Daft metaphor time
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jacog Sep 05, 2007 1:14 AM EDT |
Last weekend I was at the grocery store to buy... well... groceries. Anyway... I went to where the eggs were, and there was a lady mopping the floor there. Now, understand that in this country a large part of the population are very poor and poorly educated and have different sets of priorities than you and I may have. This lady was mopping right in front of the free range eggs, so I carefully leaned over so as not to dirty the floor again and picked up a slat of 18 free range eggs. Then she proceeds to point me to another brand of non free range eggs and points out that those were in fact cheaper. So I said no thanks, I was quite happy with my selection of free range eggs. Then she asked me if they were full grain eggs, do they taste better, do I like them more, are they fresher and such things. I was going to take a moment to educate her about the difference between free range eggs and non free range eggs, but it was quite obvious to me that it would really not mean anything to her at all. The farming methods were a near irrelevant afterthought with cost being the first priority. Do you feel like this sometimes when you try and explain to someone what FOSS is and why it's a good thing? I do. |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2007 2:40 AM EDT |
>The farming methods were a near irrelevant afterthought with cost being the first priority And yet she was being quite rational. Her questions came down to this: Is there any difference in the eggs to justify the price? That is the right question to ask, don't you think? |
| jacog Sep 05, 2007 3:00 AM EDT |
>That is the right question to ask, don't you think? Rational yes, but for a different set of values. I pay slightly more because I find the alternative's farming method questionable. Free range egg farms require more space, so they have fewer chickens and their profits are lower, so yes, of course it will be slightly more pricey. My priorities are different, so I gladly pay the extra few pennies. For me "Do they treat their chickens well?" is the right question to ask. For you, it might be something different. Same with me software. I stick to open/free stuff as far as is practically possible. At least I can trust it. EDIT: If the eggs were completely crap, of course, I would not buy it... but in this case, they serve the function of an egg as well as any egg can be an egg. I want eggs, they're eggs. |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2007 3:29 AM EDT |
>For me "Do they treat their chickens well?" is the right question to ask. For you, it might be something different. It is a good question that makes no difference to the eggs, but, here's a question for you: Do they treat their chickens well? After all, the restrict the birds' freedom and steal their eggs, at the very least. Probably eat some. |
| jacog Sep 05, 2007 3:36 AM EDT |
So, with this silly story acting as a metaphor, you say you're kinda-of like the FSF then? :) Actually... using your logic, one could ask why big companies get rich off the free (as in beer) labour of FOSS code contributors when the programmers themselves often don't get much at all. |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2007 3:54 AM EDT |
>So, with this silly story acting as a metaphor, you say you're kinda-of like the FSF then? :) Hey! Someone's got to play the lunatic fringe. >Actually... using your logic, one could ask why big companies get rich off the free (as in beer) labour of FOSS code contributors when the programmers themselves often don't get much at all. It may not be quite as bad as that. After all, the programmers give permission to steal their eggs -- an exercise of will denied to the chickens. And, we don't eat the programmers. At least, not yet. |
| jacog Sep 05, 2007 4:04 AM EDT |
Yah, programmers aren't very tasty anyway. |
| gus3 Sep 05, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
Not all motivations stem from monetary advantages. http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/070622-tk.html |
| jacog Sep 05, 2007 7:54 AM EDT |
Good piece |
| gus3 Sep 05, 2007 8:43 PM EDT |
Yes, and a welcome break from the usual "Capitalism, yay!" fanboi-ism of the Libertarians. |
| azerthoth Sep 05, 2007 9:28 PM EDT |
nevermind. |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2007 3:02 AM EDT |
>Yes, and a welcome break from the usual "Capitalism, yay!" fanboi-ism of the Libertarians. Your comment makes no sense to me. Umm...It's a piece by a Libertarian who, as I read it, is a big believer in Capitalism. Being a believer in Captialism doesn't keep you from participating in a food co-op, getting your electricity from an electric co-op, or, if you're a farmer, storing your harvest in a grain co-op. It doesn't keep you from using or contributing to free software, either. |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2007 4:49 AM EDT |
> ...and a welcome break from the usual "Capitalism, yay!" fanboi-ism of the Libertarians. It's a common misconception that businesses are only interested in profit. That's their primary objective, yes. But businesses are run by people, and people always have more motives than just making money. |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2007 5:06 AM EDT |
>It's a common misconception It's also a common misconception that belief in free-market capitalism as the basis for an economy precludes believing in anything else. It is entirely possible to believe in a wide range of things - including things that are economic or pseudo-economic in nature - while accepting capitalism as the best basis for an economy. For example... Churches tend not to work on capitalist principles, but many libertarians go to church, take part in their activities, and offer up funds to support them. Charities are another. Nothing about believing in capitalism keeps you from helping to put up a Habitat for Humanity house. In fact, just the opposite: a believer in private property can easily justify helping a family acquire wealth to more fully participate in the economy. |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2007 6:06 AM EDT |
> It is entirely possible to believe in a wide range of things - including things that are economic or pseudo-economic in nature - while accepting capitalism as the best basis for an economy. Yep. Capitalism is an economic system. It's demonstrably the best economic system we've come up with. But economics is only one part of our lives. There's far more to the world than just economic concerns, and any reasonable person realizes this. Nor are economic concerns or only, or even primary, reason for making decisions. Which is kind of the whole original point of this thread. There will always be those who have to make decisions such as what eggs to eat on the basis of how much they cost because they simply can't afford to do otherwise. For most of us who own computers, that's not the case and we can afford to make such decisions for other reasons. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 06, 2007 11:11 AM EDT |
> There's far more to the world than just economic concerns, and any reasonable person realizes this. Nor are economic concerns or only, or even primary, reason for making decisions. Which is kind of the whole original point of this thread. I would change that only to swap the word "economic" with the word "monetary". I'm not sure that "economic" can be limited to just monetary concerns. It's well established that "everything is a trade-off", so every action has a "cost/benefit analysis" done even if we're not consciously aware of it. I doubt that anyone here hasn't heard the term "barter economy", in which by definition there is no money but there is an "economy". Dino points out that "money profits" are not the only motivation people have. It is illustrative that in the most "capitalistic" countries there is also the greatest contribution to charitable organizations and works in terms of both money and time. At this point I would like to reiterate that "capitalism" is the private ownership of the means of production. What most people rail against when talking about "evils of capitalism" are actually special favors by governments, the destructiveness of protectionist tarriffs, limited liability for the damages of pollution, etc, which are not "capitalism" at all and happen even where the economy is fascist or socialist rather than capitalist. |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2007 2:20 PM EDT |
> I would change that only to swap the word "economic" with the word "monetary". Point taken and agreed with, but you're making a distinction which is probably beyond most folks. Not the people here, of course, but the public in general. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 06, 2007 2:40 PM EDT |
> you're making a distinction which is probably beyond most folks. Oh no doubt! But my reaction to that is mixed. In one way, I do wish people in general were better able to think logically, better able to discern what they read, things like that. However, I am also very glad that the farmer isn't spending his time doing other things, I'm glad that the truck driver isn't doing something else, that the myriad people who do the myriad things that keep the machines of commerce moving, are doing whatever it is that they do. One reason I have for abhorring intrusive bureaucracy: It causes people to waste their time instead of making more money for themselves by satisfying the wants of others. |
| gus3 Sep 06, 2007 9:32 PM EDT |
Oh dear, it looks like yet another of my comments has given rise to an argu^H^H^H^Hdiscussion. Had I known the result, I would have worded it differently. How about, instead: Yes, and a welcome break from the usual "Corporate America, yay!" fanboi-ism of the Libertarians. One thing that bothers me about the Libertarian Party is how its spokesmen and "great thinkers" have defended Microsoft's attempts to strangle the market, calling it "free enterprise at work" (when really it would create a very un-free monopoly). The piece I linked to shows the error in this thinking. I mis-worded the comment, and I apologize. However, I am glad to see a very healthy exchange of ideas that came from it. And, for the record: I gave up a job doing tech support in Silicon Valley, and took a factory job in my home town, in order to be near my parents in their retirement. That has been worth far more to me than the pay cut I took. So I know from personal experience that it isn't all about money. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 07, 2007 6:35 AM EDT |
