OCinBuffalo

The more backpedaling you have to do, the longer your posts get. You made a stupid assumption, and I called you on it. That's it. Stop trying to decorate that reality with BS sprinkles. Buddy, Obama's admiration for European socialism is common knowledge. Do I also need to define the concept of gravity for you as well? Don't be ridiculous. Are you that dense that you can't see the ass-licking Obama, and many of his far-left colleagues, have been giving the European Socialists, and their "ideals" since 2005? When I was in Center City, 9/10 times when I would talk to the Dem consultants I knew, they would tell me the country was irretrievably moving left, on a grand scale, and that I would just have to get used to it. There was no question in their minds as to whether they were socialists, or would be very soon. The only question was how far they would take it. Why would there be any questions in Barry's mind, as the leader of both these people, and the "transformation of America"? The only way one can say Obama is not a socialist: by default. He didn't get to continue to do what he had been doing due to 2010, so we'll never know "how far they would take it". But, in 1.5 years of Obama, the American people, and especially independents, had seen enough. Like I said, this discussion is ridiculous. The evidence clearly shows that either Obama is a socialist, by definition, or he's the worst sort of cynical fop, whose not even smart enough to realize he's no longer fooling anyone with his act. Pick one. There is 0 value in having an "intellectual" or "analytical" discussion, that attempts to deny this reality, or consists of you trying, poorly, to spin out of it. "They have to eat" has been your answer for 60 years. So, can we expect that you will start working on the other 4 needs next year? Of course not. The year after? Has the last 60 years been the "interim"? So, does that make welfare a 180 year program? You know, beginning, middle and end? "interim"....ridiculous. Will you EVER attend to this issue properly? Of course not. So, you want us to continue to support a program that causes more problems than it solves, will NEVER work, that you will NEVER conceive of properly, that you will NEVER be able to manager properly, and you will NEVER expand to cover the other 4 needs, and therefore cannot, by definition, EVER add REAL value.... ...because "people have to eat"? While they've been eating, you've been busy destroying the humanity of entire extended families, and then wondering why none of these people have the life skills to cope...with life...moron. Ridiculous

Matt Damon, and his whining, is funny. So, yeah, it's a joke. However, the reason he is whining is clear: socialist expectations not being met. It's exceedingly difficult to say whether Obama, the man is a socialist, or, whether he was just pumping up the far left to get votes/money. We all know how much of a phony he is, so that makes it even more difficult. We can say many of his policies are socialist, or ended up that way. Again, hard to say whether by design or default. The truth is, due to the giant wave in 2010, we can never truly know how much of a socialist Obama is, or would have been. For example: The Obamacare debacle was his fault, no matter how you slice it. If he's not a socialist, and doesn't personally agree with forcing people to buy something, then he should have LED the way on the legislation that bears HIS name. Instead, he let socialists(are you gonna tell me Pelosi isn't one now?) create a nightmare. So, is it him being a socialist, or an idiot? I wonder, if Obama gets elected again, are you trying to tell us we won't see MORE of the same far-leftist...or, socialist....crapola? Or do you think Mr. Green-Shovel-Ready has learned his lesson? Who do you think you are? Mohammed Ali? "watch me dance, I'm sooo pretty". Buddy, you wrote what you wrote, and I hammered you for it. That's what happened. Now, own it, and move on. Your entire screed attempted to attribute the nonsensical crap you hear from racists regarding welfare, to me, by telling me how I think. Don't want to get hammered next time? Don't make the assumption you know how I think. Simple as that. The rest is just you trying to talk your way out of what you assumed your way into. We're part of the way through your post, and you still aren't at my level regarding this discussion welfare....so, what should I expect for the rest? I did answer your question, albeit in a goofy way. This time around, I answered it in an undeniable, boring way. No, you really haven't. Mostly you just throw around a lot of logic lingo and pretend that saying "straw man" means you win. Essentially I have ignored you when you've done that, after all, why reinforce bad behavior? Like right now: I have made a clear and convincing case that welfare, due to it's purposeful ignorance of the other 4 basic human needs, and over-dependence on survival alone not only minimizes the effectiveness of it's own effects, it also exacerbates the causes of the problems it is intended to solve. And what are we likely to hear from you in return? Babblity blab, contrapositive straw man disassembledy fallacy blab. If you disagree with me, then provide specifics. Tell me why my point, which is soundly based on BOTH widely accepted behavioral science theory, and my own real world observations, is wrong. Sure I did, and I have, again. Specifically I laid out why welfare fails, specifically when it is used as intended. I also specifically addressed your "riots in the streets" warning, and called the bluff. Then, I backed up my personal observations, which are extensive, with theory that is widely accepted(Glasser) by a number of different disciplines, including my own. Buddy, you are the one failing to address any of this. So again spare me. IF I thought any of your blabity blab merited analytical thought, rest assured, I would have addressed it analytically. For example, from above, please define where "I have found flaw, after flaw, after logical fallacy, after analytical incongruity, after non-linear reasoning...with your posts" requires analytical thought to address. Specifically, since when does linear reasoning require analytics? Looks like you got caught in your own sea of blablity here. And thank you for not addressing it. Is it because you can't? Or don't want to deal with it honestly? What exactly have I mischaracterized? The theory is sound, it works, and all I have done is apply it properly to point out the flaws in the government/social conscience people's thinking. This sounds like more blabity, "I can't deal with a methodology being applied properly" blab. yawn. irrelevant. The only surprise here is how long it took for me to drag this out of you. I must be slipping, or, perhaps I felt some need to ease up on you. Same to you, and to all my dysfunctional family members here at PPP!

