Blogdaughter Tammi of Road Warrior Survival says greed is bad:

Not just greed for money or things. Greed overall. A person can be greedy for power, attention, success.....anything. Being overly concerned with having the most of ANYTHING is not good.

I avoid people like that to all degrees. For one main reason. You can't trust them.

Me, I'm not so sure. Let me check the dictionary:

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

Looks like it all depends on what you mean by "excessive" and "more than what one needs or deserves".

Tammi does the sensible thing and draws the line later in the post as follows:

They will step on anyone, use anything to make themselves look good.

Fair enough, I'd consider lying, cheating & stealing "excessive".

However, all too often I see people (usually the business-hating left as they pimp for higher tax rates) defining greed as "the successful acquisition of more than I have, regardless of the means used to acquire it".

I don't agree with that.

Greed is simply the desire to accumulate, which everyone has to some degree. What matters is HOW you go about doing the accumulation. If you're exchanging value for value and engaging in win-win transactions, then I don't think ANY of your aquisitory desire can properly be called "excessive". Some people look at Sam Walton (founder of Wal-Mart) as greedy. I see him as merely successful. He didn't cheat anyone. He was just better at the retail sales game than everyone else.

I suppose I'm just being nitpicky and overly concerned with a minor semantic point. However, the fact that "excessive" remains undefined allows unscroupulous people to smear the ambitious with charges of greed. That's why I'm uncomfortable with the term, and that's why I'd prefer that, when people use it, they draw a clear line on where "acceptable" crosses over to "excessive".

Unlike Tammi, I've never seen a Democrat/lefty/socialist make the effort to do that.

Posted by: Harvey at 08:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Via the Showcase, I found Dawn of SWFw/Attitude [Note: the permalink page seems to have display issues in Firefox. If you can't see it, try going to the main page & scrolling down to November 22 "Don't we owe them something?"] asking a question, which she sets up thusly:

I do volunteer work every Monday night at a local place that cares for kids who are in dire straits.[...]The ache in my heart sometimes comes from the fact that there is almost NEVER just one child from an unfit home -- there are almost always at least two and, most often, there are three or more.

I guess my "issue" tonight could be best put in the words of Keanu Reeves's character in the movie Parenthood: "You have to have a license to drive and you even have to have a license to fish. But they'll let any butt reaming a$$hole be a parent."

The question that vexes me tonight (and many Monday nights) is:
Why do we continue to let unfit parents procreate ?? [emphasis in original]

Dawn, I know you're just having a bad day, and you know the answer. You're only asking the question rhetorically out of frustration, the same way I continually ask, "My dog can come when I call him, why can't my beer?".

But let's say that your question was being asked by some crazy left-winger with no control over her mouth or brain who sees no necessary limitations on the power of government to do whatever it wants, as long as it's "for the children". I'll call her [picking a name completely at random] Teresa Hunts-Catsup, or THC for short - since she's obviously high on SOMETHING.

The problem with the question is the use of the word "we". "We" means "you & I, together". But in the question, THC doesn't mean "we". What she MEANS is "someone BESIDES me". What she's asking is for someone she doesn't know to go up to someone else she doesn't know and forcibly (albeit temporarily) sterilize them sexually. Generous woman that she is, THC is willing to pick up 1/100,000,000th of the tab via her tax dollars, since it means she doesn't have to get her hands dirty.

Here's the question she's NOT asking, but which really IS part of the "we": "Why do *I* continue to let unfit parents procreate?"

And the answer is "because I don't really want it bad enough to do it myself".

The thing is, keeping unfit parents from breeding IS something an individual could do. You could spend your time tracking down unfit parents and then bribing, cajoling, persuading, threatening or intimidating them (within the boundaries of civil law) until they accepted sterilization. But this means investing your own time & money, plus having to actually look the unfit parents in the eyes and say "I think you're an unfit parent, and I would prefer to see you sterilized."

Which is a hard thing to do, and I wouldn't blame anyone - even wacky liberals who like to see kids
running around naked - for not having THAT much dedication.

It just always makes me a little edgy to have people wishing for the state to do an unpleasant job for them that they aren't willing to handle themselves. History has shown FAR too often where such wishing can lead.

