pirana

I'm really torn on where the line should be drawn. On the one hand the three R's ought to be top priority, and tempting to say they should just do that and leave the rest to me (all parents). OTOH, there are simply too many lazy, unintelligent, misinformed, corrupt, etc (insert negative adjectives of your choice) parents to trust with helping to make sure each generation (as a whole) gets the opportunities they deserve. It's definitely one of those gonzo whopper moral dilemmas. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I read it again, and can't figure out if he is dissing the education system, the current generation of students; and whether he is racist, isolationist, or what. If he is the typical angry pot-stirring talk show host - probably a little of all the above. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Some of it is good, some of it is not. Some of it can be easily manipulated and abused - some pretty familiar slippery slopes. Some of it can be seen as fitting everyone into a single mold and cranking out little drones. Bottom line - almost every generation has been seen by their elders as slackers - very few exceptions. They are also always subject to hyperbolic negative generalizations. Makes good press and sells newspapers (or these days it is clicks on links). There are 2 generations in particular, the Cavalier and the one with the flappers (can't remember what they were called off the top of my head); whose elders thought for sure would be the end of America. Didn't happen. If you are the 3rd generation back (maybe even just the 2nd) and are abhorred with behaviors of some or all of our youth - that's understandable and normal - and your grandparents almost certainly felt the same way about your generation. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The economy is bleak now, and will remain so for at least another generation, probably more. No elected official from either party, no union, and certainly not the public at large is going to change that. The forces in play are way bigger; essentially relegating our politicians (ALL of them) to being bit players on a global stage. Unfortunately, most of our leadership appear to be either not smart enough to see the bigger and longer term picture and/or are afraid to talk about it. Past President Clinton is the only one who has even come close to being honest about this topic in his dicussions about needing to find new niches in the market. Everybody else is still busy playing find-the-pea, and then blaming the other side when it is discovered the pea has disappeared. The buying power of the middle class and below will remain flat at best; and hopefully not go into outright freefall. The only significant chunk of people insulated are those with skin in the global game that can make hay from overseas development and it's use of the U.S. as a market for their goods. The wacko extremist candidates being supported and their game of claims and blame are the best indicator of the weakness of our position. I've been on this for about 8 years now; maybe in another decade or so some of our leaders will begin to show some honesty and intelligence on the topic of economics. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yeah, pretty bogus process that allows for all this fuss and expense just because a minority didn't like him and didn't win - not the first time and not the second time. I suppose their next step is to do it again. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Something like 80% of all campaign donations for Senators, Representatives, and Governors come from outside the area the candidates represent. Yeah, campaign financing is totally corrupt - at least as far as the donations representing the constituency. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Which part(s) do you consider laughable? I know 2 people that each spent several years there recently, and their opinion is basically the same. China's record on human/civil rights, pollution, and quality control are what's laughable. Maybe the jump to politicizing them by calling those qualities a Big Business Wet Dream could be argued - but the measure of those qualities in themselves is proven. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Given the particular person who was the actor, and the particular person who is the peanut farmer - agreed. Carter seemed to be the last good person elected President. Which explains why he got along so badly trying to get things done working with the horribly corrupt sytems, processes, and people in D.C.. Reagan was of similar ilk, being amicable & relatively honest and all; and with an interesting approach to dealing with D.C. (as little as possible). Too bad he was simply not all that smart, and not all there at least some of the time. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Seems strange that there were relatively few prior to about the mid-40's, and I know of most of them; then there are scads from that point on, and I know of very few of them. During and after WWII, did becoming a general morph into something that was much easier to do? Kinda like grade inflation in which getting an A used to really mean something, whereas now not getting one pretty much means you didn't really try very hard. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The problem isn't with Wall Street. Market forces are good, competition is good. The problem is they are allowed to buy influence and thwart attempts at effective regulation. Most of our problems would be solved if getting elected wasn't so directly tied to raising money. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That statement is a very clear indication you should do some reading. There are lots of decent books that make the topic very accessible to laypersons - you do not need to get a biology degree. Many are quite entertaining as well as informative. I strongly recommend Genome - now a bit dated but IMO the best written yet for non-biologists. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Depends on exactly what you are asking. The kind of people that used to get elected, and made very good presidents, were first and foremost people of integrity, with a solid vision of the direction we needed to go, and good at judging character (the better to surround themselves with competent people). The Presidency is not a hands-on job; there are simply too many tasks and way too much detail. Rather what is required is the ability to lead with integrity and see as far out as is reasonably possible. On the other hand, if you are asking what it takes to get elected today - a strong ability to deceive & manipulate, ability to manage relationships instead of experiencing them, the ability to craft messages rather than speak honestly and openly, the ability to take advantage of the sensationalist claptrap that now defines most journalism, and in general to use all of the above on the huddled gullible masses. Small wonder the slate of candidates is so pathetic the last few elections; or as Deming said - our processes are perfectly designed for the results they are generating. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I don't know that, and I'd like to know how you "know" that. Were you in on the conspiracy meeting? Even if that is true, I'm good with it simply because of the side benefit of a steadily decreasing traffic fatality rate. It's done for the same reason we have building codes; because if you let every person practice their own personal preferred version of liberty cities would be burning down left and right from people who felt those nuisance laws about how to properly wire a house were infringing on their liberty (beating chest in psuedo-macho patriotic manner). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It is assinine to argue against mandatory seat belt laws - too much is at stake and it's not just the it's-my-life-and-I'll-take-it-if-I-like bonehead that is gonna get killed. If it were more like motorcycles where the only head you're likely to split open is going to be your own - cool, leave the helmet at home and go kill yourself. I have noticed that most vehicle deaths seem to occur when the person is not wearing their belt. I do believe that at least here in rural WI, dying in an accident while not wearing a belt is the number one cause of accidental death - if you want to call that an accident. Chatting with the kids the other day (giving daughter #1's BF driving lessons) and they found it amazing that as recently as my youth there were still cars being sold new w/o seatbelts. I think the motto of the non-users s/b "Give me liberty AND give me death." " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That's what happens when everybody's self-created definition is given validity - and intelligence is one of those for which most people's definition is designed around their personal agenda. What they are actually defining is their emotional need - not intelligence. What's happened with this issue is everybody is trying to create rational arguements to support their emotional need. Some people (don't know the exact percentage - but would make for a good research topic) simply must have a person, or group, or some other entity thru which to live vicariously. In our modern society that roll seems to be falling really heavily on pro athletes and teams. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Agree with all. Only would add that any deals made have to pay for themselves immediately, not deferred. Seen too many times a company move in for tax breaks and around the time they expire threaten to leave unless given an extension or in some cases additional items. To be fair, pro sports teams are not the only ones capable of that. Remember the number Northworst Airlines did before finally getting run into the ground. Bilked the state for a lot of cash, then did the equivalent of "Sorry, changed our plans." Also were counting on nobody noticing the multimillion dollar parachutes all the executives got on the way out. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Show us one example of a city or state financially damaged by a pro team leaving town. It simply does not happen. Everybody continues spending their money, just on other stuff. The epitome of what this is all about is easily recognized by a line from an influential public funding proponent back when they were trying to keep some team or another from leaving several years back. The person's biggest fear was that without their favorite pro team the Twin Cities would just be "a cold version of Omaha." It's all about ego, misplaced pride, and ignorance. They really count on taxpayer, fan, and politician ignorance. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Name them. And they need to be things for which a facility of this magnitude is needed. High school sports championships do not count - the facility is radical overkill for that. No convention can count because we have a convention center already that can accomodate practically any need. I've never seen 50K or 60K people at Supercross, Monster Trucks, or wrestling around here - so those can't count. What exactly are all those other events that merit the local governments, against the will of the people and behind closed doors, putting up half a billion in taxpayer money? Oh, I forgot - it's because they are so much smarter than all of the private investors who wouldn't come near such a boondoggle. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yep; this issue is all about satisfying emotional needs - not economic ones. And the leagues count on government agencies to be wowed by bullshit stats because they want so badly to believe them as support for their emotional need. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Poor comparison. You are comparing basic infrastructure and security needs to an entetainment business. Subsidizing pro sports is more like subsidizing Hollywood movies, thrill rides in theme parks, morning radio talk shows, and so on. Also, the fact that the rich and influential have hijacked government as an arm of their corporations is hardly a good reason to allow it to continue, or make it worse. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

People living in towns w/out pro sports teams still spend all their discretionary income, they just spend it on something other than pro sports. The money circulates just as well, generates jobs just as well, creates taxable income just as well, etc. The people who think it is really important to have pro sports should be willing to pay the cost at the gate. Player salaries and owner profits being what they are, fans of course are not willing to pay the real cost of putting on the game; so they couch it in emotional arguements about pride and loyalty; as well as distorted statistics and outright lies about what will happen if the team leaves - things which have NEVER been evidenced to have happened. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Why? Return on investment can be non-monetary. When I invest in my child's education, I do not expect to get that money paid back with interest by my child. When a municipality invests in their community, they similarily do not look at the return as solely a financial matter. So what are the non-monetary returns from subsidizing pro sports? Some sort of pride? How is subsidizing billionaire owners and millionaire players a source of pride? Nothing else to be more proud of than that? Pathetic. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You asked: My responding question gave you a hint to the answer. When a city loses a major league team, and the venue goes dark, they certainly lose in property taxes. Then you follow with a scenario regarding building a brand new stadium, where non existed before. Which means you are moving the goal posts. maybe you should figure out which scenario you want to discuss first? I've not seen any evidence that the collection of taxes is suspended just because a stadium is not in use. Can you point to something that indicates the entities responsible for collecting taxes waive said taxes for the property owner if the team leaves? This is a rather trivial detail though, since eventual abandonment and reuse for other purposes would occur; and taxes would be collected once again. Not sure why people think pro sports is some sort of magical bullet that bolsters an area's economy; it is proven otherwise. But again, it isn't an issue of economic stimulus - it's more that some people somehow feel second class if their city doesn't have a top notch team of millionaire athletes to coddle. The desire for pro sports is emotional, not economical - which is what allows the owners and players to continue bilking taxpayers. Hit the people who want to go at the gate with the true cost of putting on this absurdly expensive form of entertainment and it would morph nearly instantaneously back into the game and entertainment value it ought to be. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

As far as I know, the only activities that fit that definition are amatuer sporting events - none of which need a place anywhere near that size or cost. I just realized my sig line accurately summarizes the relationship between pro sports teams and their fans. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You think property taxes for a vacant stadium are the same as property taxes for an operating stadium? Not sure what your point is. I'd agree that it would be silly to build a stadium and have it be vacant. But again, how is that relevant? Not sure the differential in property taxes between a vacant stadium and an operating stadium (if there is one) is germain to a debate on whether the building of a stadium should be publicly funded. If the thing is such a good deal, and such a moneymaker - form a corporation, issue stock, and everybody who thinks it's such a great venture can buy all the stock they want. Bottom line, there are 2 reasons for the team owners to milk the public for these funds: #1 - if they had to actually cover all their own expenses the tickets would be even more expensive than they are now, causing far fewer people to attend, and . . . #2 - because they can. Still waiting to hear of a case where a team left town and caused economic hard times. I'm being facetious of course because there is no such thing. The real reason people tolerate this shit is because they are emotionally tied to the team(s); entities that will shit on them in a heartbeat. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley