men - and I absolutely do not get it, but I can see that they exist - who want a “mean mommy” to put them in their place.

In fact, provided that everyone is consenting and that no one is physically harmed buy the act - go for it, enjoy yourself! It is certainly healthy to express yourself intimately as you would - given again that everything is voluntary and no one ends up in the ER or otherwise traumatized.

This topic came up in the context of Rand’s rape fantasies though which in conjunction with her political and economic views present a different picture.

My assertion was and is that in many ways her writings are what you get when an unhealthy view of rape fantasy begins to color everything else as a rationalization.

336 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:44:18am

re: #335 LudwigVanQuixote

In fact, provided that everyone is consenting and that no one is physically harmed buy the act - go for it, enjoy yourself! It is certainly healthy to express yourself intimately as you would - given again that everything is voluntary and no one ends up in the ER or otherwise traumatized.

This topic came up in the context of Rand’s rape fantasies though which in conjunction with her political and economic views present a different picture.

My assertion was and is that in many ways her writings are what you get when an unhealthy view of rape fantasy begins to color everything else as a rationalization.

I meant the use of the word “ravage”.

337 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:48:40am

re: #336 marjoriemoon

I meant the use of the word “ravage”.

If words like ravage or ravish drive away the bad connotations associated with other words that could equally be used in describing a sexual power exchange, then great! So be it and enjoy.

My point on that part is that pretty much everyone has a power exchange dynamic (to a greater or lesser extent) in their sexual expressions and whatever you call it, it is all just different shades of the same sort of thing.

338 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:00:09pm

re: #337 LudwigVanQuixote

If words like ravage or ravish drive away the bad connotations associated with other words that could equally be used in describing a sexual power exchange, then great! So be it and enjoy.

My point on that part is that pretty much everyone has a power exchange dynamic (to a greater or lesser extent) in their sexual expressions and whatever you call it, it is all just different shades of the same sort of thing.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said on the subject.

But getting back to Rand (and I know we’ve all pretty much moved on anyway!) seems to me that if she thought that raping women was a natural and honest expression of a man’s sexuality, I would then assume that this is how she would enjoy sex and even demand it, hence the comment way up there that she had rape fantasies.

A rational, healthy minded person may scream, “Take me you hunk of burnin love!” during a hot session, but it wouldn’t mean the same thing. And I think you agree :)

And yes, that’s exactly how I speak to Mr. Moon.

339 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:05:29pm

re: #338 marjoriemoon

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said on the subject.

But getting back to Rand (and I know we’ve all pretty much moved on anyway!) seems to me that if she thought that raping women was a natural and honest expression of a man’s sexuality, I would then assume that this is how she would enjoy sex and even demand it, hence the comment way up there that she had rape fantasies.

A rational, healthy minded person may scream, “Take me you hunk of burnin love!” during a hot session, but it wouldn’t mean the same thing. And I think you agree :)

And yes, that’s exactly how I speak to Mr. Moon.

Lol, not only do I think we agree, but I strongly sense that we see these things in pretty much exactly the same way.

We are just enjoying the semantics of it all.

340 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:08:28pm

re: #338 marjoriemoon

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said on the subject.

But getting back to Rand (and I know we’ve all pretty much moved on anyway!) seems to me that if she thought that raping women was a natural and honest expression of a man’s sexuality, I would then assume that this is how she would enjoy sex and even demand it, hence the comment way up there that she had rape fantasies.

A rational, healthy minded person may scream, “Take me you hunk of burnin love!” during a hot session, but it wouldn’t mean the same thing. And I think you agree :)

And yes, that’s exactly how I speak to Mr. Moon.

And again, that is why I called Rand’s views unhealthy. Voluntary is the key word.

I suppose one way to say it is:

If Natalie Portman tried to rip off my clothing and climb all over me, I would like respond with great enthusiasm. Not so much though with other people.

Rand’s issue is in saying that some people are just masters of the universe and you need to accept that because their “rights” or proclivities supersede your choices.

341 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:25:18pm

re: #340 LudwigVanQuixote

And again, that is why I called Rand’s views unhealthy. Voluntary is the key word.

I suppose one way to say it is:

If Natalie Portman tried to rip off my clothing and climb all over me, I would like respond with great enthusiasm. Not so much though with other people.

Rand’s issue is in saying that some people are just masters of the universe and you need to accept that because their “rights” or proclivities supersede your choices.

That last sentence pretty much sums out exactly how she thinks.

Natalie Portman eh?

342 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:28:34pm

Oh Ice, if you’re still reading, here is the article I found about Rand and Hickman. I don’t know this author, but I enjoyed reading the review.

[Link: www.michaelprescott.net…]

343 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:29:44pm

re: #342 marjoriemoon

Oh Ice, if you’re still reading, here is the article I found about Rand and Hickman. I don’t know this author, but I enjoyed reading the review.

[Link: www.michaelprescott.net…]

Thanks! bookmarked. (popping in and out, talking to Jimmah, the usual here)

344 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:36:08pm

re: #293 Obdicut

Economics is not a hard science, no, not at all. Especially Austrian economics.

Ludwig, I don’t think I can really do justice to describing what makes something a ‘hard’ science— do you have it in you right now?

I didn’t see this, so I will try for an off the cuff definition of something that is rarely defined.

Hard sciences are mathematical in nature and based on making mathematical statements about measurable quantities that are themselves objectively defined.

What I mean by that last thought is though even though the units you chose to measure length are arbitrary, the notion of length is not, and more importantly, a meter stick reads the same measure for everyone who reads it - if they all do so correctly.

the difference with the soft sciences is that take psychology, you can talk about people responding in certain ways to certain things, but everyone responds a little differently. There is no “meter” in the field that will be true for all observers. This does not make the observations of psychology worthless. It does make them much more subjective and frequently impossible to write meaningful mathematics for.

345 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:36:54pm

re: #341 marjoriemoon

That last sentence pretty much sums out exactly how she thinks.

Natalie Portman eh?

Well tell me true, if Natalie Portman tried to rip off your clothing and climb all over you, would you resist too much?

346 Why I Never!  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:38:05pm

re: #344 LudwigVanQuixote


the difference with the soft sciences is that take psychology, you can talk about people responding in certain ways to certain things, but everyone responds a little differently. There is no “meter” in the field that will be true for all observers. This does not make the observations of psychology worthless. It does make them much more subjective and frequently impossible to write meaningful mathematics for.


Exactly, which is why the versions of psychology that are considered more ‘hard’ are those ones which draw from the hard sciences: cognitive psychology and more.

347 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:40:02pm

re: #346 iceweasel

Exactly, which is why the versions of psychology that are considered more ‘hard’ are those ones which draw from the hard sciences: cognitive psychology and more.

Yeah, upon re-reading it, it is not a bad stab at a first attempt to define the term.

348 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:43:56pm

re: #345 LudwigVanQuixote

Well tell me true, if Natalie Portman tried to rip off your clothing and climb all over you, would you resist too much?

LOL Natalie is definitely a cutie, but I’d have to go with Portia de Rossi. I hear tell she knows the ropes lol

349 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:44:32pm

re: #347 LudwigVanQuixote

Moreover, conservation of energy means that in any physical system you can know what you don’t know. If you track the impact of two things, and measure their vectors afterwards, knowing their mass you can know (uncertainty aside) how much energy you haven’t accounted for. You know what should be there.

In economics, for example, you never have a situation that clear. You don’t know how much a factory ‘should’ be producing, or what the wage for a job ‘should’ be. It gets recursive very quickly.

350 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:45:48pm

re: #348 marjoriemoon

LOL Natalie is definitely a cutie, but I’d have to go with Portia de Rossi. I hear tell she knows the ropes lol

It is my understanding that she exclusively “plays for that team.” That is why she would not be on my list. I recommend a movie called Sirens if you are a fan of hers - in that context.

351 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:52:24pm

re: #349 Obdicut

Moreover, conservation of energy means that in any physical system you can know what you don’t know. If you track the impact of two things, and measure their vectors afterwards, knowing their mass you can know (uncertainty aside) how much energy you haven’t accounted for. You know what should be there.

