There are thoughts that gnaw at me sometimes. One, for example, is the extent to which my faith-informed morals (DISCLAIMER: I may skirt around some Jesus-y stuff in this article, where necessary) allow for resistance against those who would take advantage of me, whether it be asserting my interests when somebody is being manipulative or whether it be using violence in defense of self and others. Another example is the difference between charity and welfare.
My faith-informed morals also compel me to be charitable with my time, my money, and my efforts. I don’t believe that it is something “over the top” for me to do as a “good” person. It is, to me, a basic component of obedience to the morals and principles that guide me. As such, it can sometimes be hard to conceptually separate charity from welfare when you strip away the ad hominems, the dystopian undertones, and the inherent force of government and view welfare in its most favorable light, as “people more effectively helping their neighbors out of a hard place.” Yes, this is a rather unfaithful definition of welfare, but it’s important to be able to address opponents at their most mendacious.
Of course, when addressing welfare, it’s easy for a libertarian to toss out a few cliches and dismiss the entire thing. Taxation is theft. The ends don’t justify the means. There is a man with a gun behind every government program. However, cliches don’t change minds. Cliches also don’t address the emotional imbalance that is equivalent to the economic imbalance discussed in Economics in One Lesson. Specifically, when the warm-fuzzies are openly apparent and the pain is diffused among an entire tax base and hidden in withholding lines of a pay stub, it’s important to address this issue on an emotional level.
Most who advocate for welfare do so under the guise of compassion. Their overwrought whinging about how everybody against welfare hates the poor is convincing to many who feel true compassion for the poor. They are apparent emotional allies with the welfare advocates. Any amount of nuance and rationality on our part feels to them like equivocation and excuse-making. However, I’ve found that hearts are a blunt-force instrument and minds are a precision instrument. The heart is really bad at differentiating similar emotions or similar intentions. Without engaging the mind, the heart can easily mistake compassion for the similar emotion of pity. However, pity is different enough to completely change the emotional tenor of a situation.
Compassion is an emotion of similarity. You feel compassion because you recognize the innate human dignity of another. You see somebody who is suffering and want to help them overcome their suffering. It’s an emotion of humility.
Pity is an emotion of difference. You feel pity for something beneath you. Something pitiable is low and less than you. Pity is an emotion of pride. There’s a tinge of smug condescension that comes with pity. As libertarians, we know that if anything describes statists, it’s smug condescension.
Welfare isn’t driven by compassion, but by pity. This is why welfare is rotten to its core. The dehumanizing effects of welfare dependency are easily observed, but it’s no clearer than when somebody tries to get off of welfare. If you want to see somebody’s “compassion” for the needy vaporize, watch them interact with somebody who isn’t willing to stay enslaved to the welfare system. It starts with a guilt trip, continues with anger, and finishes with jealousy. See, the competitive undergirding of their pity motive for supporting welfare can’t deal with their lessers becoming their equals. When they say “think about the people who haven’t been as successful as you,” they’re really saying “mind your place in the order of things.” When they say “you’re being ungrateful for the help you were given” they’re really saying “welfare comes with strings, and these strings can’t be cut.” When they say “you’re self-hating” they’re really saying “back to the plantation, slave!”
If welfare were truly about compassion, it wouldn’t merely be a check-writing mission. Compassion imparts dignity, and cutting a check isn’t always the dignified action to take. Compassion is a personal connection, welfare is profoundly bureaucratic and impersonal. To the extent that welfare moves beyond writing checks, it is still completely beholden to the pity that drives it. Welfare programs are designed to maintain and increase enrollment in order to show a need for further investment. Much like any other government program, any initial “good intention” is quickly corrupted by the perverse incentives that come with “free” money. Of course, I question the initial good intention in the first place. Pity is lazy, and welfare is lazy. The hard work of understanding the poor and formulating a dignified response to their challenges is a herculean effort, not something that a government program is usually known for.
Charity shows what true compassion looks like. Most charity isn’t front page news. It isn’t touted. People aren’t shamed for not throwing their whole-hearted support behind a cause. Recipients aren’t shamed for no longer needing charity or for making suggestions for improvement. By removing the competitive dynamic that exists in pity based relationships, charity becomes more effective than welfare. This may seem counter-intuitive to those who are used to talking about competition as a primary driver of the free market, but social competition between the provider and the recipient is a very different competition than economic competition between similarly situated providers.
In summary, the supposed compassion of the welfare advocate is truly pity, which introduces a competitive dynamic between the provider and the recipient. This pity-based giving has the potential to be a net harm and is based in pride rather than humility. Charity, on the other hand, is a true act of compassion and is based in humility. This is why charity is effective while welfare is chronically ineffective.
I paid my insurance, paid my deductible, where’s MY CAR!! now I have to waste a work day waiting for rental car Because the “certified” body shop screwede the pooch, GAAAAHHHH!!!!
/end rant
Charity isn’t permanent and quite often is given freely to those trying to help themselves. Welfare is forced charity(theft) trying to right a social wrong. In it’s current form, welfare is nothing more than social corruption designed to hook the poor on the candy so that they will always have to support those who promise to continue the free candy.
We need to get back to the original view of welfare as described by Franklin:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
Benjamin Franklin
I’ve never seen that Franklin quote. Thank you for sharing. It’s a keeper.
This is terrific, thank you. It mirrors my own thoughts on the difference between charity and welfare. I ain’t a Jesus guy, but I think generosity is a virtue worth cultivating. And I think the crux of dignity that you hit on is important. it’s the difference between giving a man a hand up, and a condescending pat on the head as you feed him subsistence level support that keeps him trapped and dependent.
or. do for yourself and get Fucked anyway, it seems to work like that sometimes
And I think the crux of dignity that you hit on is important. it’s the difference between giving a man a hand up, and a condescending pat on the head as you feed him subsistence level support that keeps him trapped and dependent.
If you teach a man to fish, he will no longer need you to feed him. It is much easier to rule a tame people than a wild one.
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Don’t teach a man to fish, and you feed yourself. He’s a grown man. Fishing’s not that hard.” – Ron Swanson
“Teach a man to fish and you can sell him a shit-ton of really expensive gear.”
– Someone smart
OT – Dude, does your girl still play the bass? If so, I have to rec Go Go’s bassist Kathy Valentine. Listening to their stuff, she does an amazing job setting up song changes. (e.g., verse to chorus) as well as adding extra melody to tunes. If she likes jazz, add Carol Kaye to her list.
Hi BP! Yep, she does. I got her a Mexi Jazz bass for Christmas and she’s been tearing it up! At school, in addition to her percussion duties, she’s been backing the choir and lower level bands. She’s enjoying it a lot!
Thanks for the suggestions. I will have her listen to both of those. Carol Kaye is a delight!
Father of the year. That is awesome. A Fender J is a damn fine gift. My folks got me A Precision copy for my 14th birthday, and they weren’t disappointed, as I spent 2-4 hours a day playing on it for the next few years. It never sat in the corner.
If I remember any other female bass or percussion inspirations in the future, I’ll send them along. Cool to hear she’s been tearing it up! And seriously, Kathy Valentine is a really good bassist. I understand that people would be skeptical of the Go-Go’s, but they were (are?) a really talented band.
I’ve never hated on the Go-Go’s. Bought their records, enjoyed everything about them. Apparently they fully indulged the rock-n-roll lifestyle, too!
Ah, that’s where your love of the P bass came from. She doesn’t practice as much as you did, unless you add in the drums, marimba, guitar (she was playing one of mine last night) and piano! You musicians are obsessive folks!
Fun fact – the first band Belinda Carlisle ever played in was (briefly) the seminal LA punk band The Germs.
My love of the P comes from playing it. I’ll forgive that once, Tundra. ONCE. Don’t bring Penguin death upon you… .
Aah, fuck it, no I won’t. You’d probably kick my ass anyway.
Your girl is diverse. Best I could (or can) ever manage on the piano (well, keyboards) was “For Your Love” by the Yardbirds, which is a 3rd week song at best. Maybe.
Chipwooder – What she does is secret – Secret!
http://www.dictionary.com/e/empathy-vs-sympathy/
To sum up the differences between the most commonly used meanings of these two terms: sympathy is feeling compassion, sorrow, or pity for the hardships that another person encounters, while empathy is putting yourself in the shoes of another.
Welfare is sympathy without empathy. This is the primary failing of progressive.
People who are “compassionate” with other people’s money hate this sentiment. If you resist giving on this basis (and not because you obviously just hate the poor and disenfranchised), and want to talk about real solutions besides cutting a check, they don’t even know what to say.
Compassion is also a two-way street. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t feel good when they demonstrate compassion for others through concerted action, and the recipient benefits from the action.
“Compassion is an emotion of similarity. You feel compassion because you recognize the innate human dignity of another. You see somebody who is suffering and want to help them overcome their suffering. It’s an emotion of humility.
Pity is an emotion of difference. You feel pity for something beneath you. Something pitiable is low and less than you. Pity is an emotion of pride. There’s a tinge of smug condescension that comes with pity. As libertarians, we know that if anything describes statists, it’s smug condescension.”
I think this is a brilliant passage. Pity and disgust/scorn are twin emotions to me, whereas compassion mates with more positive feelings like respect.
You can have my pity or you can have my respect, but you cannot have both at the same time.
Good read. Like so many things, the issue of welfare is complicated. On the one hand, its motivations can be pure and its results can be an improvement on the alternative (although I think government charity is really only an efficacious choice in times of crisis), while on the other hand it’s motivations can also be impure (such as the pity you mentioned) and it’s results can be harmful (fostering dependency and entitlement). It is a virtue to help the poor and a vice to steal, so where does that leave welfare? Opinions are divided, because it is both good and evil, and people tend to focus on one or the other according to taste, which makes it difficult to change opinions.
It is a virtue to help the poor and a vice to steal, so where does that leave welfare?
You’re asking the age old question. Do the ends justify the means? IMO they never* do. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if you buy world peace with the money, the act of stealing the money poisoned the tree.
*with possible exception of leaking classified info.
I personally believe that the ends and the means are inseparable, and so it doesn’t make sense to say that you did something wrong in order to achieve a good effect. Either the act itself is ennobled by the motivation behind it or the end isn’t as good as you think it is. Theft is always wrong. Claiming that theft is acceptable because someone else needs something more than the person who has it just means that you’ve decided that you are superior to both parties and have property rights they don’t have. Claiming that theft is justifiable if the thing in question rightfully belongs to someone else (the Communists get close to this, I think) is just saying that theft isn’t theft if you’re remedying a prior theft.
“Compassion is an emotion of similarity. You feel compassion because you recognize the innate human dignity of another. You see somebody who is suffering and want to help them overcome their suffering. It’s an emotion of humility.”
Where I draw the line is someone that feels that way demanding others not only do so as well, but that they pay for it so the smug prick can feel good about it..
If I point a gun and you and take your money that is immoral. If I give the money to someone else it’s still immoral. If I order someone to point a gun at you and take your money and give it to someone else that is immoral. If me and my friends order someone to take your to take your money and give it to someone else that is immoral.
At no point in this process is the welfare system moral and no moral arguments can change the basic fact that you get a gun figuratively or in extreme cases literally pointed at you to take your property.
Now there may be arguments to be made based on pragmatism, utilitarianism, or for reasons of Keynesian economics; but there are no moral arguments.
Err technically Pragmatism and Utilitarianism are moral systems so if there are arguments in favor of Welfare based on those concepts then there are by definition moral arguments in favor of it.
The question that needs to be applied is which moral system is the correct one to use when judging something like Government Welfare.
You and I would obviously argue in favor of Natural Rights taking primacy, others however would argue for utilitarianism or consequentialism or some other system and therefore argue it was a morally valid system.
What trshmnstr is getting at here is the difference not in moral arguments but motivations and the actual effects of the system created by government welfare contrasted with it’s supposed goals
To further complicate things, the welfare system is not set up so that 100% (or even a majority) of tax money is transferred to the poor. There are layers of bureaucracy, fancy buildings, retirement benefits for workers in welfare departments. One could argue that’s a form of welfare in itself – those bureaucrats are working at jobs that wouldn’t exist without the welfare state. But it’s one thing to take money from person A to provide for the basic needs or person B. But too much of person A’s money is now providing person C with a better job, with better benefits, than person A has.
That’s my main argument about welfare and about public schools. If my tax money were going directly towards a person in poverty, or directly towards students’ education, I might be ok with it. But it’s not. It’s going to a lot of people who are making a nice comfortable living sucking on the government teat.
And while suckling on that teat, they are also financing public sector unions, who do nothing but advocate for more and milkier teat.
One could say that the welfare state is a suckubus
The welfare state’s primary purpose is to keep itself around and grow whenever possible, because it is a political animal that can be used to garner a lot of power. With the shitbags that flock to politics these days, the welfare state is downright evil.
The more people who recieve government checks (not just welfare checks) the more people will vote for politicians who offer checks. This is the process by which the government continues to expand. Once a certain critical mass of net takers is on the dole, then the governemnt can no longer be shrunk through political means.
Something something 47% something
At that point, Rand had the solution.
Feed the tax code through a woodchipper?
Exactly. So here again, there is no incentive to lift a person out of poverty. The incentive is to have more people on welfare, which will increase the budget and also increase the “need” for more workers from public sector unions.
It’s the statist version of trickle-down economics. If they can collect enough money and pour it onto the sponge that is the welfare apparatus, eventually it will fill up and the overflow will make it to the people for whom the apparatus was advertised to benefit.
That’s a great point. For all the disparaging of trickle-down economics, the welfare state is actually the same thing only with more layers and more skimming.
Great essay, trashy. There are two types of people in this world: those that would pass around the hat, and those that would point the gun by proxy.
There is a third that doesn’t believe in charity at all. You want my money? Provide a good or service. You’re an orphan? Better get in that salt mine and make that paper.
Nice work, Trashy. You set the bar high for both depth and frequency of content contribution.
In the town where I live, as many a progressive town, there is something of a homeless problem, and around the area, a heroin/opioid problem.
We have some very regular beggars who work various traffic corners, who’ve been at it for years, and some of whom are known junkies.
A painting contractor friend of mine has offered all of them jobs – “Hey, come paint for me, I’ll pay you X and teach you something.” Without fail, all of them refuse, and according to my friend, some of them even admit up front “I’m not interested/capable in working.”
What do you do with people to whom legitimate empathetic charity and opportunity is being shown, who refuse it?