> have defended Microsoft's attempts to strangle the market, calling it "free enterprise at work" I think you'll find, if you dig a little bit deeper, that those same "great thinkers" use a _lot_ of Linux and have for a decade. Not all, certainly, but far more than the general supposed 10%. What is defended is Microsoft's choice in what they do with their own property. Windows. What they do with it, bundle in it, remove from it or add to it, is _their_ decision. Shall we decry KDE for bundling a web browser with their file manager, and giving it away? The defense of Microsoft's writing their software as they wish to write it is the same as any other defense of a private property owner to do with their stuff what they wish to do with it. "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You will also find tirades against Microsoft's outright theft of various products, and their abuses of patent and their EULA. For example, http://blog.mises.org//blog/archives/002739.asp Be careful not to confuse the message (private property) with the messenger (Microsoft). |
| dinotrac Sep 07, 2007 8:11 AM EDT |
Bob - Yes. One of the interesting things about antitrust legislation is that it's one of the few areas of law that focuses on what you are rather than what you do. Thomas Watson, Sr. refused to settle the first antitrust suit that the feds brought against IBM for that reason. Essentially, as a monopolist, you are expected to refrain from doing things that are perfectly legal for your competition to do. That suit was only settled when the senior watson retired and handed IBM over to his son, Thomas Watson, Jr. I've always been amused by the invective and deep hatred reserved for Microsoft. Mind you, I don't believe that they are good corporate citizens. They are cutthroat and ruthless. What they are not is unique. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 07, 2007 3:01 PM EDT |
Dino, what I know of IBM anti-trust was a suit brought around 1970, which was not settled. It may be the same one you talk about. The suit was about IBM doing in hardware something akin to what Microsoft did in trying to remain incompatible, in order to slow the use of Amdhal and other 3rd party components on IBM mainframes. The IBM legal team was able to drag out the prosecution for so long that at the end of it IBM just wasn't in any kind of "monopoly" position any more. The point was moot. Business works faster than bureaucracy. In an environment of low barrier-to-entry, any "monopoly" can only continue if they serve their customers better than anyone else, out-innovate everyone else, or at least be perceived as doing so by their customers. Microsoft is very, very good at perception. I just worked with a neighbor to install Firefox on their brand-new Vista machine. IE was screwing up a form they needed for their school assignment, Firefox did it perfectly. The demo version of Office2007 that came with it was unusable, they had already put a back-rev copy of Accademic Office on it. I gave them the OpenCD with Firefox and OpenOffice on it, with my complements. Microsoft's monopoly is all perception. I don't see how perception can be made illegal. |
| dinotrac Sep 07, 2007 3:34 PM EDT |
Bob - The first IBM antitrust suit was filed in 1952. It was settled in 1956, by Watson, jr. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 07, 2007 4:53 PM EDT |
Neat. I didn't know they were hit twice for it. |
| dinotrac Sep 07, 2007 6:35 PM EDT |
>Neat. I didn't know they were hit twice for it. Microsofties are pikers by comparison. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 08, 2007 3:25 AM EDT |
Microsoft was quick to set up Daddy's law firm in Washington, DC, and start the campaign contribution pipeline. In the IBM case(s) it seems more that "our lawyers are better than their lawyers". |
| jrm Sep 08, 2007 3:57 AM EDT |
Another difference... IBM fought back, but they also changed their behavior. MS is following the same strategies they've always used. I still think that the DOJ bungled the MS antitrust case. It seemed to me that the arrogance of BGates and other MS execs angered the judge, and the judge rescued the DOJ from their own incompetence. (No, I can't prove it. Just my impression.) |
| dinotrac Sep 08, 2007 5:11 AM EDT |
>but they also changed their behavior Ummm.... They didn't change their behavior until Watson, Sr. handed over the company. He took a principled stand that the antitrust action was wrong in its nature and that it unfairly penalized IBM for nothing more than success. |
| jrm Sep 08, 2007 5:45 AM EDT |
> They didn't change their behavior until Watson, Sr. handed over the company. The whole antitrust thing went on for what, 40 years? That seems incredible now. |
| dinotrac Sep 08, 2007 5:57 AM EDT |
>The whole antitrust thing went on for what, 40 years? That seems incredible now. No. Two seperate actions. A second antitrust suit was filed in 1970. Again, people are so jazzed up about Microsoft that they have no perspective. IBM was hit wint 2 -- count 'em 2 -- antitrust actions, settling the first only when the company's leadership changed. Both were fought tooth and nail. And -- I still have a hard time considering Microsoft's desktop monopoly to be in the same league as AT&T's control of telephone service in the US. To be close, you would have to be prohibited from owning your own computer to run Microsoft software. |
| jrm Sep 08, 2007 6:09 AM EDT |
> No. Two seperate actions. I thought that the original consent decree wasn't terminated until the late 90s. |
| jrm Sep 08, 2007 6:15 AM EDT |
> I still have a hard time considering Microsoft's desktop monopoly to be in the same league as AT&T's control of telephone service in the US. To be close, you would have to be prohibited from owning your own computer to run Microsoft software. Wasn't that also what got IBM in trouble initially? Didn't they pretty much insist that you lease from them instead of buy? |
| dinotrac Sep 08, 2007 6:20 AM EDT |
>Wasn't that also what got IBM in trouble initially? Didn't they pretty much insist that you lease from them instead of buy? I believe that was the case, but the old memory gets foggy. And, of course, bundling, etc,etc,etc. The old IBM played very hard hardball. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 08, 2007 7:58 AM EDT |
> in the same league as AT&T's control of telephone service in the US. Ah, but AT&T was a government monopoly grant. What MCI &etc sued for was removal of the legal restrictions against competition. Sadly, the regional and local monopoly grants were maintained, and the various regional bogo-firms have spent the intervening years buying each other back, so AT&T might as well have not been "broken up" at all. Oh well. Simply removing all monopoly grants would be far more effective. The VoIP market is a good example. > The old IBM played very hard hardball. Microsoft learned by reading the IBM playbook. It is my understanding that the term FUD was coined to describe IBM techniques of undermining the competition, long before Microsoft even existed. The new and improved IBM that Loves Linux and F/OSS may very well be a real and lasting company policy. It certainly is working for them, and "us". But like any other competition, it is your false-friend which will do you more harm, and faster, than any declared enemy ever could. We may be able to trust this generation of IBM executives, but each new team will have to prove themselves. It cannot be assumed that policy will not change in the future. |
| dinotrac Sep 08, 2007 10:31 AM EDT |
>It cannot be assumed that policy will not change in the future. Egg-zactly. Too many of our young a-FOSS-ianados seem to carry over TV-Video Game-Action Movie viewpoints of companies. It's not a simple good guy/bad guy world. Sometimes a company is run by bad actors, sometimes by good actors, but, always, they will be looking to make money. |
| gus3 Sep 08, 2007 11:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:It cannot be assumed that policy will not change in the future.Maybe so, but WRT Micro$haft, I'm certainly not holding my breath. |
| jdixon Sep 09, 2007 4:06 AM EDT |
> ...I'm certainly not holding my breath. Gates has effectively retired. Wikipedia reports that Ballmer is 51. I'd say we can expect significant change at Microsoft in about 15 years or so. |
| Abe Sep 09, 2007 6:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'd say we can expect significant change at Microsoft in about 15 years or so.I hope they don't last that long. If they do, I consider it a failure on FOSS part and the IT professionals. |
| gus3 Sep 09, 2007 8:19 PM EDT |
Fifteen years?!? Maybe the board of directors will get so sick of the bad PR created by the chair-tosser that they'll oust him before then. But that would almost guarantee Gates' return, just like Jobs to Apple. Talk about a choice between two evils... ;-) |
| ColonelPanik Sep 10, 2007 5:27 AM EDT |
Time to re-read the "Cluetrain Manifestio"? Yes, even the tech companies can miss the train. Hell, some of them were run over by the Cluetrain. |
| salparadise Sep 10, 2007 10:36 PM EDT |
Capitalism is demonstrably the best economic system we've come up with. Sigh. And the countries kept artificially unstable to keep the cost of resources down? The countries plundered of their own resources who see the profits go to "western companies"? The countries who's markets are flooded with discount surplus from our markets? The countries whose peoples are dying in the millions because western drug companies will not share the blessing of medicines? All these are also signs of how marvelous our system is? You capitalists make me sick - never has this earth seen a more blinkered, willfully blind, self-congratulatory, selfish bunch of people as capitalists. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 10, 2007 11:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:Hell, some of them were run over by the Cluetrain. Some keep jumping in front of the cluetrain intentionally over and over again! |
| jacog Sep 11, 2007 12:52 AM EDT |
Sounds like a weird dream I had featring an assortment of characters from Jeeves & Wooster. It had a scene in it featuring a huge riverboat speeding down the canals of Venice, and these children kept flinging themselves into the canal in front of this speeding boat. The passengers thought it was hilarious. Then at some point the side of the boat crashed into a patron at a canalside coffee shoppe who was none other than Roger Moore as James Bond, holding a big sniper rifle. Even Freud would be confused. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 11, 2007 3:37 AM EDT |
> All these are also signs of how marvelous our system is? What you describe are the effects of _merchantilism_, not capitalism. Merchantilism, or what is now known variously as Fascism, Corporatism, the "Third Way", was what Adam Smith railed against in his "Wealth of Nations" when describing exactly the same economic and political effects that you do. And you are absolutely right, these are awful things. I would like them stopped also. So let's work together instead of letting the vested interests confuse things with their NewSpeak and Big Lies which cause concerned people like yourself to call for yet more of what enriches those interests in the first place. I think you would benefit by reading some of the daily articles on Mises.org. The subjects vary, so they keep their interest. Jacog, Freud wouldn't have been confused, that was one rocking dream! I think he would have asked for you to tell it again, but slower this time... |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 4:17 AM EDT |
>never has this earth seen a more blinkered, willfully blind, self-congratulatory, selfish bunch of people as capitalists. I can see you've forgotten about communists and socialists. Capitalists are pikers by comaprison. At least they don't control the state -- er, "the People". Long live the Proletariat -- so long as they don't live too well, that is. From each according to his ability, to each according to what "we" decide they should have. After all, "we" know so much better than those dull sods. |
| jdixon Sep 11, 2007 4:43 AM EDT |
> You capitalists make me sick - never has this earth seen a more blinkered, willfully blind, self-congratulatory, selfish bunch of people as capitalists. I never said capitalism was perfect, Sal. I said it was the best system we've come up with. You're always welcome to come up with one that's better, but so far none of the challengers have even come close. The record of the socialism and communism is far worse than that of capitalism. As for selfish, which country do you think leads the world in voluntary charitable giving? Please note that government aid is not voluntary, and so doesn't count in determining whether a group of people are is selfish or not. |
| salparadise Sep 11, 2007 9:44 PM EDT |
I dream of a world where the betterment of "the man standing next to me" is sufficient motivation. A world where no reward is required for labour given. A world where all are inspired by the sheer joy of existence and the joy of reaching out and helping another. I don't think capitalism is the best we can come up with and I think those that think it is are lacking in vision and imagination. As for coming up with something better - not to small an order then eh? Short of eugenics and enforced wealth limits, I don't see anything, other than some sort of planet wide awakening, having the desired result. And you cant legislate for morality/consciousness, which brings us back to square one. I don't think that not having a better alternative stops us from pointing out what's wrong with the current system. |
| azerthoth Sep 11, 2007 10:49 PM EDT |
I fear a world that the betterment of anyone other than myself is motivation for anything. We have the betterment of our fellow humans going on right now and it scares the dickens out of me. Why, because we already have legislated morality. Every legal system on the planet bar none is based upon some sort of belief system of what is right and moral, even the ones we think of as evil or corrupt. Freedom on a societal scale is nearly impossible, if for no other reason that for every freedom granted to society you have to restrict the freedoms of others. If you wish to allow people to read anything that they choose, then you have to restrict the freedoms of those who believe that they should have control "on a moral basis" what is right and wrong. If you restrict neither, then you allow the more restrictive a larger voice in getting the ears of those legislators who will in turn restrict what you are allowed to read and therby what you are allowed to think. Am I crazy, nope, its already happening here in the US and has been for awhile. Speaking of which, on Socialism, it has been said that the only way to reach a true socialist state is through democracy. I think that it is a true statement, and after looking at what has happened in the last 30 years in the US I despair for the next 30. |
| salparadise Sep 11, 2007 11:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:We have the betterment of our fellow humans going on right now and it scares the dickens out of me. No we don't. What we have now is a bunch of scary self-righteous people attempting to impose social control using "for their betterment" as justification. This is about as far from what I meant as chalk is from cheese. What I'm talking about is love not legislation. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 3:53 AM EDT |
>No we don't. What we have now is a bunch of scary self-righteous people attempting to impose social control using "for their betterment" as justification. Well, I don't think we can legally or morally get rid of all the Democrats, liberals, and Hollywood wingnuts, so we'll just have to live with it. |
| salparadise Sep 12, 2007 4:19 AM EDT |
Live with - yes. Listen to and allow to achieve positions of power and authority - is where my/our problems begin. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 4:25 AM EDT |
>is where my/our problems begin. Sadly, yes. |
| jacog Sep 12, 2007 4:50 AM EDT |
I live in a country where the minister of health thinks you can cure AIDS with garlic and lemon peel. She also recently got a liver transplant which allegendly she managed get by skipping in front of the line of the organ donor waiting list through some manipulation, and demanded alcohol while she was in hospital. Anyone on an organ donor waiting list waiting for a liver forfeit their position in line if they drink any alcohol within 2 years of the transplant. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 5:34 AM EDT |
>cure AIDS with garlic and lemon peel I don't know about a cure, but eat enough between brushings and you may be able to prevent it! |
| jacog Sep 12, 2007 5:39 AM EDT |
Giving up the use of deodorant works too. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 5:49 AM EDT |
jacog - Y'know --- I think somebody should pay us a few hundred million to attack this AIDS problem. Between you an d me, we could have it licked in no time. |
| jacog Sep 12, 2007 6:08 AM EDT |
Wellll, I think licking it might not be the best solution... oooo-errrrrr.. NC-17 post, I'll go wash my mouth out with soap. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 6:09 AM EDT |
>'ll go wash my mouth out with soap. Better use garlic. We gotta be safe here. |
| azerthoth Sep 12, 2007 6:26 AM EDT |
OK smarty pants, whats the cure for Italians and Greeks going to be? |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 6:38 AM EDT |
>OK smarty pants, whats the cure for Italians and Greeks going to be? Mexican food? |
| jdixon Sep 12, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
> I don't think capitalism is the best we can come up with and I think those that think it is are lacking in vision and imagination. I sincerely hope it's not, but I don't have anything better. Whether that's due to a lack of vision and/or imagination is for others to judge for themselves. > I don't think that not having a better alternative stops us from pointing out what's wrong with the current system. No, but there's a huge gap between that and what you said above. Sometimes, it helps to reduce things to their most basic concepts for comparison purposes. Capitalism, at its core, is people being free to do what they want with their possessions. Everything else flows from this. Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, at their core, are the relevant government deciding what people should do with their possessions. Yes, that's a gross exaggeration/simplification on all counts, and there's lots of room to argue the finer points, but it's still largely true. Being a relatively strong advocate for individual freedom, I think it's obvious which of those two I think is best. :) Almost all economies today are some mixture of those two extremes. It can be argued that that mixture, rather than either extreme, actually works best (I personally don't agree, but I think most people would). Of couse, even if you accept this, there's still lots of room to argue about the details of the mixture. :) |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 13, 2007 11:27 AM EDT |
> Listen to and allow to achieve positions of power and authority - is where my/our problems begin. Sal, I couldn't agree more. I like this new phenomenon here on LXer of agreement. Much more interesting than disagreement. JD, even the most ardent supporters of individual liberty argue details, because as individuals each of us has a different preference in the details. I want Pepperidge Farm to make their Brussels cookies in an orange variant, for instance. My wife doesn't like orange and chocolate at all. Details, details! I was walking down North Capital Street in Washington, DC, this morning, stopped in a grassy area reading a placard about "general" George Washington building two brick houses on this spot in 1798. I put "general" in quotes because, in 1798, he had already been president, and president takes precedent. Anyway, two guys walked by, one loudly lecturing the other about... Oh, never mind. Needless to say, the subject was about how wonderful it was that the government ran something that was crowded and dirty, rather than leaving it up to private enterprise, because of how awful it would have otherwise been. I don't know what else I could have expected, being in the belly of the beast. Arbitrary authority. Assertion without support. |
You cannot post until you login.