A Post 6 Grrrrrl New Year: Carine Ceriano, Debbie Hazelnut, Joan Philbin
by Alphaville Herald on 01/01/11 at 10:58 pm
To end another wonderful year with Post 6, I thought I would grab three of the models who were kind enough to share themselves with us this year and feature a more stylized version of their beautiful avatars. Debbie Hazelnut, Carine Ceriano, and Joan Philbin were all great enough to step up and pose a second time.
Carine Ceriano
Mother Earth seemed unhappy in 2010. Major earthquakes in Haiti and Chile marked the start of the year, and later earthquakes in Indonesia, landslides in Mexico and California, deadly monsoon rains in Pakistan and volcanic eruptions in Indonesia and Iceland shake the very foundations of our planetary home.
In 2010, financial meltdowns and government reactions to them continued to fill the news. Rioting and protests in Greece, France, England, and Ireland over government handling of what is perceived as an economic crisis created by but not suffered through by the wealthy and elite “banker class” helps create a class-war mentality in the minds of many. This feeling even broaches the normally vacuous arena of Will Farrell comedies, when his summer release “The Other Guys” features several minutes of graphics illustrating the disparity between average Americans and the corporate elite that run during the film’s closing credit.
Debbie Hazelnut
The way the world works continues to change at the speed of light thanks to technology. Wikileaks, which had made headlines before 2010, becomes daily front-page news with the release of US State Department cables, reports on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also with the ongoing legal struggles of its founder, Julian Assange. Attempts to stop Wikileaks by refusing to host the site, or refusing to process donations are met with coordinated attacks by internet citizens, bringing the concept of “Hacktivism” to the world’s attention.
Spain won the World Cup, but its victory was overshadowed by the introduction of the Vuvuzela. The Winter Olympics captivated a resurgent television audience world wide, and America fell in love with the idea of the New Orleans Saints actually winning for a change. The San Francisco Giants won the World Series over a team that was somehow not the super-wealthy Yankees, and in a stunningly predictable turn of events, the effing Lakers and Duke won the NBA and NCAA basketball championships respectively, and with the world seemingly literally coming apart at the seams, this author felt it entirely appropriate to spend an entire paragraph recounting the Beer and Circus sports championships that keep us all distracted.
Joan Philbin
In news that is never reported, tens of thousands of children probably learned that community service is a good thing through their schools and their churches. Hundreds of thousands of hungry people were probably fed and housed through the generosity of strangers. Good deeds were probably done and baby birds probably learned to fly.
2010 was, from a global perspective, a pretty depressing year, but there’s always hope, there’s always tomorrow, and as I write this, that tomorrow is in a different calendar year than the one in which I’m typing. Here’s my sincere hope that your 2011 is your best year yet.
Peace to all,
Timothy Morpork
Persephone Bolero
Jan 3rd, 2011
@Timothy “Hundreds of thousands of hungry people were probably fed and housed through the generosity of strangers.”
Meanwhile, billions were fed in fast food chains, grocery stores, food vans, hot dog stands restaurants, and other for-profit businesses. Amazing how people’s desire for profit seems to feed far more people than the “generosity of strangers.”
There’s nothing wrong with charity, and I’m all for it. But unfortunately, when you successfully feed billions of people through a (somewhat) free market, you don’t get credit for ending food scarcity, a feat that billions in history who never enjoyed such a thing would achingly envy.
Instead, you get blamed for causing obesity, and everyone praises the charitable, as if their tiny contribution is somehow more significant because they did it to make themselves feel good. (Or compensate for a sense of guilt over their own success.) The actions of charity are noteworthy, but those accomplishments pale in comparison to those of business.
Horton Hoonoo
Jan 3rd, 2011
Persephone
You are crazy.
Google “starving people in world” and you will learn that there are probably a BILLION people who don’t have enough to eat.
I don’t know what exactly you were celebrating in your post, McDonald’s new McRib or whatever, but we are failing ourselves and our planet- unless our goals are making a tiny percentage of CEOS unbelievably rich while one BILLION people are starving.
Genious!
Jan 3rd, 2011
Hey, well Persephone is onto something here I think. The end of world hunger: just tell all those starving people to go to the nearest MacDonalds.
Will end thirst too, if they have a coke to go with their Mac.
How will you cure AIDS for an encore?
Persephone Bolero
Jan 3rd, 2011
@Horton
Actually, you’re flat wrong. The world has grown significantly wealthier in the past decade. India and China have liberalized their economies, seeing an enormous increase in wealth across the board in the most populous countries on Earth. All across the world, as more people enjoy economic freedom, we are seeing an end to the world’s chronic history of poverty and starvation. The number of people living on a dollar a day has decreased by half in the past decade, and we’re living far longer and healthier lives.
Here is a nice little video that provides a good illustration of this:
http://twentytwowords.com/2010/12/02/the-whole-world-is-getting-healthier-and-wealthier/
Furthermore, you’ll see by this chart here that in most cases, the wealthiest nations are those with the freest economies:
http://www.heritage.org/index/
Of course, oil-rich countries in the Middle East are bucking the freedom/prosperity trend, but otherwise, the correlation is obvious.
So, this notion that people are starving and the gap between rich and poor is forcing more people into poverty is absolutely unsubstantiated by the facts. People are getting richer, and it’s not just the top one percent. It’s all of us.
Senban Babii
Jan 3rd, 2011
Just wondering, does this count as the first official Herald comment war of 2011? Can we get an adjudication here?
Horton Hoonoo
Jan 3rd, 2011
I’ll go read your links, but while I do so, take a look at this little excerpt from WorldHunger.org
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
…the number of hungry people has increased since 1995-97, though the number is down from last year. The increase has been due to three factors: 1) neglect of agriculture relevant to very poor people by governments and international agencies; 2) the current worldwide economic crisis, and 3) the significant increase of food prices in the last several years which has been devastating to those with only a few dollars a day to spend. 925 million people is 13.6 percent of the estimated world population of 6.8 billion, . Nearly all of the undernourished are in developing countries.
[Then, look at the chart the number of hungry people has increased significantly since the 1960s.]
Their data comes from the FAO of the UN.
To make matters worse- biofuels and agribusiness. The big chemical and oil companies need lots of corn and soybeans….money in rich guys pockets. Enjoy that McRib.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 3rd, 2011
“The big chemical and oil companies need lots of corn and soybeans….money in rich guys pockets. Enjoy that McRib.”
Again, you are wrong here. The biofuel debacle was a result of subsidies from government. This led farmers to plant food for fuel rather than for food. In turn, there are, duh, food shortages.
So, again, you blame business for what essentially a failure of government.
Here’s free market proponents warning of this problem back in 2008:
http://reason.com/blog/2008/07/04/biofuels-boost-world-food-pric
We
Jan 3rd, 2011
@Horton Hoonoo
Arguing with Persephone about the Free Market is kinda like arguing with a brick wall, except brick walls don’t usually spew excrement.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 4th, 2011
@We Always the charmer, aren’t you?
IntLibber
Jan 4th, 2011
Actually Persephone is spot on. Numerous studies have been done about world hunger, and the unanimous conclusion is that there is sufficient supply of food in the world to feed everyone more than what they need to live and prosper. The problem is in distribution, where food is prevented from getting to where it needs to be by governments and combative forces that use food as a weapon. This is not a fault of business, it is the fault of governments alone.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 4th, 2011
@Horton So, I just got a chance to study your data a bit deeper. Here’s an interesting quote right on the link you provided:
“No one really knows how many people are malnourished…..It is not an estimate based on seeing to what extent actual people are malnourished and projecting from there (as would be done by survey sampling). [It has been argued that the FAO approach is not sufficient to give accurate estimates of malnutrition (Poverty and Undernutrition p. 298 by Peter Svedberg).]”
So, in other words, World Hunger Education Service Associates, which manages that site, admits their data contains serious flaws. It’s not surprising considering that by every other measure, people are healthier and wealthier than anytime in history. How can they live longer lives with more money but have less to eat?
Of course, if you’re a charitable organization, such facts will not drum up donations. I’m not suggesting they’re lying. After all, their goals are noble, and if I were them, I’d focus on data that highlights the problem too. That’s just good advertising.
But the data show that we are enjoying the best time in human history. More people are doing better than ever before with more freedom, and it’s only getting better. Why that fact pisses you lefties off so much speaks volumes about the nature of your ideology and the assumptions upon which it is based.
II Singh
Jan 4th, 2011
We seems to have a point…. Certain folks need to get out of their parent’s basement in SW US and perhaps spend some time abroad. I would suggest some time in the third world perhaps Nigeria or Guatemala or just about anywhere south of the equator. The simple pat answers and homilies of Ayn Rand and her sycophants really starts to louse its validity when framed in the complexities of banana republic infrastructures and the like. The rest of you dime store armchair quarterback halfwits can consult wikipedia or whatever “learned source” till your blue in the face. Until you actually try to work the system from within the system you just sound ignorant pathetic misinformed and uber-lame. Get a day job folks… this isn’t it. Flame me all you want. I won’t waste anymore time reading this dreck… Last week’s anti-gay/furry hate-fest was a bit much to stomach… this has reached the point where I need to find a seriously strong emetic.
Genious!
Jan 4th, 2011
The problem with Persepone’s first comment, is that she’s basically saying, we have the fast- and other profit based food companies to thank for ending world hunger.
You’re right when you say billions were fed by those companies, and that’s more then the thousands fed by pure generosity.
But when you go on to say that they too deserve some credit for ending world hunger, is where you completely miss the point… Those billions fed were the people who were able to afford food, and they were in no way in danger of starving to death.
Meanwhile, all the people who are in dire need of help, because they cant afford to go to Maccy D’s or simply because there is no food where they live, didnt get fed by those same companies.
Unless Ronald Mc Donald went to Nigeria to hand out free Bigmacs, I havent been following the news tooo recently.
Going on about statistics from this place and numbers from there, is all just semantics and besides the simple point, that profit based companies dont give a damn if there’s no profit in it somewhere; where charity does it all simply for caring, not for any sort of profit.
Hence they deserve more credit, they actually try to do something to fix the problem, instead of just feeding the people who are far from starving. Serving a BigMac to someone who paid for it and is able to come to your restaurant, isnt an accomplishment.
So forgive me if I dont give the Colonel, His Royal highness Burger and Ronald Mc Donald a standing ovation.
However I must say, McDonalds does do a little in charity here locally, they have donation boxes on the counters for children’s hospitals. (but even that money comes out of their customer’s pockets who want to do something for charity…)
Persephone Bolero
Jan 4th, 2011
@Il Singh “I would suggest some time in the third world perhaps Nigeria or Guatemala or just about anywhere south of the equator. ”
I would say you need to do the same. In most cases, their standard of living has risen as well. What you should do instead of just taking a vacation there is try to set up a business. Then, talk to the people about what they have to go through to close a business. Then, ask how many people actually bother doing it with all the expense and bureaucracy they have to go through to earn a profit.
You don’t think it’s worth noting that the countries with the freest markets are the richest? You don’t think it’s worth noting that in the past couple of decades, many markets like those in China and India have become freer and the people are richer now? Noting this is the equivalent of dismissing the poor people of the world? What are you talking about? Do you even know?
You then go onto talk about furries. Like how is that related?
Persephone Bolero
Jan 4th, 2011
@Genious “But when you go on to say that they too deserve some credit for ending world hunger,”
This is what’s called a strawman. I never made this argument anywhere. If I’m not making a point, why would you take an argument I’ve never made and debate it? Wouldn’t you just point out the flaws in the argument I did make? Businesses never ended world hunger, and who would make such a silly claim.
I did argue that businesses have succeeded as feeding more people than government and charities.
You then go onto defend charities, and in response to that, I’ll just copy and paste what I wrote in my original comment, which is the one you strawmanned so blatantly as to be cartoonish.
I wrote, “There’s nothing wrong with charity, and I’m all for it.”
That’s as opposed to a lot of attitudes, which suggest that if you’re not feeding people out of the sweet, loving kindness of your heart, you aren’t doing something good for the world, even if you’re more successful at feeding more people than those who do it out of pure charity. If I profit from feeding more people than someone who feeds less people for pure charity, are either of us in the wrong?
Why don’t you address that argument than this strawman argument that has nothing to do with the one I made? Just a suggestion.
marilyn murphy
Jan 4th, 2011
talking about feeding billions of people….
there is a man, whose name i woefully forget atm. he was the lead researcher on developing a strain of wheat, using fish dna or something like that, that was highly resistant to disease and tough as nails when it came to a needed growing environment. this wheat fed a billion people in 2008. all in 3rd world countries. his accomplishment is largely not noted anywhere as beneficial. most of the news regarding such progress calls it frankenfood and ignores its benefits. many comfortably fed people in industrial nations try to brand such efforts as against nature and gonna cause problems and etc…. but of course they can walk down the street and get their mcdonalds cant they.
a lot of perception on this subject is skewed by what statistics you want to apply. i think, that if i lived in a desperately poor country, i would be grateful for frankenfood. i think you probably would be also. its so easy for those of us who are choosing what to eat for dinner that night to make decisions for those who feel glad to get a bowl of rice just like they had yesterday and will have tommorow.
Horton Hoonoo
Jan 4th, 2011
@Persephone:
Maybe I’m not seeing the whole article because I’m not logged in, but that reason.com article you linked to -as far as I can tell- is just quoting an article that seems to be saying exactly what I am saying- that biofuels reduce the food supply.
I’m not sure if this means that you link to things you’ve not read or just really suck at debate, but one usually loses points for finding sources that provide evidence that the other person’s point is correct.
Let me stop here and say that we are, in fact, discussing apples and oranges. You seemed to be saying, in your original post,
“Hey, yes, people are starving, and some charities have helped them out, but let’s stop for a minute and give thanks to all the great businesses out there that fed billions of people and got paid for doing it. Everyone forgets them and all the credit goes to those darned Red Cross and OxFam people, and poor Burger King and his friends get no attention for all the great things they do!”
I pointed out that roughly a BILLION people are hungry, and you went on about free markets. Ok, let’s head down your crazy path and discuss some of your points, but none of it deals with my original point that there are a BILLION people without enough to eat.
So, re: Biofuels
Explain this to me please- If you’re saying that there was a “biofuel debacle” that caused food shortages, and you seem to treat that in the past tense, why is almost 15% of our planet starving now?
I have several friends who deal in commodities and they roll their eyes at the idea of a future fueled on biofuels, because, as they correctly point out, we can currently feed the planet with crops or fuel it, we cant’t do both. This study, from 2010, by the World Bank’s Environment and Energy Team, Development Research Group, seems to support this. http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xtfdns
“The study finds that an expansion of global biofuel production to meet currently articulated or even higher national targets in various countries for biofuel use would reduce gross domestic product at the global level; however, the gross domestic product impacts are mixed across countries or regions. The expansion of biofuels would cause significant land re-allocation with notable decreases in forest and pasture lands in a few countries. The results also suggest that the expansion of biofuels would cause a reduction in food supply. Although the magnitude of the impact on food supply at the global level is not as large as perceived earlier, it would be significant in developing countries like India and those in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
Now, the last time I posted a link here, you quoted something from the article it linked to, but you quoted part of a sentence in order to show that the study lacked data. This is a problem, because the rest of the sentence went on to say basically, we use the term “Malnourished” but the most recent study uses the term “Undernutrition” and then goes on to explain the terms. It did NOT say what you implied it said. This means you’re either not very bright, in which case I’m sorry, or you’re intellectually dishonest, in which case I hope I make you cry.
Lifespan vs. Hunger.
I was discussing that there are a BILLION hungry people, and you said “No worries, our lives are getting better, look here’s a video that provies it!”
The video discusses lifespan, not hunger. If you watched it I’m sure you were as alarmed as I was at how the rest of the world left Africa in the dust, even after 1948, the key date in the vid, along with Asia, which are both mentioned in the report I cited as being most likely hurt again by an increase in biofuel production.
In other words- rich will grow grain for fuel, poorest will starve.
Your suggestion for everything seems to be “and a free market will save them?” Let me guess, just switched majors to poli sci or economics? It’s far more complex than that.
Take the “Free Market” crap for instance, note that 1948, the year your guy in the video you linked to says was a big year, was also when the US started rebuilding Western Europe in earnest under the Marshall Plan, which really isn’t much of a “free market” leg to stand on, is it? You can’t say “Look, we’re getting healthier, here’s a video that says it!” without understanding the other factors involved. The crazy growth and improvement of the world’s health/wealth were certainly not due to any Free Market movement in the 1940s- the US was literally rebuilding Japan and Western Europe, and the USSR was literally dragging itself and Eastern Europe along too. The two parts of the world that didn’t get up to speed? Africa and huge chunk of Asia- hmmmmmm…. maybe if the US had given them trillions instead….in other words, there’s no true free market. Tariffs, taxes, duties- it’s all an incredibly complex machine of incentives and dissuasion and everything but a free market.
Nor is the the fact that the US STILL pumps billions of dollars in foreign aid to our allies and to developing nations a true “free market”
Note that he’s also talking about “lifespan” not “hunger.” Massive advances in healthcare (hello? antibiotics anyone?) from around WWII have had as much to do with increased lifespan increased wealth.
To end on a happy note, I thought your ass looked great here in Post 6 a couple weeks ago.
Obvious Schism
Jan 4th, 2011
What’s wrong with Vuvuzelas? I was at the World Cup final and was handed a corporate “Coca Cola” Vuvuzela whilst I was drinking in the Fan Zone before the game. I proceded to blow it throughout the match and everything was fine. Actually, it was a bit chilly that night, but you can’t blame a plastic trumpet for that.
Horton Hoonoo
Jan 4th, 2011
re: Strawman
You did, in fact, say this, it was the first post here:
“But unfortunately, when you successfully feed billions of people through a (somewhat) free market, you don’t get credit for ending food scarcity…..Instead, you get blamed for causing obesity, and everyone praises the charitable, as if their tiny contribution is somehow more significant because they did it to make themselves feel good. (Or compensate for a sense of guilt over their own success.) The actions of charity are noteworthy, but those accomplishments pale in comparison to those of business.”
Which is EXACTLY what Genious said you said, that you feel that businesses don’t get enough credit for ending world hunger.
Then, you added that charities get too much credit because they do so little in the grand scheme of things.
I expect that when you’re done badmouthing Mother Theresa and those trouble-maker Peace Corps volunteers, you and the heads of AIG, Exxon-Mobil and Haliburton can sit down and explain to the BILLION people who are hungry right now just how awesome Big Business is.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 4th, 2011
@Horton “I’m not sure if this means that you link to things you’ve not read or just really suck at debate”
Actually, the problem here is that you don’t have any understanding of what I’m talking about. I’ll try to make this real simple so it doesn’t escape your understanding yet again.
Biofuels production, which I agree isn’t feasible, led to food shortages. But this industry was driven by subsidies. I’m not sure if you know what those are, so I’ll explain it to you. They are money from taxes that the government gives to businesses. Anytime you have the government providing money to businesses, you have something that is NOT in any way a free market. So, the biofuels mess is an act of “government.” Can you say “government?”
So, here you are trying to explain why biofuels are bad. Yes, they are. See what happens when you don’t have a free market? What’s really funny is that you claim I’m providing evidence to support your position, only to go on to argue why a government-funded, non-Capitalistic program caused hunger.
You then go on to claim that I said there are “no worries” because things are getting better. This is another example of a strawman. And since you seem to rely on those exclusively, I can’t believe for a second that you sincerely think you have a leg to stand on. When people rely exclusively on strawmen, red herrings, and personal attacks in a debate, it’s because they have no reasonable, convincing counter arguments to offer. I have to conclude that’s your problem. I never said there were no worries. I said businesses have been more successful at feeding people than charities. Can you refute this? No…no, you can’t.
Your response to that will be, “So you think all people who give charity should be taken out and shot!! You monster!!!” Hey, if you’re going to strawman me, go all out, why don’t you?
You then go onto claim that the video I provided was a defense of the free market. That would be a BBC video. Oh yeah, the BBC is a well known libertarian organization, always out there promoting Capitalism from that home of anti-socialism known as the United Kingdom. The video only showed we are, contrary to other claims, getting richer and healthier all across the world and have been for a couple centuries now. So, when you’re not using obvious strawmen, you mischaracterize cited sources to effectively do the same thing. More evidence that you clearly know you have no leg to stand on.
Though, it’s worth noting that the countries that have progressed the fastest with the most stability have all had the freest markets. Watch that right-wing BBC video and see which countries are always ahead of the others.
You then go on to imply there’s no correlation between longer lifespans and ending hunger. Should I bother addressing this? Arguably, advances in healthcare play a role. But people who don’t eat have a tendency to, well, die. So, yeah, there’s a correlation between the whole eating regularly and not dying early thing.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 4th, 2011
@ Horton “I expect that when you’re done badmouthing Mother Theresa and those trouble-maker Peace Corps volunteers”
I wrote this, “There’s nothing wrong with charity, and I’m all for it.”
Again, you are strawmanning me. I never badmouthed charity. I fully supported it. I only pointed out that people dismiss the accomplishments of business, because they’re doing it for a profit rather than just out of the kindness of their hearts. But they’re doing it better.
So, you respond with, “So you think Mother Teresa should die!!!”
It is a strawman. It’s so obviously a strawman as to be ridiculous. I then go onto point out what a strawman you made, and you respond with another strawman to justify your original strawman.
I don’t hate charity. I support it fully. It does good things. Stop saying I hate charity, because you’re being an ass when you do.
Pappy Enoch
Jan 4th, 2011
On the one hand, I are hungry and I takes hand-outs. Charity been rite good to poor me.
On the other hand (cause I gots two of ‘em) I ain’t got nuffin’ agin’ bizness. Well, almos’ nuffin: bizness means doin’ work.
But on the third hand (cause I wishes I had me an extry): it are more fun to beat folks up and take their stuff. Especially dumb folks who wanders into Enoch Holler.
It am the Hillbilly Way. Y’all come.
Horton Hoonoo
Jan 4th, 2011
Persephone
1. “and everyone praises the charitable, as if their tiny contribution is somehow more significant because they did it to make themselves feel good.”
You seem awfully negative about the reasons that people do charitable work, and angry that business has done so much and yet just gets blamed for obesity.
2. “All across the world, as more people enjoy economic freedom, we are seeing an end to the world’s chronic history of poverty and starvation. The number of people living on a dollar a day has decreased by half in the past decade, and we’re living far longer and healthier lives. Here is a nice little video that provides a good illustration of this.”
I think this can be aptly paraphrased as you saying ““No worries, our lives are getting better, look here’s a video that provies it!” There is no strawman there, you actually said it.
And again, according to your BBC video- the explosion in “healthiness” occurs in the Americas, parts of Asia, and Western Europe, and seriously lags in Africa and most of the rest of Asia. So, in short, the parts that were boosted with American “subsidies.” I understand the word and the concept, it’s clear that you don’t, or you’re naive.
3. “Biofuels production, which I agree isn’t feasible, led to food shortages. But this industry was driven by subsidies….see what happens when you don’t have a free market?”
You seem to treat this in the PAST TENSE.
Again, you’re just flat wrong here. The US Government is STILL subsidizing the planting of biofuel crops. (Google the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) which pays up to 75% of a farmer’s costs, and will continue to pay those costs for the 15 years after, or the dollar per gallon biodiesel subsidy which has been annually renewed since like 2004, currently through 2011, or the USDA Bioenergy Program, which has a number of grants and subsidies for farmers.
4. “You then go on to imply there’s no correlation between longer lifespans and ending hunger.”
No, I didn’t. I said that there are other factors besides poverty and hunger that have greatly impacted an increased lifespan, improved medical knowledge and antibiotics chief among them.
5. “You then go onto claim that the video I provided was a defense of the free market.”
No, I didn’t. I said that YOU were talking about the free market, and that the video, which is about lifespans and poverty, illustrates that the real achievements in improving those things, occurred after 1948. Please learn to read.
6. Though, it’s worth noting that the countries that have progressed the fastest with the most stability have all had the freest markets.
Actually, I argue that the “freest markets” would be places where anyone with some guns and some followers can be president, but those countries don’t do very well.
And again, as with your amazing lack of knowledge about biofuel subsidies, I believe that you “show your ass” here as well, because the country I believe that the video has at the far end of the awesome scale- Luxembourg, has a very comprehensive social security program that includes:
family benefits, unemployment insurance, work accident insurance, health care, old age and invalidity pensions, and long-term care insurance.
7. “I said businesses have been more successful at feeding people than charities. Can you refute this? No…no, you can’t.”
Well, in the long run, I suspect we will all learn that letting business have its way will end with our ruin. Between beef cattle being fed steroids and antibiotics to deforestation of land for commercial purposes, toxic landfills, acid rain, global warming- I suspect that the number of people killed by your beloved big business probably helps even the scoring a bit. Moreover, I think that feeding a starving child because it’s the right thing to do should count as +5 and asking an already obese American if they’d like to supersize their meal should be -2. I think most people with feelings would agree with this also. Check out the movie Food, Inc., btw, and get back to me.
I try to bring facts to discussions, and for me this has become tiresome because you don’t actually seem to have any correct data to argue with.
Also, it’s new to me to argue with someone who works with fiction- telling me what you think I will say next, so I’m not really interested in continuing this other than to say: if you’re an Econ Major with a crush on a professor who espouses Free Market values, by all means, keep this up. If you’re anything else, especially someone older than college age, seek help, you’re seriously unhinged.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 4th, 2011
@Horton
“You seem awfully negative about the reasons that people do charitable work, and angry that business has done so much and yet just gets blamed for obesity.”
I said, “There’s nothing wrong with charity, and I’m all for it.”
You seem awfully negative toward the fact I called you on your strawman.
2. “I think this can be aptly paraphrased as you saying ‘No worries, our lives are getting better, look here’s a video that provies it!’ There is no strawman there, you actually said it.”
Then let me correct your misunderstanding. The fact that things are getting better is NOT the same as saying there are no problems. Sorry if you mistook what I said to mean that. It seems clear to me that those are two very different statements, but whatever. I’ll tell you I acknowledge there are problems in the world. Understand now?
“And again, according to your BBC video- the explosion in ‘healthiness’ occurs in the Americas, parts of Asia, and Western Europe, and seriously lags in Africa and most of the rest of Asia.”
Yes, and in Africa and Asia, economies are far less free than they are in Europe and the U.S. This link is my source: http://www.heritage.org/index/
3. “The US Government is STILL subsidizing the planting of biofuel crops.”
Yes, they are. And as a free market proponent, I think they should stop all subsidies to all industries. So, pointing out that this is still happening shows that you aren’t even really clear on exactly what free market principles are. Did you think the ongoing subsidies would make a point of some sort? Are you against them? Okay, then we agree. Why are you still arguing this point?
6 “Actually, I argue that the ‘freest markets’ would be places where anyone with some guns and some followers can be president, but those countries don’t do very well.”
This statement just shows you have no idea what free markets are. I’m not going to waste my time explaining it all to you, but violence is not a free market principle, and a legitimate role for government is protecting people from violence. Law and property rights are important aspects to a functioning free market.
6. “believe that the video has at the far end of the awesome scale- Luxembourg, has a very comprehensive social security program that includes: family benefits, unemployment insurance, work accident insurance, health care, old age and invalidity pensions, and long-term care insurance.”
Yes, like oil rich countries in the Middle East, it has a source of wealth that keeps it rich, no matter what. It has old money. I don’t have time to explain that one to you either.
But I mentioned this already. As I wrote earlier, “Of course, oil-rich countries in the Middle East are bucking the freedom/prosperity trend, but otherwise, the correlation is obvious.”
7. “Moreover, I think that feeding a starving child because it’s the right thing to do should count as +5 and asking an already obese American if they’d like to supersize their meal should be -2.”
In other words, you believe that it’s wrong to let people decide how much they want to eat. You simply do not trust them to make their own choices as to what is best for them. That is the basis for all leftist thinking. It’s a phobia of individual liberty.
Some people like to have their meals supersized. And they’re quite well aware that there may be potential health consequences from such choices. But the enjoyment they get from eating is to them worth the risks. Why not let them make that choice?
And if they choose to buy and another chooses to sell it to them, who do you think you are to interfere with those personal choices? Do you think you exist with some superior knowledge over others? Well, it seems you do.
I think adults should choose what they want to do with their own bodies. Some people choose to jump out of airplanes, climb Mount Everest, or go camping. All those activities contain potential risks that could result in injury or death. Should I deny them that freedom of choice? Should I deny others the freedom to sell them the paraphernalia required to engage in such activities? Would you give a “-2″ to the guy who sells someone a parachute knowing that something could go wrong in their skydiving attempt and kill them?
And that’s the difference between you and me. I just want to let go and let people be free to live their lives however they choose. And doing so, as shown by my data, will result in the prosperity for all.
You, on the other hand, believe that people’s choices should be controlled, and given the freedom to buy and sell as they choose, people will become exploited ragdolls in a giant control machine.
And that’s where we disagree. Freedom leads to prosperity. Why are you so afraid to just let people buy and sell as they choose?
Scylla Rhiadra
Jan 4th, 2011
Nice b00bs on the second one, eh?
Whaddya thing?
Persephone Bolero
Jan 4th, 2011
@Horton Re-reading my post, I can already predict what you’re going to say about my response to your Luxembourg comment. Please pay close attention to my statement, “It has old money” before you accuse me of any geography deficiencies.
Senban Babii
Jan 4th, 2011
@Scylla
“Nice b00bs on the second one, eh?”
Wait, Post 6 is about nekkid avatars? With b00bs??
I thought it was about a socio-political discourse on the failings and deficiencies of the free market’s alienation of the working classes in post-Leninist third world countries. Or something.
I was easily fooled it seems.
But to continue my foolish path into foolishness, I like the pose in that first photo
Dread Judge
Jan 4th, 2011
Persephone-
I think you might want to do some research. It’s pretty well known that the World Bank has fallen under a great deal of criticism for advocating Free Market Principles in developing nations, specifically in Africa, where they have proven disastrous.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 5th, 2011
@Dread Judge “where they have proven disastrous.”
What free markets in Africa? Where? According to the Heritage Foundation, African countries rate among the lowest on the economic freedom scale. So, how can a policy that doesn’t exist not work?
Here’s my source. Check it out for yourself: http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking
Dread Judge
Jan 5th, 2011
Honestly girl, do some reading. Hannity and Limbaugh don’t actually know anything, they just get people worked up.
I know all about the Heritage Foundation. Two of the major metrics in their calculation of that list are corruption and law and order, so few African nations are going to make the cut, research the World Bank and the IMF and their policies with regard to the Third World.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 5th, 2011
@Dread Judge
“so few African nations are going to make the cut”
Precisely. You do understand that rule of law and property rights are imperative for a free market, right? So I ask you again: If free markets don’t exist in almost every country in Africa, how can you claim these non-existing free markets have failed?
Gawd Blimey
Jan 5th, 2011
While I can understand people getting worked up over world poverty, surely there are better forums than this to discuss it in.
Lets be honest.. This is a virtual newspaper about virtual worlds…
You sad muppets trying to score political points in this forum really should get out more.
Or maybe you are too scared to try and make a difference in the real world???
Yeah… probably.
Pappy Enoch
Jan 5th, 2011
They am all nice, but that first gal wif the willy-wacker skeers me rite much.
But I tries to live by the Golden Rule, the one that ol’ Gary Coleman done said that time:
“different folks gits different strokes.”
Genious
Jan 5th, 2011
“@Genious “But when you go on to say that they too deserve some credit for ending world hunger,”
This is what’s called a strawman. I never made this argument anywhere. If I’m not making a point, why would you take an argument I’ve never made and debate it”
Because you *have* made it. Right here:
“But unfortunately, when you successfully feed billions of people through a (somewhat) free market, you don’t get credit for ending food scarcity”
trimming that down a bit for easier reading:
“you successfully feed billions of people, you don’t get credit for ending food scarcity.”
What I was arguing, that the big companies did’nt end food scarcity, hence they don’t deserve credit.
You have indeed said that the big companies have fed far more people then charity. that’s correct, thousands are less then billions. But, they have only fed billions of people in richer countries, US, western Europe, Asia, just about everything above the equator and some places below that arent doing all that bad.
However, that did exactly NOTHING for the thousands of starving people who were in fact, starving to death. Because all those people who are lucky enough to even have a McDonalds in their neighbourhood, have no idea what hunger really is. They may have felt peckish at some point in their daily lives, but not real hunger.
As for the homeless and hungry in those richer countries… Does McDonalds have soup kitchens and do they provide a place to sleep for the night other then under a bridge? Not really is my guess. So even in the rich western world, charity deserves more credit, if not ALL credit for ending food scarcity.
I mean, if the starving people in third world nations could be part of those billions of people McDonalds & Co have fed, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, Am I right?
So instead of yelling “Strawman!” why dont you just adress the arguments Ive made against the arguments you *have* made (as I quoted above)? Just a suggestion.
just another dodo
Jan 5th, 2011
“What free markets in Africa? Where?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Africa
Persephone Bolero
Jan 5th, 2011
@Genious “What I was arguing, that the big companies did’nt end food scarcity, hence they don’t deserve credit.”
Okay, what causes obesity? If it’s not people eating too much, then what? Are you saying that the obesity problem is a sudden lack of will power that didn’t exist in say 1910? And that in 1910, people had access to the same amount of food but exercised better self control? Really, let’s hear you explain why there’s more obesity today if it’s not related to a greater access to food.
“But, they have only fed billions of people in richer countries, US, western Europe, Asia, just about everything above the equator and some places below that arent doing all that bad.”
Yes, but at one time they didn’t. And things are getting better. So, if the trend continues, soon those poor countries will not be poor anymore.
“However, that did exactly NOTHING for the thousands of starving people who were in fact, starving to death.”
Not yet. But if the trend continues, starvation will be an ancient problem like small pox.
“Does McDonalds have soup kitchens and do they provide a place to sleep for the night other then under a bridge?”
Sometimes businesses support charities. Arguably, it’s a PR matter. But this is why I’m so supportive of charity. There are gaps where people don’t get what they need. And that’s a good place for charity to step in and do what it does.
“if not ALL credit for ending food scarcity. ”
Well, I never denied charity any credit. In fact, I went out of my way to voice my support for it. You chose to ignore that very explicit support so you could build a strawman. I’m sorry, but your tactic was as plain as day, and it was intellectually dishonest.
“So instead of yelling “Strawman!” why dont you just adress the arguments Ive made against the arguments you *have* made”
I just did. There you go.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 5th, 2011
@JustAnotherDodo
Nothing in that article talks about any free market economy existing in Africa.
I point you to a study by the Heritage Foundation, which rates countries on various indicators on their level of freedom to set up, operate, and close down businesses.
On average, African countries rate the lowest in the world on economic freedom. Botswana rates the highest of all African countries, but it’s ranked only 70 in the world out of some 200 countries. Interesting, Botswana is also one of the….wait for it….
wealthiest countries in Africa. Hmmmm…This correlation between economic freedom and wealth sure does hold up even when only looking at a single continent.
Anyway, thanks for the link, but it doesn’t mention anything we’re talking about here.
So, here’s my link: http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking
Great Info!
Jan 5th, 2011
Persephone!
What great info! Tell me more about the Heritage Foundation please, do they really rank countries by their levels of freedom? How do I know that their information is reliable? Do you have any other information about Free Markets you recommend I should read?
Pappy Enoch
Jan 5th, 2011
“Okay, what causes obesity? If it’s not people eating too much, then what?”
I heared a feller say sum’fin about jeans. I blames my overalls–them am denim–for me bustin’ the dang scale at 400.
When I et what I pleased and was a-wearin’ homespun, I come in at a Enoch-Holler usual o’ 300.
It am the jeans I tells you.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 5th, 2011
@Great Info “How do I know that their information is reliable?”
Their methodology and raw data is available on their website for your scrutinize at your leisure.
Genious
Jan 6th, 2011
me: “What I was arguing, that the big companies did’nt end food scarcity, hence they don’t deserve credit.”
You: Okay, what causes obesity? If it’s not people eating too much, then what? Are you saying that the obesity problem is a sudden lack of will power that didn’t exist in say 1910? And that in 1910, people had access to the same amount of food but exercised better self control? Really, let’s hear you explain why there’s more obesity today if it’s not related to a greater access to food.
My reply now: I didnt know Mc Donalds was around in 1910. Did they invent the Bigmac in those days alredy or did it have a different name…?
FYI, there *was* obesity in 1910. But only in the ranks of the richer class. The working class however, didnt get the chance to get obese, they were worked to death…
me: “But, they have only fed billions of people in richer countries, (snip), just about everything above the equator and some places below that arent doing all that bad.”
you: Yes, but at one time they didn’t. And things are getting better. So, if the trend continues, soon those poor countries will not be poor anymore.
my reply now: At one time they indeed didnt. around the middle ages about for Europe, and a bit after the 1930′s for the US. Do mind that those big food companies weren’t around till later even, when things were already going pretty awesome there. If the trend continues as it is going now, there will be less starving people in third world countries indeed. Died of hunger while looking at hundreds of acres of crops for the biofuel industry.
me; “However, that did exactly NOTHING for the thousands of starving people who were in fact, starving to death.”
Your reply; Not yet. But if the trend continues, starvation will be an ancient problem like small pox.
my turn again; Is Mc Donalds fixing world hunger then? That’s news to me. Thought they were only feeding people who were never hungry in the first place as I’ve argued.
my quote: “if not ALL credit for ending food scarcity. ”
You: Well, I never denied charity any credit. In fact, I went out of my way to voice my support for it. You chose to ignore that very explicit support so you could build a strawman. I’m sorry, but your tactic was as plain as day, and it was intellectually dishonest.
Me again: *FACEPALM* That is not what I said now is it. What I said, that the big food companies do NOT deserve credit for ending food scacity, as you have said that they should get credit for such. I never said that you denied charity credit.
Hey, isnt that what they call a strawman? Putting words in someone’s mouth and arguing against those?
my point: “So instead of yelling “Strawman!” why dont you just adress the arguments Ive made against the arguments you *have* made”
your counterpoint: I just did. There you go.
I meant in my comment before the one you just adressed, that you were so quick to dismiss as being a strawman, not the comment where I countered that claim. Now try again please.
Oh, before you do, let me rephrase my entie point against your first post in one sentence so you can forget all the fluff and deal with my point alone:
“Your claim that ‘big food companies deserve as much credit for ending food scacity as charity’ is completely bogus as they do not end food scacity, they feed people who have plenty of food available if needed already.”
That’s it. The rest of my arguments are only to support and explain this main point.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 6th, 2011
@ Genious “FYI, there *was* obesity in 1910. But only in the ranks of the richer class. The working class however, didnt get the chance to get obese, they were worked to death…”
Show me a source for this claim. There was no higher rate of obesity for the upper class than lower class. You’re just making this up. Show me any articles, studies, or data that show any obesity problems amongst any population during that time.
And it’s funny that you would make this claim, because it would just show what I’m saying is true. If rich people were getting fat, then obviously it would be their money that allowed them to do so. Yes, businesses made food production far more efficient, which put greater access to food into more people’s hands. So now even poor people can get fat should they choose to do so.
“Died of hunger while looking at hundreds of acres of crops for the biofuel industry”
Yes, a result of government subsidies. Not the free market.
“Is Mc Donalds fixing world hunger then?”
No, businesses from farms to grocery stores to restaurants to agricultural biologists are selling food to people. Because they compete with each other to survive, they have an incentive to make the food cheaper for more people. This put more food into the hands of more people, who previously could not afford it.
“What I said, that the big food companies do NOT deserve credit for ending food scacity,”
And you’ve yet to explain how charity, which feeds only a tiny portion of people compared to business, has had a bigger impact on food scarcity.
“they feed people who have plenty of food available if needed already.”
And as I pointed out, more people have more access to greater amounts of food than ever before. If they did not, there could be no increase in the rates of obesity and diabetes than there was in previous decades, when only the wealthy could afford to consume so much food, especially junk foods we take for granted today.
Now, you’ve yet to demonstrate that it wasn’t businesses that created this condition. Was it charity? Is there an increase in charity? Okay, show me some figures to back up that claim. I don’t see anything other than you claiming, “Nope. Not businesses.”
Okay, what then? What made food cheaper and more available for more people today than at any other time in history? I understand there are still starving people in the world. But as I’ve demonstrated before, more people have more access to more food than at any other time in history. What caused this condition?
genious
Jan 7th, 2011
I see this is a waste of effort… like someone said before, brick wall. (more like reinforced concrete…)
Is it that you simply dont want to admit that your first comment was in error, or are you just so world strange that you have no idea how much good work charity does in Africa providing the hungry with food medicine and clean water, and how little big coorporations like Mc’D and KFC are doing there?
Maybe it’s both.
Any way, im not wasting too much effort anymore, feel free to celebrate ‘victory’ and gloat how you ‘showed me’.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 7th, 2011
@Genious “Is it that you simply dont want to admit that your first comment was in error, or are you just so world strange that you have no idea ….Maybe it’s both.”
Either that or we just disagree with each other.
Tux
Jan 7th, 2011
Oh come on, how can anyone saying McD’s and the rest of the fast food suppliers are feeding people anything of any substance. Starving or Obesity? I would prefer to go hungry than eat that crap.
If all the good people of the US of A believe fast food is quality food little wonder they are fat. We are constantly reminded how fat the US peoples are here on our TV’s. But we are also shown how you have supersize meal deals and all you can eat meal deals. So then it must come down to greed!
And before anyone jumps up and down about my dislike of USA, its not the USA, it is fat people. No excuse about genes or glands. Just admit you eat too much and exercise too little.
Its not fascism its fatism!
Persephone Bolero
Jan 7th, 2011
@Tux “I would prefer to go hungry than eat that crap.”
I would have to agree it’s not particular appealing fare. But are you saying that everyone should live according to your dietary choices? Why do you care?
It’s worth pointing out that I only mentioned McDonald’s after someone else brought it up. I mentioned businesses. Does anyone here understand that Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, and Hippie Tree Bark Mart are also businesses? (Okay, I made that last one up.)
I make a lot of personal choices as to what to put in my own body. And many people make other choices that are different from my own. I go on about my life without feeling any animosity to those who choose to consume food I think is unhealthy or just unappealing. Yet, they’ll condemn me for my own personal choice to use marijuana.
Why are so many people obsessed with what others put into their own bodies?
Yeah But
Jan 7th, 2011
I do love me some Golden Corral all you can eat buffets.
Everyday Menu Items- This makes for one awesome dinner!
* Awesome Pot Roast
* Bourbon Street Chicken
* Clam Chowder
* Grilled-to-order USDA Sirloin Steaks (*dinner only)
* Macaroni & Cheese
* Mashed Potatoes & Gravy
* Meatloaf
* Pizza
* Rotisserie Chicken
* Seafood Salad
* Spaghetti
* Timberline Chili
And a lot of the time you can go and learn they are having a special on something, like right now it’s ribs! I haven’t been in a while because I’m waiting on this month’s disability check, but I did see a bunch of advertisements on the television.
MMmmmm and that’s just the best stuff. They also have all them veggies and desserts and ice cream too. I also love them because they have a lot of handicapped parking, which is handy for me, on account of I can’t walk very well anymore because of my gland problems.
The key to enjoying a good all you can eat buffet is controllin’ your portions, If you’re going to be eating ten or fifteen different entries in one sitting, you have to pace yourself and don’t fill up on salad or other vegetables, and avoid a lot of bread too. My family and I like to go when we have a whole afternoon and evening to spend, really making the most of our $9.99 all you can eat coupons, it’s usually six or seven hours worth of eating before I feel I’ve really made a profit offen the store. I always tip the lady that brings the drink refills a dollar too. I know it’s extravagant, but clearing all them plates ain’t easy.
marilyn murphy
Jan 8th, 2011
persephone: ahem. i think that there is a logical reason some are concerned about what others eat. its simply the cost of health care for those who have no discipline about their own health. unfortunately, no matter what system is in place, old/new/disastrous we all pay for the health care of people who dont take care of themselves.
america is famous for throwing money at a problem. well, we are throwing money at this problem daily. just saying, if a person is on public assistance for their health care, and they incur costs due to these personal choices, they should perhaps answer to the critics, since the critics are caring for them.
Persephone Bolero
Jan 9th, 2011
@”its simply the cost of health care for those who have no discipline about their own health.”
And this is the problem with socialized health care. It justifies intrusions into people’s personal choices. What if we all paid for the consequences of our own choices and enjoyed the freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies?
You have to take your rationale to its logical conclusion, since a government with the power to make decisions as to one’s health choices can essentially rationalize just about any control over people’s choices. What they eat, whom they have s3x with, how much they exercise, what recreation is acceptable, and many other very intimate choices become a matter of public concern and no one has sovereignty over any personal choice.
How would you like to have the government determine what s3xual practice you can engage in with another consenting adult? Well, if we’re all going to have to pay if you make bad choices, then why can’t we arrest adults who don’t practice safe s3x? Wear a c0ndom or go to jail?
Perhaps you’re not advocating criminal enforcement. Okay, what then? Public education campaigns? So you’re not willing to pay for someone’s bad health choices, but you’ll pay for expensive campaigns to tell them what they already know and hope that you’ll get them to do what you want?
There’s no one on this planet that doesn’t know that smoking is bad for you. Yet, some adults have decided that the enjoyment of tobacco is worth the potential health consequences. So, when your public education campaign fails to change behaviors, what then?
If not public education or criminal enforcement, how would we force people to engage in healthy behaviors and who would determine what behaviors would be acceptable and which would be prohibited?
This is why I argue that we all should be free to make whatever choices we want so long as you don’t deprive another of life, liberty or property without their consent. The only way that works though is if we’re all responsible for the choices we make in life. If you pay for someone’s bad choices, then we all have every justification to eliminate the freedom of choice. And that’s a slippery slope that makes me very uncomfortable.
marilyn murphy
Jan 9th, 2011
i basically agree with all that u say. frankly, i want the governement out of the health care issue entirely, with the exception of oversight regarding some treatments offered.
as i said, no system adequately addresses any health care issue when it comes to who pays for what and to whom. as it stands now, you and i are paying for other peoples careless lifestyles. i dont like it.