“What do you do with people to whom legitimate empathetic charity and opportunity is being shown, who refuse it?”
Walk away, just walk away.
i used to think, But for the Grace of God and all that, But God Graced me with a brain, so i use it, so nope, compassion goes out the window. Too many tourist Homeless around my town, young healthy Men, begging at the 7-11, where I used to score beer as a kid, because we worked.
My wife and I tried to help a girl who couldn’t accept it about a year ago. I ended up with a psychopath of an ex husband threatening to kill my family.
Sometimes it’s best to leave things out of your control be.
I remember that Tale, a lesson learned,
there is a poor beggar woman close to my office who raises money for her young daughter. Looking at thew picture the woman uses, the daughter must have some strange disease cause she has not aged a day in 10 years.
I have a distant relative that goes begging so that she can buy booze for her alcoholic son. Essentially depending on other people’s altruism so that she can avoid the issue and enable his demise sooner. Totally fucked up.
Then she should be rich. Plenty of women would pay a small fortune to get that disease.
In summary, the supposed compassion of the welfare advocate is truly pity, which introduces a competitive dynamic between the provider and the recipient. This pity-based giving has the potential to be a net harm and is based in pride rather than humility.
And we cannot discount the naked self-interest of those who administer and unceasingly work to expand these welfare programs, and, consequently, their own power and social standing.
to be fair, there re naive useful idiots as week who truly believe welfare is compassion.
Nice job, trashy. I enjoy these midday philosophical pieces.
Charity shows what true compassion looks like. Most charity isn’t front page news.
With the possible exception of ‘mission trips’.
Ah yes, guilt-based tourism.
mission trips
There are thoughts that gnaw at me sometimes. – probably just an STD. those are often confused.
That being said charity seems complicated, who has time? It is easier to have an organised system in which we all -by way of government, which is us really, provide for the less fortunate. I think we should all go once every 4 years to a polling station -I am willing to use that much of my precious time – vote to raise taxes – not on me, but people richer than me, off course – so the government can build housing for the poor – not in my neighborhood off course somewhere else. Also the poor need schools – not the one my kids go to but schools, and food -based on government guidelines for nutrition.
*applause and acknowledging nods*
That being said charity seems complicated, who has time? It is easier to have an organised system in which we all -by way of government, which is us really, provide for the less fortunate.
I spend a lot less time doing charitable contributions than I do filling out my tax return.
Welfare is the application of mathematics to create systemic charity; it takes the human element out of charity, removing all of the good and corrupting what’s left. Even when you’re dealing with organizational charities, there’s still an element of individual judgment and some element of personalization in the help that’s offered. Everyone involved is recognized as an individual, with the effect that, as you point out, the dignity of everyone is respected and uplifted. This is a key element to being able to get out of the kind of holes where charity is so helpful. Welfare, like all government programs, treats people as data to be filtered. You fit the right demographic and your last year’s filing status meets the requirements, you get a check. Nobody is interested in your story, nobody cares what you’re planning to do with the money (as long as it fits certain program-wide guidelines, of course) and nobody wants to hear about your plan to improve your life.
This is actually why I’m not unsympathetic to the stereotypical welfare mooch type. You can’t be grateful to a faceless government agency, especially one that dehumanizes you and patronizes you as a condition for help. Especially so when it actively works against your lifting yourself up on your own, as most welfare programs do.
I’ve had first-hand experience with unemployment, and the process of getting unemployment benefits is not only frustrating but counterproductive. For one thing, you can’t get unemployment if you’re getting any kind of education or training. For another, benefits scale down rapidly if you take any shift- or part-time work, regardless of whether it’s permanent or not. There are also odd, frankly insulting requirements, such as having to attend training seminars on filling out job applications and using classified ads to look for work. The whole process is designed to insult you while at the same time limit your ability to affect your situation in any constructive manner.
That’s because government is one size fits all. So the educated, experienced individual who got canned from Microsoft because they decided to not make Zunes anymore has to attend the same How to Fill Out a Job App, Wear a Tie, and Not Reek of Alcohol and BO When You Go To an Interview class as some schlub that has never held a steady job and truly lacks those skills.
OT (sorta)
I think the word “mainstream” is convenient shorthand for “the overton window”
iow, what is considered ‘normal’ or respectable opinion.
Everything about modern progressive politics is about simply re-framing (via Lakoff) everything other than ‘conventional progressive thinking’ as outside this mainstream.
Contrary opinion is abnormal.
X person is “controversial” (notice how often this work is used?), everything “right” is actually “Far Right”, …
…. basically, the entire ball game is 100% pretending that “if you disagree with X, you’re the strange minority”
They do this even when the position X is something only believed by a tiny-minority, and the people disagreeing are in fact “everyone else” (see: ‘how many genders there are’)
This tactic is effective, which is why it is endlessly repeated.
An article at Areo magazine whose opener prompted this thought. The piece examines the differences between “legitimate speech” and what is considered “trolling”
”
Everything about modern progressive politics is about simply re-framing (via Lakoff) everything other than ‘conventional progressive thinking’ as outside this mainstream.”
Perfect example of this:
National Organization for Women, the leftist feminist political action group, is painted as a nonpartisan centrist American institution.
Concerned Women for America, which is a rightwing religious conservative political action group, is painted as exactly what it is.
Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism talks about this a lot, how radical leftist policy ideas are painted as “just plain old American common sense”. Gun control and healthcare policy are the biggest ones I see.
Was that any good? I was a leftist when it came out, but I recall thinking I would’ve liked to read a thoughtful, intelligent book from his perspective but this didn’t look like it.
dont’ people realize that making people think and defend their positions requires thought, effort, and emotional conviction? how dare you demand these things of the people who are trying to use the state to appropriate your property, circumscribe you freedom, and police your thoughts?
Not a Christian, but I read a piece from a Christian minister of some kind or another talking about how true Christian charity, like the faith itself, is built around repentance and actual meaningful contrition and change.
In other words, the endless flow of free money is not actual Christian charity, it is a sinful waste of the fruit of virtuous labor.
I’ve heard it similarly put. Poverty is not a number, it’s a mentality. Poverty is spiritual, not financial. Etc.
You’re both wrong. Poverty means not having white skin. White skin is privilege. Therefore, homeless white bums are privileged and Oprah is poor.
Classical liberals of yesteryear indeed believed it was (mostly) a choice. Where it wasn’t, the Church and charity would take care of it.
I think this was the most realistic way to look at things.
To progressives this seemed callous but it isn’t when you think of it. Their response was to weed out the human spirit and create the bureaucratic welfare state. Which is far more destructive.
It’s not alms-giving if the person giving expects anything – like an ego stroke – in return.
Hence the theory that there is no real altruism. If giving makes you feel good, then it was not charity, you were buying good feelings.
I’m not going THAT far. If you feel good for twenty minutes, nothing wrong with that. I mean doing shit like bringing it up at the dinner table or posting it on facebook.
I didn’t mean to imply you agreed with that particular theory.
Christian charity also starts from within, rather than being forced at gun point. It is also supposed to be time, talent, and treasure – not just treasure.
Good article. Makes me think of way back when I still listened to NPR they did a segment where a reporter went to what, at the time, the census showed was the poorest county in America. In the middle of nowhere in Nevada. The sort of place you drive through and wonder “what the fuck does anyone do for a living out here?”
The interviews all went something like this: Question: “How does it feel to live in the poorest county in the country?” Answer:”Poor? We ain’t got much money but we sure ain’t poor.” The locals clearly felt “poor” was more than a financial condition. The NPR person didn’t pursue this concept just acted like is was some strange native custom.
The NPR person then went to the local Food Stamp offices and asked how business in such a poor place was. The Food Stamp Lady said just about everybody in the county was eligible but few would take it – too proud. She said her job was to get people to “Swallow their pride” and accept her charity. She said she was making progress.
I would help tar and feather Food Stamp woman.
Christ, what an asshole.
Look, if they don’t accept her charity, then the Food Stamp office will have to close and then Food Stamp Lady will be out of work, and with no place to go to get Food Stamps. She will die of starvation, and it will be entirely their fault. You wouldn’t want that, would you?
She could go on food stamps, right?
Not if the Food Stamp office is closed!
If that happened, the Food Stamp lady would be out of a job and she’d starve because they’d be nowhere for her to get food stamps!
Yes, I would want that.
i think this is a good start to clarifying the distinction, but not the whole ball of wax.
i can’t remember exactly where i’ve heard the argument made before, but i will guess it was something like “Ancient Greeks having 2 different words” which, like many greek words, were hugely different in their moral-significance.
i think the modern understanding of these terms cares only about consequence: is “help” delivered? then they’re morally equivalent. But greeks assumed everything was a question of virtue, and as far as that goes, the former evinces it and the latter is a stain on it.
Damn you! I was going to bring Mr. T up!
I always got the impression that Mr. T wasn’t being smug. He genuinely regretted the beatings he was forced to inflict.
Me too. Like Mr. T longed for a world in which nobody put themselves in a foolish position requiring his pity. Like the whoopin’ was gonna hurt him as much as it hurt the fools.
Good article, Trashy. Thanks.
“Most who advocate for welfare do so under the guise of compassion. ”
I wouldn’t be so sure of that.
I was 21 years old, had 2K in the bank, a part-time job, and no car. I was going to school full time, so I had about 5K in tuition due in the near future. Essentially my net worth was negative, I lived rent-free at my parents’ house on the condition that I was a full-time student, otherwise rent would be charged (as done with my brother). You could argue that my very-low-skill part-time job was capital of some sort, but the goal was to actually attain job skills that really could conceivable be considered capital. I mean, I could have gotten a full-time low-skill job of some sort, but without a car that was tough. School and the job were reached via public transport and walking. Living rent-free in one of the poorer suburbs south of Chicago was compassion show to me by my parents (it’s amazing how today such compassion is seen as an entitlement).
21-year old me was waiting on the subway platform trying to get to class. I am approached by an ACORN representative looking for a donation. I told the person I didn’t have any spare money – which caused him to start YELLING at me and calling me a RACIST WHITE MOTHER FUCKER. (I guess he assumed all Caucasian-looking people must be wealthy, shame on him.) ACORN – a welfare advocacy organization motivated by political power, not compassion. Thank goodness the train approached in less than ten seconds so the noise began to drown out his yelling. As he continued to scream at me as I entered the car, I flipped him the bird.
GIMMEGIMMEGIMME, the eternal crow of the progressive parasite.
Also: Christ, what an asshole.
It fits just about anything we comment upon around here. In fact, this makes me think: is it possible we could have a 100+ comment thread consisting of nothing but TOS/Glib memes?
-Fuck off, Tulpa!
-Would.
-You know who else generated a lot of comments?
-STEVE SMITH KNOW. AND BY KNOW, MEAN RAPE.
-John pr0n!
…et cetera
You’re talking all the fun out of it.
I get that a lot.
You’re as much fun as pineapple on pizza.
Also, fried chicken.
Shut up and go make me a sammich
To be sure.
*narrows gaze*
WHYCOME YOU AINT VOT TRMUP YOU SOM KINDA OF FAGGT
needz MOAR government
NeEdZ MOAR LabEls?
What about the roadzzzz ???
A Bloomberg article about Remington– about how the creditors are going to want to GTFO asap when the company comes out of bankruptcy. All fairly straightforward business reporting, with a big Bloombergian dollop of the ” intrinsic eviltry of the gun business” on the side.
And then, there’s this:
Cerberus Capital Management acquired Remington in 2007 and saddled it with nearly $1 billion in debt during the decade that followed. The firm, run by private-equity mogul and GOP super-donor Stephen Feinberg, announced the bankruptcy plan in February and formally filed in March. The Chapter 11 filing includes a plan to eliminate $620 million in debt before handing the company to its lenders. (Cerberus and Remington did not respond to requests for comment.)
Obviously, only a GOP super-donor is evil enough to run a gunmaker. They also provide a handy list of board members and their employers, just in case anyone might be inclined to call for a boycott or twattershaming of them.
I wonder if they go the extra mile to politically categorize every CEO they write about.
Someone I know is on welfare. When pressed about needing to go get a job he responded, ‘I make more on welfare’. He actually thinks it’s an intelligent and rational economic choice.
That’s why welfare is pure evil.
So much this. The system, as it exists today, is designed to appeal to those that would be required to invest more than nothing in getting gainful employment. When working means you have a slew of additional costs over and above paying a good chunk of your earnings in taxes, getting money while sitting on your ass and playing playstation or xbox all day makes fucking sense.
A true welfare system would seek to help those that work hard and have a misfortune. Not those that are looking for a perpetual handout so they can avoid work. But the political class gains nothing from the first, while the former grants them a dependent voting block and perpetual power.
Wouldn’t it be an intelligent and rational economic choice? If someone’s going to pay me more to stay home than they would to go to work, I’m staying home.
Correct. It may not be “moral”, but it is “rational”.
Not necessarily. He could go work for Fed Ex and make more.
So it’s irrational because he’s lazy.
But how much more? Would you quit a job making $400/week for a job making $420/week, but you work 10 hours a week more at the new job?
Or in this guys case, 40 hours more.
It depends on how big your frame is. Very narrowly, its probably rational. In the longer-term/bigger picture, probably not so much.
It is an intelligent and rational economic choice, and that’s why welfare is pure evil.
What used to be called “welfare” is now called “TANF”, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the idea is that it’s not just a “I’m poor, give me money” program. It’s administered at the state level by state-specific requirements using fed grant money. I won’t go into a huge amount of detail (feel free to DuckDuckGo that shit if you’re really interested) but in Maryland the two big things are a 5-year lifetime limit (unless you are under 19; this will be important later) and the presence of minor children. You can get a maximum of five years of TANF benefits for your whole life, in theory, and you have to have children in your household when you apply. What’s fun about that is that if your household changes, household understood to mean every human you live with who is associated with you. If an adult lives in the same house but isn’t part of your family, they’re a separate household, whereas a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend would be part of the household. Also, let’s say I’m on TANF and my minor grandson (I don’t have one, but work with me) moves in with me. My five-year clock is still in effect, but his hasn’t started yet–as a minor, you just get TANF if you are in a qualifying household–and as a minor he can’t receive the payments…but, as his guardian, I can. As you might imagine, perverse incentives flourish.
This is in the US, naturally, so it’s probably different than your heathen Canuckistani programs, but the general idea is probably similar.
It IS a rational economic choice if his time preference is now over the future. Getting a job will eventually lead to better jobs and pay raises down the line so his lifetime earnings in the workforce will be greater if he goes to work however in the short term as he said, he earns more on welfare than he would working. Also when you consider opportunity cost it may still be the most rational economic choice over the long term. If he has relatively low skills and rationally see’s himself as unlikely to be able to dramatically improve those his lifetime earnings are unlikely to be much above what he will receive in welfare benefits and so working would be a inefficient use of his time resource.
The problem is the welfare system actually encourages this kind of economic calculus
Damn. Looks like a terror attack in Toronto. Van hits 10 pedestrians.
Motive unknown, right?
Another lost driver looking for an ice cream bar?
Past time to ban assault vans. No one needs more than 10 seats.
I just saw this in the WSJ – from the comments section:
“AAA has blood on its hands and is complicit in these murders !”
Nice.
Oh that is just unimaginably awesome.
I blame Flo.
Could be a péquiste.
Probably had a beard right? the Amish aren’t very good drivers.
Justin Trudeau? Come now, we may oppose him politically but to imply he’s an actual terrorist is uncalled for.
A true welfare system would seek to help those that work hard and have a misfortune. Not those that are looking for a perpetual handout so they can avoid work. But the political class gains nothing from the first, while the former grants them a dependent voting block and perpetual power.
It wouldn’t be a “welfare system” but the proper approach would be to put an end to policies which effectively punish people for working.
And the policies that punish companies for hiring
And the policies that reward people for not working.
Something, what you reward, something something what you punish. How’s that go again?
“Books that Define Britain” from The Times of London – some great additions in the comments section:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/times2/from-sherlock-holmes-to-bridget-jones-30-novels-that-define-britain-by-stig-abell-tx2h3wq36
too bad we’ll never know what they are:
Want to read more?
Register with a few details to continue reading this article.
does it have O’Brien’s Master and Commander series on the list?
No O’Brien.
My favorite comment was “Want to read more? Register to continue reading this article.” Gold.
So… what the fuck has Sean Hannity’s real estate holdings got to do with Trump’s collusion with Russia?
A hunting we will go, a hunting we will go, it don’t matter what you know, we’ll nail the bastard to the flo’
I despise florid, aging polemicists like Hannity or O’Reilly (or Ed Schultz, for that matter, not that he’s relevant anymore), but Christ goddamn are we really getting to the point at which losing an election is license to completely overturn normal order? I don’t remember conservatives being this perverse after Obama took office.
Don’t worry, they will be. This is just the next inevitable ratchet in the tribal red vs blue wars that started after Nixon left office
Fuck you, that’s what.
You know how some crazy crazy crazy extremists actually think the government and the media are full of commies who think profit is evil?
Hateny iZ RUSHun SpIe! IM WitH HER! IpEAch DrUmPf NOw!1!!!!!!!111! StOLdEn eLEcShUn!!!11!!!11!
Russia – Rush Limbaugh – holy crap!! Illuminati confirmed!!
BTW, I did see your recommendation, CPRM. Thanks. As for your question, I have a couple of Star Wars-themed projects in mind.
You’re welcome. And we confirmed yesterday the Illuminati is behind Big Bay Leaf.
Well, both Hannity and Trump invest in real estate. Real estate is basically just land. Guess which country has the most land? Connect the dots, man.
*adjusts tin foil hat and applauds*
Gun obsession, you say?
We should be able to eat our waffles in peace. We should be able to send our kids to school without worrying that they’ll be gunned down. We should be able to go to church and not wonder whether an AR-15-toting person who fell through the mental-health-services cracks might stand up and open fire.
But we don’t feel that way. We can’t. This nation’s gun obsession has made it impossible, and those who stand in the way of any action that might limit access to guns — even to domestic abusers or the mentally ill — are insisting that their outlandish “right” to own any firearm they want supersedes our perfectly reasonable right to eat our waffles without toting a sidearm.
My advice to you is to start worrying about stuff likely to happen to you, like getting hit by a car, or falling down a flight of stairs, or getting gangrene from a paper cut.
The media’s gun obsession has made it impossible, you low-rent halfwit oompa loompa.
We should be able to eat our waffles in peace.
Tell that to the “public health” nannies. Fuckers.
Yeah, I was going to say, “Reached for comment, Mike Bloomberg said, ‘Well…'”
That’ the only mass shooting I can recall that wasn’t in a gun free zone.
It would be interesting to do an actual count of both mass shootings in gun free zones, and those not in gun free zones. If you could get a ratio of gun free zones to non-GFZ’s, you’d probably have a hell of a factoid – “Mass shootings are 18 kajillion times more likely in gun-free zones. Stop the slaughter. End gun-free zones.”
First, you can eat your waffles in peace.
Second, at 3:30 AM in a Waffle House, nobody’s trying to eat waffles in peace.
