"How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists? And another question: How can you maintain the illusion of journalistic impartiality when one of the political parties has jumped the shark?"

______
The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1917525,00.html)

By Joe Klein
Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009

In one of those awful collisions between public policy and real life, I was in the midst of an awkward conversation about end-of-life issues with my father when Sarah Palin raised the remarkable idea that the Obama Administration's attempt to include such issues in its health-care-reform proposal would lead to "death panels." Let me tell you something about my family situation, a common one these days, in order to illuminate the obscenity of Palin's formulation and the cowardice of those, like Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the lead Republican negotiator on the Senate Finance Committee, who have refused to contest her claim.

[More... (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1917525,00.html)]

This is something I would actually like to see. The "birther" debate and the potential election reform they are talking about. I would like to see, but, it will not happen, to completely bust up the republicans, as well as the democrats into multiple parties, break up the monopoly by both parties, allowing for independents, as well as other parties to have more of a say in the governmental processes, legislation, and so on. Also, so the nutbags can be nutbags in their own special little room, while the decent Republicans like former senator Shay don't get dragged down by the crap.

"How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists?You just shift it to the primaries. Well, primary.

This reminds me of why Republican crazies are scarier than Democrat crazies because they are armed. Democrat crazies just go sit in trees.

I noticed most of the crazies at those town meetings were old-ish men, probably collecting social security, medicare or using the VA health care system. I wonder if they've ever heard the term cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).

Yeah, the senior citizens on Medicare holding "no socialism" signs are pretty funny.

But sadly it's an inside joke. They didn't make the sign (some conservative group did, and handed it to them, or at least told them what to write), they don't understand what socialism really means, and they don't realize they're already the beneficiaries of it.

It can't be doublethink if you're not thinking in the first place.

Yeah, the senior citizens on Medicare holding "no socialism" signs are pretty funny.

But sadly it's an inside joke. They didn't make the sign (some conservative group did, and handed it to them, or at least told them what to write), they don't understand what socialism really means, and they don't realize they're already the beneficiaries of it.

It can't be doublethink if you're not thinking in the first place.

After 6 decades of conditioning the word 'socialism' has become another case of: "I think that word does not mean what you think it does".
But I agree that the republican party, from the safe distance across the ocean, seems to be increasingly pandering to the part of the population that has long left sanity behind.


Eri

Sometimes I envy you your distance. :p

Sometimes I envy you your distance. :p

Sometimes, when hearing the farcical rhetoric and hate mongering, I have to wonder if there are not Republicans who are secretly hoping for Civil War 2.0 ... :(


Eri

Nah, you might get a couple of mild insurrections, or some town hall shootings, but, alas, with the department of homeland security, patriot act, survelliance of random citizens, other liberty infringements, they kind of screwed themselves out of that one as well. The republicans are just whining because they got cut off from the power teat. The last eight years they decided it was a good idea to get into 2 wars, attempt to manipulate several governmental elections in multiple countries, crack down on civil liberties, while holding hands with corporations, neglecting several issues that led to an economic collapse, as well as other issues.

Oooh, Palamin, I get all excited when you talk sexy like that!

Several months ago, many states declared their sovereignty, in response to some issues such as homosexual marriage, legalized medical marijuana and the federal raiding that went on, as well as other issues. What you get is this..... some pretty interesting stuff. Not quite sure on the legalities, Texas was a nation that was annexxed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32635648#32635648

Nah, you might get a couple of mild insurrections, or some town hall shootings,

so ... it is going to be Civil War 1.00002 (beta) then?


Eri

LOL! These are people that sincerely haven't thought through the consequences at all. I think any state that truly wants to leave should be allowed. It'll serve as a good example for the crazies and, should they remain insane, a great place for them to go. Wow! Two governor candidates calling for a bloody war and secession.

I almost wish I had regular cable so I could watch Rachel Maddow regularly.

I think any state that truly wants to leave should be allowed. It'll serve as a good example for the crazies and, should they remain insane, a great place for them to go.But how will it survive if the rest of us stop sending them welfare checks?

But how will it survive if the rest of us stop sending them welfare checks?
That's the part they haven't thought through. And all those war veterans and elderly would stop getting their social security and medicare. Plus they'd have to go negotiate with the middle east for buying fuel for their pickup trucks. Hee hee! Can you imagine a bunch of right-wing cowboys trying to negotiate anything with the rest of the world?

That's the part they haven't thought through.You're implying that they've actually thought through something else.

I almost wish I had regular cable so I could watch Rachel Maddow regularly.

I reckon you already get enough left wing paranoia propaganda in a given day.

Quote"so ... it is going to be Civil War 1.00002 (beta) then?"

I doubt it. More often than not, they are just stirring up trouble in doses to make it seem like the current administration is weak or ineffectual so as to assert power once again. They tried with Clinton, although not as big of a fuss as they are now, until the cigar, but, the Republicans had the majority in the congress for most of his term. They did with Carter. Sadly, Carter had some good policy and stuff, wasn't quite as bad as people say he was.

That's the part they haven't thought through. And all those war veterans and elderly would stop getting their social security and medicare. Plus they'd have to go negotiate with the middle east for buying fuel for their pickup trucks. Hee hee! Can you imagine a bunch of right-wing cowboys trying to negotiate anything with the rest of the world?

I admit it would be entertaining if other states started to have rallies to secede Texas from the Union (kind of: we never wanted you here anyway, we only did that to spite the Spanish) ...
Not terribly productive perhaps, but highly amusing to watch :]


Eri
(p.s. my appologies to those reading this actually living in Texas)

It could be funny to revoke the annex of Texas, or sell them to Mexico, who they seceded from. Texas is kind of funny like that. Lots of immigrants from the US, to what was Mexico and earlier Spain. Secede from Mexico, 10 years later, apply for annexation to the United States. Help start up another war with Mexico, a couple years later join the Confederacy to leave the US during the civil war. Lose that. A hundred years later whine about the illegal immigrants from Mexico, and let us secede from the union again.

Other funny things would be the establishment of their own currency. The responsibilities of infrastructure projects, such as interstate commerce, which would become international trade. As well as their electricity. Other fun things, the amount of business that will leave their country. Amongst the many other things they are taking for granted. They really didn't think it through........

This cracked me up today:
http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/rush-limbaugh-totally-looks-like-balthazar-from-buffy.jpg

I admit it would be entertaining if other states started to have rallies to secede Texas from the Union (kind of: we never wanted you here anyway, we only did that to spite the Spanish) ...
Not terribly productive perhaps, but highly amusing to watch :]

I always wanted to do that with Ohio, simply because I have a lot of really strange relatives living there.

This cracked me up today:
http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/rush-limbaugh-totally-looks-like-balthazar-from-buffy.jpg

Yes but ... which of them is Rush Limbaugh?
Or is this a spot the 10 differences pair of pictures?


Eri

Amazing...

Obama school speech invites GOP ire (http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090907/NEWS01/909070323)

The poor guy can't wipe his butt without creating controversy.

Yeah, the histrionics from the right have hit a whole new level of crazy.

Right Wing Mother Cries About Obama's Speech To Children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgcGlMyAg2g)

Yes but ... which of them is Rush Limbaugh?
ake soap out of both of them, it's the only way to be sure.

Yeah, it'd be a really bad example for such impressionable young minds to see a popular, articulate, rational black man talking about their responsibilities as students.

Yeah, it'd be a really bad example for such impressionable young minds to see a popular, articulate, rational black man talking about their responsibilities as students.

I think that what those people hear has as much relation to reality as as what a girl suffering from anorexia sees in a mirror. At this point the president could announce that rocks are hard and the crazies would find reason to be attacked by that statement.

If you ask me, it is time to dissolve the union and create two new countries: Republicanistan and Democroatia. Then let the great migration sort things out.


Eri

Wait, we need one for the Libertarians. But then again, they could just immigrate to Somalia, which has no functioning government at all. :p

Yeah, the histrionics from the right have hit a whole new level of crazy.Give them a break. Obama is telling their children to study, work hard, and make something of themselves -- not to drop out, get fat, have way too many babies, and collect welfare. If they listen to Obama, they'll never become upstanding white trash.

If you ask me, it is time to dissolve the union and create two new countries: Republicanistan and Democroatia. Then let the great migration sort things out.Impossible, since the minority of nutjobs are currently being supported by the rest of us and couldn't make it on their own. (They are concentrated in the South, in a bunch of useless welfare states.) We'd have to reconquer them, bringing us back to square one.

Ya, I seen that article a few days ago..... and just laughed. It would be funny to hear the socialist remarks about the public school system should they attempt to do some education reform. Many lulz to be had over that.

Fox News' Glenn Beck's right-wing rants go way too far, critics charge (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/09/13/2009-09-13_glenn_becks_rightwing_rants_go_way_too_far_crit ics_charge.html)
Ron Kessler, author of "In The President's Secret Service," notes that although it is impossible to single out Beck as a cause, threats against Obama are up 400% compared with those against President George W. Bush.
"A lot of those threats are racially based," Kessler said. "So there is a real basis for concern."

It's scary, in a group of people already prone to paranoia, they're really easy to whip up. It's just a matter of time before someone tries to assassinate Obama.

Impossible, since the minority of nutjobs are currently being supported by the rest of us and couldn't make it on their own. (They are concentrated in the South, in a bunch of useless welfare states.) We'd have to reconquer them, bringing us back to square one.

Every time I reread this I still feel uncomfortable at how harsh, uncompromising and unwarranted this comment is. If you had aimed it at blacks or hispanics or any other race I would not have hesitated to call it racist. You basically stereotyped and condemned the entire population of several states. Even if it is correct that some states take more federal money than they contribute that -still- does not say anything about its inhabitants.
Please in the future refrain from such sweeping insulting generalisations. If you can not say anything politely best not say anything at all, was what my mother taught me and I think applies here.


Eri

If you had aimed it at blacks or hispanics or any other race I would not have hesitated to call it racist. You basically stereotyped and condemned the entire population of several states. Even if it is correct that some states take more federal money than they contribute that -still- does not say anything about its inhabitants.Of course it does. It says that we support them, not vice versa, which is exactly what I said.

And you agree that what I said is correct.

You want me to conceal the truth, for the sake of political correctness? You must have missed my posts on that topic.

Of course it does. It says that we support them, not vice versa, which is exactly what I said.

And you agree that what I said is correct.


You managed to entirely miss the point I was trying to make. And I did -not- say you were correct. At least not on the point that really matters, namely the (hurtfull) stereotyping.


You want me to conceal the truth, for the sake of political correctness? You must have missed my posts on that topic.

You should know me better than that by now from my posts here.


Eri

It's scary, in a group of people already prone to paranoia, they're really easy to whip up. It's just a matter of time before someone tries to assassinate Obama.

True, but this is not exactly new.
Or maybe it is, I am not that familiar (thankfully) with ultra conservative talk radio in the USA to be able to tell if the current crop of ott hysteria and thinly veiled plausible deniability (not to mention reveling in acts of violence against the hated 'oppositions') is anything new or just the same old same old.
aybe it was always there, just hidden behind the type of people who had remote camps in the hills to play soldier in, and behind the secure knowledge that 'their' guys were running the show (in as much as they could agree on having a 'their' guy).


Eri

Every time I reread this I still feel uncomfortable at how harsh, uncompromising and unwarranted this comment is. If you had aimed it at blacks or hispanics or any other race I would not have hesitated to call it racist. You basically stereotyped and condemned the entire population of several states. Even if it is correct that some states take more federal money than they contribute that -still- does not say anything about its inhabitants.
I agree with you that making absolute statements about any large population will end up including people to whom the statement does not apply. That said, I get the feeling that, given your distance, you fail to appreciate the level of frustration that many non-southerners have with the south. It's irritating for people in wealthy blue states to listen to southern-state politicians endlessly vilify your politicians, whine about how evil your state is, and thwart your social reforms. Imagine how frustrating it is when it's your federal taxes that are going to subsidize their states.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2994934040_ca5b05d221.jpg

I agree with you that making absolute statements about any large population will end up including people to whom the statement does not apply. That said, I get the feeling that, given your distance, you fail to appreciate the level of frustration that many non-southerners have with the south. It's irritating for people in wealthy blue states to listen to southern-state politicians endlessly vilify your politicians, whine about how evil your state is, and thwart your social reforms. Imagine how frustrating it is when it's your federal taxes that are going to subsidize their states.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2994934040_ca5b05d221.jpg

I know how frustrating it is. I do live in the European country that was for a long time the biggest net payer into the EC (and only its small size kept it from being the biggest contributor, that honour is reserved for Germany). But I objected, as you mentioned, to the stereotyping. I did not doubt that there are states that contribute far less in taxes than they receive from the federal government. That pretty much is inevitable in any type of union.

That said, the table you presented is rather tricky. One of the things that at least should go along with these relative distributions of taxes paid/money received, is the absolute amount. A state with half a million inhabitants is rather likely to end up at an extreme of the distribution (and in all honesty at the high end of it). It also may receive twice as much money as it pays in taxes, but that would be easily offset by a single large city in another state. (And yes, I am fully aware that no state in the USA has that few inhabitants. I have no easy access to actual population figures so I picked a number that was certain to get the intention across). A state that is lightly populated and whose primary industries are farming and tourism is not going to pay a lot of taxes, but it is going to require a relatively bigger share of the pie to keep its infrastructure up to date. Being able to eat after all is a rather important quality of life for the people in other states, as is their ability to travel to those national parks and resorts they themselves traded in for those tax paying businesses and jobs. I am not saying that is necessarily going on here, let alone that it is all that is going on, but just that there are many things that affect the balance of any individual state in a union.

Also, the chosen presentation of that table strongly suggests to the reader that there is a correlation between average political affiliation in a state and the amount of federal money it receives. This is were the table moves from being tricky to interpret into (potentially) lying about cause and effect. It certainly makes a strong image, and one that Tudamorf clearly picked up, but it is tendentious at best and dishonest at worst (depending on the intention of the person creating this table). At the very least it has to be shown that people vote for a politcal party in the expectation that government spending remains high. I think we can both agree that this is unlikely (especially in the light of the subsequent election where undoubtedly the taxes/spending fraction was not appreciably different but the political landscape changed dramatically)..

The big questions this table should lead to are not along the lines of politics, but: Why do certain states receive so much more (relatively speaking) than others. How much money is that in absolute numbers, what is done with it and what steps are being taken to bring that fraction closer to 1 (where it should be ideally) ?


Eri

I think there's a factual basis for labeling conservatives as people who experience more disgust and fear than liberals. They say it is genetic but if so, then I believe it's probably just a disposition towards it. If someone were trained to think rationally they could probably get over their disgust.

Easily grossed out? You're more likely a conservative, says Cornell psychologist (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June09/pizarro.disgust.lg.doc.html)


Liberal? Conservative? Blame it on a fear factor (http://www.denverpost.com/politicswestnews/ci_10503487?source=bb)

Unfortunately these traits can be played upon very easily and make these folks really easy to manipulate. Like the frightened villagers with pitchforks and torches, or frightened lynch mobs.

That said, the table you presented is rather tricky.
I agree and your criticisms are valid but they only mitigate the degree to which the data supports my conclusion, they don't negate it. Other metrics also back it up. If you look at the median income by state you'll find that, with minor variances, it's the wealthier, blue states with higher incomes that generate the lions share of the taxes. I bring this up simply to point out that the people in these blue states are bearing more of the cost burden for keeping the infrastructure up to date in the red states (or anywhere, for that matter) than the locals.

Also, the chosen presentation of that table strongly suggests to the reader that there is a correlation between average political affiliation in a state and the amount of federal money it receives. This is were the table moves from being tricky to interpret into (potentially) lying about cause and effect.
The information in the table is correct, any inferences that readers may draw are theirs to defend. :)

At the very least it has to be shown that people vote for a political party in the expectation that government spending remains high.
Not knowing that you are being a hypocrite doesn't mean you aren't a hypocrite.

I think we can both agree that this is unlikely (especially in the light of the subsequent election where undoubtedly the taxes/spending fraction was not appreciably different but the political landscape changed dramatically)..
We may have different definitions of dramatically in regard to the political landscape. The really red states and the really blue states pretty much stayed the same. This map was made from the data here (2004 (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2004/) / 2008 (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/)). The purple ones are the ones that switched.

http://i30.tinypic.com/2ahzafm.jpg

what is done with it and what steps are being taken to bring that fraction closer to 1 (where it should be ideally) ?
The average education level for the states receiving more federal money than they pay is lower than that of the states who are paying more than they receive. So perhaps improving their schools might help them to get better jobs, make more money, and pay more taxes. Really, though, I'd be happy if they'd just quit their whining and participate in a constructive debate. Sadly, they seem to prefer spouting off about death panels, socialism, fascism, Hitler, czars, and other assorted twaddle.

A state that is lightly populated and whose primary industries are farming and tourism is not going to pay a lot of taxes, but it is going to require a relatively bigger share of the pie to keep its infrastructure up to date. Being able to eat after all is a rather important quality of life for the people in other states, as is their ability to travel to those national parks and resorts they themselves traded in for those tax paying businesses and jobs.What?

See where California is Klath's list?

Now see where California is in terms of agricultural value on this list (http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500414_1741500821_-1_1/Crops_Acreage_and_Value_by_State_in_the_United_Sta tes.html)? (Spoiler: It's #1.) And that's not even including our enormous marijuana crop, since we're still in process of legalizing it.

California also has one of the most extensive park systems in the nation and I assure you, we receive far more tourists than Mississippi does.

So get your facts straight. WE fund the government, WE grow the food (and the pot), and WE provide the recreation. WE are one of the top ten economies in the world.

ississippi, on the other hand, only has the dubious distinction of being the fattest state in the nation (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-fattest-american-state.htm). As well as a popular breeding ground for extremist right wing would-be Obama assassins.

And I did -not- say you were correct.I said we support them.

The statistics say that too.

You agree with the statistics.

Therefore you agree with me. At least not on the point that really matters, namely the (hurtfull) stereotyping.Yes, the truth hurts. But it's still the truth, and I'm still going to say it.

Hell, I'd be happy if they'd quit their whining and participate in a constructive debate. Sadly, they seem to prefer spouting off about death panels, socialism, fascism, Hitler, czars, and other assorted twaddle.Yeah, since we support them, the least they could do is be grateful for it. Instead they hurl insults and commit acts of violence.

The main reason for keeping them in the Union is that it's cheaper to support them than to suppress them militarily. Though I'm beginning to wonder.

On a slightly different note, although this probably should be in a different thread, on it's own as it has little to do with republicans.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

That is a pretty interesting indicator, a film based upon Charles Darwin, unable to see US release because of religeous undertones. As evidenced by criticism by other world governments, particularly from the events after Hurrican Katrina versus the Miss. coast and Louisana as well. The religeous undertones, in Gallup poll somewhere earlier this year showed only 39% of Americans believed in evolution.

Speaking of Hurricane Katrina, I am rather curious as to the stats on that little chart. If I remember right, that would have been the timeframe of Katrina so, one of the worst, if, not the worst natural disaster on American soil, it is easy to see the federal spending on those 2 states, Miss. and Louisana during that timeframe, as they were the hardest hit. Alabama had some damage so, I would be wondering, if, the spending levels would have prior to that incident been closer to that of Tennessee or Arkansas, or in between? Or since then how have the spending levels been? Side note, I had visited my sister in Kville, during that, the drive home as Kat dissipated was not fun.

I get New Mexico being number one on the list, given the amount of population of New Mexico, plus heavily invested governmentally in the nuclear aspects of Los Alamos, and other things. Alaska well being way up there.

Speaking of Hurricane Katrina, I am rather curious as to the stats on that little chart. If I remember right, that would have been the timeframe of Katrina so, one of the worst, if, not the worst natural disaster on American soil, it is easy to see the federal spending on those 2 states, Miss. and Louisana during that timeframe, as they were the hardest hit.
Those states have a history of being federal tax recipients. You can find quite a bit of historical info here:

http://www.taxfoundation.org

Here are the figures for 1993 / 2003

Louisiana......: $1.36 / $1.47
ississippi....: $1.63 / $1.83
Alabama........: $1.35 / $1.69
Arkansas.......: $1.29 / $1.47
Tennessee......: $1.09 / $1.29


(Edit: Added Arkansas and Tennessee (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr132.pdf))

Thanks for that.... still, not to worried about them. Alabama does alot of work towards rockets, airplanes, satelites, stuff of that nature that is federally funded in addition to their miltiary installations and stuff. Just at a glance, the other chart would be prior to that incident. Louisana has lots of stuff miltiary wise, I will put it that way, in proportion to their population. As did Miss. Miss had alot of fighters and cargo planes, no offense, those aren't cheap, nor was the contracting of parts for that equipment.

That said, the table you presented is rather tricky. One of the things that at least should go along with these relative distributions of taxes paid/money received, is the absolute amount. A state with half a million inhabitants is rather likely to end up at an extreme of the distribution (and in all honesty at the high end of it). It also may receive twice as much money as it pays in taxes, but that would be easily offset by a single large city in another state.
Interestingly, our two smallest states by population--Wyoming and Vermont, one a "red" state and one a "blue" state--both only receive slightly more money than they contribute, according to that chart. Another small state, Rhode Island, receives about as much money as it sends.

Alabama does alot of work towards rockets, airplanes, satelites, stuff of that nature that is federally funded in addition to their miltiary installations and stuff. Just at a glance, the other chart would be prior to that incident. Louisana has lots of stuff miltiary wise, I will put it that way, in proportion to their population. As did Miss. Miss had alot of fighters and cargo planes, no offense, those aren't cheap, nor was the contracting of parts for that equipment.
If you're implying that military expenditures shouldn't count as money spent in the state, I disagree. Having a base in your state creates jobs and business opportunities both directly and indirectly. No matter which way you slice it, it's a huge perk that they aren't paying for in proportion to the wealthier states.

WRT expensive equipment purchases, I imagine these expenditures would be attributed to the states where the equipment was purchased and not to the states where the equipment was stored.

I said we support them.

The statistics say that too.

You agree with the statistics.

Therefore you agree with me.

As I said, you missed the point I was trying to make :)


Eri

I said we support them.

The statistics say that too.

You agree with the statistics.

Therefore you agree with me.Yes, the truth hurts. But it's still the truth, and I'm still going to say it.
1) Unless you're rich, you're a moocher. The top 5% bares 60% of the tax burden. The bottom 50% bares 3%.

2) California wasn't a pioneer in producing wealth; California was a pioneer in producing phony paper wealth subsidized by Fannie and Freddie and Sacramento's financial service companies that specialized in helping people make their homes into overvalued ATMs. You guys were knocking upper middle class people into top tax brackets with inflation, not wealth creation.

2a) I live in Maryland. A state that's richer than Cali, has over twice the population density, and sucks tons of money out of Washington in defense contracts, government employees who live here, etc. And our home prices were far below those of Cali's during the bubble. It's quite simple; politicians in California win votes by feeding the public sector unions with higher salaries and benefits and having the unions come out to support them. It's near impossible to raise tax rates in California, so politicians are compelled to do all they can to get home values up so they can increase revenue without raising tax rates. This isn't how most states operate, and that's why most states didn't have housing bubbles like Cali. I laugh every time I hear Californias rail against Wall Street, when Cali was ground zero for subprimes and using your house as an ATM.

3) All Klath's table does is shows how many super rich people live in a state, not how many poor people. Federal spending per person would be more useful than federal spending received per tax dollar paid if that's what you're trying to prove (non-military federal spending per person would probably be better too.) That's not to say the democrat/republican dynamic would change all that much, though.

3) All Klath's table does is shows how many super rich people live in a state, not how many poor people.
If you were to use median incomes for comparison it would temper out the effect of the super rich. However, after an (admittedly) cursory look at the numbers, I doubt the table would change much. I'm sure the progressive income tax structure plays a role but isn't that ironic? The states that whine the most about redistribution of wealth and taxes are the ones that are reaping the rewards of it.

Just to be clear, I don't an issue with the distribution (at least not a major one). I have a problem with the fact that, for the most part, these people are complaining about the evil, tax hungry, oppressive, socialist, federal government while at the same time being a net beneficiary of it. Then, to add insult to injury, they vilify the people and politicians in the sates where the money originated. Man, talk about tacky.

Somebody wrote a paper on this. Here's a link to the PDF file: A Curious Paradox of the Red States and Blue States:
Federal Spending and Electoral Votes in the 2000 Election (http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF).

It addresses the issue of defense spending on page 6.

I liked this part:
any pundits and journalists seem to believe that liberal, Northeastern states pull funds out of the federal government for entitlements, welfare, pork barrel projects, and other spending programs. Yet few pundits speak of the large agricultural and welfare spending in Southern and Great Plains states. It could be that Southerners do not realize they are net beneficiaries of federal spending, nor that Northeasterners realize that they lose money to federal spending. It is difficult to imagine, however, that voters would remain misinformed.

To be honest, I don't have time to read the whole thing right now but if you're looking for fodder to derail my argument, this might provide a good source.

To be honest, I got tired of reading it and gave up but if you're looking for fodder to derail my argument, this might provide a good source.
I wasn't trying to derail your argument. I ended my digression with, "That's not to say the democrat/republican dynamic would change all that much, though."

I just think that federal spending per person tells you more than federal spending per tax dollar received, because (ie) the small group of rich people in California who pay the bulk of the state's federal taxes receive far less back in government services/benefits than they pay in, while most Californians are moochers just like the moochers down south.

As far as the partisan dynamic is concerned, it's important to keep in mind that many of the areas in liberal states that produce the huge revenues lean republican (ie the rich neighborhoods in orange county and the san diego suburbs for cali.) In addition, many of the so called "red states" aren't as red as you may think. Many of them vote consistently for republicans for president, but usually vote for socially conservative democrats for local and congressional elections. It's just that the democratic party doesn't run socially conservative democrats for national elections so they side with the republicans. West Virigina is a good example of this, where the democratic party is dominate in every election there except presidential elections.

I live in San Diego so I think I can speak authoritatively. Our most conservative areas are in the East county, which is rural and tends to be less advantaged. Also up around the military bases it is conservative. The rest of San Diego leans Democrat. That includes the wealthy areas like La Jolla and Del Mar. A couple of not exactly wealthy, but not impoverished areas swing a bit right like Poway and Carlsbad. The only truly wealthy area that swings right is Coronado, most likely because most people there are old.

Poor conservatives must be the most cognitively dissonant humans in existence.

Oh yes, the vote was 54% for Obama and 44% for McCain in the last election and I believe I heard that democrat registrations outnumber republican registrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_County,_California#Politics

quote"If you're implying that military expenditures shouldn't count as money spent in the state, I disagree. Having a base in your state creates jobs and business opportunities both directly and indirectly. No matter which way you slice it, it's a huge perk that they aren't paying for in proportion to the wealthier states."

isinterpretation. I feel it should count for the reasons above. Not neccessarily miltiary, that is a big spender in the US budget. But, many things often add up, like NASA, while not huge in budget, impacts many different states like Alabama, Florida, Texas, a few other places. Could they spread it around better, yes. Could they use larger miltiary installations out west where we have always been most vulnerable? Sure. Other projects built in those places instead of the east coast, definately. Did you get lucky and get the private sector of the avionic industry, like southern cal and Seattle? Or did you get unlucky and get the Lockheed Martin defense contract for the F-38 or the F-22 Raptor? Stuff like that I am keeping in perspective. I would be more interested, if you feel you are getting your moneys worth out of certain programs.

The point I would be raising here, California is the most populous state, they put off 13% of the economy of the United States, their federal expenses aren't going to match having say 200k governmental workers, with another state having the same 200k workers, with half the population of Cali. That ratio just isn't going to add up. But, they both will be productive. I keep focusing on Miss, and Louisana for perspective, around that time frame it is possible some of that cost was hurricane damage, while New Orleans got the most press, Miss. took the most damage overall.

Also, consider, I forget the ratio, but, somewhere near 200 million, of 300 million, lives on the east coast, it would be quite natural to spend more on the eastern than the western.

It's near impossible to raise tax rates in California,Really? You mean the latest tax increases were imaginary and I don't have to pay them? :biggrin:

We now have a 10.55% top marginal income tax rate (the highest in the nation) and in San Francisco a 9.5% sales tax (the highest after Chicago, I think). In addition to higher taxes on gas, electricity, and just about everything else.Federal spending per person would be more useful than federal spending received per tax dollar paidWhy?

What matters it the net flow of cash. In other words, who's paying the bills, and who's creating them. And the answer is that we are paying them, and the rednecks in the South are creating them.

I live in San Diego so I think I can speak authoritatively.
I'm talking about the top 5%; they don't make whole cities or counties. Obviously they make up more than 5% of the population of the San Diego suburbs since the area's wealth is above the national average, but they're still a slim minority. Their votes don't show up in elections nearly as well as their taxes show up in the government coffers. And you probably don't cross paths with many of them in your day to day life unless you work at a business that caters to the rich.

Really? You mean the latest tax increases were imaginary and I don't have to pay them? :biggrin: Property* taxes.

Your state passed a ballot initiative a long time ago that requires a super majority to pass any property tax increases.

y point was that politicians in California make policies that allow for property values to skyrocket so they can collect more taxes while keeping the same rates.

1) Unless you're rich, you're a moocher. The top 5% bares 60% of the tax burden. The bottom 50% bares 3%.Exactly. We are the richer ones, and they are the poorer ones. I pay for them, not vice versa.2) California wasn't a pioneer in producing wealth;California GDP 2008: $1,846,757,000,000.

Which state is higher? I assure you Maryland isn't.

Your state passed a ballot initiative a long time ago that requires a super majority to pass any property tax increases.Proposition 13 also prohibits assessment except at the time of the sale, so it's not as if the government can immediately raise tax revenue by raising property values.

The main reason property values are so high here is that people want to live here. Not in Maryland.

What matters it the net flow of cash. In other words, who's paying the bills, and who's creating them. And the answer is that we are paying them, and the rednecks in the South are creating them.

He meant Federal spending per person instead of per dollar tax paid might be better able to support your argument that the southern states are chock full of people living on welfare.

In reality it matters little though -where- the money is being spent on as long as it generates local income. If it improves the ability of people to increase their standard of living then it is even better. Consider it as economic aid along the same lines as the Marshall plan if you wish.



Eri

California GDP 2008: $1,846,757,000,000.

Which state is higher? I assure you Maryland isn't.
aryland is always in top 3 for highest average incomes (it changes between Maryland, Conn, and NJ, but lately Maryland has been #1.) Obviously, California has a higher GDP, but that's not the metric most economically literate people use to classify how 'rich' a population is, because that metric would classify India as a rich nation and Luxembourg as a dirt poor one (hint: it ignores population.)

But you didn't even read my full statement.

California wasn't a pioneer in producing wealth; California was a pioneer in producing phony paper wealth subsidized by Fannie and Freddie and Sacramento's financial service companies that specialized in helping people make their homes into overvalued ATMs. You guys were knocking upper middle class people into top tax brackets with inflation, not wealth creation.
California's GDP was pumped up by over inflated home values and money being circulated around home equity loans, not increased wages and profits based of real cash flows from selling goods and services. It's similar to how California's GDP in the 1990s was pumped up by Silicon Valley venture capitalists dumping loaned money into online retailers that were destined to never make a cent. California does contribute a lot of valuable things to the nation, but it was ground zero in this nation's last two major bubbles, so a lot of California's "wealth" is paper wealth.

He meant Federal spending per person instead of per dollar tax paid might be better able to support your argument that the southern states are chock full of people living on welfare.Why? Not all people create the same value for the government. Spending $100 to maintain a Silicon Valley CEO is a far better deal than spending $10 to maintain a redneck in Arkansas.

But this chart (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf) from the tax foundation has the statistics you're looking for, on page 3. It lists federal tax burdens and expenditures per capita, by state, as a percentage of the U.S. average, for 2004.

You'll notice that the redneck states generally have the lowest tax burdens per capita (i.e., they pay the least) and above average expenditures per capita (i.e., they take the most). This is consistent with Klath's chart.

California's federal tax burden per capita is 110% of the national average, and its federal expenditures are 87% of the national average.

I'm talking about the top 5%; they don't make whole cities or counties. Obviously they make up more than 5% of the population of the San Diego suburbs since the area's wealth is above the national average, but they're still a slim minority. Their votes don't show up in elections nearly as well as their taxes show up in the government coffers. And you probably don't cross paths with many of them in your day to day life unless you work at a business that caters to the rich.
And your source for this info is? You seem to be making the assumption that the very stinking rich are Republican. Yet I know loads of stinking rich people who are liberal Democrats... The Kerrys, George Soros, most of the stinking Hollywood rich. Not that it matters, we don't get to vote based upon our income.

Besides, the wealthiest 5% of San Diegans live in Del Mar and La Jolla. Even the humblest cottage costs millions in those areas.

Maryland is always in top 3 for highest average incomesSo?

Norway has higher per capita GDP and income than the United States does.

Which nation do you think has the superior economic, military, and political force?California's GDP was pumped up by over inflated home values and money being circulated around home equity loans, not increased wages and profits based of real cash flows from selling goods and services.California does contribute a lot of valuable things to the nation, but it was ground zero in this nation's last two major bubbles, so a lot of California's "wealth" is paper wealth.Guess what, after all that, we're still #1, and Maryland still isn't. Which refutes your entire argument.

And your source for this info is? You seem to be making the assumption that the very stinking rich are Republican.

I never said that. I merely said that the political landscape among the top 5% is different than among the population at large in given states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_st ate

You seem to be making the assumption that the very stinking rich are Republican.

Yeah, that would be a faulty assumption. Obama won the majority of the votes of people making over 200k.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_st ate
aryland can thank the rich progressives in Montgomery County for their #1 position. :)

Maryland can thank the rich progressives in Montgomery County for their #1 position. :)

Political affliction among the rich is a tad more complex in Maryland than elsewhere in the country. Many of the rich people (as in the top 5%) here work for government or for government contractors, so it's not necessarily in their self interest to support the republicans.

In addition, the health care industry is huge in Maryland, but more so biotechs and hospitals then insurance companies. Some of them stand to profit from the democrats, some of them stand to profit from the republicans; it depends on what they do.

Got a question Tuda, if, Mount Shasta blows, which is always a possibility, it would probably given the geology of that mountain, collapse like Mount Mazama(sp) or what is now known as crater lake, in Oregon did, not far from Shasta. Also, given the Northern California watersheds' connections to Frisco and other large cities in the region, the damage could be catastrophic to Cali. Even lots of Earthquakes and stuff Cali is prone to could do the job. Same with Seattle, if, Ranier blew. Would everyone pitch in to help out Californians displaced, without jobs, all their money, homes, and what not? Seems to me when Katrina hit, everyone did just that. Hell, Tenn took in around 50k from Orleans, Texas took in quite a few, Alabama, Florida, Ark, etc. The point is you guys would be the "welfare" squad, but, would the welfare squad of the southern states help you? I bet they would.

So really, the difference is how much the average Californian makes compared to how much a southern state person makes. Would a government agency set up in Cali or and pay someone 55k a year or so, when they could setup and do the same thing in a different state for 35k a year? Or how about the amount of governmental jobs in an area, with a standardized government rate, how would that effect the local surroundings in the private sector? If, you could pay a secretary $10 an hour for governmental work, why would you spend $11 an hour for private sector nearby?

Sorry, Tuda, they are productive, they make tons of cheap things for everyone, at a cheap wage. Lighten, some of your load on some products and they get some governmental programs, not neccessarily, involving welfare.

I know this is probably a foreign concept to you, Kamion, but Democrats probably don't vote solely motivated by their wallets. Personally I put a high value on things like social justice, good infrastructure, good relations with other nations, health care for all, good oversight and regulation of important industries. If I have to pay more taxes for those goals, I'm okay with that. Things I'm not okay spending tax dollars on is military misadventures.

I know this is probably a foreign concept to you, Kamion, but Democrats probably don't vote solely motivated by their wallets.
And where did I even come close to implying that?