Posted by: Harvey at 06:39 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

Blogdaughter Machelle of Quality Weenie makes a note of how Kerry won Michigan:

Detroit was the deciding factor in Michigans vote. Because counting Detroit's vote Kerry Won 51% to 47%. If you took Detroit's votes out Bush would have won 52%-48%.

So why is Detroit so Democratic, one reason. Welfare recipiants. 20% of all people in Detroit are on Welfare, that's close to 1 in 4 people. The last time we had a Republican Governor in office he cut Welfare and initiate back to work reforms for Welfare recipiants, they don't like Republicans.

There's a thought I've had for years, but rarely dare to speak publicly, lest I be branded some sort of hate-monger, but here it is:

If you get direct payments from the government, you don't get to vote.

Why? Because you've been bribed. There's a direct conflict of interest. If a judge had a direct financial stake in the outcome of a trial, he'd have to recuse himself. Why should voting be any different?

This would be an incentive for people to think twice before suckling the government teat, and would also help keep incumbents from buying votes with cash payments.

Whaddya think?

Posted by: Harvey at 09:01 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It does create a conundrum. It is kind of like what I wrote about a while ago regarding the death of a democracy - people will figure out that they can elect people who will give them more, which will drive the country into bankruptcy. Just ask France. Or any socia1ist country. (Tangent: Did you know that the term "Progressive" is the modern replacement for the word "Socia1ism"? FYI) It is an interesting idea to not allow someone to vote who is on the take. But that would leave out people on Social Security (until it gets privatized) and that wouldn't be a good thing. So you would have to qualify that people not-eligible for SS - or specifically peeps on Welfare forfeit voting rights until they are off it. Something like that. (note: Socia1ism is spelled that way because if the "1" were actually an "l", then the anti-spam software wouldn't let me post because c_i_a_l_i is a bad word.....) Fuckin' Spammers gotta fuckin' fuck up every fuckin' thing. Them fuckin' fucks.

Posted by: _Jon at November 17, 2004 10:18 PM (RZ4Hy)

2 Jerry Pournell wrote (and I'm paraphrasing here, because I'm too lazy to go to the bookshelf and get find the actual book) "The Republic can only survive untill the majority realizes that it can vote itself a largess from the minority." So taking the vote away from the recipients of such a payment would (hopefully) prevent that from happening. On the othe hand, I kind of like the Heinlein suggestion. Only those who serve in the military get the right to vote. But only once they've completed their term of service.

Posted by: GEBIV at November 17, 2004 11:06 PM (UJD3H)

3 Jon, senior citizens on Social Security EARNED that money. They worked and paid their taxes their whole life. People on Welfare don't EARN anything. There's the difference. I don't have a problem with seniors getting government payments getting a vote (that would include my father). I do, however, have a problem with people "on the dole" without paying into the general fund, voting. Harvey's on the right track. Lest thee think I am slamming faceless, nameless "others", I'm including my loser sister-in-law and her sorry sack of flesh ex-husband. They vote Republican, God help us, but I'm willing to lose their votes. My EX brother-in-law once got on the cover of more than one nationally circulated newspaper spitting in the faces of people at Planned Parenthood as he screamed and threatened bodily harm to them. Oh, the family pride that day! (He has time to threaten people at women's clinics, but he can't be bothered to, you know, work.) I'm a pro-life Catholic, but I choose to let others make their own choices without my saliva in their faces. Anyway, the two of them have MAYBE worked a combined TOTAL of five years their entire lives (they're in their 40's) and breed like gerbils. Do these people deserve a vote, I think not. They get free government cheese, free school lunches, WIC, food stamps, you name it. No pride whatsoever. Despicable.

Posted by: Momotrips at November 17, 2004 11:22 PM (IlAxX)

4 This is why early philosophers directly compared democracy to tyranny. Democracy being rule for the benefit of the poor, while tyranny is rule for the benefit of the tyrant. Either way, the government was not encouraging all people equally to pursue a good life for themselves. (Particularly Aristotle)

Posted by: Chris at November 18, 2004 03:40 AM (9EFGI)

5 What about retired active-duty military? Or anybody in the military, for that matter? And what about their dependents? Would you disenfranchise them, too?

Posted by: Jason at November 18, 2004 06:47 AM (O0Fqp)

6 Screw that, let's go back to only landowners voting!

Posted by: Ogre at November 18, 2004 06:51 AM (/k+l4)

7 Voiding the welfare vote would be good, but the Heinlein rule would bebmuch better (and would mean that after the first years of mandatory sevice, continued active duty servicemembers could vote). Welfare sponges don't work or contribute to the tax base or the benefit of the nation. SS was intended to be a Safety Net for those unable to provide for themselves - but even now they at least provided some input, albeit much less than then glom off now. Active duty miltary? That is not sponging off the nation, it's providing a service - and they lay their lives on the line for your freedom. What's the last job your whiny-azz had that laid our your life to soak up a bullet? And I don't mean if you CHOSE to work in Detroit, NYC, DC or wherever - military units don't get to chose their assignments. Over half of all emoployed Americans get $ from the Government, directly or through contracts, subcontracts, sub-subcontracts, etc. Would it be fair to eliminate ALL of them from the voting rolls? Sure. Wise even. Dependants included. No military, Defense contractors, teachers, legislative or admin workers for Fed, State, County, Minicipal, or other local authority - nor any of their families. THAT would straighten out our elections in a hurry.

Posted by: Ron at November 18, 2004 10:52 AM (mK7aJ)

8 What about people who take tax deductions and credits? What about people who are employed by the government? What about people in the military? What about people who use publicly-funded services - roads, water service, trash collection, public schools, police, fire department, sports arenas funded by tax money, Medicare? Get serious. A person who needs government assistance is guilty of nothing more than being poor and probably unskilled labor. Maybe disabled. That doesn't negate their rights as a citizen. And they are no more "bribed" but the government than any other person in this country who fits any of those categories I laid out above.

Posted by: hope at November 18, 2004 10:59 AM (OGg4f)

9 What about people who take tax deductions and credits? What about people who are employed by the government? What about people in the military? What about people who use publicly-funded services Um Hope, all those people that you mentioned above are actually paying taxes into the system to get those things out of the system. Welfare people are not paying into the system so not only are they getting "free" money but they are using those services without paying for them. There is a big difference there. In Detroit there are genrations of families that have been on Welfare. I say if your that poor the government is going to pay for schooling for you so get off your ass and get yourself some training so you can get a good paying job and get off welfare. But they won't, because that requires work which they are unwilling to do. Healthy, ablebodied people have no excuse not to work.

Posted by: Machelle at November 18, 2004 11:45 AM (ZAyoW)

10 People on welfare pay sales tax. And the Republicans apparently think this is the best tax of all. Besides, have you ever calculated what the value is of all your publicly-financed goodies and compared it to the value of the taxes you've paid? And by the way, if you live in a Red state, your state is getting back more federal dollars than are paid in by people from your state. The notion that everyone on welfare is ablebodied and lazy and on it forever is inaccurate. That may be your perception but it isn't back up by the research.

Posted by: hope at November 18, 2004 02:19 PM (OGg4f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blogdaughter Boudicca of Boudicca's Voice has a woman's take on implants, but here's mine.

I don't find them attractive.

Well, let me qualify that. When they're on an airbrushed model in a still picture, they're nice. When they're on a in-the-flesh naked woman, they just look kind of freakish.

Let me qualify that some more. While on vacation, I spent some time on a nude beach, and got the opportunity to examine a plethora of hooters. The plastics don't move right. They don't jiggle fetchingly, the skin looks tightly stretched, and they lack that pleasant, squeezable appearance.

Maybe they'd be ok if they were covered up. I'm sure they make for wonderful cleavage. But when they're hanging in the breeze, I say - keep it real.

Oh, and nipple location is an issue. That whole "perfectly centered" thing... creepy.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:35 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

1 LOL! 'they don't jiggle fetchingly'.

Posted by: Boudicca at November 15, 2004 06:14 AM (XH1zZ)

2 That "perfectly centered thing" can be achieved in the natural state with judicious applications of duct tape and malted milk balls.

Posted by: LeeAnn at November 15, 2004 08:36 AM (vqSdN)

3 But they are MUCH better for intermammary intercourse!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at November 15, 2004 09:47 AM (Uq/6d)

4 It was these deeply intellectual discussions I missed most while you were gone...

Posted by: Susie at November 15, 2004 11:21 AM (cpb8T)

5 What I wonder is how fake boob women sleep on their stomach at night. I mean when I sleep on my stomach I have to smush them just right so they don't interfere. With fake boobs can you really move them enough to get comfy?

Posted by: Machelle at November 15, 2004 12:05 PM (ZAyoW)

6 LOL Susie! I'm so glad you're back, Harv ;-)

Posted by: Sally at November 15, 2004 02:41 PM (a1D32)

7 Wow... Machelle. I guess they don't sleep on their stomachs... being a small breasted woman that doesn't have to worry about it, I never thought about that. One time I was lying on my back falling asleep and my husband reached over and thought he was touching my shoulder blades. Ahhh... good times...

Posted by: Boudicca at November 15, 2004 03:40 PM (XH1zZ)

8 My SIL got fake boobs. I never thought I'd ever see her tits. Once she got 'em, it was like, hey, everybody, look at my new bike, except it was her tits. They didn't look that bad to me, but I ain't never, well, almost never, seen on that did. Since my wife was present, and not that that matters, cause I wouldn't have anyway, there wasn't no "ripeness checking" going on. It's now somewhat difficult to be around her(SIL) because I'm thinkin' hey, show me that kick ass new bike you got again, will ya?

Posted by: RedNeck at November 15, 2004 05:41 PM (T5uzX)

9 I've always said more then a mouthfull is a waste... However larger ones can be fun to play with, they need to be proportionate to the woman. Also, you are right fakes don't jiggle properly. If they are going to have ginormous jubberlies then they should be bouncy, boyant and beautiful.

Posted by: contagion at November 15, 2004 05:48 PM (iZg6D)

10 My ex had fake boobies... when sho took off her bra, they flaoted gently up towards the ceiling....

Posted by: Madfish Willie at November 15, 2004 06:20 PM (Uq/6d)

11 YES, contagion, I have been saying that for years, but Nobody agrees. Most of them say,"I thought it was a handful." Eh, whatever. Not had much experience either way, what can I say.

Posted by: tommy at November 15, 2004 07:36 PM (haOzA)

12 MW - "intermammary intercourse"... yeah, ya got me there :-) Machelle - please tell me more about the smushing... just keep talking... I'll be here typing one-handed :-P Susie - I'm LOL'ing with Sally :-) And by the way, I'd like to hear more boob-talk from you, too, since I KNOW you're in with the "big & natural" scene ;-) RedNeck - Um... can I borrow your SIL? ;-)

Posted by: Harvey at November 15, 2004 10:50 PM (ubhj8)

13 I don't really have much of an opinion. I'd prefer natural, but hey, I think I'd like anything shaped well. I like legs better. Or asses. Okay, maybe boobs are right up there. Just a well put-together woman would do fine. And by that, I mean she still has most of the original appendages! As far as nipples being perfectly centered, that wouldn't bother me... as long as they don't look like they're following me around the room!

Posted by: That 1 Guy at November 16, 2004 01:25 AM (uJW+4)

14 Ever had one with a big boob and a little boob.. that's really freaky... but if you are out of town so your buddies don't know and REALLY REALLY DRUNK... it might be OK....

Posted by: Madfish Willie at November 16, 2004 06:48 AM (Uq/6d)

15 Harv, You can borrow her, but I'll tell ya up front brother, she's high maint... Madfish, When you get those with one bigger then the other, they can take 1st and 3rd in the wet tshirt contest.

Posted by: RedNeck at November 16, 2004 07:58 AM (Z5aIH)

16 I hear there's a strip club in Atlanta where for $50 you can get one of the strippers to give you a black eye with one of her mammaries. Not sure if it would hurt more to get a silicon-induced slap or a natural ninja-boob punch. [don't ask me how I know this information...just file under "neither here nor there knowledge"]

Posted by: Melissa at November 16, 2004 10:10 AM (ZuKAk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment