It's not Leno that wants the old timeslot back; the NBC execs are moving him because his 10pm show was getting complaints from affiliates that there wasn't enough of a lead-in audience for their crappy local news. I think part of the reason is that when there's crappy crime drama before the crappy local news, people watch until the very end to see the conclusion to the crappy plot, and then might continue watching that station when the news comes on. Whereas Leno's show, like most talk shows, gets all the good material out in the first half and the second half is skippable. They tried to take care of that problem before it started by moving Jay's better segments to the end of the show--Headlines, Jaywalking--but that resulted in low ratings overall for the show and so they moved it back to the beginning.

I think the problem here is the local news programs. The whole situation is like a stadium changing their game schedule because the hot dog vendors weren't happy. The local news needs to make a better product and trim the fat on their budget to make it through some lean times. Right now they're addicted to a free ride.

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^Wingoguy:
Does ANYBODY actually look up what this damn word means!? I guess College Humor didn't have time to either...
It's actually pretty simple; an example of irony is watching someone miss a basket and saying, "That was a great shot," i.e. saying the opposite of an implied meaning.
I don't know what the hell word describes the convoluted scenarios playing out in this video.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

Situational Irony.


So, "an outcome that turns out to be very different from what was expected"...

When the plane crashed down, he thought "isn't this nice" is probably the only example of actual irony in the original song, and they've replaced it here with "Now I'll never make it to that Fear of Flying seminar" which fits neither definition.

An old man turned 98. He won the lottery and died the next day of a shock-induced heart attack. - exactly what you would expect
It's a free ride to an over-priced car dealership. - exactly what you would expect

The rest are convoluted or don't make sense at all.

*LMFAHS *QUALITY *LMFAHS

"
- An old man turned 98. He won the lottery and died the next day of a shock-induced heart attack.
- It's a black fly in your Chardonnay going to celebrate your apartment fumigation.
- It's a death row pardon 2 minutes too late because the Governor was busy watching Dead Man Walking.
- It's like rain at a dehydration victim's funeral.
- It's a free ride to your bankruptcy trial.
- It's good advice to never listen to me.
- ...as his plane crashed down he thought "Now I'll never make it to that Fear of Flying seminar."
- It's like rain flooding an umbrella factory.
- It's a free ride to an over-priced car dealership.
- It's the good advice from the guy who just got you fired.
- Traffic jam when you're already late to receive an award for reducing automobile congestion.
- A "No Smoking" sign on your cigarette break at the RJ Reynolds tobacco company.
- It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife from a soup kitchen.
- It's like meeting the man of my dreams and then meeting his beautiful wife who's also my relationship therapist.
- It's like rain on your wedding day to the Egyptian sun god Ra.
- It's a free ride when you've already paid for a stolen car.
- It's good advice someone advised you not to take.
- I have a funny way of defining rhetorical devices that I use in songs.
- I have a funny way of getting things wrong.
"

what you looking for? a cookie?

No – I’m patiently explaining that the things you are calling “evil companys’ controlling lives” are no more sinister than basic contractual obligations that can be simply and efficiently avoided with a tiny bit of planning and common sense.

but i have to wake up in the morning and look myself in the mirror.a clear conscience is a thing of beauty.

I agree. I love it. Part of my clear conscience is the fact that I have no debt and knowing that nothing but common sense, planning, and basic mathematics got me there. And everyone else can do it too.

Nazis… Bankers… i would have thought i would not have to write an essay to get you to understand this very salient and important point on the matter of this young lady.

No offense, but your analogy is ridiculous. Are you seriously comparing a concentration camp victim’s suffering to that of a credit card debt holder? Holocaust victims were arbitrarily murdered and tortured because of race. Credit card debt holders are expected to fill the terms of a contract that they agreed to. There is no equivalency.

i give historical context you call it "opinion".

Specifically I said, “SOME of what you call historical context is opinion”. Go look at your post again and weed out the opinions before expecting me to call it history.

b.it is the full responsibility and fault of the politicians who ALLOW themselves to be bought and paid for.banks and other institutions hold no such responsibility.

I repeat – there is a little law in the US that we call the Bill of Rights. It allows you to support advocacy groups for gay marriages, abortion rights, environmental causes, and so on. That SAME RIGHT also allows businesses to petition for laws that benefit them. It is called free speech. If you don’t like it, then there are plenty of nations that don’t have it. Perhaps you’d find their political atmosphere more amenable? Yes – it is entirely the fault of politicians if they pass bad laws. A group is just exercising their right to petition. It is the politician that passes the law.

maybe the difference is between you and us lib/leftie/whiner/cry-babies is that we wont ##$$ over for a dollar.

Oh? Health Care reform isn’t screwing the entire nation over for dollars? Cap & Tax isn’t a big huge screwing of the entire planet for money? I think you have an entirely naïve point of view in regards to just how much money the left-wing screws Joe Q. Public for every day.

Regardless, in this situation I don’t see the banks screwing people for dollars. I see them expecting people to fill the terms of their agreements. I’m a firm believer in consequences. If people make a bad decision, then they should pay the consequences. I objected to the bailouts. They were stupid. If the banks made bad decisions, they should have been allowed to fail. Same with GM, and every other place that has soaked up TARP funds. I’m all for the banks paying for their mistakes.

But you know what? I think the customers who spent money they couldn’t afford should pay their bills too. I don’t see why bad borrowers should get a free ride.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^I wasn't saying that it was all about money - though I do think that's a part of it for many. I think that the medical profession appeals to individuals who enjoy having power over other people. I feel the same way about police.

I don't think it's right to paint all doctors as great martyrs- doing it all for their community. They are human, and there is a whole spectrum of motivations. I certainly don't think they deserve quite the pedestal that most people place them on - or a free-ride, or even the benefit of the doubt.

I'm generalizing and speaking from personal experience only for sure. These are my opinions, but I don't think it's fair to call them ignorant. There's a level of hubris, and blind certitude that goes along with medicine - that is, in my opinion unscientific.

Things like the over-prescription of anti-biotics, the over-use of epidurals, scheduled caesarians to match convenient days, the debacle of dangerous drugs like Viox, Fen-phen and others -- deserve scrutiny and assessment - not a white washing over, and dismissal that doctors play no role in these matters.

These guys are still around, they're just pushing other drugs besides nicotine:

Funny how some Congressman can play the race card and get a free ride. Read the transcript.


Rachel Brown: I think the Administration is missing something in these town hall meetings, which is, that it's not just one group. The economy is collapsing. We have 30% real unemployment. Forty-eight states cannot balance their budgets and they are cutting programs to the bone. This is the context under which the Obama Administration says we need health-care reform—

Barney Frank: Well, I'll tell ya—

Brown: I'm not done. The reason why, is because they say we need to limit Medicare expenditures in order to do that, in order to reduce the deficit. That's the origin of this policy. This is the T4 policy, the Hitler policy in 1939, when he said certain lives are not worth living; certain people, we should not spend the money to keep them alive. Which is exactly what Ezekiel Emanuel has said.

So, my question to you is, one, since this policy is already on its way out—it already has been defeated by LaRouche—my question to you is: Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy, as Obama has expressly supported this policy? Why are you supporting it?

Frank: When you ask me that question, I am going to revert to my ethnic heritage, and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time?

Brown: [Inaudible; apparently asks Frank to answer the question.]

Frank: You want me to answer the question? [visibly and audibly enraged; lisp more pronounced:] Yes, you stand there with a picture of the President defaced to look like Hitler, and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis. My answer to you is, as I said before: It is a tribute to the First Amendment, that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated.

Brown: [Inaudible.]

Frank: Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to have a conversation with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.

On a related note, the biggest bird that ever flew was Argentavis magnificens, an ancestor of the Giant Condor. Impressive picture of replica here.

>> Discovered decades ago and formally described in 1980, Argentavis magnificens is the largest bird known. It lived six million years ago during the Miocene period throughout Argentina. It is nearly the size of a Cessna 152 light aircraft, with a 23-foot (7-meter) wing span and weighing approximately 150-pounds (70-kilograms).

It would have been impossible to take off from a standing start. The bird probably used some of the same techniques used by modern-day hang-glider pilots such as running on sloping ground to get thrust or energy, or running with a headwind.
But once it was on a thermal, it could easily rise up a mile or two without any flapping of its wings -- a free ride, just circling. Then at the top, the bird could simply glide to the next thermal and in this way it could certainly travel 200 miles a day -ScienceBlogs excerpts

edit: And the biggest creature that ever flew was a Quetzalcoatlus.

>>A pterodactyloid pterosaur. More recent estimates based on greater knowledge of azhdarchid proportions place its wingspan at 10-11 meters (33-36 ft). However, similar claims to an upper size limit for flight accompanied the discovery of large (up to 9 m (30 ft)) Pteranodon, and azhdarchids larger than Quetzalcoatlus with wingspans 12 meters or more (such as Hatzegopteryx) have been discovered.
A 2002 study suggested a body mass of 90–120 kilograms (200–260 lb) for Quetzalcoatlus, considerably lower than most other recent estimates.[7] Higher estimates tend toward 200–250 kilograms (440–550 lb). -wiki excerpts

Mashiki, what metrics are you using to measure racism? I think your saying one group or another is most racist based on nothing but your feelings and anecdotes is ridiculous. What tangible, measurable results were there from blacks hating blacker people, for example? That's how I determine who is the most racist.

And in the US, whites are able to and do enforce their bigoted sentiment on other groups quite often and quite easily. Look at redlining, the criminal justice system, job discrimination, hate violence, etc. How have american blacks oppressed american whites? Sure, you can dig and find a some very rare cases of individuals doing this, but show me where the average american white man gets the bum deal that the average Zimbabwean white man would get from their black (or latino, or asian) countrymen.

It's not a perfect world for american whites by any means, but I don't know any american white crazy enough to trade places with an american black. Maybe you do, since you think minorities get a "free ride". It-is-to-laugh.

As I said pp, racism is a matter of perspective. The countries I cited are making demonstrable efforts to be egalitarian with respect to ethnicity, just like we in the US are. In Singapore, a chinese was jailed for posting a racist anti-malay website; if america had the same standards, how many would be jailed? In Malaysia, several ethnic and religious groups take part in the government; while Americans have only recently seen their first muslim congressman. South Africa has shown great restraint to the white population there in light of the history of apartheid. Kenya is actively making strides and overtures to its Muslim population and for reconciliation of its various tribal groups; even african whites fled there from Zimbabwe. And finally, like it or not, in 20 years blacks will dominate brasil; the demographic math there is more pronounced than for arabs in Israel. Even now brasilian blacks are fighting discrimination and making measurable gains.

All of these examples still don't help your flimsy racial theory that puts whites as the most angelic beings in the universe. A Singaporean chinese will say the same. A Kenyan black will say the same. A Malay Malaysian will say the same. Any number of ethnic people who dominate their respective countries sing the same tune. Hell, even the arabs in this video would say the same.

But, only a cursory glance at (even recent) history would show that is simply not the case for any of these groups.

>> ^longde:
^It's all a matter of perspective. I am not surprised to hear a white person say that whites are the most humanitarian on the planet. I could find anyone of a respective group say the same.

Let me just say, that some of the most racist people I've ever run across have been blacks. And against fellow blacks at that, based on their skin color being too "dark". In Canada and the US no less. Where europeans have gotten the beat down for the last 40 years for 'colonialism', everyone else believes they get a free ride.

If you want an example of ethnocentrism take a trip to Japan sometime, where if you're not full blooded Japanese, it can be a highly interesting and enlightening experience. My ex is Filipino-Japanese, and needless to say it was not a pleasant experience for her, or me.

I sure won't say that whites are the most humanitarian, but some of the most racist are 'people of various colors'. This is because they know they can manipulate the system to protect their own interests regardless of what happens, and no matter how liberal a society is. See the whole multiculturalism, cultural pluralism, assimilation arguments.

I don't know where to start.

First off it's the offering/receiving of money for sex that's the crime. Not having sex. How do undercover female cops bust johns over there? Do they have to get penetrated? He admitted he offered to pay for sex and the skank obviously agreed because her "britches" were down too. I think that cop needs to be talked to.

Second .. A HUNDRED dollars?! I don't know what value I'd place on her but it's somewhere between a shot of tequila and a free ride home.

Lastly .. prostitution should be legalized imo. No, not hookers gone wild in the streets, but regulated, isolated and safe.

Doc_M, WP, QM - I'm not sure if they just don't know how our society has operated, if any have traveled to other countries (and not just to go to the Paris Hooters), or if they're all sock puppets just here to gin up some heated comments.

Whichever way you slice it, their views have very little to do with American realities. And thank fucking god for that.

I also find it funny that only one of the three has a charter account here. It's funny that they very same Randian pseudo-libertarians don't shell out their fair share to this service they use every day. What the hell is up with that? I thought you guys were against a free ride? Are you guys just the videosift version of welfare queens?

pfffff

Well... I'm from Portugal, and the national Parliament has regular laughing, booing, etc.

I think it's a common thing in european nations, maybe because no one here wants to give a politician a free ride just because they happen to be the prime minister.

There are no free rides. This coming from someone who just spent the last 3 1/2 years getting my AA. (I work full time; I'm not mentally impaired.


Well, ok. Maybe a little.)

I know we've been over this before. But I'm still trying to help you. I keep showing up your nonsense argument for what it is:

Myth: Taxes are theft.

Fact: Taxes are payments for the public goods and services you consume.

Summary

Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Some may object that they have not agreed to the contract, but if so, then they must not consume the government's goods and services. Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed). Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy.


Argument

Many conservatives and libertarians make the following populist argument:

"If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, arrest you, and seize your property."

The implication here is that you are being extorted to pay taxes, and this theft amounts to a violation of your rights. Although the events described are technically correct -- you should expect such a response from any crime you commit -- the implication that the government is aggressing against you is false, and not a little demagogic.

Taxes are part of a social contract, an agreement between voters and government to exchange money for the government's goods and services. Even libertarians agree that breach of contract legitimates a police response. So the real question is not whether a crime should be met with "men with guns," but whether or not the social contract is valid, especially to those who don't agree with it or devote their allegiance to it.

Liberals have two lines of argument against those who reject the idea of the social contract. The first is that if they reject it, they should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible. Although these alternatives may seem unpalatable, they are the only consistent ones in a person who truly wishes to reject the social contract. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudgingly, is implicit agreement of the social contract, just as any consumption of food in a restaurant is implicit agreement to pay the bill.

Many conservatives and libertarians concede the logic of this argument, but point out that taxes do not go exclusively to public goods and services. They also go for welfare payments to the poor who are allegedly doing nothing and getting a free ride from the system. That, they claim, is theft.

But this argument fails too. Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance. Obviously, the same validity goes for social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us a private good: namely, the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well (although tax critics are loathe to admit this). If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to tide over the rough times, and this establishes a smooth-running economy that benefits us all.

We should also note that the program most popularly known as "welfare" -- Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- takes up less than 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. (1) That tax critics would raise such a big stink over such a paltry sum begs an explanation. Their typical response to this is to expand the definition of welfare. But suppose we include all programs that involve one-way transfers of wealth with no expectation of immediate repayment or return services. According to the Library of Congress, in 1992 such expenditures at the federal, state and local level came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of their combined budgets of $2,487 billion. (2) It still seems incredible that such fiery anti-tax rhetoric is reserved for 12 percent of a person's taxes. But keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc. Voters have ultimately agreed that these programs provide not just social insurance, but social investment. Certainly our society benefits by enabling more young people to attend college. Some may dispute the need for such social insurance and investment, but the majority of voters have (ultimately) agreed to put it in our social contract.

And this brings us to the second line of liberal argument: the best form of social contract is majority rule. It's not perfect, but its better than minority rule and still better than one-person rule. Government by unanimous consent is impractical, since it almost never happens, and society by anarchy results in "kill or be killed." So what do libertarians and conservatives propose in democracy's stead?

Of course, nearly all democracies have constraints on majority rule, designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. In the U.S., these are embodied in our constitution. But to be legitimate, a constitution must be a document of the people; hence it must be approved by the majority. (In the U.S., a supermajority.) And the constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

But should the constitution allow taxation? If conservatives and libertarians feel that it should not, then it is up to them to describe a constitutional or political system that would work better than majority rule. Do they prefer minority rule? Or dictator rule? The only alternative to these historical atrocities is self-rule -- but again, that's anarchy, kill-or-be-killed.

Of course, some may wish to keep the current political structure, and simply convince the majority of voters to pass an anti-tax amendment. But if they do, then they are legitimizing the social contract… which hardly puts them in a position to call taxation "theft."

Understanding the above points allows you to see through common anti-tax arguments. Here is a real example taken from the Internet:

The "How Many Men?" Argument (1)

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote against them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?


This argument is based on a faulty premise of ownership. Suppose the gang of ten men had helped you buy the car, pitching in with a loan that covered 29 percent of the sticker price (which is about the percentage of the GDP devoted in the United States to taxes). And suppose they simply wanted return payment. By not returning the favor, it is you who become the thief. If you want a car that is 100 percent yours, simply pay the full price of one. Of course, by accepting the loan from the gang of ten men, you were able to buy a better car than you could afford in the first place…

Arguments like "taxation is theft" are extremely egoistic. It's the equivalent of saying "Everything I make is by my own effort" -- a patently false statement in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. People who make arguments like this are big on taking these goods but short on seeing why they need to pay for them. It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for. It doesn't matter that any given individual doesn't agree with how the government is spending their money -- many people don't agree with how corporations pollute the environment, but they still pay for their merchandise. It doesn't matter that any given individual thinks some government programs are wasteful and inefficient -- so are many private bureaucracies, but their goods still demand payment. If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.

Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW, and earlier reports; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, series GF, No. 5, 1992.

2. Ibid.

All good points guys. I guess my point is I don't like to see people getting a "free ride" on my dime AND still be able to get high and neglect their kids. They need to make it so welfare isn't so attractive of an option for folks who don't want to work and would rather milk the system. I don't mind people on welfare. Hell I've had to use it myself. However, I used it to feed myself, not support my drug habit. And believe me, I knew a lot of people who did use it to support their habits and NOT their kids.

Oh, and for the record, my current employer does not require drug tests, YAY!

I do love the guys argument that you only have to take a piss test if you are applying for a job which can endanger your life. Completely false. I have had to take a piss test for a computer support job more than once. Which is utter bullshit.