BTW, a few posts ago you were making fun for poor people who voted against their economic self interest. The irony.

Poor conservatives must be the most cognitively dissonant humans in existence.
I don't know if you're talking about rich democrats or not. But self interest does sway rich people to one side or the other. If there is a rich community that benefits from republicans, for example, in a 60/40 democratic area, they may be 50/50 or 60/40 republican. We're talking about 'leaning' one way or the other. We're not talking about absolutes here, Pan.

If you're talking about non-rich democrats, I'd like to point out that Obama ran on giving tax credits and entitlements to middle class, so if a middle class or poor voter was voting strictly for their short term self interest, they would've voted for Obama. Even Bill Maher said the true people who vote above their self interest are poor republicans.

Personally I put a high value on things like social justice, good infrastructure, good relations with other nations, health care for all, good oversight and regulation of important industries. If I have to pay more taxes for those goals, I'm okay with that. Things I'm not okay spending tax dollars on is military misadventures.
Are you kidding me? No really, are you kidding me? Maybe you feel that way personally, but no one embodies the 'Someone else should pay for everything I want' attitude more so than the democrats.

BTW, a few posts ago you were making fun for poor people who voted against their economic self interest. The irony.It's much more than that. It's their access to health care for themselves and their families, their ability to be able to go to college and a lot more. Basically it's their upward mobility and standard of living and access to important services, clean water, clear air, labor rights and so on.

Political affliction among the rich is a tad more complex in Maryland than elsewhere in the country.
Check out this list of the 50 US counties with the highest per-capita income:

http://money.aol.com/article/50-municipalities-with-highest-per/490738

I've only worked part way down the list but, so far, most of them appear to support the democrats.

any of the rich people (as in the top 5%) here work for government or for government contractors, so it's not necessarily in their self interest to support the republicans.
I grew up in Montgomery County and have a condo in Bethesda where I live for part of the year -- it's a progressive county because most of the people there are dyed-in-the-wool progressives.

Democrats probably don't vote solely motivated by their wallets. Personally I put a high value on things like social justice, good infrastructure, good relations with other nations, health care for all, good oversight and regulation of important industries. If I have to pay more taxes for those goals, I'm okay with that. Things I'm not okay spending tax dollars on is military misadventures.
I could not possibly agree more.

It's much more than that. It's their access to health care for themselves and their families, their ability to be able to go to college and a lot more. Basically it's their upward mobility and standard of living and access to important services, clean water, clear air, labor rights and so on.
Asking for a rich person to pay for your refundable tax credits is no different than asking a rich person to pay for your college and health care.

I'd like to point out that Obama ran on giving tax credits and entitlements to middle class

----

Check out this list of the 50 US counties with the highest per-capita income:

http://money.aol.com/article/50-muni...est-per/490738 (http://money.aol.com/article/50-municipalities-with-highest-per/490738)

I've only worked part way down the list but, so far, most of them appear to support the democrats.
And that does anything -at all- to explain how the rich people (top 5% in the nation) in those counties vote? Because that's (if you've been paying attention) is what we're talking about.

And that does anything -at all- to explain how the rich people (top 5% in the nation) in those counties vote? Because that's (if you've been paying attention) is what we're talking about.
Barring really bizarre demographics, there's going to be a fairly high representation of people making over $160K in a county with a median income of $132K, right?

And you probably don't cross paths with many of them in your day to day life unless you work at a business that caters to the rich.
Am I looking at the wrong number or something? Has it changed drastically in the last year? According to taxfoundation.org, people with an AGI of $160K or more in 2007 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. I'd imagine you'd cross paths with a lot of people who make more than that (if that's the right number).

I merely said that the political landscape among the top 5% is different than among the population at large in given states.
You've stated it but you haven't provided any evidence.

Barring really bizarre demographics, there's going to be a fairly high representation of people making over $160K in a county with a median income of $132K, right?
Given the counties in your list, that's basically what you got. Most of the ultra-high per-capita income counties have super low populations and a few rich people. Except "New York County" aka Manhattan, but even with 1.6 million people, it's per capita income is fluffed up by the large numbers of people worth $100M+ who live there.

ontgomery county, by contrast, has a per capita income of $67,000.

Am I looking at the wrong number or something? Has it changed drastically in the last year? According to taxfoundation.org, people with an AGI of $160K or more in 2007 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. I'd imagine you'd cross paths with a lot of people who make more than that (if that's the right number).
Sure, your boss probably makes more than that. But unless you work in a business that caters to rich people (which is what I said), you probably don't cross "many" rich people in a given day. If you live in Teton county, Wy and work at Jaskson Hole, that'd qualify as working in a business that caters to rich people, btw (althought not exclusivly rich people of course.)

According to taxfoundation.org, people with an AGI of $160K or more in 2007 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners.An AGI of $160 qualifies you as rich now? I think every homeowner in San Francisco makes that, at a minimum.

And 85% of San Franciscans voted for Obama, although our black population is tiny (like 7% or so).

An AGI of $160 qualifies you as rich now? I think every homeowner in San Francisco makes that, at a minimum.
San Fran's median household income is $65k.

It's also important to note that AGI doesn't include debt. Just because a person spends like they have a $165k AGI doesn't mean they actually do.

The median home price in San Fran during the bubble was well over $800k. People in San Fran were no where near rich enough to afford that. But they bought it anyways, and if you put a guy making $75k a year into a $800k home, the home equity loans he draws out will make him look rich. But it's not real.

San Fran's median household income is $65k.And those people don't own homes here. We have a couple of low-income areas, subsidized housing, and rent controlled apartments for them.

If your AGI is $160K you are not even remotely considered "rich" in San Francisco.The median home price in San Fran during the bubble was well over $800k. People in San Fran were no where near rich enough to afford that. But they bought it anyways, and if you put a guy making $75k a year into a $800k home, the home equity loans he draws out will make him look rich. But it's not real.Please stop speculating about a market you obviously don't understand.

From peak value around 2007 to today, my home priced dropped maybe 10%. It's still worth double what it was worth ten years ago.

The rocks beneath my feet (well, floor) are worth almost $200 per square foot. Because people -- WEALTHY people -- really want to live here. Not in Maryland. And they voted for Obama.

Aside from the questions of which state or income class pays for which other, what burns me is the (sometimes willful) ignorance of the fact that the lives of every person in the USA is heavily affected and subsidized by the national government.

These people who go around saying, "Keep the government out of my xxxxx", fail to realize (or admit) that "the government" is involved in every aspect of their lives and has been their entire lives.

They have taken the 'free market' arguments that were seen during the Microsoft anti-trust case debunked here (http://home.earthlink.net/~brucehalpern/capitalism.html) and blown them way beyond.

A great article here (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/klein.health.care.government/index.html) illustrates someone who complains that they "had enough of the government interfering with our lives, after working hard all of our lives, especially to get the health care." and protesting health care reform, while they take advantage of their health care that they only have because of the government.

People are saying, "the government can't run anything right, don't let them run our health care". This ignores the fact that the government already runs almost half of the health care in the USA, through Medicare, Medicaid and VA health care. This also ignores the fact that government can run things well. At least as well or better than private industry.

Is anyone going to seriously argue that private industry would have done a better job than NASA putting us on the Moon?

Aside from the questions of which state or income class pays for which other, what burns me is the (sometimes willful) ignorance of the fact that the lives of every person in the USA is heavily affected and subsidized by the national government.

The official (and harsh because it is a psychological condition) term for this is cognitive dissonance. Most people call it simply selective hearing. People hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see and happen to very good at ignoring facts that do not fit their preconceived notions. It is not even a psychological flaw as we have evolved to do just that: filter out the immense amount of information we take in every second and get down to the issues that are of immediate importance to us: safety, food, shelter, partner (and maybe the rest of the Maslow pyramid if your brain has not been rotted too badly by television and education). The scary part of all this is that if you know what you are doing it is rather easy to make people stare at the tv screen for hours, and to plant thoughts in their brains that they believe are their own and will feel excessively threatened about when those ideas are challenged. Thankfully it is not an exact science (yet) and that people are sufficiently different that there is no one single spin doctoring campaign that gets everybody in a target demographic.



People are saying, "the government can't run anything right, don't let them run our health care". This ignores the fact that the government already runs almost half of the health care in the USA, through Medicare, Medicaid and VA health care. This also ignores the fact that government can run things well. At least as well or better than private industry.

Is anyone going to seriously argue that private industry would have done a better job than NASA putting us on the Moon?

Unfortunately people can believe anything if they put their mind to it, and the harder they have had to work to convince themselves, the more strongly and irrationally they cling to their convictions should they be challenged. (yes, this also happens to be the psychological mechanism why so many of the poorest and disenfranchised americans vote Republican when logic would suggest they vote for the other party that has shown at least something of a track record to attempt to improve -their- situation).


Eri

An AGI of $160 qualifies you as rich now? I think every homeowner in San Francisco makes that, at a minimum.
Yeah, I found that pretty funny. Hell, in Marin you could throw a stone from just about anywhere and hit someone who pays more than $160k in taxes.

Given the counties in your list, that's basically what you got. Most of the ultra-high per-capita income counties have super low populations and a few rich people.
ost of the counties at the top of that list have high populations.

Except "New York County" aka Manhattan, but even with 1.6 million people, it's per capita income is fluffed up by the large numbers of people worth $100M+ who live there.
Can you provide a source for that claim?

ontgomery county, by contrast, has a per capita income of $67,000.
Sure, but in places like Chevy Chase, Bethesda, and Potomac there are entire neighborhoods where you'd have to look hard to find people making less $160k. These places vote overwhelmingly for dems.

Sure, your boss probably makes more than that.
$160K is certainly very good compensation but I definitely wouldn't call a person making that much rich. Well off, sure, but not rich.

But unless you work in a business that caters to rich people (which is what I said), you probably don't cross "many" rich people in a given day.
Think about it, if 1 in 20 people are rich and you live in one of the richest states in the country, you're crossing a lot more of these people than you think.

These people who go around saying, "Keep the government out of my xxxxx", fail to realize (or admit) that "the government" is involved in every aspect of their lives and has been their entire lives.
This seems appropriate...

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watch this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress, and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA bar back home on DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post of FreeRepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

AFAIK, originally posted here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/granitepics/3812645805/in/photostream/).

Sure, but in places like Chevy Chase, Bethesda, and Potomac there are entire neighborhoods where you'd have to look hard to find people making less $160k. These places vote overwhelmingly for dems.

[Citation]

[Citation]
It was hyperbole but it's really not far from the mark. At the very least, it supports my contention that the majority of the top 5% in Maryland are progressives.

Income data for three areas I specifically listed:
Chevy Chase (http://www.incometaxlist.com/chevy-chase-income-chevy-chase-md-20815.htm) -- 24% w/AGI over 200k
Bethesda (http://www.incometaxlist.com/bethesda-income-bethesda-md-20814.htm) -- 15% w/AGI over 200k
Potomac (http://www.incometaxlist.com/potomac-income-potomac-md-20854.htm) -- 28% w/AGI over 200k

It might be wise to check my math. :)

I assume you already know the political affiliation of these areas but for people who don't, the ratios speak for themselves...

$4,660,283 was given by people who identified their city as "Potomac".
$1,578,773 from 854 people to Republicans
$3,081,510 from 1,634 people to Democrats

$7,720,314 was given by people who identified their city as "Bethesda".
$1,666,671 from 968 people to Republicans
$6,053,643 from 4,123 people to Democrats

$5,392,816 was given by people who identified their city as "Chevy Chase".
$859,116 from 500 people to Republicans
$4,533,700 from 2,505 people to Democrats

Is anyone going to seriously argue that private industry would have done a better job than NASA putting us on the Moon?
Putting men in space is a huge waste of money. It's the first world equivalent of the giant statues and movements you see in communist countries to show the glory of the government. So I would agree with this. No rational businessman would've invested the (adjusted for inflation) $100s of billions it took to get a man on the moon to hit a golf ball.

Either way, I would've loved to seen NASA put a man in space without private contractors or suppliers and without basing their spacecraft off of past technologies developed by the private sector.

Saying NASA built a rocket is kind of like saying Ipods are made in China. Building something as complex as a Ipod (not to mention a spacecraft) is a tad more complicated than that. An Ipod is assembled in China, but the parts come from all over the world. Some spacecraft may be assembled by NASA by the actual parts come from all over the world.

The knowledge that went into the Apollo rockets came from the private sector research, government research, university research, private sector and university research funded by the government, etc. To say that 'government put a man in space' is a bit disingenuous, even if you're talking about the Soviets, since a lot of the technology they made were them mimicking technologies invented in the capitalist world.

Putting men in space is a huge waste of money.
I agree that the trip to the Moon was a waste of money, however, space exploration is not, as satellites make a big difference in a lot of things. And knowledge of other planets is useful, as long as money is not spent for projects that serve no purpose other than putting a human foot and a flag down.
Either way, I would've loved to seen NASA put a man in space without private contractors or suppliers and without basing their spacecraft off of past technologies developed by the private sector.
No one here is suggesting that all private industry be abolished.
Some spacecraft may be assembled by NASA by the actual parts come from all over the world.
Even the most "socialist" medical plans use "parts" from all over the world.
The knowledge that went into the Apollo rockets came from the private sector research, government research, university research, private sector and university research funded by the government, etc. To say that 'government put a man in space' is a bit disingenuous, even if you're talking about the Soviets, since a lot of the technology they made were them mimicking technologies invented in the capitalist world.
Congratulations, you have managed to understand the complexity of economics and science.

Which has nothing to do with the posts here.

Private industry has its place. Paying for health care isn't one of them, except as an option for those who wish to have extra insurance.

I mean we can just abolish the entire US military and contract it all out to Xe (formally called Blackwater), right? After all, the US military uses items created by the private sector.

Xe can replace the CIA too, as they were contracted to kill terrorists, by the CIA. Why not abolish the entire CIA?

In fact, abolish the entire US and State governments, and replace it all with private industry. Sure, privatization means that they will just care only about profits, but it worked out fine for the judges that were bribed by the private juvenile prisons to put kids in jail for minor crimes without lawyers.

After all, the US banking industry did just fine on sub-prime mortgages without government interference, right?

The GOP's insistence that private industry could do everything better has been debunked by everyone who looks at facts. Yes, there are some things private industry can do as well as the government, heck, maybe a few it can do better. But I can't think of any examples.

Well, UPS delivers packages better than the USPS. At least I think they do, the USPS does ok as far as I know. No private agency would deliver mail to non profiting address in the middle of nowhere.

Putting men in space is a huge waste of money.That's precisely the reason health care should be a public function.

Because the public interest is in conflict with, and outweighs, the business interest.

Consider that the litmus test for when a service or industry should be socialized.

I agree that the trip to the Moon was a waste of money, however, space exploration is not, as satellites make a big difference in a lot of things. And knowledge of other planets is useful, as long as money is not spent for projects that serve no purpose other than putting a human foot and a flag down.
I said putting man in space. Reading comprehension people, reading comprehension.

Congratulations, you have managed to understand the complexity of economics and science.

Which has nothing to do with the posts here.
Has to do with this post:

Is anyone going to seriously argue that private industry would have done a better job than NASA putting us on the Moon?
I was just telling you that private industry did help put us put a man on the moon.
After all, the US banking industry did just fine on sub-prime mortgages without government interference, right?
Do you even have the slightest understanding how banking works in this country?

On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service

Small correction to that list: USPS has not been funded by the Federal government since 1973.

We generate all our operating expenses via the sale of postage.

We are not doing such a good job since the recession hit, but we were in the black for most of the 90s and early 2000s.

inb4 "you have a monopoly of 1st class mail" (Hint: check out how much citizen to citizen mail is a part of our income)

I don't know if you paid attention, I barely did, but, the post office is doing some consolidating at the moment. They dug themselves in a hole. It would be nice, if, alot of our governmental work would pay for themselves, which is what the post office can do, but, they are a couple billion in the hole at the moment. Kinda like government loans for students.

The current method is to sub contract it out to private industry, Sallie Mae and stuff. Then, if a student doesn't pay up, the government covers 97% and Sallie gets to collect up to 38% in addition, pretty sweet deal for Sallie. Then, the fraud aspects of Sallie, where they consolidate a car payment, with more interest as well as the student loan, yada, yada, yada. The government could just directly finance it, gain allittle interest, and have a self sufficing procedure for government loans. Plus, if they don't pay, they can insert a small "tax" into the offenders checks, the government will get the loan back eventually, in addition to regular taxes. Eventually, with all these programs working like this, the government will be able to do stuff like lower taxes using whatever "profit" they make as revenue for other programs like department of defense, department of transportation.

I wonder how the Post Office is going to continue being as huge as it is with people using email/faxing more and more. I'm a terrible post office customer. I called up all the people who send me junk mail and told them to stop sending it.

quote"I mean we can just abolish the entire US military and contract it all out to Xe (formally called Blackwater), right? After all, the US military uses items created by the private sector."

There had been some talk about doing just that. Beyond basic infantry, the costs would skyrocket. Plus, things like airstrikes would be astronomical. Trying to finance a F-22 Raptor(they run about a billion a piece) solely off a guy making 60k a year, just would not work. One could argue the private sector prices would go down for a raptor as they would become more commonplace for civilians, I know I want one for allittle bit of unwinding. Without including the ammo the pilot would pay for, runs around a couple million per payload as this would be all for profit, of course. In addition to other things I won't mention.

I wonder how the Post Office is going to continue being as huge as it is with people using email/faxing more and more.You can't e-mail or fax goods.

well Pan, so long as the post office clause in the constitution is not rescinded, it will always be around. That is some of the problem with government industries, sometimes, they just do not adapt quick enough or do not run in real time environments. That can bite them in the butt.

Private sector does the same thing, particularly the arts and entertainment industry in regards to Napster originally was or downloading. The music industry has adjusted better, but, they were bungholes about it at first. Consider this if you will, how much person to person downloading of movies goes on? They spend tons of money to stop it. They try to get you to pick up the dvd. But, what they have yet to do, is make movies digitally downloadable from their websites. NFL does this to spending lots of time and money shutting down people streaming, but, do very little in offering the same services which would cut down alot of what is going on in the first place.

The point is the .com thing was actually successful, unfortunately, many of the up and comers were shut down because most of the industries could not keep pace in real time. That is where the post office comes in, they have a hard time keeping up with the times, the higher gas prices, email instead of snail mail, etc.

edit fixed stuff

quote"You can't e-mail or fax goods."

yes, you can so long as the goods include some kind of photo, information, music, movie, etc. Perhaps, they should invest towards star trek teleporter technology to keep up pace for more material goods? Maybe, instead of Bard post, plus those boats were always broken, more into wizards and druids? Plus, druids have sow and soe for all those hard to reach places. Pok stones? Guild Hall portals and banners? Magus? Translocater gnomes? gm and guide zone hacks?

yes, you can so long as the goods include some kind of photo, information, music, movie, etc.You know what I mean. Physical goods, not data.

Internet retailing is the future, and that generates lots of demand for shipping companies that specialize in residential delivery, like the post office.

So the post office is not dead just because people don't send letters anymore.

YA, but, sending a letter to mom in Cali from New York was a significant source of revenue, as well as business mail opting for direct electronic payments for bills instead of money order/checks sent via post office. Lots of companies specializing in parcels are doing quite well, while the post office is struggling with shortfalls. The post office has lots of competition, higher costs delivering out in the middle of nowwhere, posts everywhere. While the competition gets niches, completely foregoing the middle of nowwhere deliveries for bigger, easier, cost effective deliveries.

The post office has lots of competition, higher costs delivering out in the middle of nowwhere, posts everywhere. While the competition gets niches, completely foregoing the middle of nowwhere deliveries for bigger, easier, cost effective deliveries.Except for the small flat rate stuff, they charge more for longer shipping distance, just like UPS does.

I use priority mail all the time for smaller stuff, as it's cheap and efficient, but UPS wins out for bigger packages.

While the competition gets niches, completely foregoing the middle of nowwhere deliveries for bigger, easier, cost effective deliveries.

Which is why the EC made it mandatory for companies that want to deliver post within its boundaries to deliver everywhere regardless of how remote.
That is only reasonable of course, but that is the big evil socialist government conspiracy for you. It tells the almighty corporations that there are rules they have to abide to if they want to play in a level playing field and that the customer comes first, not profit.


Eri

YA, but, sending a letter to mom in Cali from New York was a significant source of revenue

No, you didn't read my last post. The USPS has operated in the black as late as 2003, and citizen to citizen mail was less than 10% of total revenue during those years. Mother's Day cards haven't been a source of revenue since the Clinton adminstration, and not even then.

Lots of companies specializing in parcels are doing quite well, while the post office is struggling with shortfalls.
The post office has major shortfalls, but not due to the recession. We have cut over 100,000 employees over the past 10 years, and keep cutting down the number of positions.
Which parcel companies are "doing quite well"? (I seem to recognize the phrase from somewhere.. hmm.)
It's not FedEx, whose revenue plummeted 75% in one year, according to this article.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/FedEx-to-Lay-Off-Thousands.htm
It's not UPS, who has laid off thousands all across the country, beginning a year ago in 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/24parcel.html?_r=1&ref=business
It's not DHL, who went belly up sometime over this last year.

So, pray tell, which parcel companies are "doing well?"

The post office has lots of competition, higher costs delivering out in the middle of nowwhere, posts everywhere. While the competition gets niches, completely foregoing the middle of nowwhere deliveries for bigger, easier, cost effective deliveries.

This part of your post is correct. If federally mandated for universal service at a universal price (1st class stamp), FedEx and UPS would either double their prices or fold.

The companies that compete with the post office cherry pick the areas they wish to compete in, and the products that they wish to compete with.

Something no one is mentioning is the real reason why the post office is even losing any money at all. We have cut 100,000 jobs after all.

"Total revenue in FY 08 was $75 billion, unchanged from last year. Expenses totaled $77.8 billion, including the $5.6 billion payment required by the Postal Act of 2006 to pre-fund retiree health benefits." Source: http://www.usps.com/financials/cra/welcome.htm

So, without Congress sticking its hand into the post office's business, and mandating a pre-funded retiree healthcare package, the USPS would have shown a 2.8 billion dollar profit for FY08 instead of a 2.8 billion deficit.

Same for 2007, and 2009 (so far)

Now before you get the idea I am all starry-eyed sweetness and light over the USPS, let me be clear: I don't like how the USPS is mismanaged by slack jawed idiots, I don't agree with their "business" plans, I don't agree with how they mistreat their employees, I don't enjoy the mindless tedium that is the job day-in, and day-out, I don't like the fact I can never get any time off, or use my sick leave (a touted "benefit") without being written up and a black mark put in my file, and I don't like the graveyard shift hours the post office tells me I have to work even after being there 15 years.

However, it does quite well for the rules it must follow, being the federal agency that it is.

Your misapprehension about the post office vs. FedEx/UPS is understandable though. Obama thought the same thing.
Here's a letter the NAPS President sent to Obama to set him straight.
http://www.federaltimes.com/blogs/fedtimes/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/keating-letter-to-barack-obama_08-14-09.pdf

Physical goods can be sent by means other than USPS.

Right now it seems like the USPS is mostly in operation due to junk mail. And frankly, that's a service I could live without. Although I hate to think what sending something would cost if it weren't for junk mail semi-subsidizing non-junk mail, assuming that happens.

quote"No, you didn't read my last post. The USPS has operated in the black as late as 2003, and citizen to citizen mail was less than 10% of total revenue during those years"

Actually I did, prior to the email craze around 95' or so, how much citizen to citizen mail as a percentage prior to that which was what I was getting at?

quote"Which parcel companies are "doing quite well"? "

Well, you got me there. I was aware of the post office and there troubles, I was not aware of DHL going under. I was aware that Fed Ex had some tax trouble, driver trouble trying to cut corners in pay and stuff, that was expected, they should be recapitalizing soon. That leaves us with UPS, which according to that article, had their profit margin drop by 9.9%, while they were cutting costs with layoffs things like that, as well as posting $1.74 gain in their stock prices. Layoffs can be a good thing for companies, not neccessarily people employed by companies, mostly short term though. UPS still made a profit though, I guess I should change that to UPS is doing ok?

quote""Total revenue in FY 08 was $75 billion, unchanged from last year. Expenses totaled $77.8 billion, including the $5.6 billion payment required by the Postal Act of 2006 to pre-fund retiree health benefits."

I am not worried about this. General Motors did not do this, look what happened to them. GM failed to set aside profits, or enough profit, for their retiree pensions, hence a big reason why they are in trouble. Once, the postal service goes through their cuts they will be fine.

quote"Your misapprehension about the post office vs. FedEx/UPS is understandable though. Obama thought the same thing"

I don't know what Obama said exactly, but, did I ever take a shot at the post office? I am aware of their troubles, they will handle it. I am also aware they get a thankless job, but, a crucial one providing a government service, often understaffed, overworked and so on, since it was first implemented, for which they have my thanks.

So, shouldn't the USPS serve as a counterexample to claims that the government can't do anything right?

Also, I can't find any information about DHL failing. Their website sure makes it looks like they're still operating.

So, shouldn't the USPS serve as a counterexample to claims that the government can't do anything right?

As much as it pains me to defend it, it is the only government agency I'm aware of that generates its own operating expenses, and that hasn't received US taxpayer money for operational expenses since 1973. We are actually mostly independent in our day-to-day operations, always keeping the mandatory "universal service/universal price" rule in mind, of course. So technically, the federal government doesn't really run it, per se.

That's not to say that there aren't elements within the post office that aren't a holdover from the pre-1973 days.

Our bureaucracy is massive. It's a chain around our necks that has to be excised completely if we want to continue to operate the USPS from a business model. In today's recession economy, we don't need, nor can afford, any postal positions that do not actively process the mail. We have approximately 40,000 managers and bureaucratic types that could be shown the door without impacting day-to-day delivery. Processing the mail is not rocket science, and needs little to no management. You know your job, you go in and do it, and clock out.

The managers at the post office are actually very redundant due to Congressional Oversight Commitees. Congress and the federal government can step in at any time and tell the post office "Do this or that" and we have to abide by whatever they tell us. And from time to time, Congress decides to hit us with some regulation that only the post office has to abide by.

Every time that I can recall that the Congress decides to stick its nose into how the post office is run, it causes financial loss for the post office. The most recent example is the Postal Act of 2006.

So the argument is: The Beltway Bureaucrats will run anything remotely resembling profitable business models into the ground, because they cannot comprehend where money comes from, or how wealth is generated. The post office is somewhat free of their influence, therefore is not completely crippled.

Also, I can't find any information about DHL failing. Their website sure makes it looks like they're still operating.

I suppose "belly up" is too strong of a phrase, speaking of the entire global company. Its domestic US division was announced "discontinued" back in November 2008, effective in 2009.
Source:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/10/news/companies/dhl/index.htm

I did not remember the exact date, and had not the time to provide a link with the story I remembered reading about DHL in my last post. I apologize if I misled anyone to think DHL was out of business completely. They still deliver international packages. However, the purview of the discussion was about US to US mail delivery systems, private vs. public.

Right now it seems like the USPS is mostly in operation due to junk mail. And frankly, that's a service I could live without. Although I hate to think what sending something would cost if it weren't for junk mail semi-subsidizing non-junk mail, assuming that happens.

I agree with this, except for the word semi-subsidizing. Take that out, and you have hit the nail right on the head.

I hardly ever agree with the union. . on anything. However, this article shows me they are not complete idiots, and pertains directly to your observations.
http://www.apwu.org/dept/presvp/index.htm Should be the article that appeared in the Sept 2009 APWU magazine.

90% of our revenue is businesses mailing things to consumers, or other businesses. The US has been, and is, a service-based economy, and there's no cheaper way to ensure the service you are offering gets seen by the consumer, albeit briefly, when the consumer flips your flyer into the recycle bin while looking through their bills.

Email can be blocked, telemarketing can be blocked, but the mail . . Just. Keeps. Coming.

Newman had it right. The mail never stops!

So the argument is: The Beltway Bureaucrats will run anything remotely resembling profitable business models into the ground, because they cannot comprehend where money comes from, or how wealth is generated.


Strange as it may seem, I do agree with you here at least to an extent.
The role of government oversight is NOT to run an individual business (* unless that business is absolutely vital to the lives of many people, but more about that a little later).
It all really comes down to the distinction between products and services. For the first price is more important than quality (as long as a wide range of both is available). For the second quality is more important than price. E.g. a car is a product. It is more important to be able to afford it than that it is a mercedes. Electricity on the other hand is a service. It is more important that it is delivered than that it is as cheap as possible.
The problem here is that capitalism does not work too well with services. The aim of a company is to create as much profit as possible, which it does by selling the lowest quality product at the highest price they can get away with (for their chosen price bracket! Some companies deliberately aim for high value low turnover markets. The same principle applies there as well, just at higher prices). For services you need an organisation that is concerned first with delivering and only second with cost, which is exceedingly rare to find in a regular company. Those always will try to cut cost and to avoid unprofitable markets (e.g. which is why insurance companies look so hard to drop coverage once people develop expensive conditions, and why commercial mail companies only collect and deliver what is profitable and where it is profitable).

The role of the government in all this is, if they chose to not provide the service themselves (like they do with e.g. police and army and many other essentials like water and sewage), is to force a level playing field. If a company wants to deliver mail it has to abide by the minimum levels of service that the government deems necessary. If it wants to provide electricity it must deliver everywhere in the area, not just in the suburbs where the infrastructure is good and most people can afford to pay their bills.
And IF government decides that a particular service is so vital, or so sensitive, that it can not allow commercial interest to influence it then it becomes a government department and the idea of profit should not even cross our minds (e.g. you really do not want law enforcement handled by a commercial company that makes a profit from either taking a cut of the fines or from selling 'protection' to the people in an area, nor do you want fire fighting handled commercially. And in neither case does it really matter if the department is profitable or not as long as it is effective.) Such organisations are paid from taxes for the simple reason that this way they are free of external influences. If they are not, you end up with situations like where the FDA had to hire external expertise from the same companies that tried to get their drugs approved to begin with.

But nowhere in all this does it make sense for government to concern itself with running the day to day business of a company even if it operates in a more tightly regulated service market. They set the levels for the quality of service. They can even be involved in setting the maximum price (in the understanding that they will have to cover the difference if they set the maximum price below the actual cost, or risk the commercial companies leaving the market and thus ending the service being provided entirely).



Eri

I agree with this, except for the word semi-subsidizing. Take that out, and you have hit the nail right on the head. I'm not sure I follow. Junk mail isn't subsidizing non-junk mail? So if all the junk mail were removed non-junk mail prices wouldn't skyrocket and the postal system wouldn't have to shrink hugely? Or was it the word "semi-" you thought was incorrect and junk-mail is totally subsidizing non-junk mail?
Email can be blocked, telemarketing can be blocked, but the mail . . Just. Keeps. Coming.
*moan* Oh yeah, I tried to ask the post office to block that stuff and they wouldn't. I got on the DMA list... didn't do a damn thing. So then I started contacting each and every company that sends a catalog or envelope full of crappy coupons I wouldn't use in my lifetime and I told them to stop. Unfortunately once every couple of months a new one pops up.

The problem here is that capitalism does not work too well with services.

Just a 'tad' bit of a declarative statement.

Just a 'tad' bit of a declarative statement.

Actually, there is a rather huge qualification in it with that 'not too well'. I did not say 'not at all'.

I even gave the reasoning that economists of quite a bit more standing than my amateur opinions have formulated: For services the availability is more important than the price. Capitalism is great at creating profit at the expense of all else, and people generally assume that means it will lead to lower cost. In practice there are many situations where those two diverge.

Any time a near monopoly is paired with high entrance cost (e.g. in the case of electricity providers who have to build hundres of millions worth of powerplants to start a business, or a telecom provider who would need to lay billions dollars worth of cables throughout the entire country) the cost will be determined by the ability of people to bear it, not by the lowest level that a company can still sustain.
Any situation where availability is of paramount importance pure capitalism will not work. A police force that is operated as a capatalist company will end up protecting the rich against the poor who can not afford them. Any rural area will end up either without or with substandard or incredibly expensive police service (as the cost to operate business in that situation makes no sense for a company only interested in profit).
Also, situations where large scale investments are needed but where the weakest link defines over all quality a purely for profit company is not going to be the best solution. E.g. levees and other protections against flooding. Water does not care about the value of property. It will use the weakest link and gather at the lowest point. Leaving part of a dike a few meters lower because the ground behind it is unused makes the entire dike a futile investment.

That does not mean there is no place in profit in services, nor that there are not many markets that operate best when for profit companies have (relative) freedom to operate, but simply that services require a certain degree of government oversight to ensure availability and quality.


Eri

The problem here is that capitalism does not work too well with services.It works just fine with services, EXCEPT in those unique cases where the business interests are in conflict with the public interest, such as in the case of health care, or other essential services (military, infrastructure, police, and the like).

That is why every developed nation, including the United States, has socialized these functions. Because government MUST run them or else they will fail and bring chaos.

Actually, there is a rather huge qualification in it with that 'not too well'. I did not say 'not at all'.

To clarify: I mainly disagreed with you using the word 'capitalism.'

99.99% of industries and government programs are neither handled in a pure capitalist or socialist fashion. There is government intervention in hedge funds and there is private intervention in running social security, for example.

You should narrow down the word used in your statement to something more particular than 'capitalism.'

Funny how Tudamorf and Kamion (of all people) end up agreeing to disagree with me.
For almost completely opposite reasons :)



Eri

I'm not sure I follow. Junk mail isn't subsidizing non-junk mail? So if all the junk mail were removed non-junk mail prices wouldn't skyrocket and the postal system wouldn't have to shrink hugely? Or was it the word "semi-" you thought was incorrect and junk-mail is totally subsidizing non-junk mail?

The qualifier "semi-". Your 1st class letter prices of 44 cents are very low for such a service, because the businesses of America pay us 90% of the money needed to transport to every home, business, and post office box, every day except Sundays, 52 weeks out of the year, rain or shine, nighttime or daytime. Think of the 1st class mail as hitching a ride on the backs of all the advertising mail, and the 44 cents is only paying for the 10% of the extra time it takes to process them in a facility, and DPS sequence them for the carriers to pick up at 5am.

If Congress banned all advertising mail tomorrow, a number of things would become very apparent:
1) The USPS has to generate our operating expenses since 1973, and receive no taxpayer money whatsoever
2) Therefore, like any other business model, any costs are passed directly on to the customer
3) Like every other business, we are in the business of removing as many employees as fast as possible. (We have already gone down from (2001) 775,903 employees to (2009) 621,402 employees )
4) There exists a lower limit of people you can cut and still maintain universal delivery.
Therefore, you, the customer would pay the full 100% of the cost to mail a letter, vs. the 10% you pay now, so . . . . $4.50 stamps, anyone?

ake sure to read the article I linked from the APWU President. It sounds like we actually have one in there this year with some brains, other than standard unionized pablum.

*moan* Oh yeah, I tried to ask the post office to block that stuff and they wouldn't. I got on the DMA list... didn't do a damn thing. So then I started contacting each and every company that sends a catalog or envelope full of crappy coupons I wouldn't use in my lifetime and I told them to stop. Unfortunately once every couple of months a new one pops up.

Well, you are certainly thorough. However, you can't expect to catch every ad flyer. The post office can not block certain mailings. CAN NOT. Even if you call every business in the nation, you can't stop the "Resident" flyers, or the "missing persons" flyers, or the political mailings, which are all non-specific drop shipments of pallets and pallets of flyers, all of which fall under saturation mailings. I looked for a picture of saturation mailings on the internets, but couldn't find one. Suffice it to say, we get 4ftW x 4ftL x 6ftH pallets, filled with flyers, coupon mailers, and other ads that are shuffled into the DPS carrier sequence, one for each address. Saturation mailings are mandated to be 100% coverage by law. (well, by the DMM (http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/dmm300_landing.htm), which is for us postal monkeys, law)

The last time I asked about this (several years ago, so the info could have changed), saturation mailings addressed are based off of the Atlanta master. Each carrier must go through and cull bad addresses from their route every 90 days, to update the master database in Atlanta. So even if you were to somehow beg to be removed from this list, you would end up back on it three months later, as your address is valid, therefore would be re-included.

I believe the DMA list is only for the companies to voluntarily use if they actually address the advertising mail specifically to you. If you are not receiving your mandatory saturation mailings, I can't imagine how. If you aren't, the only thing I can think of is that your carrier is violating the DMM rules, and hand-pulling out your flyers before s/he puts the mail into your box, because they have somehow become aware of your distaste for the flyers. Then again, they'd be violating the DMM rules, and be subject to disciplinary procedures at that point, so probably not. You did say you get some every few months, so that is probably the saturation master list re-updating.

I got on the DMA list... didn't do a damn thing. So then I started contacting each and every company that sends a catalog or envelope full of crappy coupons I wouldn't use in my lifetime and I told them to stop. Unfortunately once every couple of months a new one pops up.
Over the last four years or so I've been doing the same thing -- using the DMA opt out list and removing myself explicitly from everything else. I didn't notice too much of a difference initially but, apart from the saturation mailings that Gunny mentioned, I now get very little in the way of junk mail. I don't know why but it seems to take time for it to kick in -- definitely more than than 6-8 weeks that the catalog mailers claim. I did the same thing for my parents and it took about 6 months before they noticed a difference but it was enough of a difference that their mail carrier commented on it.

IIRC, this is the place I went to get on the DMA opt out lists: https://www.dmachoice.org

I believe I waited quite a few months for the DMA list to kick in, it never did. I still kept receiving all the weekly circulars and so on.

I felt very good about getting off all those mailing lists, like I'm helping keep some trees out of the trash.

I guess having spam filters and add-blockers on the telephone (Do-not-call lists) and email makes me feel like they're needed everywhere else too. :)

I assume I'm receiving saturation mailings, maybe that's the last bit of stuff I haven't gotten rid of. I don't really look at them, they go in the trash before I even step in the front door. Are those the cards with ads on one side and a missing kid on the other side?

The problem I have is that getting a weekly "newspaper" of advertisements makes it likely that real mail will end up hidden inside it when stuffed into my mailbox. (And the inserts look similar to real mail at a glance.)

The problem I have is that getting a weekly "newspaper" of advertisements makes it likely that real mail will end up hidden inside it when stuffed into my mailbox. (And the inserts look similar to real mail at a glance.)
There's almost always a phone number on those circulars you can call and ask to get taken off their mailing list.

I felt very good about getting off all those mailing lists, like I'm helping keep some trees out of the trash.Trash?!

I have a paper recycling bin right below the mailbox.

Getting removed from the mailing list may be difficult. There's no phone number on the paper (other than numbers that are part of the advertisements), and it is addressed to "Current Resident" with my building but no apartment number. So, the address isn't even specific to me, yet it finds it way to me anyway.

I believe I waited quite a few months for the DMA list to kick in, it never did. I still kept receiving all the weekly circulars and so on.
In addition to the DMA list I explicitly removed my name from Valassis (Advo) (http://www.valassis.com/1024/Contact/contact_home.aspx) as well. You might try giving them a try and see if that makes a difference.

The problem I have is that getting a weekly "newspaper" of advertisements makes it likely that real mail will end up hidden inside it when stuffed into my mailbox. (And the inserts look similar to real mail at a glance.)
That's what got me started -- that and the fact that I'd occasionally get enough junk mail that it would crush important stuff in my non-junk mail. Those bastards at B&H Photo may as well be sending out cinder-blocks given the size of their catalog. :)

In addition to the DMA list I explicitly removed my name from Valassis (Advo) (http://www.valassis.com/1024/Contact/contact_home.aspx) as well. You might try giving them a try and see if that makes a difference.
Thanks! I can't recall if I filled that one out or not, so I did it.

Getting removed from the mailing list may be difficult. There's no phone number on the paper (other than numbers that are part of the advertisements), and it is addressed to "Current Resident" with my building but no apartment number. So, the address isn't even specific to me, yet it finds it way to me anyway.
Your postal carrier is handed a stack of spam mail.
And your postal carrier puts the spam in your mailbox.

It does not even need an address. You are not on any list(for much of it). It is a service that the USPS provides to spammers. The spammers just provide all of the spam materials, the post office does the rest.

I have talked to the Post Master about stopping it. Their line about bulk mail they deliver is, "They(the spammers) pay for the postage for it to be delivered, we must deliver it".

I have left notes in the mail box, telling the carrier to not put it in my box.

When I started shoving it into the outgoing slot, the post master started returning my legitimate mail to senders.

After several calls and letters to the regional office, I now am getting my legitimate mail. But the spam is still coming too.

Saturation mailing. If the spammer has 90% of the addresses on the route, they can hire the post office to deliver to everyone else even if they don't have their addresses.

At least, unlike e-mail and phone spammers, mail spammers provide a useful service, by heavily subsidizing a service I use all the time.

As adopted, the postal agency, which now faces a liability of $5.4 billion due Sept. 30, would have to pay only $1.4 billion and would be allowed to effectively defer the remaining $4 billion until after 2017.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27513.html

This seems related somehow (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113177563&ft=1&f=1001). Paranoia and suspicion of the government. Maybe it's just drug related.

Edit..... needless to say the post I covered up was going to tick everyone off. +1 post count if I cared about post count.

This was kind of funny! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/opinion/08iht-edkeillor.html?_r=1&ref=global

O.K., it was wrong of me to say last week that we should deny health care to Republicans except for aspirin and hand sanitizer, and thank you to the many readers who kindly took me to task. It was so wrong.

And I withdraw the idea that death panels should circulate through red states searching for the obese and slow afoot, the wheezy and limpy, spray-painting orange stripes on their ankles, marking them for future harvest. That was very, very bad.

Republicans have the same right to quality health care as anyone else, and you can quote me on that. Even people who are crazed stark raving berserk by the thought of a president with three vowels in his last name deserve to be treated with kindness and dignity, and shot with tranquilizer darts by game wardens and wrapped in quilts and taken to refuge.

This might explain some of the craziness...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091020181257.htm
ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2009) — Young men who voted for Republican John McCain or Libertarian candidate Robert Barr in the 2008 presidential election suffered an immediate drop in testosterone when the election results were announced, according to a study by researchers at Duke University and the University of Michigan.

I've heard the same thing happens when a man's football team loses.

Gosh, must be hard to be yanked around by one's nether regions all the time!

It's temporary. Testosterone levels shift all the time throughout the day.

You would have seen the same effect in Obama supporters if he had lost.

Or if you had handed them a baby to hold.

Gosh, must be hard to be yanked around by one's nether regions all the time!
On the bright side, at least we can wear white all month. :moon:

(wow, who knew there was a menstruation emoticon?)

quote"Gosh, must be hard to be yanked around by one's nether regions all the time!"

Yep, it sucks. Guys, such as me, go through it on a daily basis, as we get older, we kinda get used to it. The result would probably stay slightly below the previous levels of testerone. My theory is it would lower slightly, but remain fairly stable. On an similar note, just coming home from work and such looking to relax for a few when your girlfriend/wife/and or dude, particularly when it is a frequent affair, immediately launches into you about not taking out the trash or forgetting to bring home the milk, or whatever else fairly typical excuse, kinda effects your libido the rest of the day, then, later when they want to get down, you quite do not..... then, they get angry because you won't make love to them anymore or infrequently.......

But, a similar study in estrogen, and the other hormone(progest?) in women could be interesting to see the results of. I wonder if they would be similar.

But, a similar study in estrogen, and the other hormone(progest?) in women could be interesting to see the results of. I wonder if they would be similar.

Progesteron. Those affect fertility though, not sex drive. Believe it or not testosterone is responsible for that in both genders. (or I should say all genders since it is not quite such a binary system as biology textbooks and most people would have it).
Then there is also oxytocine for an interesting variety of physical and mental effects on the body, but you generally have to be several months pregnant for that to show up in meaningful quantities, but a small amount of it is continuously produced (by women anyway, in men that would be cause for concern. For them you want a certain measure of the related hormone vasopressine. Measuring levels of that is far more important in the light of this subject as it affects postive social interaction while testosterone affects aggressive behaviour).

Also women mostly produce estradiol not estrogen as the later is the name of a group of related hormones. Fun fact is that men produce small quantities of this hormone as well, just as women produce small quantities of testosterone.

This concludes the free biology lesson on the major reproductive hormones in the human female.


Eri

Ya, what she said. Still kinda makes me wonder though about the hormonal changes as it relates to fertility, sex drives, in cases such as these in both males and females. Kinda like certain hormonal changes in relation to women with other women, when their menstrual cycle starts adapting to other women, they start to sync up.

It's temporary. Testosterone levels shift all the time throughout the day.

You would have seen the same effect in Obama supporters if he had lost.

Or if you had handed them a baby to hold.
They controlled for the testosterone levels shifting. Yes, it would've happened to Obama supporters too.

They tracked testosterone in the women, and ... can't remember if there were other hormones tracked, but it just didn't have the same effect.

I remember hearing about the number of domestic violence cases going up right after a city's football team loses.

I'm so going to tease my male friends when I next play a board game with them and they're losing!

On the bright side, at least we can wear white all month.
How many months out of the year do you wear white? :p

Ya, what she said. Still kinda makes me wonder though about the hormonal changes as it relates to fertility, sex drives, in cases such as these in both males and females. Kinda like certain hormonal changes in relation to women with other women, when their menstrual cycle starts adapting to other women, they start to sync up.

Technically testosterone does not directly affect the sex drive. Instead it increases the aggressiveness, and thus how much you pursue that drive. The drop in testosterone levels in men is not the result of losing their sex drive, but of becoming less aggressive in what they perceive as defeat. It is a safety mechanism that ensures that the losing side in dominance struggles does not continue fighting (and thus makes deaths much less likely in these fights). As women rarely have aggressive dominance contests they do not have a similar safety system in place. Or if they do it is much less prevalent.

The other hormonal change is the positive reinforcement of gentle touch through the release of oxyticine (in women) or vasopressine (in men). Handing somebody a baby will immediately cause those hormones to be released, and even more so if there is skin to skin contact. Both have in the similar effect of suppressing aggressive tendency and increasing protective instincts. (the reason that men get their own hormone here is that oxyticine also stimulates breast growth and milk production. And yes, stimulating oxyticine production in boys around puberty will result in them developing (smallish) breasts. It probably will also render them infertile. At later age it also can (theoretically) cause them to start lactating a few drops. There is also the theory, which has never been properly researched partly because it is so difficult to do so in an ethical way, that increased skin on skin contact for girls during puberty will result in them developing larger breasts than they would otherwise. Biologically it makes sense (in a million years ago naked monkey kind of sense), but that of course does not automatically make it true.


Eri

They tracked testosterone in the women, and ... can't remember if there were other hormones tracked, but it just didn't have the same effect.Why would it? Women select mates, they don't fight to win them.

Football and similar sports are avenues for men to vicariously release these instincts, since our modern societal rules don't allow us to go around clubbing other men to get access to their women.

When men get into a relationship, their testosterone naturally decreases. And when they have contact with children, it decreases further. But when they break up and are single again, it goes up.

Technically testosterone does not directly affect the sex drive.I beg to differ. It's not just aggressiveness. When your testosterone goes down, you think less about sex, you have fewer erections, and they are of lower quality. When it goes up, the exact opposite happens.

It's a difference you can feel quite easily.

If you don't believe me, ask any male bodybuilder coming off a cycle of steroids, about the change in their sex drive, or more accurately the total lack thereof.

There is also the theory, which has never been properly researched partly because it is so difficult to do so in an ethical way, that increased skin on skin contact for girls during puberty will result in them developing larger breasts than they would otherwise. Biologically it makes sense (in a million years ago naked monkey kind of sense), but that of course does not automatically make it true.Actually, biologically or physiologically speaking, the enormous size of human female breasts makes no sense whatsoever. The same goes for the huge human male penis.

They're just odd by-products of sexual selection. Even today we select for bigger ones, for no practical reason.

Quote"At later age it also can (theoretically) cause them to start lactating a few drops."

Actually, it can be a bit more than a few drops. I couldn't find the story of the Indian guy who, after his wife passed away, full on breast fed his child. But, it was rare for that to happen.

quote"I beg to differ. It's not just aggressiveness. When your testosterone goes down, you think less about sex, you have fewer erections, and they are of lower quality. "

This is where I agree with Tuda, Eri, it does deal with the male sex drive. Even sometimes indirectly. And yes, it helps socializing with other people provided it doesn't go through the roof.

quote"Why would it? Women select mates, they don't fight to win them."

This would be where I disagree with Tuda. I have competed for the affections of a woman before with another male or 2. None of that came out quite as bitter over a few women competing for a male, but, that was slightly off the point. Yes, women do.

Always been curious about the physiological responses from emotional and the relations to sexuality.

Err, wait shouldn't we be back bashing republicans again?

I beg to differ. It's not just aggressiveness. When your testosterone goes down, you think less about sex, you have fewer erections, and they are of lower quality. When it goes up, the exact opposite happens.

It's a difference you can feel quite easily.

If you don't believe me, ask any male bodybuilder coming off a cycle of steroids, about the change in their sex drive, or more accurately the total lack thereof.

Obviously I will have to believe you on your word, being unable to experience the phenomenon you describe. I can only go by textbooks, which on these subjects frequently are based on guestimates and the desire for things to be in certain (political or religious) ways, described decades or centuries ago and ever since slavishly copied. (though this generally applies more to female sexuality than to male).



Actually, biologically or physiologically speaking, the enormous size of human female breasts makes no sense whatsoever. The same goes for the huge human male penis.

They're just odd by-products of sexual selection. Even today we select for bigger ones, for no practical reason.


Not quite. Human females have larger breasts than typical for other mammals a lot longer than we have been remotely civilised. There must be a biological reason for that. While it is all speculation, the most likely reason can be found in our social structure where we form semi-permanent bonds. It becomes important for males and females alike to advertise their fertility and fitness. The universal indicator of attractiveness in women (waist to hip ration of 0.7) is an indicator of youth and health (and capabality to survive labour). Large breasts indicate the ability to store lots of fat and to feed children.

The relative size of the human penis also may have something to do with our semi-monogamy. Especially the fact that we used to form close groups of roughly equal numbers of males and females instead of the more typical harem social structure. Competition and opportunistic behaviour are a risk for a male (if he wants to garantuee his own offspring), and ways to ensure that couples stay together need to go both ways. This may also be the reason for the existence of the clitoris and the orgasm in women. No other species that we know of bothers with such niceties (to that extent), not even other primates so there must be a specific evolutionary advantage to it.


Eri

Obviously I will have to believe you on your word, being unable to experience the phenomenon you describe.I'd throw those textbooks away, because what I'm saying is common knowledge.

Although I don't use drugs, my hormone levels vary with training and diet and I can tell you from personal experience that the effect is not subtle.

In those that use drugs to cycle hormone levels, the effect is even more extreme.Not quite. Human females have larger breasts than typical for other mammals a lot longer than we have been remotely civilised. There must be a biological reason for that.There's no biological reason for human females to have enormous breasts. All of our ape relatives can lactate just fine with their puny breasts and so could we if we wanted to. (Men could lactate too, by the way, with the right hormonal changes.)

It's a matter of sexual selection. They're simply cues we've instinctively chosen for ourselves, by which to judge mates, not physical adaptations designed to deal with the environment.The relative size of the human penis also may have something to do with our semi-monogamy.A huge penis isn't necessary for sexual satisfaction of either partner, if that's what you're getting at. All of our ape relatives, monogamous or not, are perfectly happy with tiny penises and haven't selected for larger ones. Even bonobos, who are far more sexual than we are.This may also be the reason for the existence of the clitoris and the orgasm in women. No other species that we know of bothers with such niceties (to that extent), not even other primates so there must be a specific evolutionary advantage to it.What are you talking about?

Quote:

This may also be the reason for the existence of the clitoris and the orgasm in women. No other species that we know of bothers with such niceties (to that extent), not even other primates so there must be a specific evolutionary advantage to it.

What are you talking about?"

There was a newish study on the clitoris as well as the penis in the formation in the womb, for the child in question. I can not remember all of it, but, they were trying to disprove the XX chromosome as well as the XY chromosome. They were saying something to the extent that the clitoris and penis were essentially monosex at intial developement and gradually form into both the male or female sex organs. Wish I could remember all of it, other animals such as alligators I think it was develope their sex due to certain conditions. They were saying humans do as well, which would also help explain hermaphrodites.

This may also be the reason for the existence of the clitoris and the orgasm in women. No other species that we know of bothers with such niceties (to that extent), not even other primates so there must be a specific evolutionary advantage to it.

What are you talking about?"

There was a newish study on the clitoris as well as the penis in the formation in the womb, for the child in question. I can not remember all of it, but, they were trying to disprove the XX chromosome as well as the XY chromosome. They were saying something to the extent that the clitoris and penis were essentially monosex at intial developement and gradually form into both the male or female sex organs. Wish I could remember all of it, other animals such as alligators I think it was develope their sex due to certain conditions. They were saying humans do as well, which would also help explain hermaphrodites.

Actually, I was aiming at something more simple. As far as scientist have been able to ascertain the ability of human females to achieve an orgasm is pretty much unique in all animal species. For the most part nature and evolution do not remotely care if a female enjoys having sex. They do not even particularly care if she wants to have sex (yes, I am exaggerating here, I know). Mainly at the proper time the female is flooded with hormones that make her receptive and after that it is up to the male.

The fact that women even have a clitoris is something that confused medical scientists, and most postulated that it exists only because of the above mentioned parallel development of the male and female fetus. I.e. they assumed essentially a penis that never developed. It was not very long ago that somebody did some actual study (instead of basing their facts of opinions and believes of people who would have been mortified at the thought of researching female sexuality and would have been burned at the stake for actually doing so). They found out that the external part of the clitoris is only a tiny fragment of an organ that is a bit shaped like a dowsing rod and extends some 5 cm at both sides of the upper part of the vagina. Know of the famous g-spot? Yup, that is part of the clitoris.

All this indicates that there must be an evolutionary advantage in having women enjoy sex quite a bit more than is necessary for reproduction (and throughout most of our written history society nor the (religious) powers that be cared overly much what women thought of the whole arrangement as long as they spread their legs when told to and got pregnant with clockwork regularity. Which points in the direction that this whole 'enjoying sex' things must predate society by a couple of hundred thousand years and that for an explanation we must look at our time as barely out of the trees monkeys fresh on the savannah. The most logical conclusion that I can come to is that it serves to bind couples more closely together. All our nearest cousins in the animal kingdom essentially live in a harem structure where one male has the monopoly of sex and reproduction (though he may share it for political reasons) for as long as he can keep competition at bay. Humans do not. We have evolved into tightly knit groups of pairs who stay together at least for several years (long enough to see the children of that union to a form of semi-indepence at least). Enjoying to be together with that one other person over all the others available in the group is rather important for social peace and cohesion, which in turn is rather vital for survival of the group as a whole when you are less than a meter tall and have to fight off lion prides and hyena packs...

Also, one of the possible reasons human females have permanently enlarged breasts is not just to signal their over all health and fitness to nurture children, but also because unlike almost all other animals they are fertile all year around. Most animals have some kind of visible signal in females when she enters a reproductive stage, in human women slight swelling of the breasts is one of those signals.
Further, we may be trained to think of it as gross, but while we evolved as a species mothers were giving their children milk for years, pretty much until the next baby was born in fact and frequently after that as well (if left the choice children typically wean themselves around 3 or 4 years old). This means that the early human women were having swollen breasts pretty much their entire fertile life, and it is easy to see how that could be a selection criterium in a species that also evolved towards serial monogamy. Females with larger breasts pretty much looked more fertile and thus better candidates for being the mother of a male's children (because as monogamy became more the norm males had to become more selective of who they paired with. Unlike apes they did not get a chance to get all females in range pregnant when they fought their way to the top spot).
If you look at the development of the difference in size between males and females from early hominids till today you see that males relatively got smaller over time. It started out with males being vastly taller and outmassing females considerably. This is an indication that as a species the males competed with each other but not the females (this kind of size differences can also be found in most harem forming species). Nowadays the differences in size and mass are a few inches and kg and there is no (or not much) advantage for a man to be taller and stronger than a woman when it comes to attracting a partner, which is consistent with species that form monogamous bonds and are not otherwise constrained by their environment (e.g. swans).


hmm. I think I kind of lost track of what I was trying to say and not just wandered into babbling land but got well and truly lost in it. Time to stop I guess.


Eri

I'd throw those textbooks away, because what I'm saying is common knowledge.


The fact that knowledge is common does not make it true. It was common knowledge that the earth was flat, created in seven days and that women were created to serve as obedient minlessly happy little slaves to their male lord and masters, just to name a few myths that have since been disproven.

However, since I am physically incapable to experience the effects you describe and you can I certainly am willing to accept your opinion over what I read.


There's no biological reason for human females to have enormous breasts. All of our ape relatives can lactate just fine with their puny breasts and so could we if we wanted to.


I did not say there is a biological reason, I mentioned there must be an evolutionary one. Those two are not remotely the same.
And apes also see their breast swell when they get pregnant, just as happens with humans. It is just that ours are permanently locked into a sort of halfway ready to start lactating state which must at one point in our history as a species been advantageous enough to overcome the biological disadvantages of carrying several pounds of vulnerable flesh permanently attached to our chests.


A huge penis isn't necessary for sexual satisfaction of either partner, if that's what you're getting at. All of our ape relatives, monogamous or not, are perfectly happy with tiny penises and haven't selected for larger ones. Even bonobos, who are far more sexual than we are.

But unlike our ape cousins it seems to have been quite a bit more important to our predecessor species that their females enjoyed having sex. Probably because, like the bonobos, they used it not just for reproduction but also to reaffirm the bonds between pairs. Fifteen seconds in and out with a needle, like chimpansees, may succeed in getting a woman pregnant but it is not going to do anything to promote feelings of intimacy or bonding. Not with the way we are apparently evolved.


Eri

Technically testosterone does not directly affect the sex drive. Instead it increases the aggressiveness, and thus how much you pursue that drive.
Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree with that. My sister's husband is an aging gent with low T. and he basically needs shots to have any interest in sex at all. Plus, I've heard stories about women's sex drives getting turned on (so to speak) by a little T.

Now that I think about it, my sister might be higher in T. than her husband is!

As far as scientist have been able to ascertain the ability of human females to achieve an orgasm is pretty much unique in all animal species.Again, what are you talking about? Other primate females have clitorises, and female orgasms have been scientifically documented (not to mention casually observed) in many species.

I realize "scientists" of Christian and European origin have been trying to deny human female sexuality for centuries (because a woman having pleasure from sex must be controlled by Satan and will go to hell), but to continue this charade into the 21st century is ridiculous.

Yes, females enjoy sex. Get over it.All this indicates that there must be an evolutionary advantage in having women enjoy sex quite a bit more than is necessary for reproduction (and throughout most of our written history society nor the (religious) powers that be cared overly much what women thought of the whole arrangement as long as they spread their legs when told to and got pregnant with clockwork regularity.What you're describing only began to happen as humans adopted agriculture on a large scale and population growth became key -- a few thousand years.

That's too short a time for any evolutionary changes to occur.All our nearest cousins in the animal kingdom essentially live in a harem structure where one male has the monopoly of sex and reproduction (though he may share it for political reasons) for as long as he can keep competition at bay. Humans do not.Again, what ARE you talking about?

The only close relative of ours that uses that reproductive strategy is the gorilla.

Gibbons are totally monogamous, mating for life.

Chimpanzee females are the complete opposite, totally promiscuous and trying to mate with as many males as possible.

[Edit] I forgot orangutans! They are solitary and promiscuous.

Bonobos aren't even patriarchal, led by females instead, and they have sex for fun all the time in any combination you can think of.

And when it comes to humans, "a harem structure where one male has the monopoly of sex and reproduction (though he may share it for political reasons) for as long as he can keep competition at bay" describes us pretty accurately.

Humans are NOT monogamous. A man's instinct is to have a harem of as many women as he can maintain, not to mate with one woman for life. Christian mythology is NOT fact, and it is a distortion of who we are.Also, one of the possible reasons human females have permanently enlarged breasts is not just to signal their over all health and fitness to nurture children, but also because unlike almost all other animals they are fertile all year around. Most animals have some kind of visible signal in females when she enters a reproductive stage, in human women slight swelling of the breasts is one of those signals.Female humans conceal their sexual receptivity for other reasons, which are too involved to get into right now.

Suffice it to say it has nothing to do with breast size, and does not explain why the human female breasts are enormous, way beyond what is necessary for lactation, or why we want it to be that way.Nowadays the differences in size and mass are a few inches and kg and there is no (or not much) advantage for a man to be taller and stronger than a woman when it comes to attracting a partner, which is consistent with species that form monogamous bonds and are not otherwise constrained by their environment (e.g. swans).I will say it again.

We are NOT monogamous.

Even the Christian zealots who preach monogamy, are not monogamous, and have not been monogamous throughout history.

It is not our instinct to be monogamous.

When we are forced to be monogamous as a consequence of religious brainwashing, we often cheat (male and female), because we are working against our instincts.

And although we are not as sexually dimorphic a species as, say, gorillas are, there are still big differences, at least when you're not obese like the typical American. I am several times stronger than a female athlete and much bigger. So is the typical male.

The fact that knowledge is common does not make it true. It was common knowledge that the earth was flat, created in seven days and that women were created to serve as obedient minlessly happy little slaves to their male lord and masters, just to name a few myths that have since been disproven.When I say "common knowledge" I don't just mean common anecdotal knowledge, I mean common scientific knowledge.

It is a scientific fact that testosterone levels directly affect sex drive in men.

If you don't believe me, to www.pubmed.org, and look under the keywords testosterone and sex (18,000+ hits). Or do a Google search; virtually every credible health-related site can explain this to you.I did not say there is a biological reason, I mentioned there must be an evolutionary one. Those two are not remotely the same.Human females have larger breasts than typical for other mammals a lot longer than we have been remotely civilised. There must be a biological reason for that.:confused: And apes also see their breast swell when they get pregnant, just as happens with humans.If you're referring to estrus, it's a visible display around the genitalia, not the breasts. Sort of like a map for any male who's still confused as to what goes where.

Humans don't have visible signals, again for reasons that are too long to get into here.

But it isn't just a matter of monogamy (gibbons have it).

It's temporary. Testosterone levels shift all the time throughout the day.

They also shift according the the hormonal levels of reproductive females around the male.

Going back to school, after years being out, was a rude and HARD awakening for me.

I don't have any science or stats to back this up, yet.

But, I will tell you, it was real. And disconcerting.

Now that I am in the workplace with mostly women, I think I'm fine now. I am breathing in those females hormones all the time, with much less ups and downs.

Probably because, like the bonobos, they used it not just for reproduction but also to reaffirm the bonds between pairs.
Bonobos are horrible models for human sexuality, or human behavior.

They have indiscriminate sex.
Their young are independent at weeks old, not years(7).
They engage in frequent incestuous sex.
They communally raise their babies.
ean to orgasm for both genders ranges in seconds(like 30).

A poor model. Might as well be lemurs. Or hamsters.

edit:
Ok, just read a bit more of your post
Fifteen seconds in and out with a needle, like chimpansees, may succeed in getting a woman pregnant but it is not going to do anything to promote feelings of intimacy or bonding. Not with the way we are apparently evolved

Exactly!

Chimp or bonobo babies are relatively self sufficient days or weeks after birth. Human babies take much longer. Requiring additional support in nurturing. Which humans have, for up to 18 years. That no other primate would stand for. Ok, ok, I'll give you 7 years to self sufficiency.

I don't have any science or stats to back this upIt's never stopped you before...

Well, my libido and acne is kinda hard to place into a scientific study that someone would want to put their money into. I could easily formulate an experiment to study the role of exposure to female hormone levels on male hormone levels.

But for many of us heterosexual males, it is common knowledge.

Even heterosexual females might call it male PMS.

Never heard of it? Sorry man, you should think about moving from SF.

Bonobos are horrible models for human sexuality, or human behavior.

They have indiscriminate sex.
Their young are independent at weeks old, not years(7).
They engage in frequent incestuous sex.
They communally raise their babies.
ean to orgasm for both genders ranges in seconds(like 30).

A poor model. Might as well be lemurs. Or hamsters.



Actually, since the question was 'why are human females even capable of having an orgasm' I think the bonobo are fairl decent models.

I posited the theory that humans started to evolve down much the same path as the bonobo have. Away from the 'one strong male collects a harem and holds on to it as long as he can' and towards the 'More even gender distribution in a commune like group'.
any of the attributes you describe apply to humans as well in light of that theory.
Of all primates we are the only ones that are pretty much permanently (or at least monthly) fertile and permanently show exagerated signs of it. There must be a reason for this. Obviously the evolutionary requirement is that our predecessors had found an ecological niche where food was available all year, but other species have that too and kept to the fertile once per year routine. In hominids that changed, and I think that is because they already did have
sex all year for other reasons. Once they found their abundant niche it then became possible to have children out of seasonal sync.

The age at which young become self sufficient is not relevant for this particular particular topic. It also developed later when the size of the baby's head began to grow beyond the size of a female's hips. It meant that children had to be born before their heads and brains were fully developed. But the earlier hominids almost certainly matured a lot quicker.

Considering that Bonobo use sex as a means to strengthen social bonds within the group and to diffuse aggression that amounts to saying that humans frequently speak to their parents, children and sibs. Animals all over the world frequently have incestuous sex too, for what that argument is worth.

We really do not know much about how early hominids raised their children, but humans still raise their children far more communally than almost all other primates.

If I wanted to be facetious I would point out that nobody has been able to determine that bonobo femals actually have orgasms (since we can not ask them and it is kind of hard to tell in females from pictures alone). However, again the mean time is not so important as it is a difference in species and social structure. I never claimed that early humanids and bonobo had the same structure, only that it is possible, based on circumstantial evidence, that it was similar. Socially and biologically we have evolved away from our genetically closest primate relatives. (Early humanids had males who considerably outmassed females. This tends to go with a harem like social structure. We evolved towards a species where the relative difference is small, which points towards either gender segregation or towards a more commune like society). Those changes we do observe point towards our predecessors using sex for more than reproduction. The exagerated primary and secondary sex characteristics (showing permanent fertility), the abilty to enjoy sex for itself, the strong protective instincts in men and women towards all children, not just towards their own.
The bonobo are the only current day primate that I know of that show many of the same characteristics in behaviour. I used it as an example of showing what our ancestors may have been like, somewhat, when they broke away from the primate branch to become a new species. We know that they were small initially, probably smaller even than chimpansees, and moved towards an environment that was a lot harsher and more dangerous than the forest. Living in large groups with many males for mutual protection probably became essential for survival, but that required social evolution as well as physical. Including being able to diffuse aggression between males who until then had competed with each other for a harem. Since what they were competing over was sex and reproduction, it makes sense that the survivors evolved towards a more bonobo like approach (or rather the bonobo made a similar social evolutionary change) where sex was readily available. That in turn required clear signals who was and who was not available, and thus biological evolution towards more visible sex characteristics. By the time the species was succesfull enough to hold its own this allowed for the evolution towards permanent fertility (and thus decreased the vulnerabilty of the group with all children born at the same time, straining protection and food supplies), and growing intelligence meant children had to be born relatively earlier and earlier, requiring the social evolution further down the path of (serial) monogamy.

akes perfect sense to me if you write it like this. (my tendency to ramble on aside)


Eri

I read a really interesting book many years ago called "Peacemaking among Primates". Anyway, the Bonobos were the most fascinating, IMHO.

I could easily formulate an experiment to study the role of exposure to female hormone levels on male hormone levels.Exposure to females affects us, not exposure to their hormones.

aybe you're just exposed to unattractive females all day. Nurses generally don't do anything for me either, so I don't blame you.

Or maybe the strong winds are whisking away our excess female/gay hormones down to the inland boonies where you breathe it in. I'm surprised you haven't sprouted breasts by now.

If I wanted to be facetious I would point out that nobody has been able to determine that bonobo femals actually have orgasms (since we can not ask them and it is kind of hard to tell in females from pictures alone).Why would two female bonobos have sex by rubbing their genitals together -- which they do all the time -- if it wasn't pleasurable?

The males do the exact same thing.

Honestly, it's shocking how much influence Christians still have on modern science. Pleasure is sinful, sex is bad, and most importantly women can't ever enjoy sex (and if they do they're evil witches who must be burned at the stake or drowned in a lake).

Therefore females of other species can't possibly enjoy sex either, even though it contradicts both common sense and evolutionary logic, unless absolutely positively proven beyond any possible reasonable doubt.

Why would two female bonobos have sex by rubbing their genitals together -- which they do all the time -- if it wasn't pleasurable?

The males do the exact same thing.


The fact that it is (might be) pleasurable does not mean it leads to an orgasm. The simple point is that nobody has figured out a way yet how to determine if a female has an orgasm without asking unless it involves lots of wires and a room full of equipment. Since animals are not exactly good at answering questions and generally object strongly to being wired up that thoroughly (not to mention that it completely kills their 'romantic' impulses and you can not exactly explain to them that they have to do something for science) this simply means that scientists can not tell with any kind of certainty if animals experience any kind of orgasm. Considering that in most animals the female of the species is not exactly in a position to consent or deny sex this is not an idle question either. Orgasm is not required for pregnancy after all, and there are very few species (none that I know of mammals) where the female can prevent a determined male from trying to get her pregnant. Nature apparently does not consider consent of females of relevance to the continuation of the species, so why does it in humans? My theory is that for humans it is important for reasons that have nothing to do with (immediate) reproduction, and social cohesion is the most logical other possible reason (since that is where we differ rather obviously from our closest cousins in the species family tree and where it may have an effect). And it is clearly rather important considering the extensive changes between male and female basic body structure just to make it possible for women to have an orgasm. That is a fair bit of evolution for something that some scientists dismiss as 'an accidental byproduct'.


Honestly, it's shocking how much influence Christians still have on modern science. Pleasure is sinful, sex is bad, and most importantly women can't ever enjoy sex (and if they do they're evil witches who must be burned at the stake or drowned in a lake).

Therefore females of other species can't possibly enjoy sex either, even though it contradicts both common sense and evolutionary logic, unless absolutely positively proven beyond any possible reasonable doubt.

Please, I know this is your hobby horse, but not everything others are writing has anything to do with Christianity nor is it influenced by that religion (not to mention that just about every religion in the past and present is extremely hostile towards female sexuality if not all sexuality and this is hardly exclusive to the one you like to single out).

The discussion is/was about the possible reasons why humans have such obvious secondary sex characteristics compared to other primates. My observation is that it must have an evolutionary advantage or it would not have developed, and my theory is that this evolution was driven primarily by social changes and that the biological changes were a result, not the cause.
As pointed out above there is no evolutionary pressure towards any particular reason why a species has sex, as long as it does; and in very few species indeed is there any evidence at all that the female has a choice about being made pregnant. Nobody has yet been able to proof that in any other species besides humans the female is capable of experiencing an orgasm (and neither can the ascertain the males do, I might add). That does not mean it is not true, but simply that we do not know for certain. There is however reason to believe that the ability is very rare indeed. After all sex happens once a year in most species, or once in their lives, and the enjoyment of the female is really of no concern (evolutionary speaking) when cooperation can be ascertained in other ways. So, most species females do not particularly enjoy (nor dislike hopefully) sex, and there are few species where it is suspected (but unproven) that there is the capability of orgasm in males and females. This makes humans if not unique then at least member of a very exclusive club, and there must be an evolutionary reason for this change.

As you can see from this summary, neither Christianity nor values judgment is involved. Just biological facts, a few assumptions and a liberal use of (female) logic.


Eri

The fact that it is (might be) pleasurable does not mean it leads to an orgasm.But you believe males have an orgasm right? (Ejaculation and orgasm are two separate things, in humans too.)

And you assume females don't?

Why is that, if it's not cultural brainwashing?Considering that in most animals the female of the species is not exactly in a position to consent or deny sex this is not an idle question either.You're not listening.

Bonobos are matriarchal. Females not only control sex, they control all the males. They are in a position to do whatever they want.

Just because post-agricultural European human culture is patriarchal, does not mean the entire animal kingdom is. Quite the contrary.Orgasm is not required for pregnancy after all, and there are very few species (none that I know of mammals) where the female can prevent a determined male from trying to get her pregnant.Nature apparently does not consider consent of females of relevance to the continuation of the species,Completely wrong. Evolution is about female choice, not male choice.After all sex happens once a year in most species, or once in their lives, and the enjoyment of the female is really of no concern (evolutionary speaking) when cooperation can be ascertained in other ways.Let me put it to you another way.

If you couldn't have orgasms -- or, more generally, if sex wasn't pleasurable to you, since you seem to define orgasm very narrowly -- would you have sex more or less often than you do now?

Would those females who do enjoy sex have more or less sex than you?

Whose genes do you think would win that evolutionary race?

Of all primates we are the only ones that are pretty much permanently (or at least monthly) fertile and permanently show exagerated signs of it.Granted, concealed ovulation (loss of estrus, no visible sign of sexual receptivity) is a fairly rare reproductive strategy in the animal kingdom, mostly because it is so wasteful.

But we are not the only animals, or even the only primates, who have evolved it. For examples, rhesus macaques and vervet monkeys have concealed ovulation too. Some other primates are on the path towards it, showing only slight signs of estrus.

And humans are not "permanently" fertile. Human females ovulate on a 28 day cycle and are only fertile for certain periods during that cycle. Primates are often the same way, with most having a similar length cycle. It's just that they commonly advertise their fertility during that cycle, whereas humans, and a few other species, don't.

But you believe males have an orgasm right? (Ejaculation and orgasm are two separate things, in humans too.)

And you assume females don't?

Why is that, if it's not cultural brainwashing?You're not listening.

And you were not reading. A bit further down the same post you are replying to I mentioned that nobody has managed to proof the existence of an orgasm in males outside of humans either.


Bonobos are matriarchal. Females not only control sex, they control all the males. They are in a position to do whatever they want.

Just because post-agricultural European human culture is patriarchal, does not mean the entire animal kingdom is. Quite the contrary.Completely wrong. Evolution is about female choice, not male choice.


Nope. In many species there is a mating ritual where the males show off their fitness towards the females. But never ever does that end up with a female refusing all potential males present. Her choice is between those present, but the conclusion is also forgone. She will mate with one of the males.


If you couldn't have orgasms -- or, more generally, if sex wasn't pleasurable to you, since you seem to define orgasm very narrowly -- would you have sex more or less often than you do now?


But even amongst human women I am in the rare position of having the power to make a choice and stick to it. Leave what is called the western world and women rarely have that choice. A century ago women here did not have that choice either. By law her husband could not rape her because it was her duty (religiously and legally) to have sex with him every time he demanded it. I am sure you are familiar with the phrase 'close your eyes and think of england'? That exactly sums up the relevance of female enjoyment of sex throughout most of hour recorded history, and what is still the operating procedure for the vast majority of humanity.
What I am referring to is not modern day society. Not even society of 2 or 3 millenia ago. But the time, half a million years (*) or so back when as a species we were barely separated from our common ancestor primates. That is when the sweeping changes that made us so different from other primates started.


Would those females who do enjoy sex have more or less sex than you?


As I said, first of all you presume the females in question have any choice. Second, the whole point I am trying to make is that -yes- the fact that human women can enjoy sex and even have orgasms doing so is making them more likely the have sex. It is the whole bleeping point I have been trying to get across. But also, that it is very rare for any species to have sex except when the female is fertile. Humans are different and there must be a reason why we evolved that way when almost no other primate did, and hardly any other species did either.

Whose genes do you think would win that evolutionary race?

Trust me, there is a wee bit more going on in human evolution. Being able to get children completely out of season is NOT generally a good survival trait unless you happen to be an apex predator in an ecological niche without clear seasons. Since even lions on the savanna time their young with the arrival of the zebra and wildebeast herds (and so do elephants who are not exactly hunted) it is exceedingly unlikely that a tiny primate, fresh out of the forest, that was a prey species of all medium and large predators, could suddenly evolve this ability without a whole lot of other changes also taking place.


Eri

In many species there is a mating ritual where the males show off their fitness towards the females.And why do you suppose they bother to IMPRESS the females, as opposed to just intimidating the other males?

Because evolution is about FEMALE choice.

That's why you see, throughout the animal kingdom, all sorts of males with decorations that serve no practical purpose, and even hinder their ability to find food and protect themselves. To impress a female, so that the female will CHOOSE them.A century ago women here did not have that choice either. By law her husband could not rape her because it was her duty (religiously and legally) to have sex with him every time he demanded it.So you agree, rape is bad and instinctively, you have a strong aversion to it?

Why do you suppose that is so, if, as you claim, the entire history of the animal kingdom is an unending series of rapes and not about female choice?But even amongst human women I am in the rare position of having the power to make a choice and stick to it.Understand that it is agriculture and technology that put you in that position in the first place. NOT your genes.

You have only been in that position for a few thousand years.

Your female ancestors 10,000 years ago were not in that position, and did not evolve to become production line babymaking machines. And in the short time that they have been relegated to that role, they could not have undergone such a radical shift in mating instincts.

Trust me, there is a wee bit more going on in human evolution.Yes, there is. But it has nothing to do with "seasons," food availability, or being an apex predator, though it does have to do with our social structure, as you suggested earlier.

Concealed ovulation is simply a reproductive strategy human females have chosen to ensure the greatest chance of success for their offspring. Just as with menopause, it seems counterintuitive but in our situation it works.

Think about what happens to male behavior when he isn't sure when his mate or other females are fertile. Think about what happens to FEMALE behavior when even SHE isn't sure when she's fertile. (Remember, females have chosen to conceal ovulation even from themselves.)

If you think it through, concealed ovulation creates a type of conflict, but ultimately, it encourages the father to stay around and raise the child.

Even though it is extraordinarily wasteful, which is why very few other species have chosen to use it.

In many species there is a mating ritual where the males show off their fitness towards the females. But never ever does that end up with a female refusing all potential males present. Her choice is between those present, but the conclusion is also forgone. She will mate with one of the males. Humans retain that instinct.
And human females have perfected it to the art that it is today.



But even amongst human women I am in the rare position of having the power to make a choice and stick to it. Leave what is called the western world and women rarely have that choice. A century ago women here did not have that choice either. By law her husband could not rape her because it was her duty (religiously and legally) to have sex with him every time he demanded it. I am sure you are familiar with the phrase 'close your eyes and think of england'? That exactly sums up the relevance of female enjoyment of sex throughout most of hour recorded history, and what is still the operating procedure for the vast majority of humanity. Do you really think that this was prevalent? Or is prevalent today?

A woman will instinctively put aside her self preservation instinct, and feel that suicide is preferred over being raped.

A woman will instinctively act out infanticide when she feels that the suitor she has chosen is inadequate, or he is a brute.


What I am referring to is not modern day society. Not even society of 2 or 3 millenia ago. But the time, half a million years (*) or so back when as a species we were barely separated from our common ancestor primates. That is when the sweeping changes that made us so different from other primates started. The changes which separate us are increased attractiveness to increased cranial size(relative to body). Which created an increased maternal mortality no other primate must deal with. Causing external social structures, that no primates have, to be needed to mitigate this maternal mortality.



As I said, first of all you presume the females in question have any choice. Females choose their mates. To choose their children.
Those qualities which females find attractive guide those choices.

What females find attractive in children guide their choices of mates as well.



Trust me, there is a wee bit more going on in human evolution. Being able to get children completely out of season is NOT generally a good survival trait unless you happen to be an apex predator in an ecological niche without clear seasons. Since even lions on the savanna time their young with the arrival of the zebra and wildebeast herds (and so do elephants who are not exactly hunted) it is exceedingly unlikely that a tiny primate, fresh out of the forest, that was a prey species of all medium and large predators, could suddenly evolve this ability without a whole lot of other changes also taking place.
There are 13 regular cyclical hunting cycles per year. 13 natural hunting seasons.

That there are 13 regular reproducing cycles per year makes perfect sense.

No other primate or animal are like humans in this regard.

And I don't think that human females have their reproductive cycle hidden from them. Women today still think that they can predict the future based on celestial stars. The biggest offense of Internet abuse at workplaces is NOT pron by males, but horoscope sites by the women employees.

Look at most of the female childhood games, they have some aspect of permission, or some aspect of prediction which make them enjoyable to little girls.

No other primate or animal are like humans in this regard.Wrong.And I don't think that human females have their reproductive cycle hidden from them.How many women do you know who can, without the benefit of modern science (including scientific knowledge about evaluating one's own symptoms), determine the week or so that she is fertile out of the menstrual cycle?

Forget your bible, I mean women who can state it with objective scientific accuracy, i.e., "I will be fertile from this Thursday to next Wednesday".

No. You're wrong.

No. You're wrong.Rhesus macaques, which I mentioned earlier, have a menstrual cycle of 28 days, just like humans do. They also conceal their ovulation, just like humans do.

They are a primate. They are an animal.

Other primates have very similar menstrual patterns.

It's not in your bible, but it is a fact.

I am getting a bit tired of the picking apart details of posts without looking at the context of the discussion, so I thought I'd try another time honoured debating tactic (*)

Why?


Eri
(* this tactic is brought to you by four year olds since the dawn of time)

Rhesus macaques, which I mentioned earlier, have a menstrual cycle of 28 days, just like humans do. They also conceal their ovulation, just like humans do.



Why do females outnumber males by 4 to 1?

And humans are 1 to 1?

I am getting a bit tired of the picking apart details of posts without looking at the context of the discussion,It isn't about picking apart details.

It's about reevaluating your false assumptions, of which you have many in this thread.

There's no way you can reach a correct conclusions, if it is premised on false assumptions (the Fyyr syndrome).

Why do females outnumber males by 4 to 1?

And humans are 1 to 1?I didn't say they were just like humans in every way.

I said they have a 28 day average menstrual cycle, like humans do, something that you claimed no other animal has.

You are wrong.

Furthermore, that figure is around the average for primates. Orangutans, for example, have a 29 day average cycle, which is even closer to the lunar cycle.

The rough similarity between the 28 day average menstrual cycle for humans and the 29.5 day lunar cycle is a coincidence, nothing more.

(It doesn't divide into the solar year by 13 either, but we need not even go there.)

It isn't about picking apart details.

It's about reevaluating your false assumptions, of which you have many in this thread.

There's no way you can reach a correct conclusions, if it is premised on false assumptions (the Fyyr syndrome).

Why?


Eri

Why?Why not?

We are discussing evolutionary psychology and physiology.

The whole field is based on false assumptions.

Evolutionary psychology is just now becoming a recognized 'science'. It is brand new. Two years ago, I could only find one major college on the planet that offered a major degree. In England.


Don't claim that you know anything about it. The knowledge is being formed right this minute.

Conventional wisdom and traditional science is based on the assumption that human beings are what they are because of Natural Selection. That can not be true, because human beings(and proto humans) have been doing the selection, as long as we have been human.

You are here because your grandmothers were attracted to your grandfathers, and they fVcked.
And what they found attractive is there because of their grandmothers and grandfathers.
And so on, 10 thousand generations.

Why those traits are there is very interesting. But don't presume expertise on the subject, when the experts, if you can call them that, are mostly wrong already.

Alright smarty pants.

Why are there blood types?
And how did they get there?

We are discussing evolutionary psychology and physiology.

The whole field is based on false assumptions.

Evolutionary psychology is just now becoming a recognized 'science'. It is brand new.I bet you've heard of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It's the seminal work on natural selection (or at least one of the seminal works).

What you apparently don't know is that a little over a decade later, Darwin published another work, The Descent of Man, where he laid out his theories on sexual selection and evolutionary psychology. The basic idea, of course, is that features that offer no practical natural advantage, and could never be explained through natural selection, can still be explained as a result of sexual selection.

What you claim is barely a science today, was in fact already a science when natural selection itself was barely a science, 140 years ago.

I have read quite a number of sources discussing sexual selection that aren't very recent, and they cite even older works, all on the topic you claim hasn't existed until now.

Oh and I've never given any thought to blood types. Except to know what mine is.

Oh and I've never given any thought to blood types. Except to know what mine is.

The corollary to Darwin's law of natural selection is that any trait that is neither (too) beneficial nor (too) detrimental tends to remain in the population (or dies out within a few generations after first appearing).

Blood types really make no difference to fitness that anybody has been able to determine so if they are the result of a random mutation there is nothing that pushes them out of the gene pool again.


Eri

I bet you've heard of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It's the seminal work on natural selection (or at least one of the seminal works).

What you apparently don't know is that a little over a decade later, Darwin published another work, The Descent of Man, where he laid out his theories on sexual selection and evolutionary psychology. The basic idea, of course, is that features that offer no practical natural advantage, and could never be explained through natural selection, can still be explained as a result was barely a science, 140 years ago

Darwin thought Africans were not human. It is written OotS and Descent.

Why many traits are in human is still unknown.

New hypotheses are needed.

Darwin thought Africans were not human. It is written OotS and Descent.With the benefit of 140 years of hindsight, we can see Darwin was wrong on many things. So what?

He was venturing into completely new and dangerous territory. It's understandable that he made many mistakes and was influenced by his own cultural biases instead of being ruthlessly objective.

It doesn't change the fact that he understood both natural selection and sexual selection.

It also doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, and that sexual selection has been known, and understood, since Darwin's time.

Just because YOU only began to understand it recently doesn't mean the same is true for everyone.

Why many traits are in human is still unknown.
New hypotheses are needed.We will never know why we have some traits.

Not because we need new theories, but because those traits first evolved in long-extinct species which we can only study (if we're lucky) through fossilized bones.

ost of the data is missing, and will stay that way, unless someone invents a time machine.

If we had all that data, we could probably use the existing theories to explain away many aspects of evolution that are still a mystery today.

The corollary to Darwin's law of natural selection is that any trait that is neither (too) beneficial nor (too) detrimental tends to remain in the population (or dies out within a few generations after first appearing).
If a trait does not lead to the demise of a subject before it reproduces, besides mutation there is nothing to force that trait out.

A hypothetical example, if you have one grandfather a thousand generations back who raped your grandmother, and say that trait, being a rapist, was passed to his offspring(from all of his victims).

And on the other side of the family, you have on grandfather who saved one of your grandmothers from being raped, or was not able to rape(say he became flaccid when he attempted and failed). And propagated fruitfully with her.

If there is nothing to actually remove that trait(kill off any offspring with that trait), both traits simultaneously could be in existence, one or both even latent. And passed from generation to generation.


Blood types really make no difference to fitness that anybody has been able to determine so if they are the result of a random mutation there is nothing that pushes them out of the gene pool again.
There are dozens of recognized and known blood types. There are most likely hundreds.

Where did they come from? What was their purpose?

Tudamorf's position seems to be that we don't need to put the scientific method at that problem. Observation >Hypothesis >Experiment >Conclusion >Observation> etc.

Geneticists say that some 90+% of the human genome is made up of junk DNA. Because they don't know what it does.

It does something. It would not be there if it didn't.

Darwin was fine for folks who lived 150 years ago. Reading his stuff today is absolutely painful. Because we know so much more now. Trotting him out as the be all end all to Evolution is just Luddite.

The opinion that human evolution was Natural Selection, without human intervention and choices, is just plain counter intuitive.

Just look at all of the physical, mental, social traits which humans find attractive. Almost all of them are the direct opposite of the traits apes or simians possess.

It is like our ancestors had written an anti-ape code into their descendants. Those ancestors which did not have those traits, have descendants which are either extinct now, or are now apes.

We will never know why we have some traits.
Of course that is true. But just because it is does not mean we do not apply the scientific method. We don't know most stuff.

We don't even know what gravity is for cripes sake.


Not because we need new theories, but because those traits first evolved in long-extinct species which we can only study (if we're lucky) through fossilized bones. That is why we study animals. We can dissect them and figure out what traits they have match up with what DNA pairs. Then find those pairs in humans for comparison. Why do you think we study primates and animals in the first place?

ost of the data is missing, and will stay that way, unless someone invents a time machine. All of the code is there. It just needs to be discovered.

If we had all that data, we could probably use the existing theories to explain away many aspects of evolution that are still a mystery today. We will never have all data.

Why do you find boobs, big eyes, and a nice ass attractive? Oh, ya, I forgot, you once said that you have somatic control over your erections, over your parasympathetic nervous system. Nevermind. (ps, I only included traits which both heter and homosexual males find attractive in union, just in case).

The opinion that human evolution was Natural Selection, without human intervention and choices, is just plain counter intuitive.Hello? Sexual selection? Or haven't you been paying attention for the past few posts?

That is why we study animals. We can dissect them and figure out what traits they have match up with what DNA pairs. Then find those pairs in humans for comparison. Why do you think we study primates and animals in the first place?Are you purposely being obtuse here?

These are traits that evolved in animals that NO LONGER EXIST. We can't dissect them and we don't have their DNA to analyze.

Sure, we can compare extant species and speculate as to what common ancestors might have been like, but that's barely a step forward from your preachy bible in terms of accuracy.

We are missing 99% of the data and we will never have it unless backwards time travel becomes possible.

Tuda,

Do you find hirsute women attractive?
With no breasts.
And flat buttocks.
No whites, sclera, visible in their eyes.
Small head size compared to body size.
No waist relative to hip width.
?

Where did those traits come from?
Apes don't have them. They would look human if they did.

Or women.
Are you attracted guy with a low forehead.
Small beady eyes. Flat nose.
No job. Dumb as an ape.
Flat butt.
Short in stature.
Small penis.

How many women do you know attracted to men like this?

Are you purposely being obtuse here?


Why are there blood types, Tuda?

Where did they come from?
What purpose do they serve?

Simple questions. If you are so smart, and know so much, answer them.

Where did those traits come from?Most of the ones you mentioned are products of sexual selection.

We can't innately scan our potential mate's DNA to determine their fitness. So, like other animals, we develop visible signals to make up for it.

Extra fat deposits on a woman's breasts and hips, that you mention, is one example. Extra fat in those particular areas serves no practical purpose, but it is a signal, or a suggestion, that the woman is fertile. Because in the distant past, a woman who had those characteristics was generally healthy and fertile. Over the generations that signal became exaggerated, even though fat in those specific areas isn't necessary for fertility.

It didn't have to be big breasts, it's just a convenient place to advertise. And the choices are different for different groups of humans (e.g., butt size on African women versus European women). Just as the choices for different species are also different yet arbitrary.

Other human choices, such as flat noses, skin/hair color, and so on, are merely cultural artifacts. The fact is, you are most likely to be attracted to someone who looks similar to the people you grew up with. I am not attracted to black African women, but if I were adopted by a black African family and lived in an African community from birth, I would be, even though I am not black. Studies have confirmed this.

And natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. I have no idea why you even bring it up, unless you don't understand the difference between natural selection and sexual selection. These are all traits which offer no survival advantage whatsoever.Small penis.I think you accidentally switched your categories. Men are more concerned about men's penises than women are. Why do you think straight men like to look at other men's penises (with no sexual interest)?

Why are there blood types, Tuda?

Where did they come from?
What purpose do they serve?

Simple questions. If you are so smart, and know so much, answer them.If you resurrect the species that first evolved them, and allowed me to examine the mating practices, lifestyle, and environment of that species in detail, I would be in a position to answer you.

But you can't. We don't know, because 99% of the data is missing. All of those species are dead, and we only have a few fossilized bones of some of them. That hardly tells us anything.

Most of the ones you mentioned are products of sexual selection.
Why were they selected in the first place, to become a trait?

We can't innately scan our potential mate's DNA to determine their fitness. So, like other animals, we develop visible signals to make up for it.
We innately scan for the visible signals.
How did those signals get there?
They are different than ape signals. Why?

We like what we see, we are attracted, and want to fvck them. Why? How did that code get there?


Extra fat deposits on a woman's breasts and hips, that you mention, is one example. Extra fat in those particular areas serves no practical purpose, but it is a signal, or a suggestion, that the woman is fertile.
As you said other apes have hidden ovulation.
Apes don't have large breasts, yet can still reproduce.
Why are humans different?

Because in the distant past, a woman who had those characteristics was generally healthy and fertile. Over the generations that signal became exaggerated, even though fat in those specific areas isn't necessary for fertility.
Apes mate without those cues.
Why are humans different?


It didn't have to be big breasts, it's just a convenient place to advertise. And the choices are different for different groups of humans (e.g., butt size on African women versus European women). Just as the choices for different species are also different yet arbitrary.
They had to get there for a reason. If as you say, they are unnecessary, why are they there?

Other human choices, such as flat noses, skin/hair color, and so on, are merely cultural artifacts. The fact is, you are most likely to be attracted to someone who looks similar to the people you grew up with. I am not attracted to black African women, but if I were adopted by a black African family and lived in an African community from birth, I would be, even though I am not black. Studies have confirmed this.
I find all sorts of women attractive. And immediately, upon first sight. Women who look very different than any other women I saw previously.

And natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. I have no idea why you even bring it up, unless you don't understand the difference between natural selection and sexual selection.
I don't understand the difference. What is it?

These are all traits which offer no survival advantage whatsoever.
So why are they there?

I think you accidentally switched your categories. Men are more concerned about men's penises than women are. Why do you think straight men like to look at other men's penises (with no sexual interest)?
Human men have larger penises than ape penises.
Women pick males to mate with, and mate with them.
ale to male penis interest might be a competitive trait. Women check out other women's boobs immediately upon meeting. It sets up ranking and competition, and level of cooperation between them.

But women select males to mate with. Males don't mate with males.

Ok, here is one you should know. Why does the p0rn money shot work? Why does watching one man ejaculate make another man ejaculate?

How did that parasympathetic response get in there, into our code?

Most of the ones you mentioned are products of sexual selection.
Why were they selected in the first place, to become a trait?

We can't innately scan our potential mate's DNA to determine their fitness. So, like other animals, we develop visible signals to make up for it.
We innately scan for the visible signals.
How did those signals get there?
They are different than ape signals. Why?

We like what we see, we are attracted, and want to fvck them. Why? How did that code get there?


Extra fat deposits on a woman's breasts and hips, that you mention, is one example. Extra fat in those particular areas serves no practical purpose, but it is a signal, or a suggestion, that the woman is fertile.
As you said other apes have hidden ovulation.
Apes don't have large breasts, yet can still reproduce.
Why are humans different?

Because in the distant past, a woman who had those characteristics was generally healthy and fertile. Over the generations that signal became exaggerated, even though fat in those specific areas isn't necessary for fertility.
Apes mate without those cues.
Why are humans different?


It didn't have to be big breasts, it's just a convenient place to advertise. And the choices are different for different groups of humans (e.g., butt size on African women versus European women). Just as the choices for different species are also different yet arbitrary.
They had to get there for a reason. If as you say, they are unnecessary, why are they there?

Other human choices, such as flat noses, skin/hair color, and so on, are merely cultural artifacts. The fact is, you are most likely to be attracted to someone who looks similar to the people you grew up with. I am not attracted to black African women, but if I were adopted by a black African family and lived in an African community from birth, I would be, even though I am not black. Studies have confirmed this.
I find all sorts of women attractive. And immediately, upon first sight. Women who look very different than any other women I saw previously.

And natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. I have no idea why you even bring it up, unless you don't understand the difference between natural selection and sexual selection.
I don't understand the difference. What is it?

These are all traits which offer no survival advantage whatsoever.
So why are they there?

I think you accidentally switched your categories. Men are more concerned about men's penises than women are. Why do you think straight men like to look at other men's penises (with no sexual interest)?
Human men have larger penises than ape penises.
Women pick males to mate with, and mate with them.
ale to male penis interest might be a competitive trait. Women check out other women's boobs immediately upon meeting. It sets up ranking and competition, and level of cooperation between them.

But women select males to mate with. Males don't mate with males.

Ok, here is one you should know. Why does the p0rn money shot work? Why does watching one man ejaculate make another man ejaculate?

How did that sympathetic nervous response get in there, into our code?

Why were they selected in the first place, to become a trait?Let's see if the the third time is a charm.

We don't know. We can't see the circumstances under which it first evolved because that species, or subspecies, is now dead and has mostly turned to dust.

We are missing almost all of the data required to definitively answer that question.

We can only speculate. It's possible that fat in the breasts and hips began as a reproductive advantage, since the energy reserves are an advantage, and in a bipedal species that relies heavily on balance, fat near the center of the gravity is more convenient to carry around than in other places. Then sexual selection took off from there and exaggerated the effect.

Then again, it's possible it was sexual selection from the start, and just an arbitrary choice of signal. Many animals have signals that are just that -- arbitrary choices, because you have to pick something. If you look through the animal kingdom, you will see an array of signals, many of which appear to be simply chosen at random.Male to male penis interest might be a competitive trait.Exactly. It's for us to look at and compare, not for women to look at. And our competition affects the woman's choice.

I don't understand the difference. What is it?No wonder you're confused. Natural selection is about selecting for traits that offer a survival advantage. Sexual selection is about selecting for traits that merely offer a reproductive advantage.

A peacock's wings are an example of the former. His tail is an example of the latter.So why are they there?As I explained to you, we can't innately scan potential mates for DNA to determine if they're the best choice. So we, and every other species, have to rely on outside signals. Sexual selection is about the evolution of those signals: traits that serve no purpose other than to attract a mate.

How does a species survive if it does not reproduce?

We are missing almost all of the data required to definitively answer that question.
If a trait is genetically innate, it's coding is in the DNA. The coding is there, and accessible.


Then again, it's possible it was sexual selection from the start, and just an arbitrary choice of signal. Many animals have signals that are just that -- arbitrary choices, because you have to pick something. If you look through the animal kingdom, you will see an array of signals, many of which appear to be simply chosen at random.
The traits in human do not appear random to me.

Exactly. It's for us to look at and compare, not for women to look at. And our competition affects the woman's choice.
I did not ever mean to mean that large penises on men are for women to look at. I am pretty sure I have been blunt and vulgar enough in this thread where a reader would know what I did mean.

Sexual selection is about the evolution of those signals: traits that serve no purpose other than to attract a mate.
So you completely disagree that the sexual selection traits provide survivability traits? Or produced them.

That they are completely random and serve no survivability role.

How does a species survive if it does not reproduce?Don't be an idiot. I mean survival of the individual, not the race.

The difference between the concepts of natural selection and sexual selection has been well understood since Darwin's time. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them before proceeding.

So you completely disagree that the sexual selection traits provide survivability traits? Or produced them.How does a peacock's tail help that specific individual survive? Not his genes, or the race, or any other wisecrack answer you can come up with, but that specific individual?

It doesn't. It even hurts him quite a bit, limiting his ability to fly and making him more likely to be attacked by a predator, which makes him less likely to breed (all other things being equal, though they aren't, as we'll see).

Then why does he take all that risk and waste a tremendous amount of energy to produce that tail? And why is the pea hen so incredibly picky about choosing a mate with the most spectacular tail (she will easily reject potential mates with tails that are even the slightest bit lacking)?

Those are questions Darwin asked after publishing his book on natural selection, and in the later book, he described his theory of sexual selection, the evolution of traits that serve no practical survival function, but only serve to advertise fitness as a mate.

The peacock's tail is a simply an advertisement that tells the pea hen, "look, I have such terrific genes that I was able to grow this magnificent tail". In that specific example there's also a subtext: "look, I have such terrific genes that not only was I able to grow such a spectacular tail, but I was able to survive notwithstanding this obnoxious tail that can easily get me killed".

The peacock's tail isn't related to hunting cycles, phases of the moon, or whatever other biblical stories you fantasize about. It's simply a convenient way to advertise fitness as a mate.

The same thing is true about the signals human use to advertise fitness, both to the opposite sex and to compete with the same sex. They did not evolve out of survival necessity, but out of convenience because we don't have a more direct way of sorting out whose DNA is best.If a trait is genetically innate, it's coding is in the DNA. The coding is there, and accessible.The "what" is in the DNA, if we're smart enough to figure it out. The "why" isn't.

I find all sorts of women attractive. And immediately, upon first sight. Women who look very different than any other women I saw previously.When I say "look similar," I don't mean resemble generally. I mean have similar features, like the distance between the eyes, the shape of the eyes, ears, and nose, and so on. There is actually a repulsive instinct towards those who too closely resemble your family members.

Perhaps you're a mutant, but generally speaking, people will find attractive those mates that have features similar to those that of the human community they were raised in. That doesn't mean an Aryan man can NEVER find ANY member of the African San people attractive, just that it's a lot less likely due to the inherent differences in the shapes of the features.

*whispers to Panamah*

I think these two are certainly setting out to prove all stereotypes about males and their obsessions with size and having the last word, do they not?

*louder*

Anyway, I think that the result of the latest intermediate elections do show one thing, namely that as a whole Americans are masochists. They certainly seem to enjoy being brutalised, if not by the government then by the multinationals they believe will protect them from government.


Eri

Well, I'm not a willing masochist!

And you're certainly right on the nose especially about having the last word. Between Fyyr and Tuda, I'm not sure who would would persevere the most... I suspect Tuda would.

One thing I have learned over the years is that I'm not obligated to correct everyone who is wrong on the Internet. I'm able to walk away from a lot of fruitless conversations now.

For instance the other day I was reading someone explaining how having a cut onion in your bedroom will purge the air of germs. I think the hair on my head nearly stood up and I nearly hit the reply button. Oh noes! Someone was very, dreadfully wrong on the Internets! But then I realized I'd probably get into it with this moron and probably 20 other morons would pop up to defend the nonsense and before you know it I'd be looking up scientific studies to prove that cut onions don't exude antimicrobial force fields and then I'd find there's dreadfully little research done in that area, probably because most researchers aren't complete idiots.

So... I took a pass on that one.

Perhaps you're a mutant, but generally speaking, people will find attractive those mates that have features similar to those that of the human community they were raised in.

Rosario Dawson does not look like anyone else I have ever met. Or seen before.

I thought she was beautiful the first time I saw her.

Lots and lots of mutants out there I suppose, I don't think I am alone in this example. The fact that I even know who she is is a testament to the notion that she has universally attractive traits.

Your notion that attraction is ONLY some localized socialized affectation is just counter intuitive. I don't know who gave you the idea, but they were wrong.

http://images.google.com/images?q=rosario%20dawson&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Between Fyyr and Tuda, I'm not sure who would would persevere the most... I suspect Tuda would.

I think you are right, I believe he has more tenacity.

I don't spar on the Internet just to spar on the Internet. It helps find flaws in technique or style when in real life.

But then there can be change of opinion too. Like my new opinions on universal healthcare. My arguments now, for real life discussions, are virtually flawless. Shiney and chrome, and render opponents defenseless and speechless. Well, I'm sure that Tuda would continue to argue with me, even to yet prove that the Germ Theory is a crock, just to prove it, for proofs sake.

Your notion that attraction is ONLY some localized socialized affectation is just counter intuitive.I didn't say that.

I said attraction to SOME traits is culturally derived.

For example, I don't find her face particularly attractive, even though you do.

I think these two are certainly setting out to prove all stereotypes about males and their obsessions with size and having the last word, do they not?Of course we're obsessed with size. You mean you've only realized this now?

The question we're addressing is WHY we're obsessed with size.

quote"*whispers to Panamah*

I think these two are certainly setting out to prove all stereotypes about males and their obsessions with size and having the last word, do they not?

*louder*

Anyway, I think that the result of the latest intermediate elections do show one thing, namely that as a whole Americans are masochists. They certainly seem to enjoy being brutalised, if not by the government then by the multinationals they believe will protect them from government."

It is more of an alpha thing. Size is directly correlated to strength often times. Flamboyant behavior, or bright colors such as the peacock, as typical in males of most species of animals, is often a sign of strength, more or less who is the most capable to produce the strongest offspring capable of surviving better, more or less. Unfortunately for the peacock, or many of the brightly colored animals, can put it at a disadvantage, to brightly colored and it shows up as lunch for the nearby predators.

Often times, as in less physical traits such as money and wealth, often correlate to power and such. In cases such as the US in it's earlier years with our success with technology such as harnessing electricity, making telegraphs, telephones, making light bulbs,internal combustion powered vehicles, airplanes, interchangeable parts, and so on that had practical applications into industrial usage which led to further innovations in many of the modern applications in use today, which essentially led us to our wealth. Which for anyone who has ever read books such as the Good Earth has realized, we of course are pissing it away for the latest I phone app, or other wise useless invention.

That of course is par for the course though. Shiny little objects, much as ferrets are attracted to things such as car keys. But, that would be where I disagree with Eri, not neccessarily masochists, so much as sadism. We both love to give it out and feel powerful, as well as to receive it, call ourselves victims and justify our sadism. But, not all of US citizens want that though, some of us want to continue working towards progress, with actual work.

quote"One thing I have learned over the years is that I'm not obligated to correct everyone who is wrong on the Internet. I'm able to walk away from a lot of fruitless conversations now."

This is one of those things I do frequently on ther internet, not just the internet, but, just general life. I am a sucker for philosophy. I do not have all the right answers. Some of which can be very wrong indeed. Like Fyrr, I can often times change my viewpoints from time to time.

On a related note. Plenty of Youtube footage to follow I am sure!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34809566/ns/entertainment-television?GT1=43001

On a related note. Plenty of Youtube footage to follow I am sure!http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=55097&tsp=1Bookies already taking bets: Who will Palin offend first as FOX pundit?

The hiring of former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a regular Fox News contributor has prompted the major Irish bookmaking outfit, Paddy Power, to start taking bets on "how long the gaffe-prone (former) Alaska governor will remain in Rupert Murdoch's employ" -- and who she'll offend first.

Paddy Power, which is listed on the Irish and London Stock Exchanges, is also taking bets on "which minority group the broadcasting newbie will first offend in her media role."

The betting line: "Gay and lesbian groups top the bookies shortlist at odds of 4/1, followed by Muslims and African-Americans, both at 6/1,'' single parents (8/1), Arab Americans (12/1), Jews (14/1) and the Irish (20/1).

Here's the firm's release:

"Early betting points toward Sarah Palin being dropped by the global news broadcaster between September and December 2010 with Paddy Power offering odds of 10/11. Slightly longer odds of 11/10 are available on the 45 year-old politician keeping her broadcasting role at Fox News into 2011.

When will Sarah Palin lose her Fox News position?

8/1 Before 01 September 2010

10/11 Between 01 September 2010 and 31 December 2010

11/10 After 01 January 2011

They need to buy a tougher skin.

One of this culture's worst aspect is how easily to offend it is. Or rather certain members of certain groups.

Since when has wearing one's feelings on the sleeve been a superior trait?

Bunch of fn pussies.

Beyonce Had One of the Best Videos of All Time..... just sayin'

Just sayin'(tm Kanye West), it should have some fun youtube moments. That was the best part about Bush and his speaking ability. Just sayin' it could be good for the 12' election.

When will Sarah Palin lose her Fox News position?
Hmmm... question is, will she quit or be fired? I'd bet on she quits in the middle of her contract.

And some people never learn their lesson.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/01/20/politics/p115202S88.DTLPalin and McCain will campaign again

(01-20) 16:11 PST PHOENIX (AP) --

Sarah Palin and Sen. John McCain plan to campaign together again. The Arizona Republican announced Wednesday that the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate will join McCain in Phoenix on March 26 to help campaign for his re-election to the U.S. Senate.