In economics, for example, you never have a situation that clear. You don’t know how much a factory ‘should’ be producing, or what the wage for a job ‘should’ be. It gets recursive very quickly.

Actually it is even stronger than that in the case of physics.

You should look into Noether’s theorem.

The theorem states, and it is theorem, not a theory, that symmetries in a lagrangian produce conserved quantities.

To break that down, a symmetry in mathematics is a transformation that produces the same result. In other words, mirror symmetry means that if I invert x to -x I see the same thing. Your face has an eye on each side.

The laws of physics are the same if you write them starting here or starting there. They are the same if you start your system going yesterday as opposed to three weeks from now. This is space and time translation symmetry respectively.

If you put that through the mathematics of Noether’s Theorem, you will see quite quickly that space translation symmetry means that momentum is conserved and that time translation symmetry means that energy is conserved.

In otherwords, the philosophical starting point of physics is not that energy and momentum are conserved, but rather that the laws of physics are universal and apply to all times and places. As a direct mathematical consequence of this vastly stronger statement, we have those conserved quantities.

352 mkelly  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:55:49pm

re: #286 LudwigVanQuixote

To trap heat R value would have to be infinite or heat loss rate would be 0.

We may have a semantic difference. Trap versus delay.

I agree if you increase heat and keep insulation the same you get an increase in warmth.

353 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 12:57:02pm

re: #352 mkelly

I agree if you increase heat and keep insulation the same you get an increase in warmth.

OK so by the same token, if you increase insulation, but keep the heat flow in the same, you also warm.

That is exactly the point.

354 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 1:49:20pm

re: #351 LudwigVanQuixote

I’ll read more into it until I can confidently say I understand what you said. I think that I get it— that cause and effect aren’t at all directional, would be one simpler version, right?— but I’m not sure, which means I haven’t internalized the knowledge.

355 Cineaste  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 1:49:42pm

re: #11 MandyManners

He’s competing with Biden for the Foot-in-Mouth Award.

At least Biden is usually trying to say something coherent and can’t get it out right. This actually a clearly expressed idea where the idea is completely incoherent.

356 MKelly  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 1:50:05pm

re: #353 LudwigVanQuixote

If, as you think, human produced CO2 is affecting the atmosphere, a way to tell is if the specific heat of air changes. As CO2 has a lower Cp (.839) the specific heat of air should lower over time to less than 1.0035.
And as far as I know that hasn’t happened.

I am going home shortly. Tomorrow let’s discuss the thermos you brought up.

357 Cineaste  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 1:54:23pm

Why are the Republicans, who are supposed to be the free-market capitalists, so deeply opposed to job mobility? Fear about unemployment and health care are two big reasons why people would not change jobs and thus we have large sections of our workforce that are locked into their jobs because they can’t afford to change. There was a great piece a couple weeks ago about a guy who is commuting 1,000 miles a week because it was the only way he could keep his job and health care for his family. Every Sunday afternoon he drives from Michigan down to Oklahoma to a GM plant and then back on Friday afternoon. 8 hours each way. Just to not lose health care.

358 Cineaste  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 2:01:24pm

re: #356 MKelly

If, as you think, human produced CO2 is affecting the atmosphere, a way to tell is if the specific heat of air changes. As CO2 has a lower Cp (.839) the specific heat of air should lower over time to less than 1.0035.
And as far as I know that hasn’t happened.

I am going home shortly. Tomorrow let’s discuss the thermos you brought up.

Huh?

First of all, what is “the specific heat of air”? Air is a generic term for a mixture of gasses. CO2 levels fluctuate throughout the world and vary by season. Look at a CO2 chart and you’ll see the amount fall during the summer and rise during the winter - go to a rain forest and then downtown manhattan and you’ll see varying degrees of gasses & CO2. A slight rise in temperature, regardless of cause, will affect humidity, which will affect specific heat.

359 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 2:41:58pm

re: #356 MKelly

If, as you think, human produced CO2 is affecting the atmosphere, a way to tell is if the specific heat of air changes. As CO2 has a lower Cp (.839) the specific heat of air should lower over time to less than 1.0035.
And as far as I know that hasn’t happened.