They are already doing that for the specific purpose of gaining the power they lost, ask Georgia and Ukraine. Thank you for making my point for me. You are the best ...lybob. Nobody hands me the game faster/better. IF Russia had only isolationist designs, the very last thing they would do is cut off what they are able to export. So why do it? Why are they out forging alliances and trying to create a new Eastern Bloc? The fact is that Russia wants things to go back to the old days, when liberals like you(edit: not all liberals) were afraid of them, and told us that we had to appease them, in the interest of peace. When Reagan came along and made you look...like what you are, and treated them like...what they are, coupled with the fact that they had done NOTHING to improve their standard of living for 80 years....that was the end of Communist side of things. But that doesn't change their overall mindset = dominating Europe, as Putin himself has openly stated on many occasions. Now, you are telling me that the people we had to appease, who are 100% about gaining power, both then and now, are no threat? Why exactly? Because they don't call themselves communists anymore?

You're both dumbasses. Buftex for the original analogy, and Chef for setting her up. How long have you been here? You're just figuring this out now? But, if Tom's propensity to argue didn't exist, then this board would be somewhat reduced in entertainment value. ........ Again, same as welfare, same as every government program: short-term thinking that has been allowed to live long term, and, has been predicated on bad requirements definition. These government people don't FAIL because they don't try. Or, well, I believe that some of them do try, in spite of their limited abilities. It's not lack of trying, it's lack of problem solving skills, the ability to think critically, and more importantly: analytically. They simply haven't defined the problems they are trying to solve properly, and completely. This is why we keep getting "one-size-fits-all" from them, or in this case, "one-lunch-fits-all". They simply don't have the ability to conceive of and manage a program any other way. Their organizational structure should also take some of the blame here as well. Consider: it might have made sense to ask some of the kids to taste the food first, and thus effectively determine what kind of healthy food is required. Seems obvious, but when we are talking under-skilled, linear-thinking government employee? When we are talking about non-thinking, "respect my authorita" zealots like Michelle Obama? Not so obvious at all. The answer: inevitably economies of scale loses to diminishing marginal returns, when we are talking enterprise business process, and life in general. The unfortunate fact is that most government people, and the statists who think they are the answer to everything, have no idea what that last sentence means. I'll make it easy for them: how much do you value a Christmas present, that is the exact same as what everybody else got? Sure, it was easy for the gift giver, and nobody can claim it isn't "fair", but chances are it doesn't really meet anybody's needs.

Perhaps you should ask Matt Damon. After all, Obama went around and set some pretty....socialist expectations, for someone who isn't a socialist, and now Matt Damon is whining. IF Obama didn't set those socialist goals and make a big deal about it to get Hollywood $$, then why is Damon whining? Or, we can look at this the other way: What if Obamacare was actually a good law? What if the stimulus had worked? What if those Global Warming emails didn't get leaked? What if most of what Obama has done worked/was seen as positive? What would be talking about right now? A payroll tax cut? Not hardly: a payroll tax increase? Yep. That and basically everything else in the book. The only reason Obama isn't more of a socialist today is the inherent failure of socialism causing him to FAIL. This has nothing to do with where he was in his thinking 3 years ago, or, what he'd be doing to the country right now, if his socialist ideology hadn't been fully exposed already. Yeah, you're the one defending 60 years of FAIL, and political expediency, if not flat out bribing people/pandering...but I am being myopic? Please. This notion is rejected, properly, on it's face. Well, then you think wrong. I am not the usual person saying the usual things that you have heard for the last 20 years, because I don't like black people. You wish. But, too bad for you, I am completely different, and I will crush you on this issue. I am not arguing what you have heard before: Difference 1: I care about the people on welfare, and I don't despise them. I want them to be treated as people, not as farm animals, who need to be fed and told where to move. Welfare, and all of this, comes from an LBJ, deep South sense of "we need to take care of these childrens, because they can't do for themselves". Now, you tell me who's being prejudiced. Difference 2: I don't care who has what babies, that's none of my business. However, paying for them, if we have to, is, by definition, our business. I am just as horrified by forced abortion as I am horrified by the scene at Tops when a welfare mother has to hand over her papers, or whatever they are, and be embarrassed. Nothing good comes from either scenario. Do that to this mother enough times, and you debase her. You take away whatever humanity she has. Then, you dare wonder why she can't seem to keep her legs closed? Your program causes more bad behavior than it could ever possibly hope to mitigate. I don't want to pay for you to go on destroying people's self-worth. I don't want to pay for you to have complete control over somebody and psychologically regress them into childrens, there, LBJ. Christ, the Scarlet Letter of the Puritans has nothing on you and your pieces of paper. Difference 3: As somebody who spent their entire K-12 experience observing the embarrassment of the school meals program, I can tell you: get rid of it. You aren't helping anybody. And, making a kid deal with admitting he can't pay, every day, for 9 months a year, is not "helping" him/her. It does far more damage to them for life, but, since they are farm animals, all they need is to be fed, right? Get it? I could go on, but there's no way in hell you are at my level on this argument. Before I go on, I will give you the chance to get up here. This is babble. It doesn't fail because it is misused here and there. It fails when it is used for its intended purpose, as I have already described. You have yet to find a real flaw in anything I have posted, ever. Even my troll stuff, where there were flaws, you didn't really hit any of it. This is what you are not getting. When? They already have been completely debased. Time for DC people to catch up to what is happening in the real world = What I have seen and heard from the people who are on welfare for the last 30 years. I assure you: they are debased. There already is bedlam = an entire generation of inner city kids who think it's ok to flashrob a store. Now, where does that level of entitlement come from, if not, ENTITLEMENTS? Buddy, you are describing hypothetically, from your lifelong perch in the suburbs, exactly what city people already know to be true. And yet, you appear to have a slight grasp on the situation, but, you aren't interpreting it properly. Why am I not shocked? You have your cause and effect mixed up, and, you are acting like its still 1965. We are playing way past all of this on a daily basis. It's time to update your understanding of what is actually happening. This is not 1980 and we are not talking about cutting welfare. I am, and perhaps when I am done with you in this thread, you will be: talking about creating the conditions where people can choose to be successful. The massive flaw in your thinking is already conveniently in bold above: you appear to think that merely feeding the farm animals addresses their needs in totality. Perhaps it's time for some Glasser for you. Here: I'll save you the trouble of googling....Glasser summarized Welfare, and most government social programs, are completely based on the need for survival, and go out of their way to crush the other needs human beings have. Still think my position is based on some welfare queen assclownery? If you do, then you aren't paying attention.

No, actually, I am arguing the exact opposite. I am arguing that we have a series of firsts wrt to Russia that, combined, create a situation that has been seen before, in other countries, and has created conditions where war is an inevitability. We are now seeing the same realities in Russia, many for the first time. What's the difference between Russia of the 1910s and today? Now they have exponentially more access to their own raw materials. ......of the 1930s and today? Now they are far superior in weapons, both in terms of numbers and effectiveness. The list goes on. You are trying to tell me that these firsts don't exist, and that Russia is still living in the 1930s, and will continue to act like it, just like they always have = Maginot line. Pretending that these realities don't exist, or, somehow don't point directly to war, is ludicrous. Interestingly enough this war could hinge on Iran's nuclear program, but, in all cases: Europe would schit themselves if we completely pulled out tomorrow. You know it, I know it, and that's the point here: they don't pay for their own defense. They expect us to pay for it, and then talk schit about us being materialistic, and even Imperialistic Coming from Europe? We have been doing the same jobs with less and less men and more and more training and technology since the 1980s, everywhere. Europe is no different. The fact is that this fact is not very relevant. We are still spending boatloads on air, and air defense. And ADA is not a function of troop strength. So, whatever. This has nothing to do with whether we pay for Europe's defense. Or, how much their budgets, and therefore, their overall social spending policies, would have to drastically change if they had to hold their own ground for 2 weeks, never mind successfully defend their country on their own.

#1: This entire thread is predicated on the existence of a college professor, that would not only acknowledge the failure that is socialism, but would also be willing to debunk it in a public setting? I ask you: even if said professor existed, wouldn't they be immediately attacked by the rest of the faculty(see: Duke Rape Case) such that this experiment would end immediately? #2. Communists are for eventually reaching it. In the meantime, they espouse socialism, until the day true Communism can be attained. So, attempting to make the distinction is silly. As if the socialist, when his society is on the brink of attaining Communism, would say "Stop, I'm a socialist, not a Communist, so we have to stop right here". That's only because no nationally relevant politician wants to get their ass kicked at the polls. There were plenty of clowns trying to catch some of Obama's socialist fire, until the recent object lesson in "why socialism, never mind Keynesian economics, has no hope of fixing any problem, never mind structural employment economic issues". Now, the only Democrats out saying that socialism is a good idea....are the ones sitting next to Obama in the bunker. They are just as done as he is, so they have nothing to lose. Edit: I am watching Bill Clinton prove my point for me right now on O'Reilly. And why? Hillary still has something to gain. You don't have to be on the fringe of society to know failure when you see it. Long term failure. Welfare fails entire families. They become FAIL. But, of course, if you can claim that you are "helping" people, by passing a bill 6 months before the next election, it solves your short term political goals...so...F these families, right? Yes, the same target demographics have seen either 0 improvement in their condition since 1965, or worsening of their position, but I am Joe McCarthy because I tell you the truth. Neither Big or Small European states pay for their own defense, and, as we see today in Spain's election: even with that, socialism doesn't F'ing work. If the NATO plan was for Sweden to actually hold their ground for 2 weeks on their own, until we could reinforce, that would be the end of Sweden's socialism, immediately. Think I'm wrong? Have your guy introduce a bill on the floor that only suggests a mere review of our deployments in Europe, and/or NATO financial commitments, and watch your inbox fill up. Sure there will be our defense contractors...but there will also be a buttload of lobbyists from European companies. Yes, and isn't it funny that the people who complain about US militarism the most are also the people who benefit the most by it. If militarism = spending our tax money on defending foreign countries from obvious threats...yeah, that's "militarism". The irony of the "free marketeers"....who apparently think those markets are that way because...they just are....is hysterical as well. Edit: to clarify, markets always exist, regardless of government. Whether they are free or not is dependent on a government. Actually? I think it's far past time to call that bluff. It's one thing for the LA riots to occur: they were unexpected because the verdict was unexpected. It's quite another if people know the scumbags are coming today, just like they did yesterday. History has proven: sooner or later the farmer always beats the hunter. People demand order, and history has also shown the lengths they will go to get it. And, this is America. You think that riots occurring, because the Federal government has been incapable of governing itself, will lead to people thinking its a good idea to give you MORE power, and not choose to handle it themselves instead? Ridiculous. I am not sure. Really. I don't see how dehumanizing a set of people, by treating them like animals, herding them into lines, making them wait for hours while your bureaucrats determine their lives for them, forcing them to publicly embarrass themselves on a daily basis...makes them more likely to act: human. I think it's quite possible that this is worst alternative. 50 years after LBJ, has anything gotten better for poor people? Really?

I have a gay business associate who told me: "There's no way in hell we are going to support this. Where's the upside for us?" I imagine that just like any group, gay people have their idiots and smart people. It will be interesting to see if the idiots prevail, but I am betting we won't see any parades any time soon. I mean, my buddy is right: this is a bag of douche for them, and what purpose is served by them carrying it around?

Unmitigated moron. If we pulled out of Europe tomorrow, they'd have to convert 75% of their social spending to defense the next day, and that's the end of European socialism, or, they'd just go sign a new Neville Chamberlain "you better not" agreement, and get rolled....just like last time they ignored a leader with major popular support, an entire economy based on war with the major difference: enough raw materials to fight indefinitely. But, in all likelihood, Europe is too old, too dumb, and too limp-wristed to do even that much about this. In fact, it's possible they would much rather get rolled over than admit they are completely wrong politically. We know this. We are well aware and decide to protect these absolute hypocrites(easy to be anti-war when somebody else fights your battles for you), anyway. Europe represents a huge market for us, so we tolerate these mouthy Fs and protect them anyway. But, that's what it is: toleration of bad/idiot behavior. We create the conditions for them to live in their phony world, but that doesn't mean we should live in it too. They've been living it for so long, "we spend responsibly on our people and negotiate with our enemies, so we only have to spend a little on defense" may sound like the truth, and most of Europe is dumb enough to believe it, but it's a massive lie. And, for the Ron Paul idiots: what is the #1 reason Europe has been a free market since 1945? Hint: our "militarist war mongering". You are an even bigger unmitigated moron, because you know better. The only real use for understanding history is the ability to understand what is the same, but more importantly, what is different, between last time and this time. Tell us how this Maginot line argument you are building works....

Ok, I've given up trying to find an unbiased, reasonably written, non-editorial news article about this. We'll just have to wait and see if Arpaio actually gets indicted for something. But, to borrow a comment I saw at the Washington Post version of the article above: it's awfully sketchy that the head of the division, is leaking his own report, before he releases it, before he indicts anybody, and before the grand jury says a word. I thought prosecutors never said a word about an ongoing investigation? Where's the lawyers here? Is this normal?

Further evidence of the ridiculousness of this article: What letters? This is the 7th paragraph. There is nothing about letters above it, (edit: or upon further inspection, below it.) What are the chances that English is not the first language of this AP reporter? What are the chances that this is a load of crap? The more times I read the article, the more sketchy it is.

First of all this is one the most poorly written articles I have seen in a while. Either the writer is incompetent, or, they are intentionally trying to distort things here. It's impossible to tell if they actually found anything, or not. At no time does it actually say WTF they actually found, and can prove, that actually violates constitutional rights of American citizens. This is a civil rights case, right? Then at the end, they say this: WTF? That's all the stuff in the article above that was supposedly in the report. How do you establish a pattern of alleged wrongdoing? Don't you just establish a pattern of wrongdoing? Sending f'ing emails is not a civil rights violation, and neither is yelling at inmates, or putting them in solitary for discipline problems. OTOH, the first time I saw this guy on TV, I laughed my ass off. The pink unis, and the tents, and the $1 a day for meals, all of it seemed funny, and also told me "don't get arrested there". I thought it was a creative way to actual make jail a deterrent. However, the 10th time I saw this guy on TV, I started to think: it seems he's enjoying this too much. If any of this trash heap of an article is true, it's too bad, because this seems like one more case of overreach. He had a good thing going, he should have enjoyed his 15 minutes and left it there. OTOH, I am of course suspicious of this Justice Department, particularly when they have been exposed so many times already. Especially on matters of civil rights, as in "we won't do any cases involving white people", this group has been sketchy at best. And, I am supposed to believe that a guy with a last name of Perez, who is a political appointee of this administration, in charge of civil rights, has no axe to grind regarding illegal immigration? So thank you Dave, now I am completely confused by this article, and I have no idea what to think. We'll have to wait and see.

Heh, nap. If you thought Jimmy Carter and Al Gore's post-office holding behavior was inappropriate at best, and completely classless at worst, wait till you see Obama's.

New York Times just did a puff piece on Paul, of all people. Now, in what time, other than the Republican primary, would the NYT be extolling Paul's virtues? Please. Oh, I don't know, Russia perhaps? It's hysterical that liberals, who did everything they could to prevent us from winning the Cold War, on the premise that it would tempt the Russian Juggernaut into WW3, now insist that Russia is no big deal. The hypocrisy of this is staggering. Liberals can't seem to get their history straight, and they refuse to see things as they truly are. Ask the Polish people if they think Russia is no big deal. Hell, ask the Germans. Why do you think the Polish are so pissed at Obama over the missile defense shield debacle? Russia is $10k and a case of vodka away from attacking Europe(the cost of the bribe), and has been since Peter the Great. Well, maybe it's $100k now. The ONLY thing stopping them? Their fear of the US. IF that fear goes away, there's nothing to stop them but the ocean. And you think France, never mind Germany, has nothing to defend against? Almost all of Russia's current economy is based on 2 things: raw materials and war production. They have a bigger aging population problem than anyone, and are therefore staring national poverty in the face....and you think there's nothing to worry about? Hmm. Poverty, and a schitload of weapons, tanks, with gas for all of it...what could go wrong? Meanwhile, they are forging alliances with China, who is about to have 50 million poor men running around with no chance of getting laid, or doing anything other than being a peasant. Yeah, no problems there. No chance for war at all. And ALL of this, all of it, is a direct result of socialist policies. IF you can't understand this, then you are an unmitigated moron. But yeah, go ahead and call me a war monger for simply telling you the truth.

Now that the Democrats have seen Romney and Gingrich under fire, and see their ability to weather the constant media attacks on both..... ....they are wishing for Paul to get the nod. Why? Because they know their guy has no chance against either Romney or Gingrich. For the last time: What if Germany had to pay for it's own defense? What if we didn't pay for it and provide for free? Holding up Germany as an example is ridiculous. Europe can't even meet it's obligations with us taking care of their defense for them.

The difference is: Miles Davis, Willie Dixon, Muddy Waters and Motzart for that matter, would have done what they did, regardless of whether money was involved. As such, they were: artists. An artist doesn't spend 20 minutes telling you how good his next work is going to be, sometimes in his medium itself. He may want to show you the work, but in general, he completes it, and then moves on. In stark contrast, we have rappers, who take a song, and continue to remix and sell the same thing over and over, and they even celebrate the fact that you bought it! One rapper can reissue the same song over a four year period, and live on it. Then, everybody starts covering the song and then they begin their remix campaign. This is the diametric opposite of what an artist does. An artist lets their talent do the talking, and for them their expression is the only things that matters. Now, we are sure to find ways to nitpick this, and examples where The Beatles played a song one way, and then later played it another. But the fact remains: A single Miles Davis song probably contains more talent than the last 20 #1 songs and all their inevitable remixes combined.

You posted song lyrics. I responded with a comedy routine. Not only is it salient, it's entirely appropriate. Again, the "system" and the "media" is not who I am looking out for at 3am. The behavior of some idiot? Yes, that's what I am looking for, and if you think idiot only applies to black people, you're nuts. Do you think I'd be OK with getting mugged, as long as it was a white guy? Nope.

Yes, he didn't conclude that democracy and socialism are so good together, that they will inevitably become the standard. Maybe you should try remembering which board you are on.

That all makes sense....until you remember Obama is President. Which means currently the entire Federal government is predicated on blaming the producers. I am sorry but you cannot escape this reality, and the reality that Wall Street put their money into Obama as much if not more than Hollywood. They knew which way the wind was blowing. They pay people for that. Now, those same people are telling them the wind is blowing the other way, and, Obama decided to virtually tar and feather them, in a lame attempt to cover for his massive mistakes in governing. Now, you will see what you accurately described above. Do you blame the producers for fighting in a war that was declared on them?

I am fan of Biggie, and I am huge Metallica fan. But, I suffer from no delusions: nobody will care about Biggie or Metallica in 10 years, nobody will remember either in 50. I'm not deluding myself into seeing artistic value in what amounts to kitsch, so I can appear "urbane" and "erudite". You sound like a grown up suburban teenager, who's trying to defend his buying all those NWA tapes back in the 80s, by now attributing the trappings of the bard to them. It's ridiculous. Dude, you cannot see the scam, because you are patently NOT a city person. And, these guys have been scamming you for so long, that now you are psychologically committed to it. Let me make it plain for you: if you suck and have no money, no real athletic or musical talent, and the best thing you can aspire to is having your own corner some day, that sucks. Especially when you know there are other kids who are doing things right this minute that are going to get them money, that you can't even comprehend. So, the only choice is to convince people that no, in fact, your life rocks, and theirs sucks. Your situation is cool, and theirs is weak. Then, you put together some beats and you go out and cut a 16 track infomercial describing how cool your situation is, and of course, how cool you are. Meanwhile, the kids in the suburbs, who are bored, because let's face it, the American dream of their parents is, ultimately, boring, hear your infomercial, and, being kids, say to themselves "hey, that's sounds cool". A perfect product for a perfect market. Get it? It's a scam. The fact is that most urban kids who are living in bad situations would do anything to get out. There are lots of ways out: the Army, Sports, etc. But, if you are a kid who has a lot of raw marketing talent, rap is the way to go. And, if they can feel better about themselves along the way, that's a bonus. But do not delude yourself, you are buying those steak knives, with the bonus sharpener, for $19.95 every time. In contrast, Miles Davis, or Muddy Waters/Willie Dixon, who can all claim to be as badass as any rapper, if not more, stand a good chance to last. Why? Because they were original, and, what they did actually requires talent above that of a Vaudevillian.

This is perfect. Joseph Schumpter: Capitalist::Dan Rather: Non-partisan, Positive(not Normative, there's that word again) Journalist The man wrote a book predicting the inevitable end of capitalism, and describing socialism as the inevitable solution.... ....and you cite him, here, in this context?

Whaaaa! Somebody else is getting attention! Hehehe. You are done. Yes, "the system" is what I am worried about when I head to the convenient store at 3am. In fact: (NSFW) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7HHB3sDtfA "Nothing makes a _____ happier than not know the answer to your question. What's the capital of Zairre? 'I don't know that schit, I'm keeping in real'. _____s love to keep it real: real dumb". "Ted Koppel ain't never took schit from me. _____ have. Schit, you think I have 3 guns in my house cause the media outside? Oh schit Mike Wallace, Run!" "You know what's sad man? Martin Luther King stood for non-violence. Now what's Marting Luther King? A street. And I don't give a F where you are in America, if you on MLK BLVD there's some violence going down. It ain't the safest place to be. You can't call nobody and tell them you're lost on MLK. 'I'm lost, I'm on MLK' 'RUN!' 'RUN!' RUN' The media's there!" Chris Rock knows, why don't you?

But with Oprah, you do...nothing. It's interesting that you say Donahue. Perhaps that's where all of this started? It's either that, or Entertainment Tonight, or Geraldo.

I have done plenty of cost benefit analysis in my time. The problem here is: how the F are we supposed to quantify the the benefit? We can throw cost around all day. Cost is the easy part. But, if we can't know the actual benefits, and what attaining them mean to our business, the only thing we can analyze is the marketing mileage out of saying "we are sustainable". Somehow I don't think we can use Al Gore's definition of benefit. How can I make money off these benefits? That is their value. If you can't answer that question, with real numbers, then these benefits don't exist. For companies like Starbucks, whose entire business is marketing, this is fine. But there is 0 marketing benefit for a software/technology company. Thanks. That true cost of capital idea is interesting. I don't know F all about Basel III, etc. so I guess I have homework to do. Reason I ask is we some interest from the industry. It's just talk right now, and I'm trying to figure out our angles....long way off.

I have lived in cities my entire life. Big ones. I sold my car in 2005 and I doubt I will ever buy another. If I need one, I rent it. We can all provide anecdotal evidence of the random dude from the block that made good. How does that explain or refute the national urban teen pregnancy #s? Again, there's very little to learn from a guy who's song refrain is "slap my B word up". Yeah, how much time should we spend on interpreting what the "artist" was trying to express? Where is the value in that? 300 years from now, is a music appreciation teacher going to be challenging her students to provide what "slap my B word up" means to them? This culture has no value. None at all. (Edit: well put it this way, it had a lot of value, when I was in 9th grade...dancing around like an idiot. It was fun. Rob Base was great then, but I was also playing Copland then too. I still play Copland now.) DC pols need to stop pretending that refusing to confront this terrible culture makes them "compassionate" or "understanding" or "tolerant". It simply makes you a sucker. These city people are scamming you, and you are letting them, so that you can say you have street cred/you aren't the tight ass guy who can't dance? Dude, as a person who actually does have street cred, I know a scam when I see one. The writing is on the wall: the macroeconomic "more funding"/"less funding" approach to education has failed. Smart politicians, and their aides, can benefit from a study like this. Dumb ones will not recognize the opportunity and be hurt by it.