Third, at 3:30 AM in a Waffle House, there are far more likely threats to your waffle-eating peace than a crazy guy with a rifle. Your fellow diners, to start.
Finally, he didn’t “fall through the cracks”. He was identified as having mental health issues. He was placed in a monitoring program which he successfully completed. The authorities actively sought to prevent him from obtaining new guns and keeping the ones he owned, and managed that. Said guns were given to his father, which, without the benefit of hindsight, is probably the least worst option. His father, the idiotic fuckface who should go explain himself to the families of the victims, gave them all back to his known-crazy son. If I give a machete to a person who believes Taylor Swift is stalking him, I have a not unreasonable expectation that he will use said machete to harm himself or others, and he’ll probably get at least four victims before he’s stopped if he has the element of surprise on his side.
Also, no discussion about early morning and waffle houses is complete without this.
Yeah you know this motherfucker was cray because he tried to fuck with the 3:30 AM crowd at Waffle House. Frankly I’m surprised he managed to get away.
He’s actually a slippery little fucker for someone with no foot in reality, it would seem. Managed to steal a car and give the cops the slip; wasn’t discovered until today. Then he shoots four people dressed like Porky Pig and somehow manages to slip away and avoid capture.
yeah the thing I find most amazing about this whole story is that nobody in a waffle house in Tennessee at 3:30 am was armed
Right? All I could think of was that any story in the DMV about a 20-something white boy walking naked into a Waffle House at 3:00 AM doesn’t end well for him.
How’s that go again?
“From you, according to your ability to pay, to me, according to FYTW.”
I argued with my brother about the wisdom of electric cars. He wants one and disagrees that there’s no environmental impact between burning coal for electricity or gas for locomotion. I don’t know enough to say categorically whether or not he’s wrong, but it seems unlikely that burning coal in a plant, running electricity over hundreds of miles of power lines, and letting it sit in a battery with some non-trivial rate of loss can be more efficient or less carbon-emitting than burning a liquid store of energy at the place and time it’s needed.
I don’t think this is something one can intuit to much accuracy.
That’s what you say about everything.
I don’t know about the environmental impact, but I can say that I heat my house with a natural gas floor furnace and augment it with electric plug-in heaters. Last year we just used the plug-ins. Our utility bill was easily $150 lower each month this year as compared to last year, and early in the winter when we had the furnace running full blast and no plug-ins we were about $100 cheaper than when we threw the plug-ins into the loop and ran the furnace less. Having used battery-powered, corded, and gas-powered lawn tools, I know that while I prefer batteries for my tiny yard for the mobility and not having to deal with gas, I’ve got significantly less power, my operating time is much less, and I’m sure I’m paying more money per hour of operation than I would be with gas.
He’s also completely delusional about the state of battery tech. Here’s an article I sent him with a regrettable first paragraph:
*head explodes*
Right, so your shit is either nuclear powered or coal powered by proxy. Maybe solar, hydro, or wind, but unlikely in most markets.
I just looked up our state’s power composition. We’re 68% reliant on non-renewable sources.
Guy at work said he just bought a new car – Genesis hybred. I said “Neat, a coal-powered car!” He’s a real bright engineer he looked at me strange for a second then smiled and said “Yeah, I guess so.” Said the gov’t market distortions (my phrase) made it a good deal.
Nice car anyway.
Throw in the mining and disposal of rare earth minerals and heavy metals, while you’re at it. There was a big uproar on “dust-to-dust” comparisons of EVs to real cars awhile back, but I don’t know if anyone has done anything since.
For the emissions comparability, this looks fairly legit on first glance, and shows EVs with lower emissions, mostly (I think) because electricity generation is pretty clean in this country. Don’t know if it corrects for transmission loss.
I saw another Google hit on the topic from the Union of Concerned Scientists, but didn’t waste my time.
Or, a functioning link:
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php
They show coal generates 30% of our electricity nationwide.
Where mah linx?
The NRA killed them
I thought this was a joke at first, but no: lefties are crowing about Cuomo banning plastic bags as some sort of progressive policy-triumph
Oh my God it is happening!!! I knew it!!! I allowed myself to feel happy and relaxed for a few hours there, get out, enjoy the day. It was heaven. How foolish I was.
This will not pass Albany because Felder and Flanagan will block it. But it signals to City Hall that they can pass their own and Albany will not block it again. Free bags are done in NYC.
Also it will force Albany Democrats to take a stand on the issue, whereas last time they were almost entirely against. (The Assembly, which is 3 to 1 Democratic, even more overwhelmingly than the Republican Senate, oddly enough.)
Trashy,
I know I am several hours late to the party, but when I read your remark in the 1st paragraph about “resistance against those who would take advantage of me, whether it be asserting my interests when somebody is being manipulative or whether it be using violence in defense of self and others”, I was reminded of something Christian comedian John Crist recently said:
“I got only two cheeks to turn; after that it’s ON!”
Cracked me up, because I feel the same way.