I am going home shortly. Tomorrow let’s discuss the thermos you brought up.

OH for crying out loud, I am now completely tired of you. Look, if you have heat coming in and heat going out and you retain more heat - thus slowing the rate that heat goes out, and making you have less heat going out than coming in, you get hotter. It is that simple. What is wrong with you?

You have given examples from your own life that illustrate this principle, yet you go on being a moron when it comes to thinking them through to their obvious conclusions. Just back up a second and think through what is being said. A scientific discussion is not that you just ignore everything your interlocutor has told you. It is that you process what is being said and what you yourself are saying.

360 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 2:43:35pm

re: #354 Obdicut

I’ll read more into it until I can confidently say I understand what you said. I think that I get it— that cause and effect aren’t at all directional, would be one simpler version, right?— but I’m not sure, which means I haven’t internalized the knowledge.

NO my friend, I am saying that as a direct mathematical consequence of assuming that the laws of physics are universal, the conservation principles arise directly.

361 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 2:57:49pm

re: #360 LudwigVanQuixote

Okay. I’ll try to stare at that sentence until I understand it.

If you had any hint of a book that lays that out well, I’d love to read it. I don’t want to assume I understand it.

362 freetoken  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 3:11:40pm

re: #361 Obdicut

Historically speaking, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were the ideas central to classical dynamics. A guy named Lagrange came along an developed a better way of understanding those two concepts, together.

What Ludwig threw at you is a later, highly formal formulation of “classical” mechanics.

MKELLY won’t be able to keep up with Ludwig, because the first is just pulling out terms from some physics dictionary without understanding them.

363 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 3:31:42pm

re: #362 freetoken

Historically speaking, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were the ideas central to classical dynamics. A guy named Lagrange came along an developed a better way of understanding those two concepts, together.

What Ludwig threw at you is a later, highly formal formulation of “classical” mechanics.

MKELLY won’t be able to keep up with Ludwig, because the first is just pulling out terms from some physics dictionary without understanding them.

Okay, I’ll do some reading on Lagrange. Thanks.

364 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 3:34:57pm

re: #362 freetoken

Historically speaking, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were the ideas central to classical dynamics. A guy named Lagrange came along an developed a better way of understanding those two concepts, together.

I don’t mean to be pedantic, but Newtonian formulations are differential and Lagrangian ones are integral.

365 freetoken  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 3:48:44pm

re: #364 ludwigvanquixote

Ok.

re: #363 Obdicut

In the second year of study of classical mechanics (sophomore, sometimes junior, year of college), one gets introduced to Mr. Lagrange and Mr. Hamilton. Both can be your friends.

366 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 4:07:28pm

re: #365 freetoken

Ok.

re: #363 Obdicut

In the second year of study of classical mechanics (sophomore, sometimes junior, year of college), one gets introduced to Mr. Lagrange and Mr. Hamilton. Both can be your friends.

Yes indeedy and they are your friends ever after. When I taught classical mechanics, I told my students that they should get used o this stuff, because it was like herpes. It never goes away.

367 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 5:10:46pm

re: #365 freetoken

MIT has great open course stuff— I’ll look there.

My greatest regret is that I didn’t find out that I was really great at physics until my senior year of high school— and even then I had a teacher who made it her mission to beat that love out of me.

368 Interesting Times  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 7:10:09pm

Crap. Looks like several of us got Poe-law’d:

Ayn Rand rape quote is actually satire

(yes, I know this thread has now passed into the great beyond, but I felt compelled to post the correction once I found out. Unlike certain cable news networks, I have one of those “intellectual honesty” angels on my shoulder…)

369 DC-3  Wed, Mar 10, 2010 4:13:41pm

People need to go to the county employment office for different reasons, including to find work or to get benefits.

My last trip to the county unemployment office years ago was a eye opening nightmare. The hundreds of decidedly casually dressed people engaging in horseplay did not impress me as being in serious desire of employment.

Your experience may be different to mine :)


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh